Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 54

Urquhartnite

Hi, Urquhartnite (talk · contribs) is creating a lot of DRs with quite weird arguments. S/he also changed Commons:Threshold of originality‎ twice. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Similar pattern on enwiki. So far no admin action necessary, besides protection of Com:TOO  for the next 2 weeks. I am pretty sure that the next time he/she changes a high traffic / policy page without discussion the hammer will come down. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Sovereign Sentinel

Sovereign Sentinel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Some over 7.000 uncategorized mass flickr uploads, most of them out of COM:SCOPE and/or derivative of non-free content. No further edits, registered some weeks ago, possibly a single-purpose sockpuppet of User:The Photographer. My suggestion: indefblock + nuke the uploads. --A.Savin 22:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

A single look at this users en-wiki userpage makes clear that this is not a sock of The Photographer. Natuur12 (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

First, anyone is able to create any user page and put any content into, even if it's all only a product of theit imagination. Second, assuming that you are right, does it change anything on the fact that we have to do with spamming that adds damage to Commons, similarly as for COM:ANU The Photographer? Do you consider such activity useful? --A.Savin 22:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you are giving him to much credits since Sovereign Sentinel has better English skills. And no, I don't consider such activity useful. However, I do believe that the solution lies in restricting the usage of F2C. Otherwise we will end up with another sloppy mass import in no time. Natuur12 (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

A.Savin, before making accusations, did you try taking to this user? Regards, Yann (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

No. One way or another, there are 7.000 files without any chance for maintenance. I hope for advice what to do with all the mess. --A.Savin 23:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

We really do need to find a way to restrict F2C to new users, it can be easily abused...I preferred the old BryanBot option before which allowed users to upload from flickr but one image at a time allowing them to add images which was necessary and not mass upload just for the sake of it..the reviewers don't really have the time to go through each image to verify its scope..--Stemoc 11:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

This could be done by someone who is responsible for the tool, or someone who is able to modify it. The current situation is, as it seems, that there is just no one. Commons:Flickr2Commons (which was started by Steinsplitter) states that its creator was Magnus Manske who is rather inactive. Apart from that, I'm still curious what to do with "Sovereign Sentinel" and their uploads. --A.Savin 11:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Before Magnus can be reached, F2C uploads can be blocked with an abuse filter for all users, perhaps only for non-autopatrolled users AFAIK. --Pitke (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

What about blocking mass action by non autopatrolled users? This makes more sense. A filter just for flickr2commosn is wasting of ABF conditions. Mass actions by non autopatrolled user is bad for the patroll backlog. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep, and in case of similar abuse by an autopatrolled user, the AP flag should be speedily removed (at the very least). --A.Savin 14:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Well... Revoking autopatrolled is not possible. My suggestion is: Allow 200 uploads in 2,5 hours by non-autopatrolled users. If limit exceeded prevent uploads (it is also possible to revoke autoconfirmed status which means that the user will loos skipcaptcha and skip ipratelimit rights. To restore this rights admin action is needed.). --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: OK. --A.Savin 12:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

This seems like a sensible interim (or long-term) solution. ColonialGrid (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. Is there anyone of us who can easily implement such a filter? Maybe Zhuyifei1999? --A.Savin 14:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I can do that. But let us wait a few days to ensure that there is no oppose. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Please, A.Savin, this is the second time that you assuming bad faith of me, you make such accusations without consulting me before, why?, who really benefits this conflict? and most importantly, who is behind this need to create conflicts?. Recently, @Colin: also made a comment in which he mentioned my grandmother who has passed away. You are people I've known for years, this situation makes me very sad. I presume good faith of you, maybe you are probably spending some personal situation. --The Photographer (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

(sigh) I'll comment since I was pinged. That comment was a joke, in response to The Photographer's rather silly request at Talk:FPC. The idea that it might be considered insulting or offensive is quite ridiculous. I have no intention on wasting my time further on this matter. -- Colin (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Why are non-Autopatrolled users permitted to use mass upload tools? --Denniss (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

+1 let's change that ASAP! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 15:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI:

• Category:All media needing categories as of 2012 7.357 files
• Category:All media needing categories as of 2013 120.412 files
• Category:All media needing categories as of 2014 255.764 files
• Category:All media needing categories as of 2015 237.491 files already and we are only 8 months into the year.

I go ahead and delete the whole batch, maybe I find some useful stuff that is not a duplicate to keep while tagging. Rationale: Out of project scope. This unstructured mass upload is disruptive and not useful for Commons. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 15:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I think deleting all uncategorized files is too much. At the very least, we should keep those which are used in the projects.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

That's why I am using VFC. At least I can see what's used. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 16:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

To make this perfectly clear: We are talking about the 7k upload, not all of the uncat files. --16:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty clear. If a file is being used, there is always a chance that one day someone will find it and add proper categories, useful description. Even if it is in a "Category:All media needing categories as of 20xx" there is theoretical possibility to find it, however those >7.000 uploads (or most of that) are in no category whatsoever, except in the hidden one for the license template. I also doubt that a notable number of Sovereign Sentinel's mass uploads has been used anywhere. --A.Savin 16:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I check anyway. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 17:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Hedwig in Washington for the deletion. --A.Savin 18:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

 Comment There is something wrong here. I agree that uploading 7000 files without any category is bad, but you started discussing all this, and deleting the files, and you haven't bothered to ask this user, even didn't notified him/her. :( Yann (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Ping ≙ notification. --A.Savin 19:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Who's sorting through 7,5k files, adding categories, starting deletion requests, checking everything? The answer is nobody. Otherwise we wouldn't have 200 thousand! files without categories. Mass uploading is disruptive editing. Guys, remember how you yelled at Russavia. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 19:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I support the idea of restricting mass uploads/transfers to only users who have demonstrated the ability to upload, describe and categorise images on a small scale. I'm not familiar with all the flags and bits but personally I'd consider this similar to bot actions, and something that should be requested and approved by the community, rather than given out automatically. But anything that limits newbies from creating a huge pile of mess is good. -- Colin (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

A block of a user last year who I believe added 10k unnecessary files in a day led to an auto-block which technically blocked the F2C's tool's IP (auto-blocks do block the last used IP of the user which was apparently wmflabs) which prevented everyone else on commons from using wmflabs, lets make sure it doesn't happen again, I agree with the idea of limiting its use as well as Magnus's other tools such as Url2commons to users with a minimum of 'patroller' rights..if this is doable?--Stemoc 21:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

 Comment I agree with the measure Hedwig took. Lot of cramp, but not everything. Alas, I was working on categorizing Sovereign Sentinel's images from Austria the whole day. Until my browser was nuked by Hedwig's mass creation of no-more existing content in various tabs. At least it seemed so. Some of the images (e.g graffiti from https://www.flickr.com/photos/akras/sets/72157644677315441) may serve a documentation purpose, and might be considered useful. But no need to restore. On the other hand my personal main rule is broken all the time here: Select at home before uploading, and in case of doubt, don't upload. Quantity is not a good advise to get a repository of media for educational purposes.

• We have some photo tours supported by chapters, which just ignore the need of categorization.
• We have some eager uploaders for tons of US military war propaganda, Sgt John and Sgt Doo, and Private Who doing something. And of course, other war propaganda, it is not only the US.
• We get spammed by political parties with their images
• And in best case they can push the categorization work to wikimedia. And we try hard to do our best.
• Category:Photos from European People's Party (usage <3.6%)
• Category:Files from Werner Faymann Flickr stream (usage =0.35%)
• Category:Images from United States Army to check (usage <3%)

So what? IMO we need a policy change:

• We should delete all uncategorized, unused stuff after a while (half a year?)
• Get rid of the thinking, if it has a suitable license, copy it to commons
• Get rid of the thinking, if one image is good, two are better (which, by induction, …)
• Get rid of beautiful images just because they are beautiful (tons of sunsets, anonymous people on the street, flowers (poppies today), and don't forget cats (Marello today), other pets, …) - this is not an image sharing platform
• we should put more stress on the fact that it is everybody's responsibility to describe and categorize her uploaded images
• don't wait for wikidata's structured data to solve the problem. It will only help for images already categorized or used. It will not help with the bigger part of the problem, I fear.

Just some ideas, what do you think? Besides that, technical measures can and should be taken to disallow unwanted usage of tools and commons. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It would be already a great step, if we 1) disallow non-autopatrolled to use mass upload (+ other half-automated) tools, 2) delete all uncategorized, unused stuff after a while (for which we of course need a bot to pick out all that stuff). --A.Savin 10:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Fine with disallowing automated tools new users. Not sure about deleting uncategorized, unused stuff, but I also support deleting low quality images for which we have many other copies. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

---

I think here is consensus that we need some sort of throttle (at least for uploads). Such incidents happen too oft in the last years. Created Special:AbuseFilter/140 (not active yet - tested on beta). Concerns? :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

 Question Isn't 300 edits in 8,000 seconds a little generous? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 14:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

What do you suggest? --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, new users don't upload more than, say 20 photos. Adding a few mistakes, 50 uploads should be plenty for users that are not autopatrolled. I assume that editing file descriptions doesn't count? If they do, then 100 edits total within an 3.600 seconds (1 hr) should be good enough for the majority of peeps. This way we might get a handle on those massive uploads and can talk before the fact. My 2 cents. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 05:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Uploads are counting, edits not. That sounds reasonable. But we can also set a limit for 24 hours. For example 300 files in 24 hours or 12 hours? --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: Good idea. 300/12 sounds about right. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done Filter enabled. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Policy for new user uploads

Could discussion on this be moved somewhere where the wider community will notice it please? Having this extended consensus building discussion under AN/U is not the right place, nor should any apparent consensus here be considered complete. --Fæ (talk) 09:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Fæ: This is not a policy, it is to prevent misuse. This will affect only non-autopatrolled users. Uploading thousands of files without autopatrol is creating a huge patroll backlog. Trusted users should be autopatrolled. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a useful clarification to policies for upload and Commons rights. Following the normal proposal process makes sense. --Fæ (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a policy forcing us to create a RFC. This is perfectly fine to prevent abuse and bot like actions requiring at least a authorization. Flooding the unpatrolled rc is abusive. Common sense :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The issue is not a challenge to commonsense. Administrators are elected to use the tools appropriately, but have no authority to redefine rights in the absence of a wider community consensus. The principle applied here to new users sets a precedent for redefining other rights, and should be handled with just as much care.

I have personally tidied up a handful of batch uploads of more than 10,000 images uploaded by new accounts or sock accounts using custom scripts. These incidents were worth sorting out, but were both rare events and not actually "hard" to sort out, if necessary by mass deletion but in most cases just auto-adding some relevant categories to images that were definitely in-scope for the project. I do not see this as an emergency change to rights to combat extreme mass vandalism or abuse, that would then gives us an understandable rationale to bypass good working practices such as ensuring there is a credible consensus before changing how we read core policies. --Fæ (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Fæ: This massupload wasn't structured but completely chaotic. From "my sweet cat" to tombstones and everything in between, many redundant files, etc. pp. Plus a lot of NO-FOP-RU (and I think Ukraine). Sorting through that with the manpower we have here isn't feasible, no automated tool could be used. That is more than we can handle, given all the other files that still float around in the twilight zone. Files that might be useful but nobody will ever find them. I support the idea to change our policy. In the meantime the abusefilter will give us some well deserved protection against those massive uploads. See, not every (mass) uploader has good intentions. Not every uploader is interested in what we are doing here, due to an ego trip or revenge editing. Some just think this is another imgur where you can dump everything, no matter what. It makes sense to keep the backlog down. Everybody who want's to upload 10k files can get an autopatrol bit, not much to it. Rant rant.... :-) If you want to start an RFC, we should invite all users via our notification service, pretty please. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 07:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Mass deletion nomination

There has been a mass nomination of railway ticket images for deletion. However, the mass delete process has not been used by User:Crisco 1492. IMHO, the mass nomination without using the correct process is disruptive. Also, the nominator seems to be trying to bully those wishing that the images are kept by a wall of argument. This is not conducive to reasoned discussion and may put other editors off participating. What can be done about this situation please? Mjroots (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• I agree. Since the entire group of nominations is based on identical reasoning, the posting of 90+ individual nominations can only lead to fractured discussions, and possibly to different outcomes for nearly identical images with exactly identical issues. BD2412 T 21:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
• I also agree. similar if not identical arguments are being posted multiple times, which is a waste of effort, time and resources for all concerned, if there are slightly different points to be made about an individual file the more logical approach would be to single the affected file out for further comment within the mass deletion process. It is as though the nominator is hoping users will give up from the effort required to follow these multiple DRs rather then relying on reasoned discussion Oxyman (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • As indicated at the individual nomination pages, there are considerable differences between many of the tickets. Or are you saying File:Sheffield Supertram - ticket.jpg, File:SouthportAinsdale.jpg, and File:Network Railcard 5.png (all nominated files) are "nearly identical images with exactly identical issues"? Perhaps a group nomination of, say, the ones based on the orange and repeating text background, could have been made, but not all of the files.

As for "bullying": the crux of the matter is that policy states "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined ... the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed" and that "... where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted." In none of the cases has anyone been able to adequately show that the tickets as a whole are of a lower standard of originality/intellectual creation than the previously deleted Edge logo (see logo, deletion request, and court decision). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not the venue to be arguing the merits of your deletion nominations, which have been discussed in each of the 90-something individual discussions. Frankly, if these nominations fail it will likely be, in part, because no one else will be bothered to participate in so large and repetitive a batch. BD2412 T 03:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Funny, you say that "This is not the venue to be arguing the merits of your deletion nominations" (emphasis mine) while at the same time arguing that they are a "large and repetitive a batch" - which is, in and of itself, an argument about the merit of the nominations as nominations.

My response was simple: that the "bully"-ing claimed by Mjroots was a simple request that people read the policies. I quoted said policies in case anyone doesn't bother opening the links. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

"Merits" has a specific meaning in the law, referring to the central issue of the case, as opposed to procedural issues. The question of whether these are copyright violations is the question on the merits. The question of whether over ninety individual nominations were necessary is a procedural question. BD2412 T 03:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Then you can specify that you are referring to the content of the discussion, rather than the procedure; a nomination is, in and of itself, a procedure or act, as well as the result of said act. Procedure was the point of the OP, and was the point of my reply to his claim of "bully"-ing by "wall of argument". If you are introducing a legal definition, rather than the "A good feature or point" or "the quality of being good, important, or useful : value or worth" commonly attached to the word, this should be specified. Simply phrasing your reply as "This is not the venue to be arguing the merits of your arguments for deletion" would have avoided the ambiguity. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
• Furthermore, you have yet to clarify what you mean by "nearly identical images with exactly identical issues". What, pray tell, is "nearly identical" about File:Sheffield Supertram - ticket.jpg, File:SouthportAinsdale.jpg, and File:Network Railcard 5.png? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• A reply to the OP: the "correct" procedure for a mass deletion is hopelessly broken in cases this large. If I had tagged the whole category, it would have included obvious keeps such as the Titanic survivor ticket (which I cleaned the copyright tags for while doing a run through the category, though nobody seems to have noticed). The individual tickets are likewise diverse (File:Sheffield Supertram - ticket.jpg, File:SouthportAinsdale.jpg, and File:Network Railcard 5.png are nowhere near similar, and they all have different degrees of originality, and thus could conceivably have different outcomes). We'd be lumping oranges with apples and grapes and durians.

Perhaps the best procedure would have been a number of group nominations based on similarities (all of the files similar to the Ainsdale ticket as one, perhaps) but even then there would be at least 10 or 15 individual nominations, considering the range of tickets and degrees of originality. This ticket, for instance, has almost completely different issues; it has a clearly copyrightable image on the card, and thus is a non-free derivative work. It would not be a good idea to lump it with File:Ecclesbourne Valley Railway - Platform ticket.jpg, which is so simple that in the US it would definitely be free.

A third possibility would have been to run one or two nominations first as a litmus test to see if the consensus established in the Edge discussion four years ago was still held. But that didn't happen because, when I got back from taking care of the baby, I found myself accused of being "pointy and bordering on disruptive" for "only" having nominated two images which were under discussion at the OP's ongoing Featured Article candidacy at the English Wikipedia. Having run one or two deletion discussions first would have given us both a more recent precedent regarding the threshold of originality in the United Kingdom, and avoided such arguments as "That logo has NOTHING AT ALL to do with British Rail" — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

One does not have to delete an entire category, it is very easy to use the Perform Batch Task tool (left hand pane) to mass-nominate things for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• I agree. The primary reason given for the mass deletion is the precautionary principle. However, this reason is only valid if there is "significant doubt". Emerging consensus clearly suggests that this is not the case, and thus this reason for the mass deletion is also invalid. The consensus is clearly againstChris Woodrich, and the mass deletion must be revoked. - Bethayres (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Mass deletion must be revoked"? Nothing's been deleted yet. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
    • You have failed to prove "significant" doubt and emerging consensus is against your view. Please rescind the mass deletion request. Continuing to argue a case that has no basis and when consensus is also not in your favor is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Can the admin that reviews this case please consider a block against Chris Woodrich as a means to deter this un-mutual behavior. - Bethayres (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Also, if you believe that what you claim is true for railway tickets, then I would argue that pictures like this (yes, its ones that you have submitted), are equally as guilty of a breach of copyright, and thus should all be deleted. The picture of the razor blade is "by you", so you have clearly not looked to see which copyrights you are infringing. Also, the company, Gillette, still exists, and could claim similar issues of the "intellectual creativity" of the item for which you have taken a picture. The parallels between your razor blade pictures and these railway tickets is great. Please re-consider your request for deletion in this light ... I may consider taking similar actions against photo's that you have uploaded to the Common. - Bethayres (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Moved from COM:AN. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• • • • • As I said on my talk page, you are fully within your rights to nominate. However, I do not have to worry about the British threshold of originality (which is the issue in the railway tickets) but rather that in the United States and Indonesia. The US has considerably more leeway. Indonesia is currently undocumented on Commons. Either way, it is neither here nor there. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
          • I disagree. You have not proven that the "threshold of originality" has been exceeded. Furthermore, the picture of the razor could be for any country, including the UK. You claim it to be from one country, but this cannot be proven. Bearing in mind that there may not be differences between the styles from the UK, USA or Indonesia then your case is weakened. In general you make claims, but they have little substance, and you have presented little factual evidence to support (or prove) your claims. Your request for deletion should be thrown out of court. - Bethayres (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

 Comment Most of these DRs are not justified. Closing a few. I should say that many have the wrong template: it should be {{PD-ineligible}} instead of {{PD-self}}. It could help if this is fixed. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to say Chris Woodrich, but most critics are justified. You didn't select tickets where there might be something to copyright, but you created DRs for even the simplest tickets (i.e. File:Scarborough South Cliff Lift - Adult single up ticket.jpg), and even tickets not issued in UK, but in Belgium or France. And even if some tickets have had copyright, creating so many DRs for the same issue is wrong. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• That is entirely your prerogative. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

This entire discussion shows a massive ignorance of how threshold of originality works under British law. Britain has a very, very low threshold of originality, and Crisco is quite right to nominate the images.

Commons policy says we follow the rules of the country of origin. The number of personal attacks levied against Crisco for actually trying to enforce the policies as written is shameful.

These tickets should be deleted. Would we have rather, perhaps, that the hornets' nest of UK threshold of originality not been stirred up? Perhaps. Is the proper response to attack Crisco? No, the only legitiate response by those who would rather not do as Crisco states is to arrange for a {{PD-Art}}-style official policy that we are not willing to recognise excessively lenient threshold of originality decisions.

But to shoot the messenger? You should all be ashamed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, The claim of copyright on a file like File:Scarborough South Cliff Lift - Adult single up ticket.jpg is not based on any serious legal argument. Comparing that to the Edge logo is nonsense. These are different type of works. The Edge claim is based on a very precise argument which does not apply here. Now, some of these tickets may have a copyright (I didn't close the DRs for the most complex cases), but a detailed argument is needed, not a copy-paste of which has nothing to do with the actual file. Finally, the precautionary principle is not a justification for deleting files without legal arguments. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Personal issue

Good day. I wish to address an issue with a particular User, but I do not wish this to be viewed by said individual. Is this a private messaging system, or is whatever I comment seen by all? Thank you for your assistance and understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parenchyma18 (talk • contribs)

If it really is a matter that can only be dealt with in confidence, I suggest you email an Administrator for advice. This is not normal, however, it is customary to raise the issue with the other user first. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

This is really not normal and should not be encouraged. Parenchyma18 has not made any edits in Commons except this post. Taivo (talk) 07:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

For questions involving privacy issues, you may contact the Oversighters. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Dr clave

This user's uploads appear to consist of self-made sheet music for copyrighted music. I don't have time to address this, but a mass deletion nomination may be necessary. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The files which were dated, had music titles and/or composers which were not able to be PD-old-70 (only two files); were nominated. There are still a significant number of musical files, but they appear to be generic beats for various emerging nation drums/ musical styles. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Bringing up an old discussion...

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 38#Wikipediohacker is an old discussion from 2013, but several of the images posted therein have not been deleted. The licensing and attribution consist of the word "me" and were posted by a known indef banned user. Could someone please look at these images again? MSJapan (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

There are only three photos left and those seem to be legit (for a change). --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive edits to prove a point

There is a problem with the File:Visa policy of Malaysia.png where one user is making disruptive edits in order to prove a point about another dispute.

There was a lack of consensus on the new color scheme for the map, we've uploaded several new versions, yet no agreement was reached so the file was reverted to the pre-dispute color scheme. This is commendable that the user Whisper of the heart unlike before accepted (although not honestly which is the reason behind this report) that the things need to be discussed on the talk page instead of engaging in an edit war like he would do before, but there is one problem. The dispute is quite obviously about colors.

Now that same user updated the corresponding article on Wikipedia (diff) (and vehemently defended it later on - (diff) in a dispute with another editor) which required a factual change here, coloring Taiwan as visa-free for 30 instead of 15 days. But now he is not allowing for this change to be implemented in the map here citing the dispute and saying how the file must be kept at a pre-dispute version. The dispute is entirely about colors, and the change to Taiwan on the map is not at dispute at all, as it was the same user Whisper of the heart who changed the corresponding article. I won't go deep into another matter as I don't have any evidence, but an IP user very similar to IPs which made edits of the same kind as Whisper of the heart immediately tagged the Wikipedia article because the map is incorrect - (diff) and (diff).

I believe all this is quite disruptive and childish, akin to the Wikipedia rule Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Either way, I've tried explaining this to the other user but he just reverted again so I gave up in order not to engage in a dispute and possible edit war. Can however something be done about this?--Twofortnights (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done File protected and reverted last two edits. BOTH of you made a big mess. I am really tempted to block both of you for a while. Next time don't revert several times but post here. Admins will take care of it. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 22:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Well we were testing several color schemes and it didn't work out. That's not a mess but trying to reach a consensus. There is no other way to do it but by uploading them here, correct me if I'm wrong but there is no "sandbox" here like on Wikipedia where one can test things out. If I am wrong then please tell me how to test various proposed versions without uploading them instead of threatening me after I sought your help. As for the conflict about Taiwan, that this report is about, I reverted once (16:43, 24 August 2015) so I don't see where the "Next time don't revert several times" comes from. After the other editor did not accept my rationale and reverted back I came here. I just don't know how else could I know the intentions of the other side if I don't first revert the edit and explain my position and wait to see whether he will accept that or not. If he reverts back then I report it to admins, simple as that, that's what I've done. I keep about three hundred articles under constant watch and update including corresponding maps, I receive constant praise, many barn stars, and even though conflicts and mistakes are inevitable (and I don't deny them) when so much work is done, I think overall my work is valuable and recognized as such by many other editors. If of course you think there is no reason to keep me around you may do as you find appropriate.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

No reason why you guys can't do your experiments using a new file that can be deleted when done. No problem. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletions of non-copyvio images

Herbythyme, an administrator who just got the tools back a couple of hours ago, has left a "final warning" on my talk page for alleged copyvios without discussion and without prior warning. He has also been deleting photos I retouched that were either already in Commons at their associated Wikipedia articles or were located at Flickr and had the correct licensing. I have asked him to reply and explain what's going on, but he has, so far, ignored my request at his talk page [1]. The only thing he's done to admit he had made an error was this with the edit summary: "-1 my mistake". After all the work I did that has now been removed from Commons as well as Wikipedia, I think I deserve an explanation beyond that edit summary as well as some discussion. Winkelvi (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You uploaded copyvios in the past. Maybe he sent you the warning in error. This looks like a communication problem. Per COM:DISPUTE you should ask him on his talkpage. Please assume good faith. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

As noted above in this report, I did contact him on his talk page. He has so far (seemingly) ignored it. And yes, I have uploaded copyvios in the past, but never knowingly, always out of ignorance of how the whole system worked. Still, a final warning is totally out of order without at least trying to discuss. Maybe not by procedure, but definitely as far as the same AGF you've asked me to extend, Steinsplitter. Winkelvi (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, You have quite a number of copyvios recently (see Special:DeletedContributions/Winkelvi), so this warning is warranted. Welcome Herbythyme! ;) Yann (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I have quite a few previously. As I explained above, that was before I totally understood how licensing worked. Now I know how it works. But really, just because an uploader has past copyvios then everything they upload that isn't a copyvio is immediately marked a copyvio? I've been asked to afford Herby AGF, however, where's the AGF coming my direction? If you think I'm upset, you're right, I am. I'm being flogged wrongly - when that kind of thing happens, I get upset. What would keep me from getting upset is having Herby respond to my comments on his talk page or here. I've done everything I should do in the form of checking licensing, adding the info needed when uploading, and it appears no one took the time to actually look at any of it. Instead, because I've had copyvios previously, four images I uploaded yesterday were just wiped out? Where's the quality control in that? Winkelvi (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Moved from AN --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Some files are indeed OK, so restored. For Herbythyme's defense, I should say that there was a Flickr review tag, but no direct link to Flickr. So it was confusing. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Tagging of File:Mitch Grassi with Pentatonix.jpg could have been easily avoided by using {{Extracted from}} Just FYI... --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

BTW: Are we talking about two files (Kidman and Grassi) just tagged as copyvios? OR am I missing any deleted files? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Garbera levente sockpuppet to block

Please block Kis foltos (talk · contribs), a sockpuppet of the cross-wiki vandal Garbera levente (talk · contribs). (The sockpuppetry was established at en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Garbera levente/Archive based on Wikipedia edits, but there's also sufficient evidence on Commons, including the fact that both accounts have uploaded photos of the same cat.) Garbera levente has a history of copyright violations, and at least some of Kis foltos's uploads here look to be falsely attributed, so it would also be a good idea to carefully review (or just indiscriminately delete) all their uploads. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done Blocked and nuked the cat per  It looks like a duck to me and scope. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: other uploads seem to be ok, mostly that is. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Kephir and fictional flags

I believe this user should be banned from nominating fictional flags for deletion. There have been several issues with this, as previously discussed both here and in this DR. Particularly in the DR, they have stated they feel any fictional flag is up for deletion. That simply goes against the practice for the last 6 years I've been here and certainly longer. It is no longer appropriate for them to focus their deletion nominations on this subject. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting any particular admin action, but I find it annoying that: 1) User:Kephir has been told that having a general open public discussion on the subject as a whole would be preferable to sniping at individual files, yet Kephir has instead chosen the path of continuing to stir up turmoil by going after individual files one at a time (which would seem to betray certain drama-loving tendencies on his part). 2) Kephir never takes into account any objections by other users, or pointed rebuffs to his suggested deletions (e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bandera Gay Reino Unido.png), but instead imperviously continues on in exactly the same way that he started, without any change of any sort to his approach, or to his generic boilerplate cookie-cutter one-size-fits-all text (copied and pasted into almost all his deletion nominations). 3) Kephir's response to myself and Fry1989 objecting to certain of his deletion nominations was to nominate some files uploaded by us for deletion. Kephir gets all huffy and faux-offended when this is raised, but it's strongly indicative that the first file of mine he nominated for deletion was the most recent "special or fictional flag" image on my uploaded files list -- certainly Kephir has not bothered to offer any alternative plausible scenario as to how "File:National flag of the Whoovians.svg" came to his attention... AnonMoos (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I am demanding admin action. This user has made it clear they will deliberately and without any sincere judgement focus on fictions flags solely on the grounds that they are fictional, and there's clearly enough ignorant admins willing to go along with them. Combining that with Kephir's incompetence with the two DRs mentioned by AnonMoos, it is unacceptable that they be allowed to initiate DRs on this subject any longer. Fictional status alone IS NOT an acceptable reasoning for deletion, that has been the accepted practice for as long as I've been here and longer. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting on a response. I'm not letting the bot sweep this one away. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Fry1989: , if the user has indeed stated such on the wiki (not off-wiki, that is), then I suggest that a RfC is called for. --Pitke (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I linked it ABOVE. Not only in that DR did they state "This fictitious flag deserves deletion just like any other.", they have recently spent their time nominating a string of images for deletion on the grounds of "fictional flag". They don't elaborate, for example that the image in question is deliberately misleading or some other aggravating factor for deletion, they just say it's fictional so it must go. That, combined with their lack of due diligence in nominating File:Bandera Gay Reino Unido.png shows they can not be trusted in this subject. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Again another example of an admin going along with these invalid nominations. This one more importantly also has a revenge aspect against AnonMoos, being nominated shortly after their commenting on my original AN regarding Kephir's actions here. This needs to be dealt with NOW, stop ignoring this! Fry1989 ^eh? 18:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Do I seriously have to burn the house down for this to get some sort of attention? Don't tempt me. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I also find really unfair that he came to it.wiki to edit (i.e.: vandalize) a template for removing an image in use in hundreds of articles just to nominate it for deletion on Commons because "unused". --Gambo7 (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This logo is not genuine and should not be presented as such. Omitting the edit summary does not constitute vandalism. Please COM:AGF. Keφr (keep talk here) 18:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Kephir, some of the functions of "fake" logos were explained on your user talk page 4 months ago, and in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Parana Clube FF.png two weeks ago. It's one of your less appealing characteristics that you never modify your behavior in any way in response to information supplied to you. Most people are able to undergo a process called "learning"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Deceiving readers has no justification, ever. Full stop. You are making ad hominems again. Keφr (keep talk here) 19:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever considered that if you have no interest or relevant expertise with respect to Italian Wikipedia, but you insist on intruding yourself there anyway and trying to teach them their own business, then you're being incredibly rude? AnonMoos (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Harrassment by AnonMoos

Can someone block AnonMoos for two weeks? He has been doing nothing but harassing me over my deletion nominations, which no administrator finds objectionable. He follows me in every deletion nomination I participate in, even those that have nothing to do with flags or symbols of any kind (like [2]). Instead of arguing for files I nominate and defending how they fall in COM:SCOPE, he keeps attacking my person in dicsussions. (Examples should be easy to find: just look at Special:Contributions/AnonMoos.) I have had enough of this, really. Keφr (keep talk here) 18:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

First off, keeping an eye on the deletion nominations you make is a way of limiting the potential damage from your unfortunate behavior -- and in fact I've only intervened in a distinct minority of your proposed deletion nominations before today. Second, pointing out problematic actions on your part is not "ad hominem". Third, if anyone deserves to be blocked, it's you, since you've refused to adjust or modify your inappropriate and unwelcome patterns of action in any way whatsoever, despite concerns being raised with you on numerous occasions. Furthermore, you were specifically advised on your user talk page that if you refused to engage in the discussion here (which you didn't until just now), and instead started in with a whole new round of deletion nominations against inoffensive (i.e. non-hoaxing non-hatemongering) special or fictional flags, it would be unlikely to be interpreted as evidence of good faith on your part. In that light, it's hard not to see a certain malicious and spiteful element in your decision to "double down" and launch numerous further such deletion nominations (of the type which have created turmoil before) earlier today... AnonMoos (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Popping by to confirm that I am an admin and find your concentrated effort against fictional flags problematic. I will address it sooner rather than later given my OOW life permits. --Pitke (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no harassment by any user against you. If you don't like the fictional section of flags -> stay away. For the record: certainly no block for AnonMoos. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You are the only one who closed any of these nominations as "keep", which is quite surprising, given that you yourself stated not that long ago: "Actually, when in doubt delete. IMHO the description / uploader of the flag has to provide enough information that there is an educational use. ". The files you chose to keep are nowhere near meeting that requirement. Keφr (keep talk here) 05:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Com:PCP covers when in doubt delete, not just according to my gusto. Yes, my personal opinion is that most fictional flags are pretty useless. But that doesn't matter, what's in scope needs to be kept, those are the rules. I'd suggest you don't continue in this direction without asking the Commons community if they want to keep the files or not. Your one-man-show will not be successful, no matter if your're right or wrong. Again, and for the last time: Start a RFC and go from there. Thx. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 16:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The DRs against fictional flags must stop. Unless there is an aggravating factor, "fictional flag!!!!!" is not an acceptable reasoning. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Closed: Everything said. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Merging accounts

With the recently added feature of multilanguage use of one account through various wikimedia projects, I'd love to have my useraccounts merged to one basic account which is https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Grifo. I don't know whether this is possible or if this is the right place to ask, but I couldn't find any info on this.

Other accounts of me include: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr_Grifo and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Grifo.

Files uploaded by me are: File:AZ Vrouwen landskampioen 2008.jpg, File:Heerenveen - AZ Johan Cruijff Schaal 2009.jpg, File:AZ - NEC 21-08-11.jpg. Can these also be creditted to this single one account? Grifo (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Grifo -- "Single Unified Login" has been around since at least 2009. They're more likely to know what to do at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Unified_login ... -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

90.191.109.9 (talk · contribs)

User is tagging files (after warning) as duplicates, but these files have many variations such as crop, composition, and colors. /St1995 16:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read my reply. 90.191.109.9 16:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, User:90.191.109.9 is right. --A.Savin 10:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Royal Standard of Spain vs Estandarte Real de España

Question: Is it correct to recreate an old unsourced version of a referenced file, making massive changes in Wikiprojects and trying to impose it without informing and without previous discussion? Thanks for the answer. --Echando una mano (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're wanting to overwrite the image? I think it would be best to upload under a new name, following the summary at COM:OVERWRITE. Bidgee (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking at File:Estandarte Real de España.svg, it should've been restored to @Fry1989: 's version (using COM:OVERWRITE, except for files used in Wikimedia projects where the use requires the file to remain unchanged and Controversial or contested changes) and @Poco a poco: shouldn't have restored Echando una mano's version. Fry is correct in uploading File:Royal Standard of Spain.svg, even though it should've been up to you to do that for your own version. Commons doesn't deal with other projects, it's best to raise it at the projects in question. Bidgee (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Imho this upload is fine. If there is a dispute: two flags should be uploaded an the local community's can decide. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Steinsplitter do you define this edits as "community decisions": [3], [4], [5], [6], [7].

Let's sum up. Fry gets blocked for one week because he wanted to impose a version without any references of 2 meaningful files. Just after his block expires he updates his version from the disputed file and starts editing other wikipedias replacing the original file with his version. Is that a community decision of those wikipedias?. Allowing the usage of wrong file versions in Commons is a Commons' community issue, not a Wikipedia communities issue, as they cannot be alert for all those things everywhere. Giving green light to these edits is actually a foster to conflicts in other wikipedias. Can somebody explain me why should we support a version which is sustained by no reference and is just being linked to irritate the other parties in a upload war? Do what you want but this is not responsible and civic. Those edits are not valid and should be adressed at the source, which is Commons. I could understand thes opinions if there would be concurring sources that speak for 2 version but not in a case like this where there is no discussion about the valid version. I have asked several times for that concurring reference but got, of course, nothing. Poco² 16:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It is quite clear you have a chip on your shoulder against Fry (and I think you should stay well clear of him or hand in your Sysop tools), sorry to say but you overstepped the mark since the file Fry reverted back to had existed for quite awhile (red bg since 20 June 2014 and without issue) and we don't have a policy on giving a references to support your version guideline or policy here, as I've pointed out both you and Echando una mano violated the two points in the summary of COM:OVERWRITE. Fry has done the right thing (something that Echando una mano should've done was upload his own version under a new name) by uploading the correct file under a new name since Leo protected the file from being reverted. What Fry has stated below is quite right. Bidgee (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Lets look further, "Giving green light to these edits is actually a foster to conflicts in other wikipedias." Well you did that by restoring Echando una mano's upload (against COM:OVERWRITE) at File:Estandarte Real de España.svg, Fry only restored the previous version that had been used before Echando una mano began to tango (overwrite and revert war) and the projects can deal with what version they want to use (Commons has zero part to play in such debates [if they arise]). Bidgee (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I had to sit through a week-long block because of Poco a poco's manner of going about this issue, which no less than 3 admins (I believe 4 but haven't counted) stated their clear disapproval of the block but none would lift it. If Poco a poco had accepted my response to them (before they blocked me) where I clearly stated that Echando una mano had uploaded their image as a separate files, I wouldn't have uploaded them separately now. I also raised the matter of COM:Overwrite and COM:Duplicate in my unblock request and Poco a poco danced around it claiming they know the policies perfectly fine, but they're not observing them. I want an apology for that block! Fry1989 ^eh? 18:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The file:Royal Standard of Spain.svg doesn't have references or any valid source; it's only because Fry1989 likes with those incorrect colors and proportions. The file:Estandarte Real de España.svg is according the sources and, of course, COM:OVERWRITE. --Echando una mano (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course it does! The source is that the royal standard is a square red flag with the King's coat of arms centred on it. Just because it doesn't look exactly like one drawing does't make it incorrect. You're a heraldic artist, you know that. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Where is writed that "the royal standard is a square red flag with the King's coat of arms centred on it". The source has the proportions and the colours can be seen perfectly. All the others are just interpretations. But in spite of this, you cannot make those massive changes without previous discussion. --Echando una mano (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Well unless you're blind, which I sincerely doubt, your own source shows a square flag, with a shade of red, and the King's coat of arms on it. Am I somehow mistaken? Fry1989 ^eh? 20:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

First: the "flag" showed is not square, it's rectangular; it's only for showing the colors and the coat of arms desing; second: you have to read the document, we're it's written "Descripción: Será una bandera cuadra de igual color que el guión y con su misma composición sin el cordoncillo de oro ni el fleco." (Description: It will be a square flag wiht the same color of the guidom and same composition without the gold cord or the fringe.). And the proportions are written in the text above (800x800 and coat of arms height 440). --Echando una mano (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

An image with 4 sides of equal length is a square, so I was right. It has the King's coat of arms on it, so I was right. It is red, I am right. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Then use a ruler because they aren't, it's a only a representation of the colour flag and the coat of arms. The colour of the flag is clearly specified, as carmesí (crimsom) not rojo (red), and the description and proportions too. These things can't be left to interpretations or imaginations. --Echando una mano (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I am perfectly entitled to upload a different version of a flag. There are countless examples on Commons where different versions of a flag/coat of arms co-exist, sometimes 3 or 4 different versions (and I will happily give examples upon request). If Poco a poco and Echando una mano don't like it, that's unfortunate but it's not policy. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If you upload an incorrect version and without references no, you aren't. --Echando una mano (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Point to some policy, or you are wasting everyone's time. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Per the current definition the Flag's base color seems to be the blueish red, 2014 decret amending a 1977 one (already had this base color). So the question remains wheter this has always been the base color or if it was the "standard" red at some point (color Fry uses in his version). BTW the Coat of arms in the new versions seem to be too small (unless this smallish size is defined in the decret)--Denniss (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Real photo of the royal standard, in crimsom (carmesí). There is a big difference between the red in the coat of arms and the crimsom in the flag. --Echando una mano (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No, Bidgee, excuse me, but I have no chips anywhere. As I already said and repeat, I have no personal problem with him. The problem is what he is doing and you seem to support: promoting the use of a wrong file version for which there is no reference at all. Allowing this kind of practices is not really of big help for the projects we are supposed to help out. Just that. It is not a matter or people but of a bad habit, whoever it has. Poco² 19:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Jackson5Dr - Attack account

Sorry if this isn't the right place. Jackson5Dr has posted Wayne_Hsiung_Cult_Leader.jpg, Cult_Leader_Wayne_Hsiung.JPG, and Sexual_Deviant_Wayne_Hsiung_DxE.JPG, the titles of which are all BLP violations (and the second and third are photo-manipulated to change what's on the title to a BLP violation itself) and in this edit, has changed the image description from "Direct Action Everywhere activists march outside a Whole Foods Market in San Francisco, carrying a colorful banner and signs." to "Direct Action Everywhere wishing for sexual assault and abuse of Whole Foods shoppers and young activists." See this ANI filing for a parallel case and further background. Regards, TransporterMan (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I've renamed "Wayne_Hsiung_Cult_Leader.jpg" to "Wayne_Hsiung.jpg", and asked the author if he would like to allow Commons to use that image. The other two images uploaded by Jackson5Dr belong on a blog, not an educational resource, and should be deleted immediately. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I responded at my talk page - note I'm a "they" not a "he" though. :-) Funcrunch (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Per their own request, File:Wayne_Hsiung.jpg should be deleted as well so that Funcrunch may re-upload it. We don't want give legitimacy to Jackson5Dr's actions, so deleting it in order to have Funcrunch rather than Jackson5Dr displayed as the uploader would be a good idea. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Files deleted and vandal blocked indef (by HJ Mitchell) --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Kaavya Maiazhagan‎

Hello, Kaavya Maiazhagan‎ has uploaded a lot of webgrabs, I think most have been tagged and user was also given an end of copyvio notice. Can someone delete, too many images. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 3 days, all uploads destroyed. Taivo (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

DR conflict between Denniss and me

Hi. I think we need someone else to clarify something, so I'll try to explain everything in details.

1. Since I'm often trying to track files that do not respect the absence of FoP in France, I tried to launch a DR for File:Louvre Museum Inverted pyramid 01.JPG (NB : I didn't realized first that a previous DR had been launched about that file). Indeed I considered the main focus is on an architectural detail of a recent work, and that it may not be considered as a de minimis exception.
2. Denniss reverted me without any argument.
3. I thought there was a misunderstanding so I reverted him, adding an explaination in the revision summary ("no argument, please debate") and in the DR itself (see here), where I was saying that there had been no debate in the first DR, which didn't discuss about the de minimis rule (therefore the rules may allow to launch another DR based on new arguments).
4. Denniss reverted me again, still without any comment nor explanation.
5. Because of the absence of comment, I tried a last revert (I wouldn't be stupid to do a third revert) with comments in the revision summaries ("hey ! don't you know what a debate is ?!" and "NO ARGUMENT, PLEASE DEBATE !!!")
6. And of course Denniss reverted me a third time with no explanation.
7. So I left a message on Deniss's talk page : "Would you mind discussing instead of reverting a DR that is involving new arguments compare to the previous one ?!"
8. Deniss's answer was both rude and threatening : "Next revert = block" / "I'm getting pissed by your actions. There is nothing to debate as the situation is clear."
9. I left another message on his talk page : "There's nothing clear. In the first DR, there were no argument. Just your own decision. You may know the rules about DR : it's possible to launch another one when there is a new argument. You seem not to understand the French law, or you might be right about the first decision. But it has to be discussed and it might not be up to you to close the debate again. And please don't threaten me."
10. Since I received no answer, I came here because I think Deniss is not the right person to decide if we could accept another DR since he closed the first one himself, and that DR had not been debated (actually his closure message is in fact an "argument", not a real closure decision...). Moreover, I can hardly accept his latest rude and threatening message. An administrator should be able to discuss and explain things calmly. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi TW, Denniss is no doubt right about any underlying copyright issue (which is an old one). However threatening a block after you made good faith attempts at discussion is poor practice. You may be over relying on edit comments, which are easy to miss, and this might be the cause of a slight misunderstanding. --Fæ (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

"no doubt right about any underlying copyright issue" > so we don't care about the absence of FoP in France ?! And an admin is allowed to refuse a second discussion when he closed the firts DR himself and when new arguments are given ?! I just don't understand that second point. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

It's up to Denniss to expand the rationale, I agree it would be good to do so. I'm sure all of us care about the headaches that non-FoP European countries create for Commons. The second point is that Denniss may have missed some of the above attempts to discuss, so persevere with discussion as you have here, but I would put aside the temptation to revert further. --Fæ (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have never thought of reverting a third time as Denniss did ! That's why I came here to discuss. But I continue to think it's not a good idea to let an admin decide if a DR s/he closed him/herself has to be reopened or not. Especially when the case is no that clear (to me it's no de minimis here) and/or when the preivous DR was not that discussed. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

About the picture case (and not the misunderstanding/conflict between Denniss and me), could anyone tell me if there's such a big difference between this DR I tried to relaunch and this one ? Or does someone think this other DR should not have been launched either ? How could anyone say these FoP cases are "clear" ?! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• The main subject of this image is clearly a part of an architectural artwork and there is no FoP in France. No reason to doubt about the good faith of TwoWings and no reason to question his right to discuss the legitimacy of this image on Commons. For me too it's not de minimis, also agree on the fact an administrator should not decide if a DR s/he closed him/herself has to be reopened or not. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Also this very important visual (the main?) part of the structure, placed as intentional into the audience, look the people on the photo, can not be considered as de minimis. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

So should we relaunch the DR and have a real debate on the matter, or would Denniss do anything to prevent anyone from questioning this file ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

NB : Denniss has not been active since I posted this message here. Therefore, don't draw any conclusion on his absence here so far. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

31.1.202.74 (talk · contribs)

Long-term abuse: user creates many useless categories and edits. Was blocked many times due to using dynamic IPs and ranges. Example: 5.60.27.239 (see deleted edits). Ping @Hedwig in Washington: . Likely block evasion. /St1995 18:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I looked thru his/her last 50 edits and did not find any bad one. Good work, I would say. Can you show some his/her problematic edits? Taivo (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Deleted edits checked, tagging empty categries. Can't see anything wrong with that. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Unjustified block

Aloha! On 9/1 I blocked Bull-Doser (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user for two weeks to get his/her attention. Usually Bull-Doser doesn't reply, which may have led to his block on enwiki (AFAIK). At the time applying a block seemed like a good idea. The block worked, we have communication with Bull-Doser. In summary: I blocked Bull-Doser against blocking policy. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3ABull-Doser – @Hedwig in Washington: Can you please clarify: Is the block alone unjustified or are both the block and the removal of "autopatroller" right unjustified? You've taken two actions against the user, yet reversed only one of those actions, so I'm wondering if you believe that both actions or only one of the actions is unjustified. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Block only. IMHO that is. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you please state the rationale for that opinion? To quote OSX: "There is only one dubious file out of many thousands he [Bull-Doser] has uploaded." --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Marking own uploads reviewed is one potential risk of being considered unreliable. This case also raises a doubt IMO whether this user is reliable enough to have the "autopatroller" right. These are two doubts. I support User:Hedwig in Washington's decision in this matter. Ankry (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not against Bull-Doser having his autopatroller rights left disabled. While the block was unjustified I don't beleive Bull-Doser is deserving of these rights given his issues in the past. OSX (talk • contributions) 21:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping for a response from Hedwig, but the responses provided by others have been satisfactory. Thanks everyone. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Michaeldsuarez: Sorry, Ankry and OSC beat me to the punch. I said all there is to say. This is for recording a policy violation. I don't think there should/could be anything more said from my side. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright. I just wanted to figure out if there were any other issues that needed to be addressed, and with everything that needed to be said now laid out clearly on this page, it's now apparent that only the block was an issue. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Heraldcenteno93 (talk · contribs)

User repeatedly uploads (partly the same) copyrighted images. He has at least two other accounts: Heraldfranciscojarquincenteno (talk · contribs) and Heraldfranciscojarquin1993 (talk · contribs). Maybe some admin could give him a notice, I don't know how to do that. AxeEffect (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done I blocked two additional accounts indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Lel789 (talk · contribs) and Commons:Deletion requests/User:Tom-L/Heraldry

While I won't disagree that the quality of my older work is lacking, his deletion request is malformed and contains very uncharitable language and personal attacks, and very bad faith (the idea that I supposedly spread false information). He also seems to have begun a crusade to remove my work from the English Wikipedia, against consensus. I have reverted one of those, which in my opinion and in the opinion of others certainly is an accurate representation of the bitmap file.

This behaviour is also very suspicious from a new account, and this might be a "revenge" action from a blocked user. Tom-L (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment: I speedy closed the DR and notified the user as vandalism. Could the admins do a Checkuser? --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy keeping. I don't think we have enough vandalism (yet) to justify a CU. @Magog the Ogre: What do you think? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he seems to have backed down for now. On Wikipedia he also edited articles about some band, so it's probably not the blocked vandal I thought it could have been. Tom-L (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Sysop abuse by Ludo29

Hi, The admin in question is overwriding a COM:DR and COM:UDR decision and deletion & edit warring (whiteout reason). I had no other choose but to block the admin :-(. I let decide the community if a desysop if it is okay to start a desysop procedure.

Please allow me to elaborate:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Les Nutons du Condroz.jpg was closed as keep by Hedwig in Washington.
• Ludo29 deleted the file a first time (log) with no reason in the log.
• Thibaut120094 reverted his deletion.
• Ludo29 deleted the file again with no reason in the deletion log (log).
• Racconish filed a undeletion request.
• Thibaut120094 asked the user on his talkpage, but the user reverted. The editsummary contains a personal attack.
• Yann asked the user on his talkpage, but the user reverted without commenting.
• I closed the UDR request as restored.
• Ludo29 started with adding deletion templates to the file and edit warring. He ignored warnings I left on his talkpage.
• I blocked the admin as a security measure.

The admin has reverted 3 admin decisions on a file which he uploaded himself. A huge abuse of sysop tools.

Regards --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Both of you should give up your tools. *sigh* Bidgee (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know how you are able to read all discussions in two minutes. But the only one who is violating polices is Ludo29 by reverting multiple admins (deletion/rollback) of a file which he has uploaded himself . --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• User:Bidgee, assuming that «Both of you should give up your tools» is not merely an inflammatory comment aimed only at distress and derail the discussion, please explain why do you think User:Steinsplitter is at fault in this matter. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hardly inflammatory, it would've been if I said something that was racist or a personal attack but I didn't and only stated my opinion. Unfortunately I do not think they're competent to be holding the Sysop tools, this is just one of many issues that they could've handled better (not going to waste my time finding topics, diffs ect, I have more important things to do). "aimed only to distress and derail the discussion", oh please stop being childish. Bidgee (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I perform all actions with best knowledge and belief. I am sorry if you feel i handled this case bad :-(. Being admin is not a work, it is a hobby and admins are humans - not robots. Humans making errors, you can't expect that every action is 100% okay. I leaned my lesson and will stay away from an/u in future and leave the controversial stuff to other admins - i won't wast my free time with drama. It is a hobby, there should be fun - not drama. It is always hard to ensure that everyone is happy (not just one party). Best :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The reopening of this deletion request is not against rules, IMHO. However the reason shown is an absurd and shows either misunderstanding of CC license or misunderstanding of copyright law or Bad Faith and I believe it will be closed as kept soon. Ankry (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Support desysop procedure, because it looks to me like Ludo29 is currently begging for a desysop, a pity that it had to come that far. --A.Savin 13:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Support desysop procedure, I fully agree with other User:Steinsplitter's and other admins' decisions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankry (talk • contribs) 2015-09-11T13:09:31 (UTC)
•  Support desysop procedure. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Support process to come up. — regards, Revi 13:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment this discussion is probably moot anyways. Natuur12 (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Probably moot, as shown above, but I can't support Ludo here. This is very sad. Ludo was a good user, which I met in Geneva, and I don't understand why he is fighting over ONE picture. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment User requested removal his sysop flag. Alan ^(talk) 17:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose : If there is an edit war, Steinsplitter is also 'editwarring'. And where is it written that Ludo29 has no right to make a deletion request for the file? Hégésippe | ±Θ± 19:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Support desysop procedure. Too much of a drama queen to be sysop. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

---

•  Comment Users sysop right has been removed via meta per self request. Apart from that, The user is evading his block using a sock here. I have nothing further to add - his behavior is explaining itself perfectly. Very sad :-(. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Sock blocked. — regards, Revi 09:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't condone his actions but I can understand how angry and frustrated he must be. He created the work, only to have someone to "modify" it (yes, it is allowable under CC-BY-SA) and they feel that what was done is wrong [for the original DR closer, it wasn't an easy decision to make].

Though this will likely infuriate Ludo29 even more, Racconish doesn't have the right to add a PD tag to a file that isn't even PD (CC-BY-SA-3.0 is not a PD license) and blurring a small part of the photograph is hardly creative (unlike retouching a B/W to a colour photograph as an example). I recommend that Racconish reverts that addition. Bidgee (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with Bidgee here.

@Elfix: Did Ludo actually agree about this? I also wouldn't change that unless he does. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

He did himself, using his alternate account that bears his real name. Elfix 10:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree : {{Retouched picture}} is better... but I have no problem with removing it. — Racconish^📥 10:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Question how did something solvable let to a ragequit and the resigment of all advanced user rights? Really, we need to find a better way to deal with people when they are angry and our dramas in general. I propose to close this discussion as moot because there is no point in beating up a death horse. Okay, we got the file restored but at what price? Natuur12 (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

  Woah... First sensible comment I read here. All I saw was people jumping at a 10-year contributor like he was a vandal, calling his actions "abuse" and blocking his "sockpuppets". But I see no attempt to discuss with him without calling "policy violations". It would be great, next time, to go one step further and try to understand the situation and not be so quick off the mark. Elfix 06:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

  Being a 10-year contributor doesn't give him the right to be above the rules and make personal attacks. Thibaut120094 (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

  I can't support him for what he did. But I can't support any one else, either. It's our responsibility to show a minimum of empathy and have the appropriate reactions when another contributor shows their frustration, otherwise things can only get worse. Elfix 12:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

  That's why I think we should delete the file per Commons:Courtesy deletions if that's what Ludo29 wants. The image is unused, that should not be a problem.

  Note: Ludo29 blurred the entire image. Thibaut120094 (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Ludo29 is engaged in edit warring and revert warring in File:Les Nutons du Condroz.jpg: Blurred the whole, as said, also added bogus {{Delete}} and removed the license tag. This is blatant vandalism: He needs to be blocked, and this image should be protected immediately. As for the suggestion for a courtesy deletion — this kind of image would never warrant it (no unflattering pose, etc.), and there’s no courtesy left for someone who so egregiously offended all other envolved users and betrayed the trust vested on him. (Also, I have been getting repeated 503-errors while editing the file page and this ANU page.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Support, though it would only be relevant if Ludo29 requests the rights be returned. Something broke here. Nothing was done that was unforgiveable. The user became highly reactive to what seemed to be a normal and fairly minor dispute, and used sysop tools while involved. (if that is correct.) We don't know why, but that led to a short block (which seems to have been within reasonable discretion; the user was suddenly erratic, and a sysop who is behaving erratically is dangerous. Talk page access was left open, it could have been discussed). A sysop in his or her right mind would either request the block be lifted, or wait it out. Someone not in their right mind could take it all as a tearing emergency. This was a highly privileged user, with high contributions. The Commons sysop right has been removed, at Ludo's request,[8] and should not be returned without discussion. His advanced rights on fr.wiki were removed at his request as well. I oppose the call to block the user more than temporarily, please remember all the excellent contributions, and reflect that people sometimes get upset over silly things -- or not-so-silly things -- because of other stress in their life. See also his fr.wiki user page.[9] Commons is full of users -- and sysops -- who "treat colleagues like crap." This is nothing new, but apparently Ludo finally got it. Was he treated "like crap?" I'm not going to assess that. He certainly thought so, and there is no objective standard, though we often pretend otherwise. Those who know this user, please send him messages of support. Yann has reached out. Thanks, @Yann: . --Abd (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Summary of the fucking story

In august 2012, I've made a picture of a beer with a glass and a piece of cake, in Belgium.

This picture has never interested nobody. It's never used in any Wikimedia's page.

Then, in june 2015, Thibaut120094 ask the deletion of it. Why ? Because, he need to have an argument in a discussion on fr.wikipedia.org. Yes, we can spell that a WP:POINT.

To continue the bullsheetbingo of fr.wikipedia.org many contributors give their opinions for the deletion request.

In july 2015, this question concern so much people that this picture is now used in 0 wikimedia's page.

The deletion request was closed with an action who was not discussed during the request. bullsheetbingo level 10 !

Yes, after, I've deleted this picture, my picture. It was no-used, and it was blured without discussion, without my agreement.

It was restaured. And you know the following.

How many are you to give your opinion about a picture ? About a picture that you don't care ?

During all of this bullshit, nobody of you is interresting to give a place for this picture in a Wikimedia's page. I'm laughing, sincerely.

So, thanks all of you. You show the true picture of Wikimedia's projects.

So, now :

• we delete this picture because :
  • I want that, and I'm the creator of it
  • All of you, you don't care of this picture

After, maybe I'll understand how I losed ten years of my life with you.

Ludo (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Ludo, please stop inflaming the situation by revert warring on the image, or further causing deliberate damage to the image quality to make a point. I am sorry you are so upset over this one image due to what are probably ill considered, or at least weakly discussed, actions by others, however much of the fall-out here is of your own creation. It would probably be a strategic move for you to step away from the keyboard and do something more relaxing for a day.

It should be noted that the DR is still open at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Les_Nutons_du_Condroz.jpg, where Ludo can make their case for a reasonable courtesy deletion as the image is not in use. I am sure we all know of similar cases that were courtesy deleted on user request, even though the basis of doing this is debatable.

The DR notice has been removed from the image page, it should be re-added and left intact while the DR is running and the image talk page should be undeleted (@Krd: could you do this as the original deleting admin?). I recommend that an administrator protect the image from further reverts once the unblurred version is in place.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I have now protected the file page to stop the edit war and restored the version the deletion discussion is about. --Krd 15:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

You make me pity

Ok, nice. Could an admin please look at the history of File talk:Les_Nutons_du_Condroz.jpg and apply reasonable measure? Thank you. --Krd 15:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

reasonable measure as ... delete picture and talk page ? Ludo (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

User:AnonMoos again

User:AnonMoos has just closed several deletion discussions for bogus reasons, despite not being an administrator. As far as I am aware, non-admin closures are not allowed at Commons. I think a reprimand is in order at the very least. Keφr (keep talk here) 06:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually (unless things have been changed recently), non-admin closures are sometimes allowed, though not always recommended. Unfortunately, the basic issue remains: User:Kephir has been taken to the "User problems" noticeboard on two separate occasions over "Special and fictional flags" deletion nomination requests and his revenge deletion nomination requests against people who opposed them (once, twice), and has received a conspicuous lack of support for certain problematic aspects of his way of operating. Since User:Kephir is like those French royalists who "forgot nothing, and learned nothing", and refuses to modify his operating methods in any significant respect, I would strongly recommend (at a minimum) that all Kephir's "special or fictional flags" deletion proposals which use the same problematic cut-and-pasted boilerplate one-size-fits-all cookie-cutter language be automatically rejected until he has modified his behavior so that it does not appear to have a goal of stirring up turbulence and turmoil among the Commons community. AnonMoos (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

AnonMoos keeps closing the same discussions over and over despite not being qualified to do so. The nominations are valid and should be allowed to run their course. —Keφr (keep talk here) 18:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Or perhaps you can get it that you're the problem? Multiple users have taken issue with your nominations, the obvious thing to do would be to just move on to a different subject. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

"Multiple" sure sounds more impressive than "two". Keφr (keep talk here) 05:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

If you include Pitke, Gambo7, and Hedwig_in_Washington here, Tuvalkin here, Oren neu dag here, that makes at least 7 opposed to at least some aspects of your deletion habits... AnonMoos (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment I'm not sure if this is a good thing. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Well until an admin does something, I think AnonMoos' actions are perfectly acceptable. This user is completely unrepentant and appears to be on a personal bend to get rid of all the fictional flags on Commons and that is not acceptable. I asked they be banned from this topic for DR nominations, that should be revisited. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Maybe, but I have few other options until an admin resolves the situation. Keφr (keep talk here) 05:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Hey Kephir, maybe you could actually finally pay attention to the objections which others have made to some of your practices, and modify your way of doing things accordingly. This is called "listening and learning", and most people (even some of the most bellicose and belligerent) are often capable of making compromises over matters which are relatively inessential to themselves but offensive to others. By refusing to listen or learn in the slightest degree, you can come across as incredibly self-centered and arrogant to others, and you have certainly worn out your welcome quicker than what otherwise might be the case... AnonMoos (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Kephir -- You need to face up to the fact that you've just about come to the end of the line with respect to refusing to listen to any comments or criticisms, not modifying any aspects of your methods of operation which have been found objectionable by others, and willfully continuing on in exactly the same way that you first started. That approach has had diminishing returns for a while now, and you're just about at the end of them... AnonMoos (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

 Comment I blocked Kefir for a week for vandalizing DRs. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 06:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

 Comment @Hedwig in Washington: Both should be also blocked for editwaring. Even vandalisms should be reverted by sb else in such cases, IMO. Ankry (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the block is not for edit war but for removing text from a DR. If you think there should be another block, please do so. :) Best, --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 06:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Ankry, Even if that looks as an edit war, to revert vandalism is not really a bad thing and can not be considered as edit war. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Christian Ferrer: IMO it is always better to ask somebody else to make further revert for few reasons: 1. To ensure that this is really reverting a vandalism (one person may be wrong; tho persons being wrong chance is much less) 2. To show a vandal that they operate against community, not against a single user. However at the moment as "editwar" stopped already I do not see a need for further block. My comment was just for records. Ankry (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

That's true. That's why we have the Admin noticeboard. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 07:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I have to say that I find it ironic Kephir has accused Hedwig in Washington of having a grudge against them but is completely dismissive of the suggestion they have made revenge DRs. I don't know how many times I will have to bring up a topic ban and I will every time this user comes up, but any user trying to get rid of all images relating to a certain topic is a problem and this needs to stop. I don't think just a block is going to stop it. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Renaming problem by Wandersmaa

By successfully renaming my username Wandersmann~commonswiki to Wandersmaa all the uploaded pictures between 28th an 31st of May 2015 got lost in the sense that they are now like orphans of the old username Wandersmann~commonswiki, so if I click on one of them on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Wandersmaa?uselang=de-ch I get the false information that the author is Wandersmann~commonswiki (in red letters). If I click on these red letters, I get the (right) information, that there is no user Wandersmann~commonswiki, so nobody can see, that I (Wandersmaa) am the right author of these pictures. By the way, I have uploaded all of them for the swiss Wiki4List of the year 2015. If I go to my actual site Wandersmaa, I can see, that there are 104 pictures, uploaded by Wandersmaa, of which the author is not Wandersmaa, but Wandersmann~commonswiki. So I'm alleged not the author of my own pictures! Please change the author of these 104 pictures. --Wandersmann (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Done with COM:VFC. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast changes! Everything works now fine with the pictures. But my signature here is wrong - the right one should be Wandersmaa! Please change it, too. --Wandersmann (talk) 12:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC) right: Wandersmaa

You need to change the signature yourself at Special:Preferences. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. --Wandersmaa (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Anbumunusamy

Anbumunusamy (talk · contribs) continues copyrights violation after 2nd block expired. All warning and other messages are removed from his talk page. --AntanO 16:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bożena Nowak-Szymura.jpg

I do not feel offended, but somebody should say to him, that this is not polite. Taivo (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done --A.Savin 09:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

EdsonMadrid (talk · contribs)

Continue to upload books of unclear copyrights status after several warnings and deletion requests. I think user should be blocked by not involved administrator. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Help!

Slight emergency:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hopetoun_falls.jpg

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

ROFL, man I'd like to have that much fun. :-) Materialscientist is restoring the file. Socks blocked. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Ff fnfef is another, I think. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocked as well. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Ruby Yadav

This user uploaded many images that were deleted as copyvios. More were just uploaded by the same user. This is probably a job for an admin.

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rubyyadav

Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Deleted and last warning left. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 05:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Hedwig. You are absolutely so helpful and wonderful to me always. Say, do we have barnstars at commons? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Please look barnstar and also category:Barnstars and category:Wikimedia barnstars. Taivo (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, my friend. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Categorizing HABS/HAER images of individual structures

I'm in a dispute over how to handle the categorizing of HABS/HAER images of individual structures. For months I was putting these into new individual categories and sometimes as a subcategory of a parent with other non-HABS/HAER images of the same structure. Other users are concerned that too many categories are being created. A resolution to this issue would be appreciated and the discussion can be found on my talk page under the title "Extremely long category names". Thank you Xnatedawgx (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Finoskov won't hear although he has been told repeatedly and reverted countless times

Finoskov (talk · contribs) is editing categories and files depicting French buildings and objects featured in the Mérimée and Palissy databases of the French Ministry of Culture. Countless times, he had to be reverted because, although he had been told so, he kept making a basic mistake that can be forgiven at first (because the database is not clear and everyone makes it at one point), but not after it has been corrected and explained several times. French speaking admins can refer to the discussions here, here and here - under certain conditions that Finoskov rejects although they are binding being criteria from the French Ministry of Culture, certain objects are not considered Monuments historiques; this doesn't prevent Finoskov from categorizing them as such, thus falsifying our database. Finoskov is not receptive, he talks the talk but doesn't change his ways; he is very active but one has to be after him like a policeman. In short, he is what may be called a problematic contributor and it is not certain if he's doing the project any good. I suggest he be blocked for a period of three months, as an effective warning. --Edelseider (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Thibaut120094, Pleclown, Anthere, and Yann: FR-N needed here. Thx! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I will have a look today. Anthere (talk) 06:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

He did it again yesterday morning (one example: [10]), yesterday evening (for instance [11])... he just doesn't stop. Please make him. Thank you. --Edelseider (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

This here is proof that he was told a long time ago and very clearly what not to do. --Edelseider (talk) 08:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I see no evidence anyone should be blocked. However, I see evidence that input from more participants to have a clear agreement emerge on the topic is required. Right now... all I see is discussions in private talk pages and rather few input. I think it would be nice to find some more people to give their opinion on the matter. Anthere (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I gave a substantial reply to Anthere, to which she didn't react ( she maybe didn't see it ). Several contributors have already explained to Finoskov that he is wrong but he refuses to change his ways. Since when can somebody do just as he likes, against accepted rules and norms, here or anywhere? What is the purpose of laws? Edelseider (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I saw the answer. I would like to see those "several contributors" weight in the discussion. You may right or wrong. But it is not my role to make decisions at the editorial level. I can clearly see that both of you are now basically getting into an edit war (and in such case, both of you should be blocked right ?). What I know is that in most instances, when a user is problematic to the point of being blocked, there are usually more than one person to say so. I will be happy to review other people opinions. Anthere (talk)

It is very easy, really. There is an official list of objects that are protected as monuments historiques. The list is alphabetical and it is published by the French Ministry of Culture. Objects that do not figure in that list are not objets historiques. Finoskov couldn't care less, though. Here is the most recent example of his deeds : [12]. As anyone can see under the letter W ( [13] ), this object is not in the list, thus, it is not "classé". It isn't complicated; maybe I should have started with pointing to the list, though.--Edelseider (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Bonjour (as most of us are french, I'll speak french),

Sur le fond, il semble bien que Finoskov se soit fait prendre dans les pièges (fort nombreux) du la protection des monuments historiques. Cette modification Special:Diff/172349932 (malgré des apparences trompeuses) est effectivement une erreur qu'Edelseider a eu raison d'annuler. Pour la même raison, j'ai annulé Special:Diff/172344407. Par contre, ces modifications Special:Diff/172345121 semble correct (très étrangement car on n'a qu'une fiche en IM et non en PM mais cela peut-être mis sur le compte d'une erreur de la part de la base Palissy ce qui n'est pas inhabituel malheureusement).

Sur la forme, je ne pense pas qu'un blocage soit nécessaire (certes des mots ont été échangés des deux côtés mais rien de grave et vu la complexité du sujet cela me semble plutôt « normal »).

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Botuzzo

removes deletion request from pictures and creates out of scope gallerys--Motopark (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

 Blocked indefinitely Thibaut120094 (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Extortion racket - Long-term_abuse/Orangemoody/Accounts

Apropos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Orangemoody: We should review the local contributions of these extortionists.

1. Are any of these users administrators here?
2. Should we block all of them? They've only been blocked en masse on en. User:Jamesally87 was blocked.

Specific users

For example, please see the discussion of bad faith editor Arr4, who has over 2000 edits here, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Orangemoody/Accounts . The sock likely pushed for deletion of files, as part of the extortion racket. Possible examples and concerns:

1. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:D7K_6329_-_Sophie_Dee_(6746800711).jpg is very suspicious. (Also, Arr4 opened the DR, but the page shows that a User:Rahat, wikilinked to User:Ctg4Rahat, opened it, yet neither user exists; I don't see the normal evidence (e.g. logs, redirects) of a user rename.)
2. File:Mosharraf Karim.jpg,File:Mosharraf karim.jpg, File:MosharrafKarim.jpg, all deleted.
3. User_talk:Arr4#Your_bad_idea is concerning too.
4. File:Tony022.jpg is claimed as the work of Ctg4Rahat/Arr4 BUT metadata says Chris Hardy took w/Canon EOS 5D.

The LTA entry on en says in part, 'There are 381 socks currently being blocked as a result of this investigation.' ... 'Some time later the article subject or person who has paid for the article to be moved to mainspace is then contacted again and advised that, for a specific monthly fee ($30/month in examples that have been confirmed), the “editor” will continue to protect the article from vandalism and prevent its deletion, claiming that they had previously done that without charge.'

--Elvey (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC) (feel free to refactor above)

I think @Denniss: took care of blocking. File:Tony022.jpg deleted as copyright violation. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Civility issue on Featured picture candidates

Please see this diff and this diff. by User:Colin. It's fine if Colin disagrees with the opinions of others; differences of opinion happen regularly on FPC and that's fine. However, incivility is not ok, and it seems to me that the comments in these diffs have crossed the line. I would like an uninvolved administrator to review this situation. --Pine^✉ 21:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This goes beyond differences of opinion. "Taking the piss" comes to mind. Perhaps one has to appreciate how many high-quality portraits have failed at FPC to know how insulting this nomination is. There's something iffy going on here. -- Colin (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The day is hot let's retire.... We all know how this phrase ends when the advice is not taken. Natuur12 (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Trappedinburnley and File:Red Rose Badge of Lancaster.svg.

There is a problem here, where this user disagrees with the orientation of the rose. I asked them to begin a discussion and ping the other users, but they have not (pinged them that is, they did start a discussion). I don't know about this element of heraldry, but if Category:SVG coat of arms elements - roses is any indication the rose is meant to point downward as the petals form a pentagram. There are examples provided with it facing the other way, but those are when it is used as part of other badges, not by itself. Either way this needs to be looked at. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Would you ping some more of our CoA experts? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sodacan: , @AnonMoos: , @Heralder: , @NikNaks: , @DrKiernan: , @Tom-L: , @Ssolbergj: , if you would be so kind to comment. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

All I know is what's in chapter XVIII of Fox-Davies' "Complete Guide to Heraldry", which you can read for yourself on Wikisource. The relevant illustration is File:Complete Guide to Heraldry Fig491.png... -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm now aware of this discussion but currently have nothing further to my comments here, here, here and here.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

But none of those discussions have an actual source on which way is the right way. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

User Heyyouoverthere needs instruction on proper OTRS confirmation and inserting commentary onto image pages

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

1. I removed talk page commentary that was inserted onto the image page File:Ahmed Mohamed device.jpg directly as if it were a discussion page.
2. I then left a note for the user about this. DIFF
3. The user's next decision was to page blank and ignore my entire note with zero edit summary.
4. Separately but involving same image, over at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ahmed Mohamed device.jpg, the user seems to want to willfully disregard our community's standard Commons:OTRS confirmation procedures, instead telling any interested editor to call the copyright owner on the telephone.
5. I think that Heyyouoverthere (talk · contribs) could be well served by having additional parties in addition to just myself, explain above to him.

Could others look into this please?

I'd appreciate more eyes on this.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

 Info A revenge action appeared here Ankry (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment - Please also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:MyClock.jpg, which appears to violate COM:SCOPE and w:WP:POINT. -- Cirt (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Kephir AGAIN!!!

I have raised two complaints about this user making bad DR nominations and probably several revenge DRs as well. Several users (including admins) have agreed with me, and both times I have asked that this user be banned from making DRs for fictional flags. Short of admin action, AnonMoos speedily closed this user's new DRs, and Kephir edit warred to keep them open. They were blocked for a week for that as well as vandalising DRs. It has been explained to them that they need to move on to different things, but they refuse. The very first thing they do after their block has lifted is report AnonMoos and make a spate of re-opened DRs. This attitude problem needs to be dealt with, and it is very obvious now that this user is hell-bent on "cleansing" Commons of fictional flags.

Again, the only long term solution to these complaints is to ban this user from making DRs related to fictional flags. It is a narrow ban, but the only thing that will stop this. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Fry1989 ^eh? 16:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment: A considerable number of users (including me and even admins) agree that Kephir is still incurring in disruptive editions (bordering on vandalism), and even he has the audacity to accusing AnonMoos, after his block. And the problem is not with just fictional flags, but logos like this, and this edition, that is clearly Vandalism (as many other editions in that and other Wikipedias to keep his POV). Therefore, I formally request his permanent block, due that the disruptive editions form Kephir against the Community will not stop. And finally, have Kephir personal reasons to make these non-sense DRs, or he're just trolling? --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done I blocked Kephir for 3 months. Yann (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: Keep several eyes on Fictional flags and everything that has been edited by Kephir. If possible, semiprotect these files to prevent more disruptive (and revenge) editions from possible sockpuppets, I suggest. --Amitie 10g (talk) 08:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• This user is Autopatrolled. Should this permission be removed?

And also, this user is Sysop at en:Wiktionary. Is his behaviour in Commons (and the vandalism in many Wikipedias) enough reason to request a Deadminship there? --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed about the Autopatrolled flag, not at all about en:wkt. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I just want to say that I didn't request or intend for a new block or any other sanctions other than a DR topic ban. I leave what happens to the community. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Romakon

Please block because has added out of scope text 4 times on his user talk page--Motopark (talk) 06:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Encard and Gnarzdolf Krawuttke

Are these two the same person?

• Encard (talk · contribs)
• Gnarzdolf Krawuttke (talk · contribs)

They share one image, a duplicate, in both instances marked as own work.

• File:Catarina de Bragança.JPG
• File:Catarina de Bragança, Infantin von Portugal (1).JPG (Encard uploaded also another image, of the same subject and datestamp.)

COM:AGF applies for claims of own work in such cases of drive-by contributions, but what to do in a case like this? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Encard also uploaded several other images which were speedy deleted for copyvio. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

El traco

El usuario El traco insiste en subir imágenes spam. Además de retirar plantillas de mantenimiento ver aquí --Jcfidy (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Nuked and blocked. Shoe selfie fetishist, comes back once or twice a week. CU in the works--Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

2nd issue with User Heyyouoverthere

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

Unfortunately we have more problems of POV-pushing and w:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from this user.

1. Previously user issue noted at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_54#User_Heyyouoverthere_needs_instruction_on_proper_OTRS_confirmation_and_inserting_commentary_onto_image_pages]. Now problems with more uploads. Appears to be attempting to use Commons to pursue POV-pushing agenda related to en.wiki article -- w:Ahmed Mohamed clock incident.
2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:MyClock.jpg
3. Commons:Deletion requests/File:ClockDrawing.jpg

Thank you for your time,

-- Cirt (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Cirt, I believe the issue revolves around you and your vindictiveness resulting when I shut you down regarding stolen WFAA footage regarding Ahmed Mohamed. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The issue at present currently before us right now is w:WP:POINT violations by Heyyouoverthere (talk · contribs), specifically at Commons:Deletion requests/File:MyClock.jpg and at Commons:Deletion requests/File:ClockDrawing.jpg. -- Cirt (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Marcus Cyron

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

I don't think that I have to endure bad personal offenses, especially not if they come from a sysop "colleague". And this is clearly not the first time he behaves this way. --A.Savin 13:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I was just writing a topic about this conflict. I would like to ask everyone to reply there. Natuur12 (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Where? --Dschwen (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Here. (The topic below this one). Natuur12 (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh boy. Thanks. Note to self: Read entire page first, then ask stupid questions ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious about your proposal. Of course, I had also some conflicts with Herr Cyron in the past (not to mention that Herr Cyron was also formerly a nice colleague on de-wp, even though it's very very long ago). But what we have now is a personal offense as the only reaction on a polite request. I don't see any need to dig out old issues here; I want administrative evaluation of current behaviour by Herr Cyron. Thanks. --A.Savin 13:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Marcus Cyron and A.Savin

Honestly, I am not familiar with their conflict but I do hope that some other admins are. What I have seen so far is problematic. When one admin is calling another admin a stalker this is not creating a safe working environment. The conflict is at least going on since may this year and probably for a much longer timespan. Some probematic situations are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. It is clear that @Marcus Cyron: doesn't want any contact with @A.Savin: but it doesn't become clear why. However, Marcus Cyron isn't staying away from A.Savin either. (I know that this is a meta link) This behaviour is getting troublesome and something needs to be done. The first thing that comes in mind is an interaction ban between the both of them. I would like to hear both their stories before anything is done of course. I created two seperated headers so they can give their version of the story without interacting with each other. I will ask @Krd: and @AFBorchert: (our two german speaking crats) to reply at this topic. Other comments are most welcome and please keep in mind that finding a solution is in the best interest of Wikimedia Commons so please avoid polarising the discussion. Natuur12 (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

One doesn't need to be Germany native speaker to read "Piss off, stalker!" out of Special:Diff/173027366, and I don't consider such terminology appropriate, regardless of the long story. --Krd 13:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course this is not appropriate nomatter what the context and the meaning of the phrase is pretty obvious but without understanding the past we cannot reach a sustainable solution for the future and that part requires some advanced knowledge of the German language and mayby even knowledge about conflicts at the German Wikipedia but given the two reacties placed by A.Savin and Marcus Cyron an attempt to find a sustainable solution might be in vain. Doesn't mean it cannot be resolved but the solution will be less ideal. Natuur12 (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I've better things to do on Commons and IRL rather than to spend hours searching for years old diffs. You sysop colleagues should ask yourselves: 1) Is the recent comment by Herr Cyron via edit summary (+ some of his earlier comments adressed at me) a blockable offense, 2) is Herr Cyron really something special, so that he cannot be even administratively warned for something for which a less known user surely would pocket a fat block. In German wikipedia, it would be a completely desperate job to complain against Herr Cyron, because of his extremely wide Stammtisch networking and the well-known administrative corruption that they have nearly since the beginnings. But I actually thought that Commons colleagues are far from German/Austrian intrigues and are able to see things in more neutral way. So, once again: 1) the recent comments by Herr Cyron are clear violation of Etiquette 2) it is unbecoming of a sysop, and Herr Cyron is a sysop on Commons, 3) any old conflicts between me and other German users including Herr Cyron are completely irrelevant for this issue. --A.Savin 20:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Please explain to me why blocking is a better solution than diplomacy? You seem a little bit to eager to get him blocked. If your responce towards my attemt to find a more permanent solution for this dilemma than blocking is nothing more than a "I have better things to do", a conspiracy theory and a couple of non sequitur and ad hominem I would propose we call the interaction ban a fact and close this discussion. Last but not least, you off al people are the last one who should be the judge of what is relevant for this case and what is not. Natuur12 (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is the diplomacy à la Herr Cyron: here I proposed to Herr Cyron to meet us and to talk about what I could do better in future; here is the "answer" by Herr Cyron: "Fuck off finally from my page, you bully". --A.Savin 21:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly why I created a special sub-header for you and him you the two of you didn't had to interact while this is sorted out. Plus you dodged my question and uou replied using another ad hominem. Yes Marcus Cyron his edit summary's are far from okay but you aren't exactly a saint either only your attacks are less obvious. Natuur12 (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah OK, so despite all my attempts to talk to Herr Cyron in a civilized manner, I am one of those who inflames this conflict. What should I say? I wish you never become a victim of cyberbullying. --A.Savin 21:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that happened more than once.... Every active admin has his own bullies every now and than and some tend to stick. Natuur12 (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

He should leave me alone. I don't want to interact with him. But he did not leave me alone. I don't have an other word for him, than he stalks me. Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC) PS: if he has a problem on Meta with me, he should try to talk with me on Meta - not here, where he thinks he is more safe as an Admin.

Well, this was also my question in my latest comment on your talk page that you reverted: if you don't want to have anything to do with me anymore, then why do you spread personal attacks against me on your own initiative [14] [15]? And no, of course I'm free to contact you if you had publicly stated anything about me, and of course I'm free to do it on a project of my choice. --A.Savin 14:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"He should leave me alone. I don't want to interact with him." : all this is a very strange way taken by Marcus Cyron not to interact with A.Savin, and even less a soothing way to respond on his talk page. I understand A.Savin's frustration, and despite any "long story", if there is, I would warn Marcus Cyron not to offend anymore A.Savin even not to pursuit him on the other Wikimedia projects. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The fact is, that Marcus Cyron slanders me everytime there is an opportunity for (fortunately, there are not many of such opportunities, esp. not in German wiki) and at the same time refuses any discussion concerning this behaviour by him. I had several bullies in the past, but this here is a completely new quality. I feel treated not like a wiki(p/m)edian, but like a heavy criminal. Herr Cyron definitely should resign as admin, as he apparently does not understand some basic wiki principles. --A.Savin 06:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed it seems Marcus Cyron throws stones at the dog and finally say "the dog is barking, the dog is mean. He should leave me alone". Provocations and attacks are never justified whatever the past history, Marcus should apply for himself what he claims. Hope Marcus is able to stop these provocations, and if not, I hope A.Savin will find the force to be over these immature attacks and will not lose his cool (this does not mean to let it go). --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

This request is still open and waiting for administrative action. Herr Cyron simply ignored what was said here. --A.Savin 23:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Question Is it possible Alexander, if no action is taken, that you just ignore these provocations and not to write a message on his talk page? I'll be the first glad you do not have to suffer from its provocations, but if they do not stop, you must learn to detach yourself so they do not reach you. That your patience will be stronger than his own. Hope these words help you. Sincerely. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it is a bit too much of double standards, if he's just allowed to continue his campaign of slander against me, whereas I must ignore everything. He is ignoring this thread, ignoring me completely, but still feels free to spread bullshit against me, especially in projects where he feels particularly safe (German wiki, Meta). There has to be at least an administrative action which he had to respect. No problem with an official interaction ban, provided that it is bilateral (!) and valid for all projects (!!). It is easy for me to ignore this guy completely, because I don't need him whatsoever. A pity though that sich one is still a sysop on Commons, but... yes, c'est la vie, we must live with some "colleagues" who consider it important to transfer their intrigues from German wiki, we just should try not to feed them too much... --A.Savin 17:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

75 images tagged & deleted

Recently I had 75 images deleted because an editor / administrator made a mistake. The copyrights are righteous. I own the copyrights & have given them over to Wikimedia. It is really unfair to yank out images -- some that have been in Wikipedia since 2007. Taking away those images RUINS the pages of some very fine artists, musicians & actors. Please put them back. Chaos4tu (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

This one? Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Chaos4tu. --Túrelio (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Normally a deletion request lasts a week. This request lasted 1½ months and you were contacted multiple times without satisfying reaction. Please send OTRS-permission and the files will be restored. Taivo (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

i cant understand

I cant understand what I do? I create my user page but its not working and there needs template but I don't how to create template,,, I follow wikipedia template and try to do make it but I cant please help me (Nahian shuvo (talk) 05:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC))

 Done left notice on talk page. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Bobwiley22

• Bobwiley22 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

This user appears to be on a campaign against homoerotic photography (and censorship of other potentially homoerotic works, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dionysus statue (modest-ized).jpg). The following DRs have been raised on 27th September:

1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0600 - da Debutdesiècle p. 59 e Leslie e Auch ich in Arkadien p. 115.jpg
2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0261 - da - Auch ich in Arkadien, p. 110.jpg ‎
3. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 2834 - Twelvetrees p. 51 & Auch ich in Arkadien, p. 185.jpg ‎
4. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0507 - deponirt 8 feb 1899 - r.jpg ‎
5. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0379.jpg ‎
6. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 1121 - da - Amore e arte, p. 77.jpg ‎
7. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0480.jpg ‎
8. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0373 - da - Auch ich in Arkadien, p. 176 & Taschen p. 17.jpg ‎
9. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0362 - Turner 1999, 2.JPG ‎
10. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0160 - da - Amore e arte, p. 76.jpg ‎
11. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhem von (1856-1931) - 1902 ca. - Due ragazzi nel chiostro del san Domenico - Puig p. 28.jpg ‎
12. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 1548 r.jpg ‎
13. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 132.jpg ‎
14. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 079a.jpg ‎
15. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0560 r.jpg ‎
16. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0496 - Da - Auch ich in Arkadien, p. 177.jpg ‎
17. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0477 - Da - Auch ich in Arkadien, p. 177.jpg ‎
18. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0253 - 1902-05 - Ragazzo con tenia - Twelvetrees p. 48.jpg ‎
19. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0163 recto.jpg ‎
20. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0152 - Debutdusiècle p. 29 & Leslie ebay.jpg ‎
21. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0012 grande formato - Alinari.jpg ‎
22. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - L'ombelico - Puig, p. 30.jpg ‎
23. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stratz - Körper des Kindes 33.jpg ‎
24. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wilhem von Gloeden (1856-1931) - Two nude youths posing in his garden.jpg ‎
25. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guglielmo Pluschow 1894.jpg ‎
26. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 2726 (duplicate).jpg ‎
27. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0941 - Le tre grazie.jpg ‎
28. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0941 - da - Amore e arte, p. 70.jpg ‎
29. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0790 - deponirt 30 febr (sic!) 1899.jpg ‎
30. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0707 - da - Amore e arte, p. 82.jpg ‎
31. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0692 - ebay.jpg ‎
32. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0691 - ebay.jpg ‎
33. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0648 - da - Amore e arte, p. 87.jpg ‎
34. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0545 - 24c - Le tre grazie.jpg ‎
35. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0241 - da - Amore e arte, p. 80.jpg ‎
36. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0143 (duplicate).jpg ‎
37. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eakins, Thomas (1844-1916) - 1883 - Eakin's art studens bathing 2.png ‎
38. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Plüschow, Wilhelm von, Études de nus Masculins (4), 1895.jpg ‎
39. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Plüschow, Wilhelm von, Études de nus Féminins et Masculins, ca.1900.jpg ‎
40. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Plüschow, Wilhelm von, Étude de Jeune Adolescent, 1895.jpg ‎
41. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wilhelm von Gloeden Nude boy and dog in garden Nude boy with dog.jpg ‎
42. Commons:Deletion requests/File:025-Wilhelm von Gloeden, c.1905.jpg ‎
43. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wilhelm von Gloeden Nude boy.jpg ‎
44. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Plüschow, Wilhelm von, Etude de jeune Homme nu, ca.1900.jpg ‎
45. Commons:Deletion requests/File:No-nb bldsa 6a128.jpg ‎
46. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0113 - da - Auch ich in Arkadien, p. 138.jpg ‎
47. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stratz Körper des Kindes 3 114.jpg ‎
48. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Plüschow, Wilhelm von, Études de nus, 1890.jpg ‎
49. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Plüschow, Wilhelm von, Études de nus masculins tt Rochers, ca.1900.jpg ‎
50. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Plüschow, Wilhelm von, Trois jeunes, 1900.jpg ‎
51. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Playing Hmong children.jpg ‎
52. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Plüschow, Wilhelm von, Etude de Jeunes adolescents Au Bord de la Mer, 1895.jpg ‎
53. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Plüschow, Wilhelm von (1852-1930) - n. 2479.jpg ‎
54. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pluschow, Wilhelm von (1852-1930) - n. 2477.jpg ‎
55. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0153 - da - Amore e arte, p. 38.jpg ‎
56. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Compression shorts.jpg ‎
57. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Boy in Briefs (5613322573).jpg ‎

Their actions are disrupting Commons. Please block the single purpose account and remove/mass close these deletion requests as disruptive. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Changes reverted and user warned. If others want to block him feel free to do so. --Denniss (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

No edits since 9-27 --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

TenderBlur

User:TenderBlur continues to upload photographs with Template:PD-NYCGov despite the fact that it is likely to be deleted and despite the fact that s/he has been informed of this and been asked to stop uploading such photographs. I do not know what to do with this user other than block, as s/he is not responding to any talk page messages. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

With the current opinions, I think it is fine to delete this template. If the files from this user are to be deleted, too bad... Yann (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Watermarked images

I'm not if you want to do anything about these. I will remove them from the enwp articles. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

OTRS permission should be requested for all of them. Ankry (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes. I just zoomed in and now see the copyright mark. I've removed them all from enwp per watermark policy, but also because the website is there, which appears promotional. Do images clearly showing a website, hence promoting that company, have any business being at commons, OTRS or not? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, watermarked images are fine, so long as they meet scope. I have uploaded many thousands of watermarked or credited images, but in the majority of cases managed to trim off the marks so the image was of more general value for reuse. It is worth noting that many respected GLAMs only provide watermarked images to the public for reuse, such as the Imperial War Museum. For a Wikipedia article, I would expect use of watermarked images to be strongly discouraged and if possible replaced, but that's an issue to discuss there rather than here. --Fæ (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Most watermarks can be easily removed without cropping, for selected images (this work is often tedious and the backlog on watermark removal is huge). Materialscientist (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Some of the images are available at the watermark-pointed website without watermark, but in 2x lower resolution. I doubt that we can get permision that handles watermarked images and doesn't handle non-watrmarked ones. But let's wait. Ankry (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you all. Very educational. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Leaving messages in another's name

Please see [16] where a user leaves a message on my talk page with another user's name appended in a thread where the actual user was previously corresponding. It looks as if the text were picked up from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jawalkerparkdedication.jpg and duplicated on my talk page. In both are claims of bad faith. I'd appreciate an independent look at the situation. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

If it was an attempt at forgery, it was a masterfully bad one. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Reuploads by User:Unknow Super User

Can someone delete the reuploads performed by the user at File:Keisha Grey AVN Expo 2015 2.jpg and File:Raven Poe Neill.jpg. Cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Krd 05:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Margarety

Margarety (talk · contribs) uploaded files that are copyright violations, and 201.92.17.252 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • abusefilter • tools • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log) possibly the user editing of anonymous way. Sorry my bad english. Fabiano ^msg 00:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done The user is blocked for 6 months. I looked through all her contributions and deleted a lot of duplicates. Taivo (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Shabeeb1

Resolved

User:Shabeeb1 was given an endcopyvio warning in July 2013 but has continued to upload copyvios. I think all copyvios are now deleted and/or currently tagged. Can someone take whatever action is appropriate? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleted recent copyvios, indefblocked (given the past warnings and block). Materialscientist (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Skyllfully editing Category:Flickr images needing human review

• Skyllfully (talk · contribs)

Please someone take a look at this high-visibility edit: Special:Diff/174306281 This was a(n immediate) reversion of my reversion of something I precieved as either niche trolling or extreme cluelessness. Maybe there’s more to it? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

This was reverted immediately because (a) my translation was valid and (b) I was only online when I received the notification that my edit was reverted. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 20:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

And I reverted because you presented an en-CA version of the text that’s exactly identical to the plain en one. Frankly having 50 separate en-ZZ versions for each country where English is the official language seems silly, especially when there’s no change at all (the difference "license" / "licence" was not in the version I reverted, making Skyllfully’s revertion’s edit summary really weird). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

That seems okay, although, for users who have set the Commons to Canadian English, will get all languages there and have to fish out English because when a Canadian IP address connects, the Commons suggests viewing it in en-CA. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 12:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Nordenfan, User:Ficilbotoe95 - socks at Quality images Candidates.

Nordenfan (talk · contribs)

Ficilbotoe95 (talk · contribs)

Ficilbotoe95 started today his first edit after more than four years, four minutes later User:Nordenfan nominated three pictures, another 6 minutes later, Ficilbotoe95 promoted exactly this three pictures plus another one.

Both account are from the same city in NRW, Germany, they have the same type of Userpage-Info, both edited in Wikipedia exactly the same Lemmas. Steinernkreuz, Bundesautobahn 52, Alt-Marl, Marl.

Wikipedia-Contributions: User:Ficilbotoe95

Nordenfan rejected on request any suspicion of socketpuppetry. --Hubertl 21:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Hubertl, Nordenfan, and Ficilbotoe95: CU started: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ficilbotoe95. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 07:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Stemoc

Stemoc (talk · contribs) has been uploading copyrighted images, such as File:Queen Elizabeth II September 2015.jpg, File:Queen Elizabeth II and The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards 2015.jpg and File:Queen Elizabeth II August 2015.jpg. And has admitted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prince William September 2015.jpg‎ that he thinks this is acceptable, which is as good as admitting that he intends to continue to upload them. This is despite being informed on a previous occasion (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge March 2015.jpg) that copyrighted images are not acceptable. At the very least, it is inappropriate for him to retain the image reviewer user right, and I recommend that it be revoked.

He has also misused rollback[17]. DrKiernan (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a common issue with confusion over Crown Copyright and when the OGL applies. I'll give an opinion based on my large number of batch uploads to Commons of MOD imagery and my amateur understanding over the past few years of changing MOD and UK Gov policies.

An initial look shows me the photo links don't work (probably as they rely on the user being logged in on cookies for a site session). I find the same photo at https://www.facebook.com/RAFConingsby/photos/a.1465478877082720.1073741829.1463649960598945/1498118510485423. This leads me to the RAF site with a gallery of the same event under "© MOD Crown Copyright 2015", which I interpret as "if you want to use this photo, you'd better ask for permission" rather than OGL.

I then ran a separate search using http://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk and found the same photo there, under the MOD News licence. This at least is an explicit licence, however images which are only available under MOD News are not suitable for Commons (though they can be used under Fair Use on Wikipedia and Wikinews for reporting current events).

There is a twist here, please make a note of it; images which are released as MOD News on defenceimagery.mod.uk, have been seen to be changed to OGL after an embargo period (~30 days in practice). This can cause confusion as copies of the images will be around marked as MOD News even though other copies are OGL. In these cases we can safely assume that OGL applies as the stronger licence, however we should take care to validate copies as explicitly OGL to avoid confusion in years to come.: I don't think this needs admin action, but DrKiernan has a valid copyright concern. If Stemoc wishes to retain these images on Commons, then an official source must be produced that can be verified as OGL. RAF/military officers taking photographs in the course of their duties and releasing them as "MOD Crown Copyright" may not be the same thing as OGL, even if we have past examples where in the same circumstances these photographs were later released as OGL. Anyone interested in MOD policies can read thorough 2015 Re-Use Regulations which roughly sets out the case that MOD data is available for public reuse, though it is as clear as mud as to where OGL can be presumed to apply... --Fæ (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Kiernan is not even bothering to read the licenses, I did.. YES i know the Catherine images was not free at that time (its probably free now but i can't find it anymore) but he refuses to read 'MOD's Copyright licensing Information' and quote regarding the use of "Photographs/Film footages" ... "In accordance with our delegation from HMSO, MOD uses two types of licence, the Open Government Licence and the MOD News Licence" and I checked all the images i uploaded EXIFs and none of them explicitly mentioned "MOD NEWS Licence" unlike the Catherine image which was deleted months earlier which means that if it was NOT released under the MOD NEWS licence then it was released under the 'OGL'. Kiernan speedy tagged them with a "deprecated"({{CrownCopyright}}) CSD tag without even bothering to ask me why I uploaded them in the first place and had the ones linked above in RED deleted...nowhere in those images did it see "MOD NEWS licence" even though they were under the news section in defenceimagery which is actually quite common place to find OGL images as well..read the DR for the Prince William image, even there they explicitly chose 1 image in that section (and 2 footages) and they are the ONLY ones EXPLICITLY tagged under the MODS NEWS licence in their EXIF...the rest aren't thus are under OGL...every section in the "News" section has the words "Most of these files are currently available for limited reuse only" referring to the MODS News Licence, they don't even use the word" ALL", they used "MOST"..Read them as you wish but unless the exif explicitly has the word "MOD NEWS" in the copyright section, then only can we assume its under that licence, if not, its OGL.--Stemoc 12:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you may be under a misapprehension. The OGL is not a default licence for MOD photographs if no other is quoted. Neither are MOD photographs a mutually exclusive choice between MOD News and OGL, in fact government policy still leaves the MOD with options to restrict images from the public, including for reasons of privacy that one might expect for news worthy dignitaries. If you have seen an MOD or UK Government website or document that you believe says otherwise, I'd like to see it. My understanding remains that for an image to be OGL for Commons, then we must be able to verify a specific OGL release on a credible source.

You may want to play around a bit more with http://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk. Photographs that are OGL always have the relevant tag and show up in the OGL search ('archiveid=5042' shows all OGL photographs, currently there are 4,120 available and this is the search I use for my regular batch upload as you can read on the category description at Images from MoD uploaded by Fæ). Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

This has already been explained, Fae. Stemoc believes that Crown Copyright means the image is allowed on wikimedia, and refuses to believe otherwise. That is why his image reviewer user right should be removed. He does not understand the difference between a copyrighted image and a cc-by one. DrKiernan (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

When did I say that?, I do more work on commons than you, only 4000 edits here and you have image reviewer rights.. why? ...just because you are an admin on enwiki?..this is why we do not need useless people like him on commons..go back to enwiki, you are not needed here troll..and I hope we make a policy to remove image-reviewer rights from those who only have it for the sake of it ..again as i explained above, the defenseimagery has images on TWO LICENCES ONLY, read their damn copyright policy, 99% of their images which are protected by the "MOD NEWS" licences HAS the "MOD NEWS" licence tag in their EXIF...just because my recent images uploaded to commons were taken by a "NEW" photographer doesn't mean they were copyright violations..--Stemoc 15:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You said it here. Incivility merely confirms my view that you should not hold user rights. If you wanted me to change my view and withdraw my recommendation, this isn't the way to go about it. I've already shown that the image is released under the news license at the source and is taken from the "News packages" area not from the "Downloadable stock images" area. DrKiernan (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Try to avoid straying into ad hominim argument (you know mine is way way huger than yours ). I have read the site licences, and I agree with DrKiernan based on the evidence provided so far. If you have other evidence, present it in the DR. I don't think rehashing the same stuff here will do much more than irritate some folks and there aren't all that many of us around with experience of UK MoD licences. --Fæ (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

and again Kiernan, the site EXPLICITLY says that they are releasing the images under 2 licences, "MOD NEWS" and "OGL" and if the images is tagged as "MODS Crown Copyright" but it does not state in the copyright section of the EXIF that its tagged under "MOD NEWS", then we can assume its under OGL...OGL is like PD.. just because its not mentioned doesn't mean its not released under that licence....the EXIF info is not added after the image is taken, especially when photographers take the same camera to take pictures which they intended to release under MOD News and under OGL...someone should probably ping James Forrester as he was involved with this--Stemoc 16:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Fae says above that the image is explicitly licensed as MoD News at the site and that OGL is not the default. I agree, and I presume that the admins deleting your uploads do so as well. DrKiernan (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Fæ and DrKiernan. The text Stemoc quotes is not sufficiently precise and clear in scope for one to determine with legal authority that these are the only two licences in use for all photographs and the the OGL is the default. I also note the text goes on to say the the OGL is not suitable for images with recognisable people and that the MOD does not allow the reproduction of images showing members of the Royal Family. I don't know how he thinks "OGL is like PD" in terms of it being something that can be assumed. OGL is a licence; PD is not. There is a significant danger, especially among images of famous people, that one of our re-users gets into trouble based on misinformation provided by Commons. I think if Stemoc continues to not listen and make personal attacks over this, some admin action is required. Copyright is extremely complicated business and unless one is a copyright lawyer then the subject should be approached with humility (I speak from experience, where some time ago, I learned just how impossible the subject can be). -- Colin (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment About the EXIF, I gave my opinion here : Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prince William September 2015.jpg. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

MoD has a delegation from HMSO to handle image relicensing themselves. So if they didn't tag it with OGL it isn't OGL. See [18]. Image deleted. --Denniss (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Denniss: It's been a while, but I'm pretty sure the delegation is purely to the MOD Press Office, and not in general a delegation for all employed under the auspices of the SoS/Defence. So this may not be totally correct, but for obvious reasons TNA are loathe to publicly criticise fellow public servants when the rules are mis-represented with fuzziness. James F. (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Any disputes about the scope of Crown Copyright can be handled elsewhere (and have been), and I see no indication that Stemoc has been actively acting in bad faith. The complaint about misuse of rollback is spurious... Stemoc removed a post from his own talk page, which is allowable whether he used rollback or not. Where he supposedly said that he 'intended to continue' uploading problematic images... I see no such statement. A legitimate difference of opinion (or even a misunderstanding) does not constitute a reason for admin action, if the person does not act to subvert the decision that has been reached. This dispute belongs in either DRs or, possibly, COM:VP/C. The 'image reviewer' userright relates to image sources where the situation is far more clearcut (such as Flickr or Youtube), and in the absence of any evidence of either bad faith editing or gross incompetence in the specific field to which the right actually applies, it would be IMO inappropriate to override the consensus that granted him that userright. I'm not going to actually close this, since i can't really claim to be completely impartial here, but any discussion belongs elsewhere. There is, as Fae noted, no need for any admin action. Revent (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Revent, I don't think your contribution here is helpful, if you think comments like "this is why we do not need useless people like him on commons..go back to enwiki, you are not needed here troll" are "no indication that Stemoc has been actively acting in bad faith". There is a limit to the patience of those participating at DR when one user appears to not listen and becomes aggressive. This is why it was raised here. The overwhelming consensus is that Stemoc is entirely wrong in this matter, and if he was a gentleman he should apologise. While no admin action may be required at this point, Stemoc has disgraced himself with the remarks made here to DrKiernan, and his stubborn display of ignorance. Further such remarks, or further examples of "not getting it" wrt MoD imagery, should indeed provoke a swift admin response. -- Colin (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

While people should be civil, and an apology would be nice, disliking someone or even being rude to them is not acting in bad faith, and neither is simply being mistaken about the copyright status of an image. Stemoc does not appear to be, from what I see, intentionally trying to upload images that he knows are not allowable... he's argued his point of view, and simply being wrong about something is not a reason for a sanction. Kiernan seems to be mistaken about something as well, in that "Crown Copyright" images are perfectly fine as long as they are acceptably licensed... that is the entire point of the OGL. Again, there is nothing here that needs any admin action beyond the deletion of a few images (I just killed a few more that were marked at the given source as "MOD News license only"), and Kiernan and Stemoc should just try to avoid arguing with each other. Revent (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

If Stemoc had been "simply" wrong, there would have been no request made here. And continuing to upload after being told you are wrong, is heading towards a block. Revent, you seem quite determined to close your eyes to what is clearly going on here, and Commons is not a school playground where bully's friends take sides. Stemoc was being outrageously abusive towards DrKiernan and certainly had a bad faith towards him. I have to assume that by continuing to ignore the obvious, you are too blind to the flaws of a friend and too willing to defend bullying -- something very troubling in an admin. -- Colin (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Colin always had an axe to grind with me because of my support for Russavia and has previously tried to get me banned so i would like to ask Colin to back off or his name would be appearing in this thread next time for harassment...this would be my first and only warning for him...also, a user can revert anything they choose from their talk page, there is no laws on any wiki regarding that. I just did not like the fact that Kiernan was 'hounding' my edits...Read James Forrester's comments above, this was a mistake on their part, James has worked with the British government on the OGL licensing framework thus why I mentioned he should be pinged. Kiernan is under the 'misinterpretation' that "NO" crown copyright images are allowed on commons which is false, Crown copyright images created by certain government officials can fall under OGL. TNA, as James mentioned is not explicitly clear on this or bother to try to be. I'm not intentionally adding NFC so i found it rude that Kiernan asked for my image-reviewer rights to be removed when he himself only has the right for the sake of it and has not done any work relating to that in years (if at all)..recently there was a request for more IR on commons and here we have people with the rights who are not doing their job and using it as a 'medal' is not something i like..Colin has now called me a bully and called an administrator my friend and yet somehow when he used his admin friend (yann) to get me banned even though i was a victim of an abuse by another admin is completely forgotten by him..Colin, all you do is harass real contributors and create drama on commons and nothing else..Commons needs contributors and hard workers, you are not it so stop complaining and start working..and if you can't do either, gladly leave..Commons already has a bad reputation of being run amok by trolls and vandals..don't add to it.--Stemoc 07:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice try Stemoc, but if you continue to behave outrageously, people will continue to call you out on it. I am not in the slightest bit concerned about your ridiculous claim of "harassment" which is a bit like a pickpocket claiming they are being harassed by the police every time they are nicked. I see you continue with an accusation of bad faith towards me, just as you put DrKiernan into a "group" by suggesting he go back to en:wp. It is quite obvious, from your words, that you have a bad faith attitude towards certain groups on Commons. Your comments to DrKiernan, which is what I spotted here and brought me to this discussion, are bullying. Plain and simple. And Revent disgraces himself by defending them as merely a bit of rudeness we should all put up with. I shall ignore your rant at the end, which is typical of your attitude. Look at what you wrote to DrKiernan above and consider that further such comments will result in a swift block. There is nothing more to say on that matter. It is indefensible. The link with Russavia is merely that it appears you are both bullies, and not any "axe to grind". You will find that if you stop bullying others, and stop defending bullies, then I have no issue with you. -- Colin (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Lol, if anything Colin, over the years, many users have realized one thing, its you who is the bully, Its your way or the highway..I'm not a bully, never have been a bully but i was bullied off wikimedia once so i won't let another bully (you) do it again...Keep acting like you care about this wiki cause you certainly do not..You are not the Eric Corbett of Commons lol..anyways, continue to make it look like I'm the bully here, I just pointed out a fact, something admins should discuss in regards to users keeping certain rights permanently on this wiki which include IR, File movers etc as none of these rights should be permanent..as the referees say in rugby "use it or lose it" ..Funny how you can get away by calling 'others' bullies but yet refuse to be judged by others.. If Kiernan finds what i said regarding his lack of activity on this wiki insulting then he can say that here himself and i would apologise if he does, he does not need a secretary to tell him to do so..and attacking an admin is probably not the best move here Colin especially when that admin had also supported russavia previously...as i said, stop lying, you have an axe to grind with anyone who has or had supported russavia before and people who use the wiki as a battleground for their own personal agendas are not welcome not only on this wiki but WIKIMEDIA as a whole..--Stemoc 08:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Stemoc, this is the noticeboard topic where your behaviour comes under scrutiny. It isn't a place for you to rant about me and make all sorts of unfounded and silly personal attacks. Keep digging and you'll find yourself blocked again. With the copyright issue there may well be aspects that DrKiernan didn't get right and there were certainly aspects you did not get right (your images are deleted), so some humility is needed here -- there's always more to learn about copyright and it is not right to attack other users here when they claim you are wrong. But I see you are not getting it. And you were blocked by Yann because you made hugely offensive remarks, repeatedly, about INC, marks regarding mental health that are absolutely forbidden. You weren't blocked because someone with a Russavia grudge found a friend to block you. You were blocked because you repeatedly hugely exceeded the acceptable conduct that users of this site must follow. There are plenty admins and 'crats who would agree with me that your comments then were shameful. Yet you seem to have no shame about it. DrKiernan raised copyright concerns about images you uploaded and the images have been deleted -- yet you think he should go back to en:wp? Tell me how that logic join's up. You seriously need to stick to the current topic, which is your bullying of DrKiernan over DRs and your continued refusal to get the point when others disagree with you, and just drop this "Oh this is because I support russavia" nonsense. -- Colin (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that all Crown copyright images are disallowed: only those not licensed as OGL (as shown by edits such as this). I haven't 'hounded' Stemoc either. Anyone even glancing at my contributions either here or at wikipedia can easily see that they are mainly in the area of the British royal family, and so my commenting on images of them should not come as a surprise. I think the continued incivility (despite my comment above) and the refusal to acknowledge fault strengthens the case for administrative action. Stemoc would be wiser to approach the issue collaboratively rather than combatively. If he'd said "oh yes, thanks for pointing that out. I got that image/those few images wrong; I'll pay more attention in future" then none of this would have been necessary and this thread would have been closed already. DrKiernan (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@DrKiernan: Sorry I misinterpreted you, I wasn't stalking 'your' history, but reading through the linked discussions. At least one place you did make a blanket statement about Crown Copyright not being allowed, which is in no way special about it as opposed to any other kind of unlicensed copyright, but it was probably not exactly what you meant at the time. Revent (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I have a proposition but I need both @Fae: (or someone else who is familiar with crown copyright, OGL etc) and @Stemoc: to agree with this. It is clear that it is confusing when a certain file is licensed under the OGL. Comets made several mistakes and honestly, he doesn't show a lot of self relfection so I am afraid that it will happen again. (Ad homiminem like defence and refusing to understand the point). I would propose that Stemoc stops uploading files which he believes are licensed under the OGL unless he asked for Fae's advice about the file he wants to upload. Natuur12 (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem, flattered to be thought of, and it would be nice to have this thread close down. If Stemoc is happy with this informal arrangement for a period, then they can drop me an email and/or have a private chat on IRC (google talk is more reliable for me as I haven't been regularly on IRC recently), and I can have a quick look over of photos or sites without attracting any fuss on-wiki; though I'm not always handy for the internet every day . I guess I'm known for my track record over the last year or two for correctly licensing a large number of MoD uploads, as well as a pile DoD uploads with ~99.9%+ accuracy; this should give confidence to move along and get back to content stuff... --Fæ (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Stemoc: if you don't agree with this could you just say so? I know that you have read my comment. Please respond. It is not like there is some kind of penalty if you refuse. Natuur12 (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You already know I don't agree to this ..the longer this wiki allows people who are not here to serve the wiki too much power, the longer it will take for things to get fixed. I have contacted defenceimagery 5 times since February this year, they have only ever replied once, earlier today and this is what they said and quote We try to make as much MOD Crown copyright material available for reuse under the terms of the OGL. However, there are instances where this is not possible due to a number of reasons. For example, we are unable to assigned imagery for reuse under the OGL if the copyright does not belong to the Crown, or if the material contains personal data. It's also worth noting that not all of our material can be assessed for OGL inclusion, as we don't have the resourcing to allow this.

This only goes to prove that I was not wrong, not saying Kiernan was wrong too, it simply means the UK government are too lazy to fix their own policy in regards to this..even Jdforrester would probably agree to that....Some of the images i uploaded (and which were subsequently deleted) may very well have been under OGL, as i mentioned in the DR of Prince William, I understand the reason as to why they have chosen to put some pics under the MOD News licence but it seems like some people here are claiming something else..nevertheless, as i mentioned on IRC to you Natuur, Fae probably is not a good guide in regards to this, there are atleast 50 images (probably more) he has uploaded over the last 24 months which actually falls under the same "MOD NEWS" licence but yet we are keeping them cause Fae added them..I'd like to see JD Forrester or members from WikimediaUK try to sought out a good solution for this in the future cause the one we have right now where everyone thinks they know what is and isn't allowed on commons without an ounce of proof is a sloppy one..If I was based in UK, I would have personally gone there and try to fix the issue myself but I'm not..and again natuur, I do not agree with the 'compromise', either we find a PERMANENT SOLUTION or completely stop uploading from the defenceimagery altogether..we need a long-term solution, making this someone else's problem isn't a solution....--Stemoc 12:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Er, if I have uploaded images under the MOD News licence, I'd like to check them over. Please raise a batch DR or drop a note on my talk page with the list. As far as I'm aware I have no special authority on Commons, so if some of my non-OGL uploads are being kept, I would have guessed this was for other reasons.

Had we chatted on IRC, I would have highlighted that the MoD official OGL releases on defenceimagery have never included portraits or close-up casual shots of members of the Royal family, though I'm happy to be proven wrong if anyone can supply a link. In this regard Government policies are clear enough, they or their agencies have the right to restrict such photographs. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The link to the MOD's licensing information provided by Colin explicitly says "MOD does not allow the reproduction of images showing members of the Royal Family [in general terms]". There is no evidence that any of the deleted images were ever OGL. However, despite this, and everyone but Stemoc agreeing that the images are not OGL, he still maintains that he "was not wrong", that "[s]ome of the images ... which were subsequently deleted) may very well have been under OGL" and seems to blame others for his uploads of non-OGL images. It is this intransigent attitude that needs addressing. The only problem is that one user is uploading non-OGL images. The long-term solution is for that user to stop uploading images that do not meet wikimedia's licensing terms. DrKiernan (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Buckingham palace/Monarchy itself is not OGL, I never said it was thus images taken of royalty at Buckingham is not free but the few images we have of royalty were of them visiting military bases and images taken at these bases do not fall under the same compliance. Stop misinterpreting what i write, its as clear as i can make it out to be and Kiernan, if you had read further, it allows for OGL if there are other people in the picture and not those that focus solely on the royals and none of the images i added focused only on the royals, I cropped those images well enough to focus on them and indeed there is one solution, fix the issue itself, a year from now others will also add images from there, will we be having this discussion again? and again?..also, none of you are looking for a solution. I have not ever added a image that was not tagged as "crown copyright". I'm not the one with the issue here, if anything this discussion has shown us that we need to find a proper solution to this which may need to focus on changing our own policy in regards to this--Stemoc 14:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Stemoc: all I asked of you is to confirm that you indeed not agree so that we can look for another solution. So, what would you suggest? Natuur12 (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace is irrelevant. The MOD do not license images of royalty as OGL [in general] what is so difficult to understand? You must not upload images from the MOD site unless they are licensed as OGL. It is your continued refusal to accept this simple fact that has now convinced me that you are a disruptive user. I recommend that Stemoc either agree not to upload any images from the MOD website unless they are explicitly and obviously licensed as OGL and if he refuses to agree or then uploads one anyway that he be blocked. DrKiernan (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, this is NOT enwiki, here we find solutions, not block people..If you can't help in finding a solution, please leave..this isn't some article we are discussing, the outcome here could and would determine the images that can be added here and used across WIKIMEDIA..and natuur, as i said, i have been contacting them since February and they have responded now..I may send them another letter to see where they stand but as you can read above from their comment, they seem to be a bit overwhelmed at the moment regarding the licensing of images..it would be good if we can get an official letter of inquiry from wikimedia or atleast WikimediaUK directed at MoD and maybe at The National Archives..--Stemoc 15:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I have said what the solution is three times. This discussion is only continuing because of your obstinate and adamant refusal to accept it. DrKiernan (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Stemoc, would you quit with all the enwiki hate right now. I want to hear no more of it -- Commons welcomes editors from all the Wikipedias because were are a Common source of their imagery -- the clue is in the name. Both Fae and Natuur12 have commented that your response has been ad hominem and this seems to be a continued problem for you -- that you can't stick to the argument without making personal attacks on other people. Perhaps you should read up on this flaw in your behaviour, and realise that winning an argument is about presenting facts related to the argument, rather than personally attacking others who have different views. And sometimes, on Commons, we have to agree-to-disagree and the compromise position is often that an image is not hosted. This seems to be the root problem here rather than some argument over defence imagery.

It seems relatively straightforward, as Fae suggests: "we should take care to validate copies as explicitly OGL to avoid confusion" -- where an image is not clearly marked as OGL, we can't upload it. By all means write to the MoD for clarification on individual images but there will always be photos where the licensing is unclear or does not follow what we think are the standards that should be followed, and that is life. It is an important lesson for anyone uploading someone else's work that you don't have any rights to it, and it is dangerous to assume anything. The default with all images is not to upload. It isn't upload and ask everyone to get off your back while you write to the MoD for clarification. I suggest that editors interested in uploading MoD imagery try to document their consensus opinion / advice on one of our guideline pages somewhere.

While Stemoc's view of what is legal-to-upload differs from this consensus, he should be advised not to upload any images in this area. As for making further personal attacks or ad hominem arguments, I think he's been warned enough, and would expect some kind of block if this continues. I don't know what "serve the wiki" means, but it certainly doesn't require insulting everyone you disagree with. Serving Commons purpose is not about hoovering up as many images that appear to be free as possible. If you show any respect for the photographers and artists who created the images you get to upload and use for free, you'll take care with their works of copyright, and make absolutely certain you have an explicit licence to use their work here. Our policies are quite clear on this. -- Colin (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I have presented all the facts from the beginning and in the DR of the Prince Williams image, its the rest of you that are not willing to come with a solution. again, if we are going to delete every image not clearly marked as "OGL", lets start with all of Fae's images ok? the MOD site clearly states images are released under 2 licences, MOD NEWS and OGL, technically both would be allowed here if wikimedia didn't take being 'commercial' too seriously..and I'm not the one that likes uploading images 'en masse', I only choose whats needed and ignore the rest...we are "NOT a repository"..thats rule one of commons which many of our editors refuse to follow.. I have no interest in uploading from MoD, there was a need to get HQ quality images of certain royals which I was trying to get, NOTHING MORE.. i have no interest in mass uploading images, you mistake me for someone else..the MoD site is crap, image links are always so long that we prefer to add their exif details instead, and links usually break for most images after a few months because they get moved elsewhere and its close to impossible to search for anything there..so while i wait for a reply from them again....I'd probably send the MoD itself a message to fix their pathetic site first and regarding photographers, read the quote i added from their reply, apparently they don't have the resource to asses every image in their database..--Stemoc 02:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The solution is to delete all the images not clearly marked as OGL and not upload any more. If there are some of Fae's uploads that are not OGL, then (as Fae has already said) they should be examined and if necessary deleted. I did examine the five Megan Woodhouse images you mentioned in the Prince William deletion discussion, and found only one problem (Commons:Deletion requests/File:RAF SAC(T) undertaking maintenance work on Spitfire TE311 LF XVIE in the Battle of Britain Memorial Hangar at RAF Coningsby. MOD 45158869.jpg), which was swiftly resolved. I have just scanned down the first 100 images found by a search for "defenceimagery", and none of them show the faces of people clearly enough to recognise them. Consequently, I am not going to do any further sweep, because I think it unlikely that there are problems with Fae's uploads. DrKiernan (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Another example is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iain Duncan Smith May 2015.jpg. Given Stemocs his comment in the DR he still does not understand. (See here for some context). We all make good faith mistakes but a line is crossed when someone keeps attacking everyone who is pointing out the mistake and Fae who did a great job trying to explain everything. It is true that we try to find solutions at Commons like Stemoc says but given Stemocs comments in this discussion and him refusing to accept that he might be wrong makes a block unavoidable if 'he keeps uploading crown copyright files because he believes that they are OGL. DrKiernan gave a solution, I gave a solution and all Stemoc wants is going for some long shot lobby without willing to discuss the current problems. @Stemoc: please reply, and this time without using any ad hominem because those are blockworthy as well. The only reason why you aren't blocked yet is because we won't resolve the copyright dispute if I do. Natuur12 (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I never said I was right but unless i can get actual proof that tells me I'm wrong, I won't budge..its a matter of principle and thats is what i'm trying to gather and regarding the image kiernan pointed above, its obvious the website is crap and they themselves don't know whats happening by tagging images as OGL but not changing the metadata to reflect the changes, then they also add images without tagging them completely and by randomly adding some images to the news section when they belong in the OGL section as i have come across more than a dozen images in the news section with metadata claiming they were under OGL since February..I admitted after adding the Catherine image back in March that i was wrong and made sure i never added any other image where the metadata explicitly claimed to be under "MOD NEWS" and also, there was no 'ad hominem' in my last post here and regarding the Iain Duncan image, i already posted my reason on the DR and the AN board..--Stemoc 13:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

(outdent) Stemoc, you state today on the DR "as long as the work is by a crown officer taken in their course of their duties and thus falls under OGL". This is completely untrue. You ask for proof, but we need to start from a position of assuming all images are under copyright restriction and cannot be used and thus we need proof they can be used on Commons. The default is always delete or to not upload. The Open Government Licence wiki page makes it quite clear that "Crown Copyright" is the default copyright position for all Crown works and that "many but not all" images are given an OGL licence. The Defence Imagery website also makes it clear that "Unless otherwise indicated*, the images presented on this website have been produced by military staff, or civil servants who work for the Ministry of Defence (MOD), and thus are subject to Crown copyright". Crown copyright is highly restrictive. It simply can't be used no Commons without a licence. This is confirmed by Defence Imagery: "In order to use images on this website you will need a licence. A licence is a set of permissions that sets out what you can and cannot use images for. Selected, pre-cleared Crown copyright images have been made available for use under the Open Government Licence (OGL).". This all seems quite simple: only selected works will have a licence and you will be explicitly made aware of this for each image. Please can you accept you are wrong about OGL being a default licence for all works by "crown officer". Given the the MOD interpret the "personal data" exclusion for OGL to include "at least one individual is recognisable", it seems quite likely that this is the legal interpretation for other government departments such as the Office of the Prime Minister, which is the source of the Iain Duncan Smith image. However, I agree there is some confusion. For example, David Cameron appears to come from the GOV.UK site (though I can't find any current links to that image that is now only on the Internet Archive) and the current GOV.UK David Cameron page links to a Flickr image under NC-ND which can't be used on Commons. One must never expect joined-up-thinking from government, and the best one can go on is the current explicit licence for any image. It is possible that the reason that full-sized image is no longer hosted on GOV.UK is precisely because it was incorrectly uploaded there and never should have had an OGL licence. -- Colin (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Colin: Not the best example, though that doesn't invalidate your point about it getting confused. That particular image is the lead in David Cameron's article on enwiki, and is on Commons twice, in both a full-size and a crop, that were sourced from the Number 10 website in 2010, and were available on that website under the OGL for the better part of a year after that.

Regardless, it's pretty blatantly clear at this point that, at the least, if Stemoc uploads any more Crown Copyright images that are not clearly, explicitly, marked as under the OGL then he's going to be blocked. Even if he is right about how broken their system is, he has to be aware by now that there is a clear consensus that it's the standard that should be applied, and given that it's in the site policies (COM:EVID) that uploaders must provide 'appropriate evidence' I don't think any particular agreement from him really matters either way, to be honest. Revent (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a subtlety on the File:David Cameron official.jpg and File:David Cameron Number 10 official photo.jpg images that is important. Stemoc has uploaded new larger file-size versions of this file, and I can't see where those actually came from. They are much bigger than GOV.UK hosted but smaller than the Flickr picture. It is absolutely vital we are honest with our re-users about where we found stuff, and we can't tell if one image at a certain size/resolution has the same OGL licence as another image found elsewhere. If he's just uploading versions he found somewhere over the top of smaller originals, then this must stop also. Particularly so when the source is not updated on the file page. Regardless of what you say about Stemoc's being aware of this or that policy, the last word we had from him on this was defiance in the face of policy: "unless i can get actual proof that tells me I'm wrong, I won't budge" so I don't see how this section/issue can be closed until he backs down and explicitly accepts our policy and consensus on images, and agrees to accurately state the source for images he uploads. -- Colin (talk) 10:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Apology. Several times I've stated that Stemoc's position that "as long as the work is by a crown officer taken in their course of their duties and thus falls under OGL" is "completely untrue". I've been reading more about the OGL/Crown Copyright situation and learning as I go. I now think "completely untrue" is unfair and so would like to say sorry to Stemoc. On reading the UKGLF I see in section 7 that there is an Controller's Offer. The Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office manages Crown copyright and Crown database rights. The document states that "the Controller offers information which is subject to Crown copyright and Crown database right, or to copyright or database right which has been assigned to or acquired by the Crown (Crown information), for use under the terms of the Open Government Licence." So this offer does appear to automatically place Crown Copyright works under OGL, and that looks very much like Stemoc's position. However, there are some important exclusions, as listed in section 7.2 of that document. The first important exclusion is "personal data", which we have two good sources say includes photographs of identifiable people. The second exclusion is information/media generated by departments who have a "delegation of authority", and a long list of these can be found here. That list includes the MoD, and I see now what Denniss was referring to above. The MoD make it quite clear that they will explicitly state the licence/copyright situation of their photos and that one can't assume any default licence. I hope we are tending towards clarity on this issue. Unless we get some further advice on how such images get round the "personal data" exclusion, it does appear that quite a number of supposedly-OGL images should be deleted. And furthermore, this investigation shows some very sloppy practice wrt accurately stating the source of our images. -- Colin (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

My reading of that passage is different from yours: ISTM you would interpolate “the Controller [automatically] offers [all] information [not excluded below] …”, while I understand it as “the Controller [is authorized to offer] information [at its discretion] …”. In context I suppose my sense of manage implies more than a rubber stamp. Now I have no expertise in this area, so am by no means sure I’m closer to the intended meaning, but I hope I can serve as an example that reasonable people, laymen at least, might disagree on the interpretation.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Odysseus1479, yes, I read it as a legally binding and general offer rather than something discretionary, otherwise why would one list the "delegation of authority" bodies who are able to decide for themselves. And the list of exclusions isn't a "non exhaustive list" as one might expect with a discretionary offer, but actually the specific cases where the offer does not apply. So I do think this is something automatic, for many government bodies, leaving us to wonder (for non MOD images), only if the "personal data" exclusion applies to our headshot photos. But I agree with you that reasonable lay people will certainly interpret these documents differently and one needs to approach such discussions with good faith assumptions wrt all parties, and with some humility and expectation that one might discover one is wrong in part or in whole. Nothing concerning copyright is ever straightforward or follows common sense. -- Colin (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Extortion racket - Long-term_abuse/Orangemoody/Accounts (2)

Apropos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Orangemoody: We should review the local contributions of these extortionists.

1. Are any of these users administrators here?
2. Should we block all of them? They've only been blocked en masse on en. User:Jamesally87 was blocked.

Edit: Let's keep discussing 'till resolution is more clear, and open questions are answered.

Specific users

For example, please see the discussion of bad faith editor Arr4, who has over 2000 edits here, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Orangemoody/Accounts . The sock likely pushed for deletion of files, as part of the extortion racket. Possible examples and concerns:

1. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:D7K_6329_-_Sophie_Dee_(6746800711).jpg is very suspicious. (Also, Arr4 opened the DR, but the page shows that a User:Rahat, wikilinked to User:Ctg4Rahat, opened it, yet neither user exists; I don't see the normal evidence (e.g. logs, redirects) of a user rename.)
2. File:Mosharraf Karim.jpg,File:Mosharraf karim.jpg, File:MosharrafKarim.jpg, all deleted.
3. User_talk:Arr4#Your_bad_idea is concerning too.
4. File:Tony022.jpg is claimed as the work of Ctg4Rahat/Arr4 BUT metadata says Chris Hardy took w/Canon EOS 5D.

The LTA entry on en says in part, 'There are 381 socks currently being blocked as a result of this investigation.' ... 'Some time later the article subject or person who has paid for the article to be moved to mainspace is then contacted again and advised that, for a specific monthly fee ($30/month in examples that have been confirmed), the “editor” will continue to protect the article from vandalism and prevent its deletion, claiming that they had previously done that without charge.'

--Elvey (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC) (feel free to refactor above)

I think @Denniss: took care of blocking. File:Tony022.jpg deleted as copyright violation. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Why? I don't see evidence of that; I saw only that one sock that was blocked by him. More eyes please. I see you did the deletion but didn't refer to this thread or the LTA in your deletion. :-( What about Arr4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)? --Elvey (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The Arr4 account is not a 100% positive account at en wiki, looks like they blocked it because of some similarities + trollish behaviour. I have no time to check all his contribs for trollish, blockable behaviour so this account should at least unfergo a checkuser vs the sockfarm. All socks listed at en with existing accounts here have been blocked and contribs deleted. --Denniss (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Orangemoody/Accounts says "The accounts listed on this page are all verified socks that are interrelated, as evidenced by both Checkuser data and editing behaviour and patterns." In other words, it says Arr4 is a verified sock based on both Checkuser data and editing behaviour and patterns". What Denniss is saying is in direct opposition with that. I see "some similarities + trollish behaviour" as a far cry from "Checkuser data". Risker says Arr4 is a verified sock. Denniss acts as if Risker is wrong about Arr4 being a sock, which seems oddly inconsistent and unexplained. More eyes please. Whether it's the right choice or not, the reasoning is opaque. --Elvey (talk) 05:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

You say "All socks listed at en with existing accounts here have been blocked" but the Arr4 account is listed as a sock at en with an existing account here and yet has NOT been blocked. Is it the only such account?--Elvey (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

 Comment I checked the recent ARR4 edits and there's nothing trollish to be found. He/she could use a last warning for copyvios, but that's about it. Nothing to justify a block according to our blocking policy. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)