Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 33

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

Plenty of copyvios

User Special:Contributions/Mr_Perfect997 has addedd plenty of copyvios, some has watermark, please delete copyvios.--Motopark (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Copyvios deleted and user warned. Yann (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of No OTRS permission tagged images during a backlog

In early January 2011, the OTRS processing backlog had grown to 65 days. (It is now 14 days.) I had uploaded a number of Nancy Kwan images in early December. The images were deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs) after they had not been verified for over 30 days. A sample:

00:21, 13 January 2012 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Nancy Kwan with son Bernie and husband Norbert Meisel.jpg" (No permission since 5 January 2012) (global usage; delinker log)
00:21, 13 January 2012 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Nancy Kwan with Ray Stark.jpg" (No permission since 5 January 2012) (global usage; delinker log)
00:21, 13 January 2012 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Nancy Kwan with Peter Pock.jpg" ‎(No permissionsince 5 January 2012) (global usage; delinker log)
00:21, 13 January 2012 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Nancy Kwan with older brother Ka Keung.jpg" ‎(No permission since 5 January 2012) (global usage; delinker log)
00:21, 13 January 2012 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Nancy Kwan with her son Bernhard.jpg" (No permission since 5 January 2012) (global usage; delinker log)
00:21, 13 January 2012 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Nancy Kwan with her father Wing Hong.jpg" (No permission since 5 January 2012) (global usage; delinker log)
00:21, 13 January 2012 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Nancy Kwan star shines brightly.jpg" (No permission since 5 January 2012) (global usage; delinker log)
00:21, 13 January 2012 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Nancy Kwan on the Great Wall of China.jpg" (No permission since 5 January 2012) (global usage; delinker log)

Fastily and I corresponded at this archive link and this archive link. The first archive link was our discussion when the images were tagged by Fastily's bot, FSII (talk · contribs), with {{No permission since}}. Here is a sample link. The bot edit replaced the {{OTRS pending}} tag with the no permission tag, which said the file would be deleted in seven days if permission was not confirmed. The image was originally in Category:OTRS pending as of 2 December 2011 but was placed by the bot in Category:Media missing permission as of 4 January 2012.

In the second archive link, Fastily pointed me to Commons:Bots/Requests/HersfoldOTRSBot, writing that "there is consensus for such bots". I do not dispute that such bots are necessary to ensure unconfirmed images after 30 days are deleted. I disagree with his assertion that the Bot Requests discussion provides a mandate for deleting unconfirmed 30-day-old images when there is a lengthy backlog, such as a 65-day-old one.

The question I pose to the administrators and editors here is whether the bot should be temporarily disabled when there is a backlog of over 30 days and restored when the backlog is back under control. Cunard (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Makes total sense to me. It also looks like another example of Fastily's bull-headedness for no apparent reason. There's no logical reason that images should be deleted simply because the OTRS mob can't get their butts in gear. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Language, please.
As not all admins are also on OTRS, an effective feedback/information about the current backlog from OTRS to admins would be helpful; eventually to be posted as a message/note in Category:Other speedy deletions, Category:Copyright violations and whereever these OTRS-pending files surface for deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Language? My you must have had a sheltered life. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
There are many of us with the admin tools that are on OTRS (myself included); the list can be seen at http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=500&group=OTRS-member We can easily review a permissions or image either at undeletion requests or by asking us at our talk page. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 11:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The issue here is that the images are being unnecessarily tagged and deleted when there is a backlog. Some of the images may remain deleted if, for example, the uploader is a new, inexperienced user who does not notice the image has been deleted. The OTRS agent may not be able to find the deleted image if they do not know the user's username, so another round of emails might be necessary to find the image. Problems like this could be avoided by pausing the bot when there is a backlog. Cunard (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
This proposal makes perfect sense to me too. Another reason to add to the above is the extra work to re-add files after the bot has delinked them everywhere. --Terfili (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
As long as I know the image name, I can take care of it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
All of them? Surely if it were that easy there wouldn't be a backlog would there? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

 Question: why is Fastily (via an alternate public account which isn't actually a "bot") making these edits at all? {{OTRS pending}} automatically transcludes {{No permission since}} after 30 days. (In fact, in view of the backlog, maybe that should be increased to 60 days.) Rd232 (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

When {{OTRS pending}} transcludes {{No permission since}} after 30 days, the file is incorrectly categorized in Category:Media missing permission as of unknown date or in the main category, Category:Media missing permission. The bot I run simply does a replacement of {{OTRS pending}} with {{subst:npd}} once it starts categorizing the file in Category:Media missing permission as of unknown date/Category:Media missing permission. User:HersfoldOTRSBot used to do something like this, but it's not active at the moment. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
No comment on the bot issue, but I agree that such extension should be granted. I wouldn't go 60 days, but maybe 45. 22:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zscout370 (talk • contribs)
If it's not very close the backlog length, an extension won't make much difference. Rd232 (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
(a) how is that "incorrectly" categorised? (b) if it's agreed that such files shouldn't be in those categories, it can be done in {{OTRS pending}} as well, by making the categorisation conditional in the same way the {{No permission since}} transclusion is. No need to edit every file out of time with OTRS pending, if the template can do it automatically! Rd232 (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Category:Media missing permission is a main category that should not contain any files. Files nominated for deletion as missing permission belong in the daily deletion categories. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, but the template only categorises there if the appropriate subcategory doesn't exist. Creating the subcategory fixes any miscategorisation issues. Rd232 (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Meh, this was intended as a non-controversial convenience feature but since that's obviously not the case, I've suspended this bot until further notice. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

URAA affirmed by US Supreme Court - deletion request opened

In a 6-2 decision, SCOTUS affirmed the decision of the district court. The principle findings were: "1. Section 514 [of the URAA] does not exceed Congress’ authority under the Copyright Clause. [...] 2. The First Amendment does not inhibit the restoration authorized by §514." Supporters were Ginsburg, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Sotomeyer. Breyer and Alito dissented. Kagan recused. See SCOTUS Blog.

Regrettably, this means we can no longer defend our long-held position that the URAA is probably unconstitutional, and that our publication of files bearing the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} in contravention of that law is justified. As such, I have opened Commons:Deletion requests/All files copyrighted in the US under the URAA and invite your opinions there. Over 3000 files are affected. Please post your opinions regarding deletion there. Please don't post here to avoid dividing discussion, as I'm posting this notice in multiple locations. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Though it may not a precedent, I want to notify you about my pre-emptive "mass" DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jp-praia.JPG of the remaining uploads of Neto0 (talk · contribs), filed after I received notice[1] that one of his/her copyvio uploads resulted in a large series of legal suits against re-users for copyright infringement. --Túrelio (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

All the user's images are now deleted. This lawsuit is disconcerting to me, that no matter how scrupulous we are some copyvios slip through and manage to hurt content reusers. :-( On the other hand the copyright holder suing hundreds of people without issuing a DMCA takedown notice or even asking people nicely to remove the content seems like a bit of a copyright troll to me. In the US I'm pretty sure the lack of a takedown could be used as a valid legal defense. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Plus the user that was targeted didn't even upload the image on here, which disturbs me the most. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Pausing processing of file deletions/replacements during the enWP blackout

As a suggestion to admins who are handling file replacements and deletions, that it is probably neither worthwhile nor recommended to undertake these where the images are in use on English Wikipedia. With enWP being in edit lockdown, the processing by CommonsDelinker cannot be undertaken, so we are generating issues for the site.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops, however, now it's 1 day too late, isn't it? --Túrelio (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Move back a couple of categories

Please move Category:Gothic revival architecture in Illinois to Category:Gothic Revival architecture in Illinois and Category:Romanesque revival architecture in Ohio to Category:Romanesque Revival architecture in Ohio. These categories are under discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/01/Revival architectural styles, but Foroa has interfered with the CFD by moving them without waiting for the CFD to conclude. Speedy moves are for noncontroversial situations or for closed CFDs, not for categories in the middle of discussion. Nyttend (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there a controversy over those? Faroa, only change them to the same format all the other categories use in the parent category.--Jarekt (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Move request

Can someone please move File:Bluebeard.jpg to a new name and alert me to the name. I'm using the file on wiki.en which has a very different image with the same name. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

OK Now File:Bluebeard1889.jpg. A.Savin 00:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. A.Savin 00:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Gadget-massblock

This script is broken. I would remove it from the gadgets since I believe that there are very rare use-cases. Are there any concerns? -- RE rillke questions? 17:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd have used it had I known it existed... So I guess I am missing nothing :) Thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Permission to upload previously deleted file

Resolved– Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies

I'm hoping there's someone here who can help me. I would like to upload an image, but none of the uploaders (new one or basic) will allow me to do so because someone had previously uploaded it while it was still copyrighted by the photographer—I was unaware of this until now. I have permission to upload the file from the photographer/copyright holder, and I will send the email to OTRS once I can get a URL for the image. Is there any way to go about doing this? The deleted image in question is here. I do not want this image to have any association with a previous copyvio (nor my name), so I would prefer it if I could avoid having this page undeleted (if that's even possible, since I'm not aware of copyvio images being allowed to remain on servers). I simply want to upload my new image from scratch. But none of the uploaders will allow me. Any way to bypass this? Is there any way for an admin to fully 100% remove the copyvio "history" from Wikimedia's memory or something? Thanks so much. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 17:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  • NOTE: The original uploader of that file, Giorgio Armani (talk · contribs) was blocked for being a sock of Chace Watson (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
    • No problem with that, the file is still all rights reserved so prior written permission is required. I dont think its impossible to bypass the 'do not upload because same file was deleted in the past warning' with ignoring any warnings in the old upload form. --Martin H. (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I should have mentioned, if I click on "ignore warning and upload anyway" button, it doesn't work. It brings me back to the original upload form with all the information filled in properly, but without the file on my computer being selected (I have to re-"choose a file"). I tried clicking all the upload buttons, I tried changing text, my image file name is more specific than the deleted image's file name—so I still don't know what to do. I can try again in a few seconds. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 17:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Yeah, it doesn't work. Can't upload, even with a (temporary) fake license claiming it's my own work (just to see—it's not my own work, obviously). I clicked "submit modified" and "ignore and save file anyway" and neither will upload the image. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Martin, you said "prior written permission is required". I can send the email to OTRS now, but I'm not sure what good it'll do. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Kerαunoςcopia, we can undelete the image once someone from OTRS confirms that the image is OK. --Jarekt (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I can send the email to OTRS. But—and maybe I'm just being a stickler here—the photographer will see this upload. I'd rather not have it marred by a history of copyvio. And not to be overly desiring of "credit", but to undelete an image that was uploaded illegally in the first place, and have the original uploader, a sock, have the sudden honor of being the image uploader seems a little weird to me. Like I said above, I'd really rather have the image be uploaded with a clean slate. That'd be my general preference. Isn't there any way of just uploading a new image without the two being connected? There's really no reason I should be punished for someone else's dirty work. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 19:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks like it's a known bug -- bugzilla:30588 (regression in 1.18?). Try to add one-byte junk to the end of the file. Trycatch (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Trycatch, that worked perfectly. I explained everything, including a link to this discussion, in the email to OTRS. Thanks everyone for their replies. I didn't realize this was a bug. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 05:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brasão da cidade de Eskafandria.jpg

Please close this deletion request. It has been open for almost two months. Francisco (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Urgent help requested

With this matter if possible. Penyulap (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Selfpromotion

After several selfpromotion attempts on it.wiki and en.wiki, please delete File:MARIAN_RICHERO_00001.jpg, my speedy templates have been removed by the user. --M7 (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

✓ Gone thanks M7 :) --Herby talk thyme 15:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Contributions/Bamby98: same as above. --M7 (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks - 3 users now blocked as puppet accounts. --Herby talk thyme 08:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

DR gone user tribunal

If there is no objection, I intend to early-close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of User TRAJAN 117.svg‎ as Delete, because the requested file is clearly out of scope and the current voting is 4 (+1, me) pro vs. 1 contra deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Done now. --Túrelio (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Anthem

Can someone upload the anthem of Chuvashia. The anthem is exempt from copyright according to Part IV of Civil Code No. 230-FZ. Thank you. --Ts Karlimkov (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Any user can upload a file, not just admins. Please do it yourself, we are all volunteers here. --Jarekt (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 On hold A request will be finished after Zscout370 approves my request. --Ts Karlimkov (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
It is not a matter of approval of the request; it is more of do I have the time to do it. I got the files, but need to spend time converting them. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Almost there! The files will be uploaded this day or tomorrow. --Ts Karlimkov (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Passing this along from Help Desk

I'm passing this along from the Help Desk; presumably a lot more useful here. I'm just on a short break from work and have no time to look into it myself, so I'm just passing along, not endorsing. - Jmabel ! talk 22:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Begin copied content

Hi, would any admin monitor this log of a user who is performing erroneous changes and will not discuss with other editors who correct them. (For instance, he's editfighting for adding parent-cat to items where the appropriate subcat is already applied.. and more. I'm trying to talk this here) Thanx! :) Orrlingtalk 19:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

End copied content

I have now notified User:Hanay about this thread. --99of9 (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the policy?

Parent categories and sub-categories applied together to same file: How come?

Quick background: Tell Abu Hawam is an archaeological site in Haifa, Israel, which is an irrelevant place in national discourse and is little known beyond circles of scholars in Haifa.. and the one-and-only aim of that user is - as it comes - to "push" that local place upwards in the categoric and symbolic hierarchy and force the attribution of the "Category:Archaeological sites in Israel" aside to the Category:Archaeological sites in Haifa, possibly because he or she has created that site's cat....

Please see if you can determine whether that person arguing "Categories in Commons can be created also horizontally not only vertically" is right or (most probably) wrong as I've been a Wiki editor now for over 3 years and one thing I know, is that, as a rule, when a subcategory is attributed to an item, the next-higher cat of the same tree won't be attributed. This is a very reasonable, self-understood rule. - Alas, we're facing some user who also seems to manifest no less than "ownership" over his uploads and will not learn the a-b-c of using categories in Wiki; It's more than one particular item in question (ex. here). Best Regards. Orrlingtalk 08:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

And now he's editfighting here. Plz get involved as I don't feel like playing smurfs with him. Thank you Orrlingtalk 10:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Are there any other archaeological sites in Haifa? If yes, the most logical solution would be to create the category (provided it does not exist) and put the site category there.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for replying, I'm sorry if I wasn't so clear: THERE IS a Haifa-archaeology subcat, of course! :-) I linked to it here integrally as I wrote the message to you, please see above! Haifa has numerous archaeo-sites.. and my very point to you was that a particular user is almost violently insisting on over-categorizing and REGARDLESS of the fact that one has the Category:Archaeological sites in Haifa, that person likes to use BOTH the subcat and its parent - Category:Archaeological sites in Israel, so.. there I made myself ice-clear. :) Orrlingtalk 14:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
You are right. From what I see, it was already corrected.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Need help with a protected template

The template:Is is protected indefinitely so I must seek out an administrator who can fix a tiny nuisance. As you can see there's a space added between where is says "Íslenska" and the colon so it's "Íslenska :" instead of "Íslenska:". Thanks in advance. Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I have enormous trouble believing that the copyright to An indian marine commando standing in mumbai on the arrival of US President.jpg is held by uploader who claims to hold the copyright to it, given that (i) the scene is of Mumbai and the uploader describes himself as in Allahabad, (ii) the photograph is professional/competent and at least one other photo by the uploader is [how shall I put this?] less than optimally competent, (iii) Google image match shows that the identical image pops up all over the place, (iv) the uploader has a history of not understanding, or choosing not to understand, instructions not to lie about copyright. On the other hand, I am unable to find a credible declaration anywhere else about a copyright holder.

If my guess about this image is right, the uploader should be blocked. He's already had quite enough warning and has wasted enough of people's time (minor example). -- Hoary (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for investigating this user. They have been blocked. That file was their one remaining upload, and has been deleted. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Renaming File:Seated Buddha, India, Kusana period, 2nd-3rd century C.E., grey schist, Honolulu Academy of Arts.jpg

Hello. This file should be renamed because its name in incorrect. Please rename it File:Seated Buddha, Pakistan or Afghanistan, Ghandhara region, 2nd - 3rd century, gray schist, HAA 2.jpg. Thank you. BrightRaven (talk) 10:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

renaming File:Armoiries Fauquemont.svg

Hello. This file should be renamed because its name in incorrect. Please rename is File:Armoiries Franchimont.svg. Thank you. BrightRaven (talk) 10:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Please use {{Rename}} so it can be handled routinely. There is no reason to bring non-controversial renames here. Thank you.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. Sorry I did not know the procedure. BrightRaven (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Loulou92100 (talk · contribs)

This user has uploaded dozens of copyright violations, most of which I've already nominated for deletion, and never provides useful description, titles or categories. Despite several warnings on Commons and on fr.wp (to which he never replies), he has since uploaded even more images from the same source. Please keep an eye on him, or issue a short block already (if only to make him react). Thanks. Prof. Professorson (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked on fr wp for copyvios so I've done the same here for now. Might get there attention. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Imcstage (new article)

I have been using Wikipedia for years and finally decided to add a page

1) The article "Imcstage" has been added, but it does not appear in my search on Wikipedia.

2) I uploaded 5 graphics to use in my "Imcstage" article. Only two of the images appear. When I attempted to re-upload the images not appearing, I was told that the image had already been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.

Please help. 1) How do I get my article to show up? 2) Why are my images not appearing in Wikimedia Commons?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Imcstage (talk • contribs) 09:51, 25 January 2012‎ (UTC)
You are here on Commons, an image-hoster. Your "article" was deleted on en.wikipedia.org. Are you sure your contributions are educational? -- RE rillke questions? 14:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Foroa bot usage

User:Foroa deletes the categories because he doesn't like other languages of this international project. Instead of renaming them, he just moves all their contens into other (non-suitable) categories. He uses the bot. I say 'non-suitable' because he deletes more precise categories and puts the files into general ones. Needless to say all the category and commentary and interwiki data in those deleted categories are ruined. Samples: [2] [3]. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but English is language for categories on Commons unless some translation functionality will be implemented. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The trouble is not about the language. The trouble is about category contents. If a category has 10 images and 3 mother categories, the bot moves 10 images into other category and deletes the previous one, thus loosing all its data about commentary and interwiki. Also, instead of simple renaming categories into other language, the bot moves images into general category, loosing the precise structure.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Commons categories have to be in English, but a proper way to fix non-English categories is to rename them to properly named English category, instead of moving all the files to the parent categories. I agree with PereslavlFoto that that is a waste to loose this additional info. However, I also realize (from my personal experience) how hard it is to find what is the most frequently used English translation of some non-English names, places or objects. One tool I occasionally use is to count Google hits for different possible phrases, see example. The ideal approach takes time, especially if one does not know the language. May be a better way would be to alert language specific discussion board about what needs to be fixed, and delete non-English categories only after giving other users time to fix them. --Jarekt (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe the moving bot can create such an alert.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Recommendation for implementation of harrassment policy

I am a firm believer in what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. Unless the behaviour is so egregious that is causes what is reasonably construed as disruption across multiple projects. Comments made off-wiki should not be taken into account here on Commons, unless those comments are clearly intended to impact the ability of an editor to edit in peace on Commons. Harrassment on Commons is listed at Commons:Blocking_policy#Use as an applicable reason for blocking, however, we don't yet have Commons:Harrassment which lays out precisely what this project regards as harrassment. English Wikipedia has a policy at en:Wikipedia:Harassment and I would recommend that the Commons community work on an analogous policy covering harrassment on this project, so that it is clear to Community participants what this community regards as harrassment. I urge that this occur, because I have seen all too often the lack of clear Commons policy leaving the Community unable to act with teeth that situations can often require. russavia (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Harassment is very hard to pin down accurately in policy in a way that is really useful. And harassment policy can itself become a means to harass people, via accusations of harassment... But maybe it's a worth try, if only because there is a tendency to implicitly or explicitly import en.wp's definition, and I don't think that definition always works particularly well for Commons situations. Rd232 (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for Checkuser rights

This is to inform the community that there is a nomination for Checkuser rights here. It was agreed a couple of years ago that such requests and for Oversight which are quite rare should be publicised due to the high level of trust required in users with these rights. --Herby talk thyme 12:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Pieter Kuiper

That's quite enough of that. English Wikipedia is that way. Rd232 (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The user is currently under a 1-week block on Wikipedia. That would seem to be primarily Wikipedia's problem. However, he is accused of outing, both before and after the block.[4] Is that grounds for a global ban from all Wikimedia sites, or at least on Commons as well as possibly Wikipedia itself? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If you feel it is grounds for a global ban Meta is the place to ask not here. --Herby talk thyme 17:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I have not seen the specific evidence, nor do I want to. That needs to be handled by admins. I'm just asking, IF a commons user outs someone maliciously, off-wiki, THEN is it grounds for banning here? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
No, by itself this is not the reason to request a global ban, see meta:Global bans.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Also in the past users were not blocked here for off-wiki harassment or for harassment in other WMF projects--Ymblanter (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
That strikes me as running counter to the WMF philosophy, as it would tend to be intimidating, just like a legal threat would be, or maybe even worse than; but if that's the way it is, then so be it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Let problems of en-wiki stay in en-wiki. It's counter to the Commons philosophy to bring here unrelated conflicts. Trycatch (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Is this somehow related to his stalking of user:Fæ we have seen here on Commons? See here. If so that this is Commons business. I requested Pieter to 'to restrain himself from editing of User:Fæ uploads", which request he ignored. It also seems to me that whe should add questions about Pieter Kuiper to the FAQ page, since this is ~15th time his actions are being discussed on COM:AN, and a 3rd one beeing discussed at this moment (see also here and here). --Jarekt (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
If this is a recurring problem, then obviously it needs to be looked into further. He just called me an "officious busybody". Since I consider wikimedia's integrity to be more important than the ego of any given user, I take that comment as a compliment. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
If you are truly concerned about Wikimedia's integrity, then you should be in support of Pieter Kuiper's close scrutiny of uploads. I'm sure his attention has improved the conduct of several contributors here, although they probably did not appreciate his efforts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Some might say that obsession over uploads qualifies as "officious busybodyness". However, I do understand the need for it and its impact on the integrity of wikimedia. All that does not excuse "outing", IF there is malicious outing going on. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there malicious outing going on? You have started a thread here and on AN/I at en.wiki where you admit you don't know, yet you are calling for an editor to be banned. You have also been told that outing isn't grounds for a global ban. You appear to be trying to get Pieter Kuiper banned for some reason, any reason - what's up, Doc? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
No, I am not trying to get anyone banned, UNLESS they have violated the rules, and outing is an egregious violation. Outing is bad. Kuiper says that the user in question (whoever it may be) essentially outed himself already. If so, that reduces the urgency level, but it's still not a good thing to be doing. In any case, I would like to see a resolution to this matter, if it's possible. Someone with some actual authority (of which I have none) needs to take a serious look and see if there was genuine malicious outing going on. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Your attempt to do Fæ's dirty work here doesn't seem to be working out very well for you. Seriously, if you can't get people here to support your attack on Pieter Kuiper, you may as well give up and go home. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
You are getting way too emotional, and you are misreading my level of interest in this. For me, it's "working out" just fine. I asked Fae to contact an admin offline if he has real evidence about outing. It's up to Fae to follow up on that, or not. I wanted to find out what the rules are here, IF such evidence were to come into play. If nothing happens, you can mark this "Resolved". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

To answer Baseball Bugs' question of "Is that grounds for a global ban from all Wikimedia sites?": meta:Global_bans. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

 Comment This is so premature it's not even funny. Coming here to ask before the facts and issues are even resolved on English Wikipedia (currently at en:Wikipedia:ANI#User:Pieter_Kuiper) is clearly inappropriate (and Baseball Bugs' use of "accused of" in the opening post shows awareness of that lack of resolution); and it appears the "outing" claim is dubious. Further discussion is unnecessary here; an issue resulting in a 1-week block on another project is not fundamentally a matter for other projects, except as it impinges directly on cross-wiki issues. That's all. Rd232 (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the "outing" occurred on en.wiki, but is at least tangentially related to an ongoing dispute on Commons.[5] Unfortunately, there's so much smoke I can't find the fire :P Kaldari (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

A couple of points;

  1. Fae accused Kuiper of 'maliciously' outing two people. That's an outright, bald-faced lie. One of those people's identity was well known, and had outed himself in several ways, including the banner Kuiper linked to above.
  2. Protection from outing is not provided to aid people engaging in COI editing, which is what the second 'outing victim' was doing. In fact, the en arbitration committee has no compunction identifying someone's identity when they are abusing anonymity to engage in COI editing - mantanamoreland, for example.

Those calling for a ban of Kuiper really need to ask themselves why they are sticking up for liars while trying to ban honest editors. --PumknPi (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Tenth contribution on Commons, the first one in 2012--Ymblanter (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Can you please tell us how you came to arrive at this thread? As your only contributions to this project thus far could be reasonably assumed to have come about by way of Wikipediareview, which is demonstrably being used to co-ordinate (either explicit or implicit) harrassment against numerous contributors to this project. russavia (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
1) I think Pieter Kuiper is the one being harassed here. 2) Bringing up the "evil" WikipediaReview is nothing but a convenient excuse for avoiding the unpleasant truths in my earlier post. --PumknPi (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for bureaucrat rights

Following the recent successful Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Russavia (the first since 2010), there is another request for bureaucrat at Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/99of9. Notifying here as these requests are rare and should get appropriate scrutiny. Rd232 (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawing DR

In a recent bout of copyright paranoia, I nominated two of my uploads for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brewster Higley VI.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Western New France, 1688.jpg. I am now aware that both of these images are very much in the PD. Therefore, I've withdrawn the nominations and request that an admin close the requests. Thanks, --AlphaEta (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Abuse Filter Detail Logs Discussion

I've started a discussion on the Village Pump about the abusefilter-log-detail right. Since the abuse filter has to do with admins, I'm posting the link to the discussion here so admins can get a chance to comment on it. Thanks. Techman224Talk 06:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Indef block on Christian= evil vermin

Hello, this is a note for other admins about the indef block I applied today to the account User:Christian= evil vermin for obvious reasons (see contribs + username). I don't know if this is part of a bigger operation or an isolated act, since I've been away for a while, so please proceed with further investigation (socks or whatever) if necessary. Regards, -- Darwin Ahoy! 10:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. While you were doing that I was filing Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Getsserve. --99of9 (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Number of files

How to see the number of files that I've uploaded? Is there anyway to see it like article count in WP? -- SuryaPrakash  Talk... 16:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

How about this? --Túrelio (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

|link=|

For public domain icons, there is the possibility to not link the file description page. This is especially useful for icons used in templates.

If I still want to credit the author, didn't we have a page where all these images are listed? --  Docu  at 09:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Extra userpage

Please check page Участник:Askhat Qazaq, user have normal userpage but has been created own userpage.--Motopark (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Somebody has been deleted this, thanks--Motopark (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

File: Tintagel 05.jpg

I do not understand this remark on my photo.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Manfred_Heyde#Dein_Bild_Datei:Tintagel_05.jpg

Is user "Lh 3400" a Saboteur?

--Manfred Heyde (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand the remark neither. For those not reading German: User:Lh 3400 says that Manfred's photo will be deleted if no source is given within seven days, but it is clearly marked as "Own work" and I see no reason to assume otherwise. No idea what the new user "Lh 3400" is up to, he seems to have created this account just for this purpose. For the time being, just ignore him, I'd say. We can still block him later should he continue to use this account only to post gratuitous "warnings" on user pages... Gestumblindi (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Info - spamming and filters

There has been a big upsurge in folk spamming Foundation projects recently with some websites/software actually promoting doing so. With help I have worked on a few new filters covering User & User talk namespaces only at present which either prevent or at least log such attempts. It is possible that there may be issues with legitimate postings by users although it should not happen. I would be grateful if folk would contact me rather than merely changing/disabling the filters. --Herby talk thyme 12:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Missing open DRs

Perhaps there is always a lag period for moving open deletion requests to the monthly logs, so forgive me if this is normal, but I noticed that January's log only lists DRs up to January 11, 2012. All open DRs posted after the 11th (currently January 12 through January 15) are missing. Thanks, --AlphaEta (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thats why the January log is listed in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded, too many inclusions, not all inclusions show up. --Martin H. (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
That makes sense, thanks for the explanation. I noticed it and just wanted to make sure there wasn't a problem. --AlphaEta (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Well it is a problem, but I don't think there's any easy solution... Rd232 (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Can't we just split the January log into day ranges that aren't too big? Dcoetzee (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the DR bot could handle that, and AFAIK it's not currently maintained. Rd232 (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Does the DR bot repopulate the list with newer inclusions as older, closed inclusions are moved to the archive? --AlphaEta (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Eventually all of the DRs cycle through the monthly log, so we don't miss any. You just have to go back to the monthly log after each bot run to see the additions. It's certainly a nuisance, but one that I think we can live with.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Editing restrictions

There is now a page Commons:Editing restrictions for listing any edit restrictions agreed by the community. These are very rare on Commons, but when they are agreed, having a place to list them does help with clarity and enforcement. (I can think of several examples where lack of clarity was a problem.) If the page is forgotten, it doesn't matter - but it may be useful. Rd232 (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

While I'm not a fan of editing restrictions I think that in the event one is imposed we should have a central place where to list them. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 14:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Rights and activity

[Admin note, this conversation was started by Herby (admin and CU), it is not overtly obvious from the deformed threading]

Interesting that one of my biggest bugbears when I started over 5 years ago is still an issue. Anyway - given a comment by Marcus on the current RfCU whose views I respect and in part agree with, as well as other recent reflections have led me to this posting. It is quite simple really - a while back the community agreed activity levels for admin rights. These related not to edits but to admin actions. At no stage as far as I recall were other rights and activity considered so I felt maybe it was time to raise the matter.

Bureaucrats

This one is actually quite easy as actions are completely transparent. Currently I think we have one 'crat who has not used the tools for over a year, I am not sure of the exact stats on the others. In terms of this and other rights, the community at the time of granting them does not put any time limits on how long they are used for however I think that implied in granting these rights is the fact that they will be used and I understand the comment that there should not merely be more people with any rughts simply because some have given up using them

I think it's reasonable suggestion. And I don't think that situation should be different form situation with adminship. If person doesn't use tools, it's more then likely that he/she doesn't need them. However it's good idea to expect higher level of self-discipline from bureaucrats to give away rights in case of planned inactivity or losing interest in projects. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand, I don't thinksomeone highly active on the project and as an admin should not lose their crat flag due to a lack of "enough" actions as a crat, there simply are not tons of them to go around. Courcelles (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
There are basically 1.5 active 'crats on this project (sorry were only - 2 new ones will hopefully help out). So over the course of a year thee will be a fair number of Rfxs to close, bot requests to deal with plus renames - more than enough work if anyone is active and looking to use the tools. --Herby talk thyme 16:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

 Comment Maybe a simple way to handle this would be to say that any bureaucrat who loses their admin bit due to inactivity (Commons:Administrators/De-adminship) will also lose the bureaucrat bit. (This assumes that all bureaucrats are admins; if that ever changes, we can come up with an amendment to the bureaucrat inactivity rule.) Rd232 (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

CU & OS

These are quite a bit harder to deal with due to the complete lack of transparency. However all I have said so far applies and maybe more so in the case of these. Personally I have no issues with a limited number of stewards having CU here. As a hub project it is useful for truly active stewards to be able to check cross wiki issues here. However it may well be that some standard for actions/activity needs consideration. I imagine that the current holders might be prepared to give an indication of activity if requested by the community - it does not seem unreasonable.

 Comment All four oversighters are quite active, from what I can see in the log, with two highly active oversighters. Trijnstel (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am merely posting this to get some idea if the issue bothers others. If it does then the community more widely needs to be involved. --Herby talk thyme 13:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I have long been on record that we should have activity standards, including more stringent ones for Admins. All of the tools require a certain amount of skill. It appears that I will probably be given the CU tool next week. I suspect that it will take several months before I feel comfortable with it and longer before I am really proficient. That was certainly the case with the Admin tools. I think that the proficiency will go away with disuse, so that it is entirely reasonable to require a certain minimum of activity so that we all stay in practice.
There is also the fact that having a significant number of inactive members of a group may make it harder to recruit new members. I would not be running for CU if Herby had not suggested that another set of eyes would be a good thing. I run into the same thing when I recruit new Admins -- often the response is negative simply because we have 250+ Admins, so what good can one more do. Of course, I go on to point out that half the work is done by six Admins, 90% by thirty-one of us, and nothing by the last eighty. This, however, is an argument that I lost the last time we discussed it at length.
So, yes, I would certainly support activity standards.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Several months back I proposed at meta that the "inactive for one year" clause could be clarified (before I mailed the Board and I got the silence as answer). The discussion showed different interpretations on different wikis which is bad enough. I later started a discussion here and the discussion died again. The m:CheckUser policy is global policy, mandatory for all projects without exception; which stablishes that any editor inactive for one year will have their status removed. Problem: what is inactivity? Is it measured in edits? is it measured in checks? is it measured on edits & checks? And if so how many checks or edits are needed to consider that user active or inactive? -- This is the problem stewards face from time to time when a request to remove a CU/OS arrives; because the policy is not clear. But being CU and OS policies global policies mandatory for all projects I think that the activity issue should be better discussed in a meta:RfC than here to get a clear activity standard for all wikis. Thanks. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 14:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Certainly I agree with MA on the ambiguous nature of the Meta "policy" - there is nothing about how activity could/should be measured. For me it has to be about the use of the tools (whichever they are) as that is what the rights are about. --Herby talk thyme 16:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any ambiguity in the phrasing Any user account with CheckUser status that is inactive for more than a year will have their CheckUser access removed.: the activity clearly applies to the user account and is therefore general activity (edits or any other actions), and in the absence of any specific definition, "inactive" means "zero actions". I think the intention is to set a floor across Wikimedia; individual projects can set higher activity standards. For example on en.wp the activity requirement for OS & CU is five logged actions per 3-month period, including at least one community-requested logged action. Rd232 (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Digression - method of measurement

By the way, this was certainly discussed before, but I was a bit irritated by this: It seems that only logged actions count as an "admin action", i.e. no "kept" decisions in DRs? Doesn't this mean that e.g. keeping ten files after careful and time-consuming research for each of these counts as "zero admin actions" (because it doesn't result in a logged admin action) and one quick deletion counts more? As deletions as well as decisions to keep files are an admin responsibility, it seems to me that this measurement of activity is not completely fair. On the other hand, it's a very low level of activity required anyway, so I doubt it will ever become a real issue in practice (an admin who has kept a few files will most likely also have deleted some)... Gestumblindi (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A view ...

I will not say, that "we" in the de:WP have the best System, but it's the only I knew a bit better ;). At de:WP all three "high end"-positions (BC, CU & OS) are limited to a maximum of 5 Users. And not one person can have two of them or maybe all three. I would prefer this System also for Commons. Especially CU & OS are two problematic tools I don't like to see in one hand. And it's not because I thing, a user would really do bad things (I don't want to wait for the moment I have to mistrust someone ;)). But we also have to protect the Users who do this work. Why the tools are so critical? As user with CU- or OS-tools you can do things, who are under normal conditions in our Wikimedia-project are not good and not planned: you can see anounymos, personal details and you can delete things in a way, also the Admins can bring them back. So it's really important to give these tools only to a really limited number of users who are really trustworthy persons. And why activity is required? Because of two aspects: you only know enough about what's going on in the project, when you're active. For a lot of descissions you really have to know, what's giong on. And the second: when you get the special rights, you also get an special responsibility for the project. You have to do the work. Inactive or less active special personal don't help the project. So - what to do? I think, here really could an invention from de:WP interesting. We reelect our special departments every two years new. The old BCs, CUs and OS's can start for a new campaign. But also new interested users can candidate. And we keep the number of our authorites, we don't need to elect again and again new people, because inactive users won't be reelect. So is my proposal: we think about how many active CUs, how many active OSs and how many active BS we need. And when we've found an special number, we could elect them for one, two, three, whatever years. And I would vote for some of the actually actives. :) Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Or, we could just say that any CU&OS who lose their admin bit due to inactivity (Commons:Administrators/De-adminship) also lose the CU&OS bits. That has the advantage of being almost no extra work to administer (just check at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section whether users have CU/OS/crat rights and remove those too if desysopped). Rd232 (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
For me this would be an automatism. Marcus Cyron (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I would hope that people came to the WMF projects with the primary goal to participate in adding content, not to undertake administrivia. Accordingly my base position with regards to Admins/Crats/CUs/OSs is that they need to continue to have time to participate, to have some pleasure and not get burnt out. With that regard, I see it that we need sufficient people to do the tasks, then to add extra for redundancy for Real Life, additions, training and developing, etc., so to me it is not about hard numbers. This should be able to done simply, and with extremes of rules. We have a process to manage administrators, so those with "advanced" privileges could be simply be asked on an annual basis have they used the tools and do they continue to need these tools. At the same time, as that question is addressed, we can get feedback on the need/desire to have more people undertaking the task. The two approaches should align. There is a tool that we can utilise to check the use of tools sysop/crat/cu/os activity

With regard to separation of task, I strongly agree with Marcus about that. The Checkuser role is an investigative and active role, the Bureaucrat is reflective role tapping into the mood of the community. The ability to separate the investigative from the reflective is very worthwhile in sock investigations, and determining the consequences. With regard to admin activity, CUs/Crats/  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

One of the things that I find most puzzling about Commons is that it allows users with a history of copyright violations to continue uploading images. User:Renzoy16, who gives every appearance of being a paid editor on English-language Wikipedia, has uploaded an obvious copyright violation (File:Meenakshi Dixit.jpg) which they are claiming as their own work. This is a user with a history of uploading copyright violations. It would seem sensible to block uploads from users once they have shown themselves to be deliberately deceptive, yet Commons does not do this. Why not? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not think anybody can keep track of statistics for every uploader, to determine what fraction of their uploads are copyright violation and which ones are accidental or misunderstandings and which ones are "deliberately deceptive". If there is a pattern of high fraction of "deliberately deceptive" uploads than I believe users are being blocked. --Jarekt (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
It would seem to be a simple matter of disabling the user's ability to upload any further images following clear violations of policy. No complicated "statistics" are necessary. I would also suggest that it would be common sense to check over a user's other uploads if an image is found to be a copyright violation. I would further suggest that if uploads from a particular Flickr account are found to be copyright violations, further uploads from that Flickr account are disallowed. These are simple and obvious steps, which I am sure have been suggested before. Even here, on the Commons Administrators noticeboard, when I point out an obvious case of copyright violation, the only action that has been taken is for someone to add a link to an "other version" on a website which should be enough to confirm the violation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
As you critized my action: this only action was the appropriate one, at least until there is more evidence, because the image on Commons has 4 times the resolution than the other one found so far, which makes it quite unlikely that the latter is really the source. --Túrelio (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The site you linked isn't the source. Someone uploads a high-res promotional image, claiming it is their own work. That should be enough for anyone to look more closely. I know that Commons admins are supposed to have a particular concern about copyright violation, so they should definitely look more closely at the user. This user has a history of uploading copyrighted images. What did you do? Add a link to another website where the image is used. Do you wonder why I'm asking questions here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
You do realize that everyone here is a volunteer, right? Including admins. You keep suggesting that others should spend time researching this issue you stumbled upon, but don't you think it would have been more productive if you investigated is yourself, if you're convinced there's a problem? Prof. Professorson (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Are you interested in solving problems or finding reasons why the problems can't be solved? What are people volunteering their time here to do? I thought admins were especially concerned about copyright. Was I wrong? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
"a simple matter of disabling the user's ability to upload any further images" - except that's not actually possible until bugzilla:4995 is fixed. Only a complete block is possible, not blocking of uploads. As for the rest, well it's all a bit ad hoc. Rd232 (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Blocking is simple. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Why don't you just create a deletion request instead of complaining here? Yann (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
What Yann said. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done. --Martin H. (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
It's a widespread issue unrelated to just one image. Besides, it gives me a chance to see what happens when someone points out an obvious copyright violation. You complain, Túrelio adds a link to a web site where the image is already used, and Martin H. starts a deletion discussion. The original image contained the name of the copyright holder in the EXIF information. No discussion is required - just delete it. Does anyone care about fixing the problems with Commons? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
If you had added {{copyvio|see copyright holder info in the EXIF of the first revision of the image}} on the image description page, instead of making vague statements here in the first place, the image would certainly have been deleted already. Maybe the problem is not so much with Commons as with how you handled this situation. Prof. Professorson (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
You can shoot the messenger as often as you wish, but the fact remains that if this user had been blocked after any of their other copyright violations, there would be no "situation" for anyone to handle. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Personally, if someone is persistent about uploading copyvios, I'm not going to trust that *any* of that person's edits are legitimate, and so a total block is the way to go. Stan Shebs (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
If I encounter someone who has uploaded even one copyvio claiming it as own work, I issue them a strong final warning. If there's a pattern, I block them and delete all their files (except for ones where clear evidence of a free license is given that does not require trusting the uploader). Abusing our good faith in uploaders' claims is a breach of trust and should be treated harshly. I do occasionally find uploaders who get away with such deception for an uncommonly long time, just because no one noticed - if you find one, feel free to direct them to me. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
File has been deleted as obvious copyvio, user blocked for a month. Somewhat astonishing he/she was not blocked after all uploads were deleted as copyvios in January. --Denniss (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

edit=sysop

Please, unprotect File:On the edge - free world version.jpg Bulwersator (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done by A.Savin. --Túrelio (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. A.Savin 15:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Two duplicates

Hi there. I've never dealt with this before, that's why I'm asking it here. I noticed two duplicates: File:Filip-naudts.jpg and File:Filip Naudts.jpg. The second one was uploaded earlier (6 March 2009) than the first one (27 March 2009), though both refers to two different OTRS tickets (#2009031410027816 and #2009030310067142) in which he both gives permission. What's the common procedure in this case? I'd love to hear your comments/help etc. Kind regards, Trijnstel (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Both images are used btw, the first one on nlwiki and the second one on cswiki and enwiki. Trijnstel (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
If both would refer to the same permission, I would just dupe-delete the later upload. But in this case, it would mean the "disappearance" of the second permission. Why not make an exception and keep both (of course with an explanatory note on both image pages, to prevent it from getting repeatedly dupe-nominated)? --Túrelio (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, that's an idea. About what kind of note were you thinking? Trijnstel (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Like "Do not duplicate-delete this image. It was intentionally kept due to having received a different OTRS permission than the other file/image copy." --Túrelio (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
How about adding both OTRS tags to the older image and deleting/redirecting the newer duplicate? No reason why an image couldn't have more than one permission (although only one is needed), but I can't see the benefit of keeping two copies of the image just for documenting the permissions. Jafeluv (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
That's also a good option. --Túrelio (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
If you put a note on Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard, a volunteer can merge the two tickets. Ideally, we should not be keeping a duplicate copy here just because the copyright holder emailed the permission twice. --Sreejith K (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Inactivity policy for admins

Just for your information: Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2012 has just started. I hope I did everything well. Trijnstel (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I do find it bizarre that folk can "sign" to say they want to keep the rights while they continue to do absolutely nothing with them... --Herby talk thyme 09:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
If you sign and continue to do nothing, you will find your right are removed. The idea is that you sign and thereby commit to making at least the required number of actions in the next 6 (or so) months. If you haven't done so by the next inactivity run, your adminship is removed, regardless of whether you sign again. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Well I thought that but one or two seemed to have signed before based on the comments/names --Herby talk thyme 09:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Several were in "danger" of removal of their adminship before, but that was longer than 6 months ago (a year or so). Trijnstel (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 Comment @Herbythyme, to illustrate my (and probably your) point, see here. Trijnstel (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

User Daniyar

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

Removes {{Delete}} template. Diffs: 1, 2, 3 and other files frm here.--Forwhomthebelltolls (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot!--Forwhomthebelltolls (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion request

Can an admin delete the recently images added to File:Gianna-michaels.jpg? Those files are a copyright violation. Tbhotch™ 20:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Can someone close old DR

Can someone close old DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Galatians 5-1 - Greek - PU1JFC ™ ©.JPG--Motopark (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

If I were to close it right this second I would have it kept because it is in use. I have requested that the image be converted to wiki text in the projects that it is used in. --ZooFari 07:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done Closed now. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Please rename ..

.. File:AntiAntifa.jpg, that I've uploaded today, to "File:NoAntifa.jpg", in order to avoid misunderstandings. Thanks, --Antiachtundsechziger (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done mickit 13:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikihounding by User:Whaledad

Last weekend User Whaledad has started wikihouding me (which I explained here among other places), and has started all kind of irrational discussion on three Wikiprojects now.

The matter here is clear to me, that I own the copyright of my own art objects, and I only mentioned the photographers as a courtesy. Verbal agreements have been made, and I not in contact with the photographers any more. It is clear matter, that the art objects are copyright by me, and pictures of art objects could be a shared copyright of a photographer, but this is not the case according to me (and has not been questioned by the photographers). I guess this is the problem for all artists, who offer there work under the CC licence.

I would appreciate if an administrator gives me some advice, what to do here. There are similar attacks on my work and presents on the other Wikipedia's, and I could use some reduction pressure. If there are no simple answers here, I am willing to consider speedy deletion, because there are more important things to do. Could anybody give some advice.

Kind regards, -- Mdd (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I take offense to this accusation of 'Wikihouding' (sic) (here and elsewhere) from User:Mdd This started by me finding that Mdd had not properly attributed a picture, which I made Mdd aware of. I then helped him correct the file page, to the state it is now in (page history will show my corrections). I then started checking Mdd's other contribution ntoi the project, finding that there were other files that had issues, and flagging those. I'm not disputing Mdd's claim that he owns the rights to the work of art, but he doesn't own the rights to those particular photographs of them, unless the actual photographer (or agency) has given those rights to him in writing. As far as I'm aware Commons doesn't accept verbal agreements (unless maybe if they were recorded and the audio file is sent to them). Please ask Mdd to stop these false accusation of Wikihounding. Whaledad (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
PS: It would seem that this user has a history of copyright issues here. Whaledad (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a clear case of Wikihounding, which started trying to find mistakes to turn this into his advantage. Whaledad is giving a wrong picture of the history. When he found a small mistake, he came to me here, which I fixed and reported back within 7 minutes. After he continued attacking me, I asked for a second opinion here, where a large possible problem, with 304 files occurred, which Whaledad even tried to cover up. he is not in the least interested in solving problems here.
There is a clear mistake in the further argumentation of Whaledad. In real life people make both verbal and written agreements and both are legal. He doesn't have any clue that the verbal agreement is not like I have stated. Here history repeats it selves. In stead of admitting he is empty handed, he starts creating chaos with new possible accusations (which have nothing to do with this matter) and he starts playing the system. -- Mdd (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The accusation of Wikihounding is not well founded -- it is perfectly standard practice to check all of a user's uploads when several of them have been found to have problems, particularly when the user apparently does not understand how copyright works. I do it myself regularly -- not because I have any particular animus against the user, but because where there is one problem, there are often more.
Verbal agreements are effective for many things, but as a general rule not for copyright transfers -- in many countries a written agreement is required for such a transfer to be effective. In any case Commons policy is that we do not accept assertions from the uploader that he owns the copyright in an image taken by another person -- we require that the photographer send us a license using Commons:OTRS.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward, this comment of yours opens a new perspectives:

  1. The whole conflict here started with the attribution of this File:Conscience and law.jpg, which I started correction here
  2. In the discussion about this on the Dutch Wikipedia (here and here) I realized that there seemed to be copyright problems with all image in the Category:Bilder von Johannes Otto Först
  3. In stead of taking steps for further investigations...
  4. ... accusations of my plagiarism were shouted from the highest tree in the Wikipedia:Arbitragecommissie/Zaken/Grootschalig langdurig conflict for example here with the text:
    ... Hij weigert fatsoenlijke bronnen te gebruiken, hij fantaseert er lustig op los en is niet te beroerd om plagiaat te plegen. Nu mag men mij verwijten dat dit plagiaat ver gezocht is en bij het aanmelden van de zaak nog niet bekend was, maar dan zeg ik, juist de reactie van Mdd op de constatering van collega Whaledad maakt duidelijk dat hij niet alleen ongeschikt is, maar ook een groot gevaar voor de integriteit van dit projekt...Peter b (overleg) 27 jan 2012
  5. the previous accusation of plagiarism by Whaledad should have been handled with great care, and should have been dealt with here instead of start repeating the accusation else where.
  6. On the Dutch Wikipedia I asked for a second opinion in the matter of plagiarism (here) and Edoderoo and I agreed that the original text could lead to confusion, but did contain the information needed.
  7. In stead of dealing with the accusations made on the Wikipedia:Arbitragecommissie/Zaken/Grootschalig_langdurig_conflict, which became very insecure, new offensive action has been undertaken by Whaledad, not to solve new problem of 403 images, but towards me and my work.

Now there is a matter of not one but several alleged cases of Wikihounding, see for an other one here (see also here. Especially the matter that they don't redraw old accusation, but started new accusations here and on Wikiquote makes this a clear case of Wikihaunting.

Now this is a matter where I don't understand every single detail about how copyright works, and I have noticed thing evolve here on Wikicommons. But Whaledad is the person who doesn't understand the first thing about copyright. He has nominated four of my images based onthe argument that copyright is with the magazine, that first published the images. -- Mdd (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Mdd, first of all: the word you are looking for is Wikihounding, not Wikihouding. Secondly, your "proof" of my "hounding" you (as listed above) includes all kinds actions not done by me, even pages that I have not contributed to at all! Your accusation of Wikihounding is false, malicious and without merit, as is your statement that I don't know the first thing about copyright. I may not know all that there is to know about it (it is a complex area), but looking at the long list of files that you uploaded that have been removed for copyright reasons, you can certainly not be called an expert. The four pictures in question are NOT your works and require written permission by the original author before they can be use on Wikipedia,. While verbal agreements are perfectly legal, the Wikipedia requirements are very clear and go beyond the "normal" legal requirements. Whaledad (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Just ignore all the things you have done. Putting everything under a microscope, and started shoulting from the highest tree after finding one alledged flaw. Oh, it was not you but your mate. Oh, there were some things you did not do. Well that was the whole point. When real problems occurred you where not interested, even trying to intimidate me not to take notice. Maybe this accusation is not perfect here, this is just a noticeboard, where I state my concern.
Lots of things do not go perfect here, and multiple series of images have been removed, and am still learning here. Today I have learned about that written approval, and will set some thing in motion. But stop pretending your are not harrasing me. Mdd (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Mdd: I'm sorry you've been having a bad time with this, but when an experienced participant in Commons finds a problem about attribution, etc., it is simply normal practice to scrutinize the user's other uploads. It looks like there were places where he worded things poorly, and in particular he should probably be more careful about the use of the word plagiarism. However, it also looks like there were problems with some of the other uploads. I'm sure your intentions were entirely good, but I gather you didn't fully understand that a photo of an artwork has two levels of copyright issues, one for the underlying artwork and the other for the derivative photograph, and that Commons needs to be concerned with both. (Usually, of course, we see this problem the other way around: the photographer ignores the rights of the artist.) It looks like you understand that now, which is great. As long as you get that right in the future, I would presume this won't recur. - Jmabel ! talk 03:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jmabel, thanks for your efforts in trying to make mr. Mdd understand what the issues are. One thing though: I never used the word 'plagiarism' with respect to Mdd's contributions. I iknow he means well, is just 'sloppy' in dealing with the details. And unfortunately sees all forms of criticism as the whole world coming after him. The response below is an excellent example. Whaledad (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jmabel, things are more complex here. I don't have a problem with other users "scrutinize" (I guess this means "double check") my (1000+) uploads. The game Whaledad is playing is called: Drive your Wikipedia opponent of the road by demanding the conditions to be absolutely perfect, and when the opponent give prove, change the requirements even more. Now the particular example:
  • A deletion request has been made for this picture where the demands have been raised, see here
  • Now the problem is that I have no written prove, and I lost all sight of the photographer.
  • I can prove the image has been published a dozen times over the last 20 years: between 1992 and 1998 at least six times (see here), here on Wikipedia and on Flickr for three years and on a dozen other places on the web, without the photographer being mentioned or the picture claimed by the photographer.
  • I can also prove that image itself in a way is derived work, because I came to the photographer with a set of images that where not that perfect, but did contain the same concept of the image and the shadow.
  • The photographer had put all his skills into the picture and made it a perfect picture. The picture is an excellent example of craftsmanship. However the copyright is on the unique signature on the picture, which was already in the examples I took with me to the photo session. I guess the situation here is similar to google streetview, which can not be copyrighted because of it's lack of creative input, it is pure craftsmanship.
  • Now I will try to track the photographer, and make a deal. Also I am willing to take my changes in court if the photographer starts claiming the picture after 20 years., and/or take immediate action here when a copyright claim would arrive (just like a took immediate action when this all started [6])
Now the thing that starts messing with your head is, that Whaledad & Co here (and in earlier situations) pretend there absolutely should be, just that one thing there is not. But the things are not absolutely perfect here. When you prove that (for example 403 pictures missing OTRS confirmation, and all pictures before 2006 missing a OTRS because the system didn't work yet) Whaledad & Co ignore that, start put the pressure on other weaker points, pretending there are more mayor pressing problems. This is not about double checking, but making me a target, keep putting the pressure on (for months), this week on three projects (wikipedia, wikiquote, wikicommons). This is no ordinary double checking. This is a person looking for retribution, demanding perfect conditions in a imperfect world. -- Mdd (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Mr. Mdd, you don't own the copyright on the picture, because you had a sample with the same lighting and shadows. The copyright is not on the unique signature in the picture. The copyright is on th epicture itself. Wikipedia has no provision for users taking their 'changes in court if the photographer starts claiming the picture after 20 years'. Nor will Wikipedia allow the picture to remain here if no permission is trackably granted by the copyright owner. I'm most worried by your words: I will try to track the photographer, and make a deal. This clearly shows that there is no deal yet! And if I were the photographer (I am a photographer, just not of this picture), and I would read here that you appreciate my craftmanship, but that you feel that you own the copyright for the "unique signature on the picture", I would never make any kind of deal. Whaledad (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Just retribution, Whaledad, I read no more. Of cause I mean a new deal. There has been an understanding between the photographer and me that he doesn't claim anything. That is the current deal. If suddenly he wants to file a claim, I am willing to accept this, and make a new deal. But your are clearly on the path of retribution. You should try to find an other weak spot and raise the limits even higher, because that is the name of the game Drive your Wikipedia opponent of the road... -- Mdd (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The fact that there are other images that may have problems is irrelevant to this discussion. We have over 12 million images on Commons. I would not be surprised if 1% -- more than 100,000 -- of those had problems. If you find other images that you think are not OK on Commons, please put a {{Delete}} on them.
In this particular case -- as with all the other Mdd images that I have looked at that Whaledad has nominated -- unless we receive credible permission through OTRS, the DR should close with the deletion of the image.
I note that until Whaledad came along and fixed it, Mdd was claiming copyright in File:Geert van de Camp.jpg, which is a simple crop of an image provided by another user. As similar correction was required at
I have tagged the following uploads of Mdd with {{Delete}}
Some of them appear to be FOP problems, while others are claims of "Own Work" that do not appear to be correct. There are many other images which are web size with no EXIF which I suspect, but cannot prove, are problems.
So, we have here a user, Mdd, who has, through inexperience and lack knowledge, or perhaps, deliberately:
  • Uploaded a wide variety of images that have been deleted as copyvio
  • Has marked other people's work as "Own Work" a number of times
  • Has failed to properly attribute the photographer on images where he has made a simple crop
  • Has not paid attention to the underlying copyright of various artists in places where FOP does not apply
  • Has come here complaining of Wikihounding, when the work done by Whaledad appears to have been entirely correct, although his description of Mdd's errors may have been a little too harsh
Under the circumstances, I would advise Mdd to withdraw this complaint before a similar complaint is made against him. Bringing people who are simply doing their job to ANb is a nuisance for all of us.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to request that a Dutch administrator takes over here, or joins the discussion, so he can confirm the statements I made about the Dutch Wikipedia and Wikiquote. Also I would like to communicate in Dutch, because I am missing details here. I am aware that this is a serious accusation, and this is something I would like to be handled with care. -- Mdd (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Most problems have been solved here, so I think this item can be closed here. -- Mdd (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree that most copyright issues have been solved, and want to thank Mdd for his cooperation. What hasn't been solved is Mdd's unfounded accusation of Wikihounding. A retraction would be highly appreciated. Whaledad (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Ik vind het niet prima dat Whaledad en Jameslwoodward deze discussie verder willen rekken, en verzoek daarom of een Nederlandse administrator het hier over wil nemen. Er waren al de nodige losse eindjes hier. Zoals bijvoorbeeld, dat Whaledad altijd heeft voorgehouden dat hij slechts het beste met Wikicommons voor heeft. Echter naar het probleem van de 403 andere foto's, dat ik hier heb aangekaart is niet meer omgekeken. Het feit dat Whaledad weer begint te beschuldigen van ongefundeerde beschuldiging, geeft alleen maar weer verdere voeding, dat deze aanvraag terecht is gesteld. Het is zo dat ik in mijn commentaar van 20:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC ) uitgebreide onderbouwing heb gegeven van mijn aanklacht. Ook is het duidelijk dat ik de afgelopen week over drie Wikimedia projecten belaagd ben door een groepje Nederlandse Wikipedianen. Vermoedens die hier werden uitgesproken, werden op de Nederlandse Wikipedia met veel bravoure verkondigd. Ik vind dat er hier behoorlijk onzorgvuldig gehandeld is. Dit noticeboard is toch juist bedoeld om dergelijke zorgen aan te kaarten. Deze zaak is heb ik nu ingetrokken. Maar als Whaledad meent dat ik hier geen recht toe had, en me daarvoor moet verontschuldigen, dan wil ik daaromtrent de voorschriften eerst weten. We kunnen deze discussie ook gewoon kortsluiten door het hier maar bij te laten. -- Mdd (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
      • For the benefit of the non-Dutch speakers here, Mdd's statement above reads: "I don't agree with Whaledad and Jameslwoodward who want to further extend this disucssion, and I request a Dutch administrator to take over from here. There were several loose ends here. For instance, that Whaledad has always maintained that he only has the best intentions towards Wikicommons. However, the problem with 403 other pictures, that I have addressed here has not been looked at. The fact that Whaledad starts to poke again only confirms that this notice was placed here justly. It is abundantly clear that over the past week I have been hounded on three Wikimedia projects by a group of Dutch Wikipedians. Suspicions that were posted here, were announced on the Dutch Wikipedia with much fanfare. I think that there was a general lack of due diligence here. This noticeboard is meant to address those kinds of concerns, right? I have now retracted this case. But if Whaledad think I had no right to file this case, and owe him an apology, then I want to now the rules on this. We can also just close the discussion and leave it at this. -- Mdd (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)" As you can read above, I never demanded an apology, just suggested that it would be a good thing to do. Obviously this is not the way Mdd operates which is fine by me. Case closed. -- Whaledad (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward

@Jameslwoodward. It is a good thing you have been checking all my work, but those thing do not automatically relate to the others. Ok, you found 15 other images, I found 403. But I am not interested in this kind of competition. You have an obligation to take this complain seriously... and I will take all things you find seriously. -- Mdd (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward. It seems to me you are making similar moves as Whaledad. Things like this should be handled with care. For example I noticed:
Here you have most of your answers, yet you started a dozen discussions. Now I welcome these discussions. In a way this makes the complain go away. The whole problem with Whaledad & Co is, that there is no rational discussion possible. I noticed you have take side on the matter File:KAST_kast_1992.jpg. This is a clear case where I claim copyright, and I will transfer my arguments from here into that discussion. -- Mdd (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Whaledad (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Сербијана

Can somebody please speedily close all DR's opened by Сербијана (that is all his/her contribution)? There is not a signle one with a valid reason. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem, perhaps someone should explain to them in Serbian language that what they did wrong.  ■ MMXX  talk 00:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done mickit 10:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Cropped version of copyvio picture

Could somebody check File:Aryans.jpg, it are cropped version of watermarked picture of same uploader--Motopark (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done - A.Savin 12:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Can somebody combine numerous deletions into one, and ask Kobac to use batch nominations?

Few hours ago I uploaded ~150 pictures from a museum, half artifacts, half descriptions which I do not have time to transcribe. Soon afterward, 80.187.110.44 (talk · contribs) nominated a dozen of descriptions for deletion, citing low quality and no encyclopedic value. I replied at each, suggesting that the anon helps with adding more information, transferring the description from the photos of the plaques to the photos of relevant artifacts (I agree that the descriptions can be deleted afterward; I added them for the utilitarian purpose of information harvesting for captions). I also asked the anon to log in, so that we can discuss this. Instead of answering me, about 30 or so of my images - the remaining descriptions, I assume, because I don't have time to check each individually - have been nominated for deletion by Kobac (talk · contribs), who I assume is the anon from before. I do not have time to respond to each of his 30 deletions with the same message; I find such mass nomination annoying. Can somebody collect them into one batch, so the discussion can take place in one and not fifty places, ask anon/Kobac to behave somewhat less like a bot (as in: reply to others), and use the batch nomination process in the future? I don't appreciate that he has ignored my objects and requests to join the discussion, and instead keeps spamming my talkpage with the deletion requests. For the list of files affected, see my talkpage, half of which is now taken up by those deletion requests. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

user:Innova Management

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

Keeps uploading copyvios after warning. Moros y Cristianos 11:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - on it now. --Herby talk thyme 12:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Shabirlai

User User:Shabirlai says in userpage that he are adminitrator but verifying fails.--Motopark (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes - I think they didn't like your speedy tag and decided to cover it up... Deleted now - blocking if there is any other junk I think. --Herby talk thyme 16:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack by User My76Strat - calling user part of a "lunatic fringe"

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing, as proximate issue has been dealt with, and thread threatens to balloon into general discussion that doesn't belong here. Rd232 (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  1. No contribs to the project since 24 September 2011, then shows up at deletion nom Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rick santorum caricature satire made with frothy santorum pic 1.jpg to make a personal attack.
  2. Likens uploader (myself) to: "lunatic fringe"
  3. Not appropriate to refer to someone on this project as part of a "lunatic fringe"
  4. Can something please be done about this user My76Strat (talk · contribs) ?

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In context, it seems more like an attack on the creator. Anyway, I left the user a note. Though considering the subsequent comment by Jimbo, maybe you have bigger issues... Rd232 (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the note, it's most appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Cirt, why do you continue to upload a whole Category:Santorum neologism-related images after Commons:Deletion requests/File:One half of santorum ingredients fecal matter.jpg was closed as deleted? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs), how is that relevant to this subsection? Perhaps we can continue this on your talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
As I see it, COM:STICK is a redlink. Not so on Wikipedia [7], one of the differences you've already pointed out in the deletion debate. But this is Commons, we do things differently. Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Complain

I was categoryzing Media needing category review (June, July and August 2011) and Category:Uncategorized NOAA images.
Templates {{Check categories|year=2012|month=January|day=10}} and {{Uncategorized|year=2011|month=July|day=28}} are a nuisance.
I deleted "Uncategorized" from File:NMos World Cultures Galleries 07.jpg for instance, a waste of time (Category:National Museum of Scotland). I don't know why the Category:National Museum of Scotland was listed in Category:Media needing categories as of 28 July 2011 (total files: 271).)
I deleted "Check categories" from File:Theb0741 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg for instance, another waste of time. I don't know why the categorized NOAA images are listed in Category:Media needing category review as of 10 January 2012 (total files: 396).
Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Considering this, I fail to see what was a waste of time and why it should not have been in Category:Media needing category review as of 10 January 2012 . --Foroa (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
See the revision history, it got "Categories have been checked" three times, I think that something might be rotten here. I mean, HotCat needs one mouse-click, the templates need another two mouse-clicks to get rid of it. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
One edit re-inserted the template. That's a bit strange. Concerning HotCat removing this template automatically, there is a proposal on Commons:Village pump‎#HotCat — Remove Template:Check categories. -- RE rillke questions? 14:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Thx, I'll keep an eye on it :/ --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

user:Ai Ciara

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

Seems to be uploading only unfree internet leeched stuff. Moros y Cristianos 16:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done nuked all uploads, warned.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Immediate Deletion of Image!

Donation_to_the_WMF.PNG is a $10,000 check uploaded without voiding it! Keep the voided copy (erased in places) and delete the "good copy" before someone tries to print and cash it. Doug youvan (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done User:Mmxx deleted the old revision. Rd232 (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you... A classic of an idiotic mistake. However, there are all of those safeguards. ??? Doug youvan (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
This page appears now have been deleted with a comment by the deleter that the uploader requested deletion. But he didn't. He just requested deletion of one image in the chain. Someone else requested deletion with the statement "I think that the copyright isn't held by the uploader but by the issuing bank" but there was nothing copyrightable there: the only copyrightable elements there would be the sheaves of wheat, which were presumably de minimis. Is there a reason not to restore this (voided version only)? - Jmabel ! talk 03:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I see, he requested deletion on a separate thread on this same page. - Jmabel ! talk 03:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Need help moving an image back to original name

I assumed it would be as easy as moving a page back... The uploader has requested that File:National Amusements City Center 15 Cinema De Lux - Movie Theater Lobby - White Plains, New York.jpg be moved back to File:10.5.07CityCenterLobbyByLuigiNovi.jpg, MW won't let me as it thinks there is another file there (the redirect), and there don't appear to be any templates for this. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 13:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "uploader requested" in Commons:File renaming envisages naming it back to something meaningless. And I'm not sure either that uploaders get to insist on attribution within file names if they want to (since that seems the motivation). Rd232 (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. In fact, perhaps we should take a closer look at the license on all of this User's files -- he requires attribution near the image or a link to the Commons file page. This precludes use in all WPs, since use in the WPs is two clicks away from the Commons page. It also precludes use in any print media that collects all attributions in one place, as is common in many large format books of images.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
There was no good reason for this file name change. All this file renaming is getting out of hand. And if photographers want their name in the file name, their is generally nothing against it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved it back to the original file name. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Why? Rd232 (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Redirects are cheap and that is what categories and description pages are for. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
None of those are relevant for users browsing a category trying to find content - there, all they have is the visual and the filename. Rd232 (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Good. Most file renames are a waste of people, system and bot time, not to mention the problems that they can cause in the referring articles. If the same energy was spent to properly document and categorise the images ... --Foroa (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The file was renamed within 72 hours from something nearly meaningless to something descriptive. (And it isn't in use.) Are you really opposed to such renames? If so, maybe you should suggest some clarification of Commons:File renaming. Fact is, decent filenames help people find content, both by searching and by browsing categories. Rd232 (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Commons:File renaming#What files should not be renamed? is good guidance. There will always be slightly better filenames. The new name in this case was not better, just a whole lot longer. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, in your opinion I guess. I think the new filename was a lot more descriptive (perhaps on the long side), and certainly doesn't fall under the current guidance's "don't do that" examples. Rd232 (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, I give more specific reasoning for the choice of title on my talk page. This was in part a reaction to a deletion attempt on WP (a user thought the image was useless because they didn't know what the subject was). And for the record, I was not trying to disparage the uploader or the title of the image by posting here, I just needed help moving it back. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 18:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • That was a ridiculously long filename, a filename is not a description, it's a handle for accessing the content. As I have said before (too many times ;-) : Concise, meaningful and preferably mnemonic are good features of a filename. Users often put their own unique identifiers in the filename to help them keep track of their uploads, and save them accidentally re-uploading the same image again. The filename is hopefully only in a single language, the description should be in multiple languages. And lastly (AFAIK) the result of moving a file (renaming) is that it is no longer on the uploaders watchlist. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    The new name and the old redirect stay on everyone's watchlist. There are user categories for keeping track of uploads. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 18:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Why MediaWiki does not distinguish between a title and the filename? Why are there no permanent IDs for files? -- RE rillke questions? 21:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The file name (not id) is displayed in a <h1>. Do you expect a static difficult to read ID or something useful as a heading? Should we file a feature request on Bugzilla? How should the ideal image-description page look like and how image usage should work? It is probably worth making a few drafts? -- RE rillke questions? 21:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Special:ListFiles/Infoxp2500

This user uploaded several copyvio images and animated GIFs. There are still many files to be reviewed. Any help is welcomed. --Leyo 15:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Image page protection

The image page suffers from an editor who removes the description of this image. Could you please protect this page against those who want to change the complete and understandable informative description into meager one-liner? Thank you.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Help on .en re-establishing editorial privileges

I think I have been doing a good job on Commons. The figure I made for the Genetic Code article gets 600,000 hits per year. I am trying to resolve a very complicated issue on Commons, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#.2410.2C000_Donation_to_the_WMF.2C_if_... , which also contains information on my ban from editing at .en. Would someone here on Commons pass this over to .en? Would someone on Commons be my advocate? Restrictions on editing .en are fine with me. Please give me another chance. I will do trivial tasks if requested. My IP is blocked on .en at this time. Doug youvan (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Kindly provide a link for the Genetic Code figure and a source for the 600,000 hits per year number. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, we do not advocate cross project for blocks or bans. You have to bring it up there with the blocking admin or someone there to do that. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Walter, http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Genetic%20Code multiplies out to 800,000 hits per year. The 4th figure down is in my Commons gallery. Someone did a reformat, so you need to click through to the original upload. Zs, I am looking for an advocate here and not wanting to get involved myself if that is possible. Thanks Doug youvan (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
We do not advocate lifting bans on other projects, and I would not support lifting your ban as an en editor either. As for your stats, the article en:Genetic code is indeed very popular, and your diagram File:Genetic Code Bias 2.JPG is a useful and welcome contribution, but you oversell yourself if you imagine those 800K views can be attributed directly to you. Many people worked together to build that article. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
No, no. I would never attribute all of those hits to me. More like < 1% ! I said, "The figure I made for the Genetic Code article gets 600,000 hits per year." Let me lower that a bit. The yearly rate for the article looks like 800,000. If half the readers read like me, they spend 30" on the article and check out the figures and leave. So, I will estimate that a few hundred thousand people per year see the figure I contributed. Dcoetzee - I did not mean to sound proud. Sorry. I would like to leave this request "up" and see if another editor will help me because you all are using the word "advocate" rather than citing a rule on a strict ban. OK?Doug youvan (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Your file, File:Genetic Code Bias 2.JPG, was uploaded 2008-06-03. Your indefinite block was 2008-07-02.[8] You may wish to reference positive contributions subsequent your block to make your case. Commons:Village_pump#.2410.2C000_Donation_to_the_WMF.2C_if_... may be seen by the unsympathetic as an attempt to harass User:Kraaiennest.[9] "I'll have that put through an FBI lab, too." may raise concerns about legal threats.[10][11] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Walter: You are correct about the unsympathetic. Maybe I should spend more time on Commons - doing good work - before making any request of .en. Also, I understand the ban on civil suit threats by the WMF and plan to comply completely without question. Criminal law is different. However, since I seem to be in the dog house, I will lay off that particular image and leave it to others to decide. Doug youvan (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
If you want privileges back on en.Wikipedia, check with ArbCom on en.Wikipedia. You've been advised of this before. End-runs are not typically either wise, nor successful. Every Wikimedia project is separate, including Commons. Bwilkins (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

user:Valentin4500

Valentin4500 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Keeps uploading copyvios after warning. Moros y Cristianos 17:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I nuked the remaining copyvios. PierreSelim (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Emergency deletion of image

I do not know banking law. For all I know, violates bank law. Please delete immediately. Doug youvan (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done. I've deleted it. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug youvan (talk • contribs)

You're welcome! It's an easy decision to delete, as a request by self from the uploader. -- Cirt (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not know that. Please delete Pi.tif. It's mine and waisting time in a deletion vote. Doug youvan (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please add your request to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pi.tif.  ■ MMXX  talk 01:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done, deleted, per self request here, by uploader. -- Cirt (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Hum, just to clarify: you wrote Self request by uploaders satisfies speedy delete criterion, I hope you know it doesn't. I guess it's fine for this one image, the consensus seems to have been in favor of deletion, but in general you shouldn't speedy delete images just because the uploader requested it (they have no special privilege over the image after all); they should go through a regular deletion request. Prof. Professorson (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
It does under G7, though the only catch is that the upload has to be under 7 days for it to be used as a speedy delete. Everything else just goes to a DR. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Right, thanks for the correction. In the case of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pi.tif, the closing argument is wrong nonetheless: the file was uploaded much more than 7 days ago. Prof. Professorson (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Understood, thanks for the clarification. Glad we're all in agreement that it's fine for this one image, the consensus seems to have been in favor of deletion. :) -- Cirt (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:J Jayalalitha, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu (2011-2016).jpg old revision deletion

Hello, please can you delete the second revision of the file File:J Jayalalitha, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu (2011-2016).jpg, the revision where the file in question was uploaded by Kumarrajendran. I am of the belief that is image is most probably copyrighted, as the uploader is a serial copyright violator, it looks like a relatively old image - you can find more details regarding the uploaders infringement activities at his Contributor Copyright Investigation (CCI) on enwiki. I'm not sure if this is the correct forum to request a deletion, but I couldn't find any links pointing to places otherwise. Cheers, Acather96 (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done - image revision deleted. --Denniss (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

reverted watermark removal

Regarding this image, a watermark was removed. The original uploader promptly reverted the edit. I reverted back explaining that watermarks are discouraged and attribution belongs in the description or EXIF data. He reverted back again suggesting that watermarks are only discouraged, not prohibited and reverted yet again. Looking at past discussions on the matter and Commons policy it seems the original uploader is in the wrong and is being obstinate, yet reverting back and forth will get us nowhere. Might an administrator get involved and put this issue to rest? Jbarta (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I would upload a separate non-watermarked image and let users choose. His comment of "the watermark is part of the image, keep it or delete the image" is not right since once he uploaded and chose his license, he agreed to have his image modified any way the reuser sees fit. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd suggest that's sidestepping the issue and is not really a solution. We'd then have duplicates floating around and fights over which image to use, etc etc. It boils down to either attribution watermarks are allowed or they're not. "Discouraged" is simply another word for "allowed". If they're allowed, then why do we bother removing them? If they are not allowed (which effectively seems to be the case) then we(an administrator) should deal with the issue directly. Another way to look at it is that an edit to an image should be an improvement. It's pretty hard to argue that putting a watermark back into an image is an improvement. Jbarta (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The uploader is incorrect. An image with a watermark such as this one is generally less useful than one without. Watermarks negatively impact the free use of Commons images. We can't start uploading two images of every image that an uploader demands be watermarked -- not only does it encourage other uploaders to do the same, but it creates the precise problems identified by Jbarta. There may be occasional times when a watermark is appropriate, but this is not one of them. And, yes, the uploader seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the license under which he uploaded the image. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I note that the en-Wikipedia, the biggest user of Commons media, has a policy that states: "Free images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking, distortion etc. and is used in the related article. Exceptions may be made for historic images when the credit forms an integral part of the composition. All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page." I presume that many of the other Wikipedias have similar policies. If we start allowing watermarks, we risk creating an entire class of images that are largely unusable. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Commons has a policy in development concerning watermarks. It's not official policy yet, but there's no indication that it would evolve to allow image uploaders to revert and retain edited out attribution watermarks. Jbarta (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add watermark tools to the toolbox to easily tag watermarked images? There are already tools for rotation, deletion, etc.▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 01:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
If you have MediaWiki:AjaxQuickDelete.js enabled, all you need is to add this to your common/vector/.../.js file.

var AjaxDeleteExtraButtons = [ { 'label': 'Watermark', 'tag': '{\{Watermark}}', 'img_summary': 'This file contains a watermark that should be removed.' }]; --Sreejith K (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Responding to original post: Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:CC-Dont-Remove_Watermark was very clear that uploaders cannot forbid the removal of visible watermarks, and that all licenses we accept permit this to be done. If the user continues to edit war over the image, I will block them. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Undiscussed Siebot move initiated by Foroa. Category:Palestinian culture

Category:Palestinian culture. Foroa moved the subcategories and emptied the category via the Siebot bot without discussion first. See User talk:SieBot which points to User talk:Siebrand which points to the edit history of User:CommonsDelinker/commands. That edit history shows his initiation of the bot move. See this diff from there. It lists this:

{{Move cat|Palestinian culture|Culture of Palestine}}

See: Category talk:Palestinian culture. Foroa has not yet commented there on the move. Foroa also added the category redirect without discussion, and then protected the category. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is. Active Commons contributors routinely make thousands of edits and moves as part of their maintenance work during any given month. If each and every action required the contributor to initiate a talk page discussion, the Commons project would just grind to a halt.

"Culture of Palestine" is actually much more in keeping with Commons naming conventions than "Palestinian culture", although I assume that your concern relates to the fact that the category in question does not apply only within the borders (whatever those may be) of Palestine (e.g. it could include images related to the Palestinian community in Amsterdam, for example). I am not sure that the new category name is inconsistent with your view of the scope of the category, but nonetheless your concern is certainly a valid one. Having said that, the proper process is to raise the issue over at Category talk:Palestinian culture as you have done, and if the consensus is to revert, then it can easily be done. But Foroa hasn't done anything wrong or inappropriate. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, there was related discussion at Category talk:Culture of Palestine beforehand, and so Foroa knows he was overstepping his bounds. He used his admin powers to get his way. Since when is that right? That drives away many editors. Wikipedia is losing editors due to stuff like this, and other reasons. The number of active editors is declining. See: en:User:Timeshifter/More articles and less editors.
Foroa added the category redirect, locked the page, and initiated the bot, all on the same day. Even though 2 people disagreed with him. User:Orrling added most of the subcategories. I added a few too. All of this occurred within 24 hours of the creation of the category by me. You are incorrect, Skeezix, in saying that "Culture of Palestine" is more in keeping with Commons naming conventions than "Palestinian culture". Read Category talk:Palestinian culture. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
What can I add? :-/ The situation of feeling that you & your collegues are subject to an arbitrary aggression performed uopn this place's basic delineation of equality and argumentariness is really unpleasant. And far apart, nothing will convince me that "Culture of Palestine" is a more adequate naming than "Palestinian culture"... which speaks to a more comprehensible scope and better-defined meaning than the proposed "-of Palestine", which is in turn only a part of no less than a rediculously obvious aggregate attempt to bias the Commons categorization. This is done in a non-civil tone. Orrlingtalk 20:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I am going to initiate discussion at the Wikipedia Village Pump about creating a "Rude admins noticeboard" there. Abusive admins are one reason the total number of active editors is steadily declining. See en:User:Timeshifter/More articles and less editors. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see anything in that earlier discussion that Timeshifter points to that shows Foroa "overstepped his bounds". It seems to cover an unrelated issue, although related to the same general topic. Did you point to the right discussion? And Timeshifter, I am referring to the practice of naming categories "(subject) of (location)" -- the examples you have listed, which perhaps are innapropriate themselves, does not make me incorrect. As for the issue Orrling raised, I think some good faith is required, and it helps to assume that other Commons contributors are not trying to somehow demean specific nationalities. And Orrling's point, unless I have misunderstood it (and maybe I have), seems to go more to whether the category ought to be Category:Culture of the Palestinian Territories over Category:Culture of Palestine, rather than whether the category should be at Category:Culture of Palestine. In any event, I see here a disagreement over proper category naming, which is fine (and it sounds like an interesting debate), but I still don't see any wrongdoing or inappropriate behaviour here.

And, Timeshifter, Commons is a different project than Wikipedia. And please keep your comments on the substance of the dispute. Blaming Foroa for declining participation at a different project seems odd, and isn't particularly helpful here. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Skeezix, you keep changing the subject away from Foroa's abuse of his admin powers. I am not the one continually bringing the discussion back to a content and naming dispute. In fact, I don't have a problem with the name of either category. I had one as a subcategory of the other. That is not what this discussion is about. If you want to have that discussion go to Category talk:Palestinian culture. I started this discussion about Foroa's abuse of his admin powers. Foroa added the category redirect, locked the page, and initiated the bot, all on the same day. Even though he knew that 2 people disagreed with him. This is an abuse of admin power, and it is occurring throughout Wikimedia projects. The fact that you, as an admin, ignore my main point, and circle the wagons around a fellow admin, proves one of my previous points. I initiated a discussion at the idea-lab village pump on Wikipedia (a village pump I helped create). See: en:Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 85#A noticeboard about rude and abusive admins. Please note that it is not a voting forum. It is a discussion forum. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
In response to the query raised regarding my point, then nope – the Palestinian culture-vrs-Culture of Palestine issue is apart from the ok-settled Category:Culture of the Palestinian territories. It has to do only with the user's urge to *correct* every item baring the attribution "Palestinian X" into "X of Palestine", yet I'm not going to be martyr on that, as long as distinction is kept between the recognized Palestinian territories and the broader, historic region of Palestine which one may try to blur (and thus forward ideas of political, non-encyclopedic nature). Orrlingtalk 22:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Foroa foreclosed on that discussion and decided in favor of the political by only allowing Category:Culture of Palestine. My creation of Category:Palestinian culture was separate from any political considerations. Palestinian culture exists independent of Category:Culture of Palestine or Category:Culture of the Palestinian territories. Foroa has effectively deleted a category without discussion, and against the wishes of 2 people. All within one day. That is a big abuse of everything Wikipedia and the Commons stands for. Foroa's logic and forceful intervention against policy would eliminate these Wikipedia categories and create new political ones:
en:Category:Jewish culture to Culture of Israel.
en:Category:Kurdish culture to Culture of Kurdistan.
en:Category:Basque culture to Culture of Basque country.
en:Category:Tibetan culture‎ to Culture of Tibet.
The Foroa names are much more political. All those cultures are now dispersed beyond the initial lands of those peoples. Same as for Palestinians dispersed in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Israel, Chile (! huge numbers there), etc.. See en:Palestinian diaspora. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to say this one more time, and I am going to say it simply, because you appear to have missed the point of/not read my earlier comments. Regardless of whether or not you disagree with him on the category move, and on its face it seems like a debatable point, Foroa does not appear to have done anything wrong. You pointed to a discussion that you said that proved he knew that the change was disputed, but that discussion is on a different issue, and you have't pointed to anything else. If you are going to make accusations of abuse, please provide evidence. Mostly, you just come across as being peeved that he has a different opinion than you. Your accusation of "circling the wagons" is just silly, since Foroa and I regularly disagree on issues. I've wasted enough time already on this discussion, I'll now just let this discussion wind down from lack of interest. I tried. Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems to be you, Skeezix that has "missed the point of/not read my earlier comments". See my previous replies. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot of hyperbole and irrelevance here. Well, the timeline I see is:

  1. 8 Feb Discussion at Category talk:Culture of Palestine initiated by User:Orrling
  2. "Ok. I see what you are doing: Category:Culture of the Palestinian territories." --Timeshifter (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  3. 07.23 9 Feb Foroa applies CommonsDelinker command
  4. 12.38 Foroa applies the category redirect Palestinian culture to Culture of Palestine
  5. 13.12 9 Feb Foroa protects the category redirect Palestinian culture, after Orrling reverted
  6. 15.04 9 Feb Timeshifter starts discussion at Category talk:Palestinian culture

Given Foroa's view that the naming was "non-standard", this was not entirely unreasonable, given that one of the participants in the discussion had said something (2.) which sounded vaguely in agreement. However, more discussion would certainly have been better, and I can understand complaints that Foroa went off and implemented his own decision using admin powers. But making it into an "admin abuse" issue is totally disproportionate for one incident; if this was a pattern, I would be more concerned. Disclosure: I'm not convinced the renaming is correct; maybe we do need categories like "Palestinian culture", "Chinese culture" etc, since peoples are not synonymous with countries. But that's not something to discuss here. Rd232 (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the timeline. You left out the timing of a couple items though. My creation of Category:Palestinian culture at 21:12 on Feb. 8. See this. Then the timing of the creation of the many subcategories by Orrling before Foroa applied the CommonsDelinker command and the category redirect. Foroa did those 2 things in spite of the fact that I created the category, and in spite of the fact that Orrling supported the category by adding many subcategories. So Foroa knew that both I and Orrling supported that category. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, but it remains the case that it was a very recently created category which Foroa thought non-standard. Seen in that light, it's easier to understand a quick action to prevent non-standard structures being developed which would need more work to clean up. Nonetheless, it should have been a Commons:Categories for discussion case at least. CommonsDelinker's instruction actually include the warning Please do not request name changes that you know may be controversial... Now, I will ask Foroa for some input in this discussion, I don't think there's much point in continuing without it. Rd232 (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but this story is rather misrepresented. The original category was Category:Culture of Palestine, which is conforming to Commons naming standard. Without any form of discussion, Timeshifter created an undocumented Category:Palestinian culture as a parent category without any discussion and moved some of the items from the first to the second category. Then user:Orrling moved the remainder which is understandable as Category:Culture of Palestine as a subcategory of Category:Palestinian culture makes no sense. I just restored the original situation and blocked reverts, that's all. --Foroa (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, OK, Category:Culture of Palestine was created (by Timeshifter, in fact) in 2007. But it doesn't take a CFD to create an additional category (Palestinian culture), whilst the later move (to merge from the old category into the new), plus your view that the new category shouldn't exist as a separate category, does suggest a CFD to sort things out. At any rate, just because you're trying to reconstruct the status quo ante, according to what you think is the standard (and a standard you think is correct) doesn't mean discussion is redundant, or that the CommonsDelinker warning doesn't apply. Rd232 (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Can the category redirect be removed from it, and the page unprotected? Otherwise, the category effectively remains deleted without discussion. It is not up to Foroa to decide what is standard and non-standard. And categorization is oftentimes more of an art than a strict rule-based endeavor. Admins do not have special privileges in deciding these things, too. Anyway, I have a lot of experience categorizing. And I also have a lot of experience on Wikipedia concerning the politics of Israeli-Palestinian issues (IP issues) and how they are dealt with on Wikipedia. So I am not an idiot. I suggest Foroa take a break, and categorize less. Or avoid categorizing controversial stuff when doing a lot of categorizing. It is hard to listen to others well when one is doing a lot of other editing. That is some advice I read recently on Wikipedia concerning admins while editing controversial issues. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure no-one thinks you're an idiot, and you don't need to prove your experience. To take the content issue forward, I think a CFD is best - and that doesn't need unprotection, which risks opening the door to new conflict. The only question I think is whether the CFD should be on Category:Culture of Palestine or Category:Palestinian culture. If the latter, since it's protected, I (or any admin) can add the CFD template to the category page on request. Alternatively, though, if you think there's too much of a risk of a CFD becoming an argument all about what the standard is, you could try raising the broader issue of what the standard should be in a COM:RFC (perhaps at Commons talk:Categories). Rd232 (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
All I want is the category redirect removed. I don't have a desire to change the name of either category. They both can exist as far as I am concerned. If someone else does want a change they can ask for a CFD, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I have changed my mind. I added a {{Move}} tag to Category:Culture of Palestine. "Culture of Palestine" category originally referred to the culture of historic Palestine. This is what the intro of the category said: "Culture of historic Palestine." But with all the politics around the name "Palestine" nowadays, that will cause all the problems we are seeing here. So I now see that both categories should not exist. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I normally wouldn't bother with following up something like this all the way to a noticeboard. But lately, I have been doing so to help figure out why so many active editors have been leaving. I myself have mostly stopped editing Wikipedia articles for awhile. I may leave a note on an article talk page. After lots of study, and involvement in multiple discussions the last few weeks, I see 2 main issues:

Note that half the people commenting there support the noticeboard, and half do not. My reading is that those who are against it just do not understand how serious the problem is. Kind of like the half here in this noticeboard thread did not see a problem. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting, but really beyond the scope of this thread. If you want to pursue this here as well as on en.wp, please start a new thread somewhere. Rd232 (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If I may pop-add, "out of the blue", hoping it won't be considered beyond this thread's scope, a succinct report on what I just very recently happened to view here: About two days ago I published a move proposal at Category:Palestinian handcrafts thus: {{Move|Palestinian handicrafts|Typing error|3=2012-02-09}}. My numerous rename requests are fulfilled regularly so I had it totally beyond concern, and then like an hour ago I had some interest in that cat and couldn't find it, nor by the corrected naming. I tather found this (and see history). I think it's no need to say that the particular user has used the rename permissions to, taking advantage of editors' good-faith alerts on errors, turn over a whole entire category's definition giving it a title that renders it devoid of its actual essence, all without stating a reason summary in the deletion log or elsewhere accounting for manipulating the cat's name away from the requested one. This is a very interesting trend. Not to mention an opportunistic misuse of trust. Orrlingtalk 03:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. What was your move request? --Timeshifter (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
OK. Now I see. The category was originally named "Palestinian handcrafts". You put on a {{Move}} tag to correct the misspelling. Foroa used that as an excuse to continue on his mission to change all Palestinian category names to "X of Palestine." That is what started this long discussion thread. Foroa wanted to put "by country" categories on all Palestinian categories. We pointed out that it makes more sense to put a "by country" category on "Culture of the Palestinian territories". Since that is the only possible country, and even that is not a country in the viewpoint of a minority of countries. "Palestine" is normally thought of as the region. At least in the U.S. news media which is what I see mostly since I am in the USA. Maybe "Palestine" has now become the name for the Palestinian territories. I don't know. In any case there should be discussion, and not an admin running around doing deceptive things, and running roughshod on Commons guidelines. Also, the Commons needs to decide how to deal with all these aspiring countries like Tibet, the Basque country, Kashmir, Kurdistan, etc.. I support a Palestinian state very strongly. I support en:WP:NPOV even more strongly though. I thought Wikipedia and the Commons did not take sides in political matters. "Palestinian culture" and "Palestinian handicrafts" is a non-political solution that does not take sides. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
What does it have to do with political sidetaking? This issue is far beyond into the very content`s scope and these moves (which may be politically aspiring, that's not the matter) distort the actual meaning of the categories. What's here to explain? Images at the Palestinian handicrafts category, for example, are in a large number artwork made in Jordan or other diasporas; so this cannot be attributed deceptively as to a "Culture of region X", since this is the culture of a cultural group of people with less regard of their place of descendancy. This is the reason why retitling "Kudish culture" into "Culture of Kurdistan" would be erroneous, and is in the same rate why "Handicraft of Palestine" is erroneous, unclear; and minimizing the scope the cat's aiming to represent. - Just as much as "People of Palestine" is a problematic and malrepresentative naming for the category aiming at listing palestinians, of which many have never been in Palestine! This is exactly the logics underlying Category:People of the Palestinian territories, Category:Religion in the Palestinian territories etc, that we maintain as to denote the fair political dimension of Palestinian existance in Palestine but also to strike a decisive distinction between the non-political i.e. geographic/cultural dimension (aka Palestinian) and the political one (aka Pal. territories), a distinction which is vital to us aiming at a NEUTRAL maintenance of this educational environment. No importance to how strongly one oppose or supports the Palestinian motives, w:Palestine is not listed yet as a country and therefore items related directly to the West Bank and Gaza are the sole ones entitled to a "by country"-tagging. Anyhow as earlier said, the very point starting the discussion here is the misuse of rename/delete permissions (and I didn't know he were admin. How can you tell a user is also an admin?) embodied in the choice to underhandedly, independently manipulate category branching while paying no account to co-editors. Enough clear? Orrlingtalk 04:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Some guidance might be taken from English Wikipedia too. See:
en:Category:Cultures and subcategories:
en:Category:Culture by language‎
en:Category:Culture by ethnicity
en:Category:Jewish culture
en:Category:Kurdish culture
en:Category:Basque culture
en:Category:Tibetan culture‎
See also
en:Category:Culture and subcategories:
en:Category:Culture by region‎
en:Category:Archaeological cultures‎
See en:Palestinian diaspora and Category:Palestinian diaspora to see how widespread Palestinian culture is. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I added a {{Move}} tag to Category:Culture of Palestine. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

COM:REVDEL

I've threatened it, and here it finally is: Request for comments on making Commons:Revision deletion an official policy. Because this simply documents current practice, I'm not sure if a sitenotice is really necessary. Rd232 (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Donald Duck - The Spirit of '43 (cropped version).jpg & User:Yann

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I think the issue was resolved. If I've selected suboptimal resolution process or offended somebody -- I am sorry about it. Trycatch (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
:Footnote: content issue now at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Disney_characters_deletion_requests. Rd232 (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


Could some third-party admin to look at this? It seems that Yann forces his private (and what is more important, provable wrong) opinion on the topic using his admin tools. Long story short, the case is 100% analogous to Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam" (Mickey Mouse)" - NARA - 513869.tif which resulted in Deleted as copyvio after the thorough discussion. Actually the issue in question is so simple that it was cited as an example (not by myself, btw) in the Wikipedia's main guideline on copyright:

In short: Cartoons (animated movies or comic strips) enter the public domain only when the copyrights on both the movie or strip and the character have expired.

[...]

Similar to the above, an animated movie enters the public domain only when the copyrights on both the movie and the character have expired. Even if there were a Mickey Mouse movie that was not under copyright due to non-renewal or other reasons, that movie would not be in the public domain until the end of 2023, when the copyrights on Plane Crazy, Steamboat Willie and on Mickey Mouse will have expired.

The same applies, of course, to other cartoon characters such as Donald Duck, or the Warner Bros. characters such as Daffy Duck. It also applies to comic strips and comics characters, such as Superman.

— w:Wikipedia:Public domain#Animated movies (Cartoons)

Copyright on the film strip expired, but copyright on the character (Donald Duck) was not, so the cartoon is not free and should be deleted. But at first Yann kept Mickey Mouse (I've later reopened the DR, and the picture was deleted by another admin), then he voted  Keep in the "Donald Duck" DR, then closed as Kept without any analysis the very same DR. I've reopened it, trying to explain that basic concept one more time, but Yann closed the DR again (and again without even vague understanding of the discussed issue). Basically you vote in the DR, then close the DR, and then prevent the DR from reopening -- it doesn't look nice for me (an admin could force any their opinion in this way, even the weirdest one), and probably violates our deletion policy. So I am asking for (at the very least) reopening of the discussion, because I suppose he will go as far as blocking me if I'll try to reopen the DR myself. Trycatch (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The DR was open for one and half month last year, and one month this year, and yet, Trycatch didn't care to participate. And 3 minutes after I closed it, he reopen it with the same arguments. This is very rude, and disruptive of the deletion process, and it is not acceptable. To me, it looks like forcing your opinion on others. But there is no better defense, than to attack, and accusing me exactly of what you are doing, isn't? Yann (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
It would be very hard to collect more wrong claims in one paragraph. The claim that I didn't participate in the DR only proves one more time that you didn't even read the discussion before your DR closure, because in fact I participated in that DR: [12]; 3 minutes is a pure nonsense, Yann closed the DR in 10:32, I've reopened it in 11:29, it's more like 57 minutes. However, I fail to see how all this stuff is relevant to the discussion about the file and to my right to appeal to the bad decision. "To me, it looks like forcing your opinion on others." There is a big difference. I am no trying to shut you up -- you do. I could explain my position with arguments, guidelines and court decisions (actually I did it already, and community agreed with my conclusions in the Mickey Mouse DR) -- you can't, you are only using your admin tools as an argument. I am not forcing anything on anyone (and I can't since I've resigned as an admin) -- you do. So there is not so much similarity between us. Trycatch (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Back to the topic. Did you read w:WP:Public domain, I've linked to in the previous discussion? "Cartoons (animated movies or comic strips) enter the public domain only when the copyrights on both the movie or strip and the character have expired." So both film strip and the character should be in the public domain to make the movie itself to be in the public domain. You agree with this statement? You disagree with this statement? Could you give any coherent answer to this question? Trycatch (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
That is not the reason for the deletion of the Mickey Mouse image. Up to now, nobody said that these documents are not in the public domain, only that there are addition restrictions. That's my point. Now, if these documents are not in the PD, this is a different issue, and I agree that they should be deleted. Yann (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems that I finally get it, the reason of our misunderstanding! The reason why the Donald Duck picture should be deleted is not the additional restrictions on DWs from this picture, the problem is that the screenshot is outright copyvio. Yes, there were some discussions about PD + additional restrictions on derivative works (should files with such restrictions be allowed on Commons or not, and so on), but sadly it was too optimistic to apply this PD+restrictions theory for Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck images. It was based on the single court opinion, and it was slightly misinterpreted. In fact the court used that PD+restrictions model only for posters that were published before their corresponding movies/cartoons, when the character was not yet published, e.g. "The Wizard of Oz " poster was published before the movie. But if the posters were published after their movies (while the copyright on posters were not renewed), when the characters were already created, e.g. "Tom and Jerry" posters, these posters were All Rights Reserved, without any PD indulgence -- blatant copyvio from the Commons point of view.

We also held above that the characters of Tom and Jerry are not in the public domain. In addition, because the characters achieved copyright protection through the short films before all but the first movie poster entered the public domain, and the later movie posters necessarily exhibit those characters, even the use of any movie poster but the first requires Warner Bros.'s authorization.

— http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1573132.html
Both Mickey Mouse poster and Donald Duck screenshot were created _after_ creation and publication of their characters. So both of them are ARR, _not_ PD with some non-derivative restrictions. Trycatch (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
It sure doesn't seem like he's willing to rationally defend his point of view; I recently tagged pictures of plushes for speedy deletion, as derivative works, and some of them have been deleted by another admin. But Yann told me that most of [my] requests are just plain toys, which are not copyrighted. When I asked for an explanation of this assertion (which seems in contradiction with COM:DW), I got no answer. Since he didn't bother to explain anything, and didn't open a DR himself, I put the tags back; he reverted me, as if I was a vandal, and shouted that I shouldn't do that again... but without offering any explanation based on policy or copyright law. Really not the kind of attitude I'd expect from an admin. Prof. Professorson (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Prof. Professorson, don't mix everything. The "toys" you nominated are just plain teddy bears. I doubt there is a copyright on these. In any case, since there is some doubt, a proper deletion request is required. And YOU have to create it if it is necessary. Yann (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Again, you're not referring to copyright law or Commons' policy, just your personal opinion. I did start a DR, in case you didn't notice, so feel free to express your unsubstantiated opinion there. But FYI, in the UK (where the uploader comes from), the 1911 Act provides that an individual's work is automatically under copyright, by operation of law, as soon as it leaves his mind and is embodied in some physical form (except if it takes the form of a teddy bear?). And you don't need to keep shouting "YOU", I understand that you're addressing me. Prof. Professorson (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, no, it is more complex than that, and you fail to understand the concept. A work needs originality to get a copyright, and I doubt that these teddy bears have anything original. Anyway, these teddy bears are probably manufactured in China (90% of toys in the world are), so you reference to UK law is quite irrelevant. For the copyright to exist, you have to prove that these toys are derivative of a copyrighted character. AFAIK you failed to do that. And finally, this is out of topic here. Yann (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The question about these particular images is indeed out of topic here, but the larger issue of your understanding of copyright, and the way you fail to explain it based on laws and policies, is quite relevant. For instance, you say that I "fail to understand the concept", but it's the first time that you even attempted to explain why you thought I was wrong. You take actions but you don't bother justifying them, and when you do, it's only your personal opinion. We can continue the discussion about the images on the DR, but you need to understand that making vague statements about copyright without ever backing them up with references is a disastrous attitude for an admin. Prof. Professorson (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Since when is it OK for people to close DRs in which they've already !voted? Rd232 (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • The DR was open since long, there was not any new argument since at least one month, and nobody cares to close it. That's enough of a justification to me. The fact I put my opinion does not change the way I take my decision. This is just an indication for other admins who would close it. I hope I am clear enough. Yann (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Yann has closed the deletion request also because he felt it appropriate to discuss it before, through a general discussion:

"I think a request for comments is appropriate" [cit.]. --79.22.83.179 13:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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


User:Hadi.masir

Please check user User:Hadi.masir, user says in userpage that he are administrator butr verifying fails.--Motopark (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just removed the inapplicable user rights userboxes, on the assumption he copied them from someone's userpage without really understanding what was involved. Rd232 (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem with OTRS ticket

Not sure where to do this request..
An editor uploaded an image in 2009. The original release ticket is 2009021910058544 where it can be seen that the requester never gave a full declaration or had the release fully explained to them. Since then the image has been seen to be sold and the uploader was not happy with the situation. They only now understand that this means full commercial reuse, so there is a clear rationale for them to request removal due to the lack of release information in 2009. The uploader has agreed to properly release a small version of the image, and has approved a cc-by-sa-3.0 for a 533 x 480 size image with a new ticket number of 2012011710008963. I have reduced the image size as required and uploaded it. Could you please rev-del the high resolution images. I have also had to do the same reduction to the derivative work - please also rev-del that high res version there as well...

File:Jimmy Page with Robert Plant 2 - Led Zeppelin - 1977.jpg
File:Джимми_Пэйдж.jpg

Thanks for your attention  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Pieter. OTRS Ticket 2008121610028814 on December 17, 2008, clearly calls out a CC-BY-SA for an image of Alvin Lee. Then, on December 20, he says:
"I'll be sending you many photos - one by one - of classic rock artists from the 1970's. Please give out the same information and layout as you did for my Alvin Lee photo. I'll release the same rights as the Alvin Lee photo. Let me know if you have any questions."
Following this there are 40+ similar images.
Then on February 9, 2009, he submits the subject image, ticket number 2009021910058544, and says:
"I'd like to submit this photo I took of Led Zeppelin's Jimmy Page and Robert Plant from a Chicago concert in 1977. This would be for the Led Zeppelin, Jimmy Page and Robert Plant articles. I have submitted many photos of other rock artists before. Use the same copyright law."
Although this is casual, it is a clear binding instruction to use the same license as 50+ previous images he has submitted.
Now, three years later, he has found that he doesn't like the consequences of a CC-BY-SA license, namely that others are selling copies of his images. This is an adult professional photographer who clearly licensed his images to Commons and the world. The images are valuable to our purpose. I see no reason to cut him a special deal.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I have to add I was not 100% sure about this one (I'm still newish in OTRS), I left it a while for other OTRS persons to comment, and the only response I got was to comply with his request. C'ést la vie.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem with strange message

I don't know much how things work. I have even difficulties to post this message. I get a strange message when I click on the button "Votre galerie" to see the last photos I uploaded. Please help me. Dinkum (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC) : Database Error: Access denied for user 'daniel_www'@'turnera-bge0.esi.toolserver.org' (using password: YES) on sql-s4/commonswiki_p - Failed to connect to database! Status: SNAFU. If something is not working, please have a look at status.toolserver.org. Gallery about this tool | bugs and requests estimated lag for commons.wikimedia.org: failed Wiki: Since: Until: Filter by User: (optional) 

Sort by:   Format:

Fatal error: Call to a member function addQuotes() on a non-object in /home/daniel/public_html/WikiSense-live/web/common/WikiQuery.php on line 940

When toolserver is down and you have JavaScript enabled, you can use Gallery tool. -- RE rillke questions? 18:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

CommonsDeLinker 8 days in coma

CommonsDelinker is again out of order after he/it made his last edit more than 8 days ago. Quite a number of tasks are waiting and being not processed for such a long time produces unncessary additional work. Could someone give him a pat on the head? --Túrelio (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It's probably due to replications to toolserver being down, see s4 on {{Toolserver}} --  Docu  at 09:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:John R. Haggerty

I'm trying to create this category for a 19th century American architect, but it seems to be salted. Could an admin please create it? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand "salted" so I'll explain what I think might be confusing you. Category:John R. Haggerty does not exist, but it was used on Category:St. Peter's Roman Catholic Church, New York‎ because Haggerty designed the church. When you go to create the category, it tells you that. If you click on "create this page" in
"This page does not currently exist. You can search for this page title in other pages or create this page",
it links to the file creation page where you add categories (Born in 18XX, Died in 1YYY, Architects from the United States, etc.) with a DefaultSort, enter an edit comment, and hit "save" to finish the job.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
On trying to create the page, I get this message: "The page title or edit you have tried to create cannot be created or edited by you at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, used to prevent vandalism." Kgorman-ucb (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Now this posting makes sense. Too bad for John R. Haggerty. Started the category. --Martin H. (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Martin. I try to teach, rather than doing -- sometimes it backfires, as in this case. Apologies to all for the extra trouble.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
No prob, I not understood Beyonc My Kens problem too. --Martin H. (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

For info - I imaging it may be the "hagg" bit - in the past some very extensive vandalism used this basic wording. --Herby talk thyme 09:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I assume that's what Martin meant with the boldface :) Jafeluv (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Out of scope?

This file looks to be in conflict with the Commons project scope. Any idea? Aditya (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks in scope to me, although the guy in the center is a bit distracting. --Sreejith K (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
In scope. The photo is intended to illustrate that the location depicted is a tourist attraction, which I think it does well. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

´Two userpages

See User:Vaychy before blanking and User:Viktorija Rozman, seems to be same.--Motopark (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing forbids having two usernames with the same user page. There may be some autopromotion issues, but I don't think the use of two usernames is in any way problematic in this case. Jafeluv (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sysop lists

Hello,

Can anyone add PierreSelim on these two lists : Commons:List of administrators by date and Commons:List of administrators by language. Just need to copy # [[User:PierreSelim|PierreSelim]], '''fr''', en-3, es-1 at the appropriate location. Thanks. Udufruduhu (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done. Trijnstel (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both of you. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

File:To_navere.jpg

I had a look at this image: File:To_navere.jpg

In the permission section of the license terms, the uploader states:

"If you use one of my photos outside Wikipedia and Commons, please email me (account needed) or leave me a short message on my discussion page. It would be greatly appreciated. Do not copy this image illegally by ignoring the terms of the license below, as it is not in the public domain. If you would like special permission to use, license, or purchase the image please contact me to negotiate terms."

This sounds to me like: If you want to use the image outside of Wikipedia you need to ask for a special permission and you have to negotiate the licensing price.

This would be against the Commons policy of free images.

However, before I start a deletion request for this image, I would like to hear a second or third opinion of my fellow admins and of the uploader.

Regards --ALE! ¿…? 13:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

He is only asking for attribution which is precisely what Creative Commons licenses states. Nothing wrong with is statement. --Sreejith K (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
"Please email me" is just a request, not a requirement. People are free to ignore it; although it wouldn't be very courteous, it wouldn't be a breach of license. The last sentence is for re-users who do not want to comply with the free license terms and prefer to pay for the right to use the image under different terms (which is fine). Prof. Professorson (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I just want people to credit me for my photos. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved then. By the way, this might have been better at COM:VPC, as the question doesn't inherently need admin attention. Rd232 (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Prof. Professorson that, strictly speaking, the quoted request is OK. I also see where the confusion arises. It might be better to say,
"If you use one of my photos outside Wikipedia and Commons, I would appreciate it if you would email me (account needed) or leave me a short message on my discussion page."
However, that is not the only problem here. The license block begins:
"Please credit this with: Villy Fink Isaksen/Commons/CC-BY-SA-3.0 in the immediate vicinity of the image." [emphasis in the original]
That prohibits use anywhere that puts attributions on a click-through, including all WMF projects. It also prevents use in any print medium that collects attributions on one page. As a general rule, you can require attribution, but you cannot specify that it be on the same page (either web or print) as the image unless that is the practice on the web site or publication -- you get the same treatment as everyone else and cannot demand better.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
May be Villy Fink Isaksen should rephrase it as :
"If possible, please credit this with: Villy Fink Isaksen/Commons/CC-BY-SA-3.0 in the immediate vicinity of the image."
--Sreejith K (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I have changed it now - and hope everybody is satisfied. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

user:MrJigs

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

All contributions of this user might need nuking. Moros y Cristianos 18:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done. I see you've left a final warning -- a block should follow if they keep going. Jafeluv (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong image for description: baby instead of a sailing ship

Wrong image for description: baby photo in the category for a sailing ship. It's at File:Lolnada.jpg. What you do with this? Djembayz (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I requested a deletion. Yann (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

What does a guy have to do to get a blatant copyvio deleted around here?

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Any further comments should go at Commons:Requests for comment/OTRS 2012#Speedier response to deletion requests from OTRS agents MorganKevinJ(talk) 20:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for ranting, but seriously, when I mark an image as a copyvio with an OTRS ticket, it needs to be deleted. I tagged File:Denarius to Orpheos.png for speedy deletion, citing ticket:2012021210005133, 20 hours ago. The image is still there, and the copyright holder (who is not at all happy about their work being passed of as somebody else's), is quite legitimately wondering if I was lying when I told them I had requested its deletion and is certainly not being left with the impression that commons takes copyright violations seriously.</rant> Would somebody be so kind as to nuke that image so I can give the copyright holder something more than "I'm working on it"? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but 20 hours is nothing. The copyvio-cat currently contains 166 images. Please don't forget that even the few admins who regularly perform speedy deletions are unpaid volunteers, who have to do this dirty work in their spare time. I've speedied the image now, purely per trusting your "claim", as I can't look into the ticket (myself not on OTRS). --Túrelio (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The OTRS e-mail appears to be entirely correct -- it came from the author of the cited source of the image. Perhaps we need either a new template for {{Really speedy delete}} or a rule that what when we get a takedown notice on OTRS that it should come directly here?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I fully understand that we're all volunteers, and I very much appreciate you deleting the image, but the people who email us about copyright violations don't understand that, and if they do, they're much more concerned that we're infringing their copyright than they are with how the project works, and to them 20 hours is not "nothing". Maybe I'm too used to enwiki, but if a copyvio there waited 20 hours (especially one that was reported by OTRS), it would be considered a big deal. Jim's ideas seem worthy of consideration to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
Well, then the WMF should seriously consider providing more resources to Commons.
Technically: OTRS-based copyvios that go into the copyvio-cat (currently) have no special marker that would distinguish them from other ("regular") copyvios. If an admin opens one of these, he/she will surely delete it rapidly, if it's clear enough. But if the first step is missing, then then second will come late. Therefore, Jim's proposal, though funny-looking on first view, might provide a solution. --Túrelio (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, and then we'd had to verify that {{Really speedy delete}} really was added by an OTRS member... no thanks. The fast track to deletion is a DMCA takedown request. If OTRS wants to provide a less formal but also guaranteed-to-be-quick way for removing infringing material (and I do think that this makes sense for clear cases), then the OTRS team should see to it that their volunteers are admins here, so that they can delete files themselves. We might even make a rule that OTRS volunteers may get a fast-track deletion right here at the Commons. (If we trust the OTRS volunteers enough to confirm releases, we should also trust them to delete files in response to OTRS tickets.) Lupo 12:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Part of the problem there is that copyvio queue is a sub-queue of info-en, which is manned mainly by editors from enwiki. I fully understand why the Commons community doesn't want enwiki editors treating Commons as an extension of enwiki, but my understanding is that RfAs here just for the purposes of expediting OTRS work are typically declined. As an aside, it's easy enough to verify whether somebody is an OTRS agent—they should have the userbox on their userpage, in which there's a "verify" link (or if you use Popups, you can just hover your mouse over their username). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
It should be easy to execute the Jim's idea, we could have a template only for OTRS members and we can easily filter/verify the edits by using an abuse filter like this.  ■ MMXX  talk 23:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
As much as I respect their work, I wonder if we're placing too much trust in OTRS to just speedy delete anything they tell us to, without even seeing the e-mail describing the reason. How do we know they're really the copyright holder? For example, we frequently get complaints from subjects of photographs who have no legal right to request deletion. Or even stranger complaints, like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Horses, Little Clovers Farm - geograph.org.uk - 1289544.jpg - what if that had come in via OTRS instead of the Help Desk? These deletions still require careful oversight with enough data given to actually verify a copyvio. However, I have no problem with a prioritization scheme that directs our attention towards files that people are actively complaining about at the moment. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I think you underestimate OTRS agents. Just because I haven't told you what sort of verification I've done, or haven't told you who the sender is, doesn't mean I haven't checked to make damn sure the image is a copyvio before I tag it. I'm well aware that it's a lot to ask of admins to delete something based on sixteen digits that mean nothing to them, but there is very little more information I can give you because OTRS tickets are confidential. And as an aside, subjects of photographs do have legal rights wrt to the use of the photo, just not copyright. Personality rights issues come up at OTRS as well (though not ever so often), and often require an even greater level of discretion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
As a pragmatic step, I would encourage using IRC (#wikimedia-commons) to see if there is an available admin to privately discuss an urgent copyvio request, my experience is that there's a reasonable chance of sorting it out by that route though you may need to try more than once if it is at a quiet time. In the longer term, perhaps the speedy template could have a parameter, and automatic categorization, to distinguish requests with supporting OTRS tickets which might attract one of the admins with OTRS access to take a look and treat these as a priority. If there are not enough Commons admins with OTRS access, that's a different problem that the Commons community needs to consider in the RFA process. We certainly do not want to be advising members of the public making the effort to raise a personal complaint by email that they need to then resort to worst scenario of having to use legal processes to get anything done. In practice such a step is far more likely to cause resistance, dispute and potentially encourage privacy violations rather than a friendly resolution.
I suggest that if anyone wants to pursue these options, they take the matter up on Commons:Requests for comment/OTRS 2012 rather than engineering a solution here. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
My concern is not that OTRS agents are not capable of identifying copyvios, but that in situations that are ambiguous they may decide differently from the community as a whole. At present, it is difficult for an OTRS member to defer to community discussion in an ambiguous situation, since they're bound to not reveal the contents of their communications. For example, if we had a derivative work where the original work may or may not be de minimis, but weren't allowed to know which part was the original work, that would be rather challenging to resolve. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
That would indeed be rather difficult to resolve, but I'm sure a workaround could be thought up. It's not a scenario I've encountered in my OTRS experience thus far. The overwhelming majority of tickets that come to that queue (at least while I'm online) are either blatant copyvios or not copyvios at all. There's the odd case where the subject conflates copyright and personality rights, people reporting supposed violations of Wikipedia's copyright/unauthorised use of the Wikimedia logos, etc, but they're usually clear-cut cases. Cases that aren't clear-cut should go to DR rather than speedy anyway, in which case the OTRS agent should give as much information as they can (and certainly naming the work that's alleged to be a copyvio shouldn't be withheld—that's plainly daft), and, if necessary, ask the the sender if they will permit the release of more. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • As a temporary emergency measure, an OTRS agent (or anybody) could also upload an "image removed" image on top of the copyright violation. This has another advantage: it may enter Google's cache of the page. Simple deleting a file often leaves it visible there for a long time. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
    Smart idea indeed. Perhaps that is how we can deal with copyvios before sysop intervention. Artem Karimov (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should take this to Commons:Requests for comment/OTRS 2012, with a new thread on "how to get speedier responses to OTRS deletion requests". There are some related ideas at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2011/11#Ideas_to_help_reduce_OTRS_backlogs. Rd232 (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I've started Commons:Requests for comment/OTRS 2012#Speedier response to deletion requests from OTRS agents (though I worry slightly that the issue will stagnate by moving it to a less-watched page). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Was a personal message sent to a couple admins asking them to get on it before complaining about a slow moving bureaucracy? As someone who has worked in a bureaucracy if I need something done fast I find a specific person do it. If this repeatedly fails to work then, yes, some sort of correction to the "system" is needed.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

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


promotional pictures

promotional pictures Special:Contributions/Mobilemex, could somebody delete those what are out of scope--Motopark (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

User rights

Could somebody restore my user rights to what they were before being sysoped and desysoped? My rights used to be: OTRS member, file mover, patroller and rollbacker, see here. Desysoping crat forgot to restore them. Jcb (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done - I can't do the OTRS one but it looks like that has not been removed anyway. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. (It's true the OTRS group was still present.) Jcb (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Welcome back, Jcb. --Túrelio (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Good Evening

Please direct as much public attention as you can to this Village pump notice. Thanx, Orrlingtalk 20:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not see how this is an "admin" topic. --Saibo (Δ) 03:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done

Commons:Deletion_requests/2012/02 is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T36519

Commons:Deletion_requests/2012/02 is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded (automatically by mediawiki) - therefore days starting at 9th Feb. are not included (see bottom of the page). What to do without disturbing the DRbot? Just wait until some DRs are closed and the page gets smaller therefore? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this happens every month, more so, of course, in times like now when the backlog is large. As you suggest, the problem will fix itself as DRs are closed.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion_requests/2012/02 is just an index page, overloaded because it's transcluding too much. We can't fundamentally fix this because of DR-bot, but maybe we could create additional sub-indexes to ease navigation? Like Commons:Deletion_requests/2012/02/week1 for the first week of the month, Commons:Deletion_requests/2012/02/week2 for the next. DR-bot will still archive threads from the day pages (like Commons:Deletion requests/2012/02/18), and both the main indexes and sub-indexes will see that. Eventually, when the sub-indexes aren't needed any more, they can be manually deleted. On the other hand... what do we really need the massive month index for anyway, if we have the day pages? Would the subindexes actually be any use? Rd232 (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem currently is that for some reason the inclusion in the day index page does not show up in "what links here" on DR pages, too. I sometimes use this to view temporally related DRs. But I am sure that some users also use the month pages. If it is technically not possible (can't we get a higher limit for those Commons:Deletion requests pages?) then maybe additional weekly pages or 0-15 16-31 would be sufficient. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy with the current system. When I decide to attack the backlog, rather than the current list, I can go to a month and see enough work to keep me busy for a while. In due time the bot archives the closures, and then the next visitor can clean up a new batch from that month. It is self-limiting -- if the backlog is short, then the whole month shows in one place. If the backlog is long, then there is plenty of work in what shows.
Although it is not a big deal, I don't think I like Rd232's suggestion of dividing it into weeks -- that just means that you have to go to five places to see the whole month. I prefer to see a usable chunk of the whole month teed up in once place.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, it was the best idea I could think of. If Saibo's bug is implemented, that's much better. Rd232 (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Added a request in BZ to simply raise the limit. --Saibo (Δ) 16:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/User:Omics publishing group

Not real DR ?, please delete--Motopark (talk) 08:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --Herby talk thyme 08:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

All of the uploads made by this user appear to be copyright images for which xi does not have permission to release as free images. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Funnysarvi

Done. --Martin H. (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Nudie pic

Someone keeps inserting File:Sodiq7hfrjl8yclbb9.jpg on the wiki for Jessica Biel. I don't know who Jessica Biel is, and I certainly don't know if this is her. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Update: I blocked User:Stgsegd on Wikipedia; you have one with the same username. Some images were uploaded by User:Pgrtse, now also blocked on WP. There's one more: User:Nymfs. Drmies (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • File:Upyqkwlpxhucqwnru9.jpg is being used similarly for BLP vandalism in enwiki. I have uploaded a new blank version of the file, but am not sysopped to delete it. It should be deleted as it's not the person it purports to be, probably not the copyright of the person who uploaded it, and is generally disruptive. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Pictures without licence

Pictures without licence Special:Contributions/ModestasMalinauskas, please delete.--Motopark (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done. - A.Savin 12:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

Our uploader has the same username as the artist -- Modestas Malinauskas, see https://www.paveikslai.lt/en/pictures/328/. So, the questions are:
  • Is he notable? Although his work appears in several on-line galleries, I don't see any indication of its having been hung in any museum, so I would be inclined to say "no" to this.
  • Is our uploader actually the artist? I think so. Note that our uploads do not have the watermark that is on the named source's copies. OTRS can answer this question.
In any event, this is not a speedy -- it will need a Mass DR, I think, if you want to delete them. I will drop a note on his talk page to see if we can answer both questions.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
For the reasons I gave above, I think the deletion was not correct. They should be restored until we determine whether we want to keep them or not.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The files had a "no license" template since 12 february. The uploader had more than 7 days to fix it but she did not. - A.Savin 12:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but the uploader is clearly a novice -- we try to be kind to newbies. The question should never be "Did the uploader do this correctly?" but rather, "Do we want these images, and, if so, what do we do to keep them?". And if the uploader is the artist, then "she" is a man.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I've added a comment on his talk page. - A.Savin 18:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

username same than web-side adress

see edits of Special:Contributions/Leonyl.de--Motopark (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked indef -- Inappropriate username.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, what we shall do with uploaded pictures where are web-side as source.--Motopark (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Nuke?

Alefrancia76 (talk · contribs) uploaded a great number of images copied from various websites. I have tagged many of them as Copyvio, but some of them are "difficult" to find, but seem to be clear copyvios (such as those with a watermark): this diffculty is due to the fact that the Italian National Fire Brigade (CNVVF) website archives seem not to be indexed (is it correct in English? :D) I suggest a massive deletion of all his uploads.--DoppioM 15:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Every image uploaded by the user ia a clear and tagged copyviol. I suggest a massive deletion because they all come from subpages of http://www.vigilfuoco.it/ .--DoppioM 18:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Speedy tags

ResolvedDeleted by Morgankevinj and Denniss.

I'm getting tired of adding the speedy tag only to have the editor remove it. Could somebody have a look at these before the speedy tag gets removed again.

Bgwhite (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Unusual real name usurp needed

Moved to COM:BN as suggested --Fæ (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I raised a general policy real name usurpation discussion at Commons:VP#How_to_handle_a_complaint_from_someone_with_a_rare_name_that_happens_to_be_the_same_as_an_uploader_of_sexually_graphic_images and would like to follow through on the specific request. The general discussion concluded that the principles of en:Wikipedia:U#Real_names could apply to Wikimedia Commons.

This request is supported by email correspondence on Template:OTRS ticket and to meet our values of transparency, I have confirmed they are comfortable for this matter to be raised on an open noticeboard. The issue is that the complainant has the real name "Tim Tight" and he is concerned that nude or sexual images uploaded under account User:Timtight might be assumed to be associated with him in real life, particularly as he appears to be the only person in the USA with this real name. He is not connected with the account in any way, this is a coincidence of naming. I have emailed the current owner of account User:Timtight who does not mind having his account renamed (his email reply available on the OTRS ticket) to avoid any distress to anyone with this as their real name. As well as the account rename, a number of images that include "Timtight" in the title would have to be changed (the file histories might have to be revdel-ed so as not to be associated with the old account name).

To simplify matters, the complainant has created the account User:Ttight which can usurp the Timtight account. The current owner of Timtight does not particularly care about the rename and I suggest they are moved to the available User:Tim111 as suitably anonymous (and without apparent SUL issues [13]). In summary User:Timtight → User:Tim111 and then User:Ttight → User:Timtight.

This is not a standard usurp, so I have not gone through Commons:Changing username/Usurp requests, particularly as the "from" account has only just been created (yet to make any edits) and this does not fit the normal criteria. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

What an unusual situation, glad to see that it's being resolved. Admins can't rename accounts, though, so COM:BN would probably be a better place for this request. Jafeluv (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for all admins

I think it's better if images with {{OTRS pending}} on it won't be deleted too soon. We have a huge backlog with 300 open tickets at the moment which go back until the end of January (so yes, we could use more volunteers imo). People are now complaining why a file is deleted, but the admins aren't aware of the backlog of course. Please wait a while... Trijnstel (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

No permission is set automatically after 30 days. Now-(End of January) < 30. Concerning volunteering. Interesting. But the backlogs on Commons are also huge enough. It's never boring here. -- RE rillke questions? 16:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
added Note: the current backlog in the english permissions queue is '''{{Commons:OTRS/backlog}} days'''. to the OTRS pending cat MorganKevinJ(talk) 04:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Request editing of protected file

Can a sysop change the Hungarian description of File:Qantas Boeing 747-400 VH-OJU over Starbeyevo Kustov.jpg, please? The proper text should read: A [[Qantas]] egy kb. 11 000 méter magasan repülő [[:hu:Boeing 747–400]]-as gépe [[:hu:Moszkva|Moszkvából]] (Sztarbejevóból), a földről nézve Canon 400D fényképezőre szerelt 1200 mm-es távcsővel és 2× nagyítású Barlow lencsével, javított színsémával. Thanks Csigabi (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC) (Sysop on huwiki)

Yes, it is protected: "You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: This page is currently protected from editing because it is transcluded in the following pages, which are protected with the "cascading" option enabled". There are mistakes in the Hungarian description which should be corrected. Csigabi (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Cached copy

why I see cached copy of deleted picture File:Duniya Vijay.jpg--Motopark (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I purged the cache and now its gone. If you can still access it, please click this link --Sreejith K (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, now I know one way more.--Motopark (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Own licence

Are this valid licence Template:CopyrightbyFreak222.--Motopark (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Translated from German: This file is intellectual property of Freak222! Who wants to use it, ask for HERE!. This template indirectly conveys that the file is not free and that's against Common's policies. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done I have deleted the template as it obviously cannot be used on Commons -- a user cannot require permission to use a file. It was unused at the time I deleted it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please close this DR

Please close this DR Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Rename--Motopark (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done - A.Savin 15:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

New template in response to Fox News article

I have created a basic template, {{Nsfw}}, to indicate some of the more potentially embarrassing images on the Commons. This was a response to an article complaining about alleged porn on the Commons. Is that a good idea or not? Rickyrab (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I wonder whether it should be turned into a deletion template, such as Template:Db-nsfw. Rickyrab (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose, arbitrary standards made up by opinions subject to the whims of the user placing it, no prior discussion regarding placement of template. There should definitely be a full discussion and debate before anything like this template is put into use. -- Cirt (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
This matter has been discussed over and over for the official policy see Commons:CENSOR#Censorship. MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it deserves another discussion, then. And, yes, some of the standards may be arbitrary, but they are popular in some cultures. Me? I don't feel one way or the other about the pictures in question, but some worrying mom or dad might. Rickyrab (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Now at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Nsfw. -- Cirt (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

How is this thread related to administrators? Not at all, right? So let's close that misplaced discussion here. --Saibo (Δ)

+1. Just a word on the "worrying mum, if they worry about porn on commons, they should worry about their kids going on the internet alone.". That said we have COM:CENSOR --PierreSelim (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Resolved--Saibo (Δ) 23:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_33&oldid=358611385"