Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 69

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Please block this user permanently. His name is unacceptable: in Hungarian, the less acceptable synonym of the penis. (Machine Translated Text.) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 06:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 06:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a sockpuppet of Sztojka kevin3; see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 22#hu:Kategória:Sztojka kevin3 zoknibábjai, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Sztojka kevin3 sockpuppets and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Look up! —LX (talk, contribs) 22:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This user seems to think that it is proper to put building photos in road categories. I have tried to remedy the situation but he has reverted my edits repeatedly and even blocked the creation of the category to which I removed his photos. It is illogical to put photos not showing roads in road categories, but this admin stated "that is how it is done elsewhere so don't impose your own system." This seems outrageous from an admin. No one going through a road category is looking for photos of random buildings. Famartin (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Go to the Village pump if you disagree with a user to ask opinions of other users. No reason to report people here before you even tried to reach a consensus. Jcb (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Mr.Andrewgr (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Almost every single image (35 to date on 43) uploaded by this user since 29 March 2018 is copyright violation. Administrator's intervention nedded. Thanks, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked him for a month. Uploads are mostly nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 07:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Can someone mass revert this account's edits? This person INeverCry nominated over 3,000+ files for deletion in one batch. However, a lot of good photos were caught up. Thanks. Also please delete User:CoCoCounty97/common.js.

Artix Kreiger (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Sealle (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd like someone to delete the older version of picture File:Təbriz Kəşki badımcanı.jpg 15:14, 3 April 2018.--Orartu (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Sealle (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Devgurera is an SPA/probable paid editor from enwiki attempting to promote en:Bharat Bhushan. Their only activity on Commons is uploading copyright-violating photographs of Bhushan:

• File:Dr. Bharat Bhushan.jpg
• File:Dr. Bhushan.jpg
• File:Dr. B. Bhushan.jpg
• File:BBhushan.jpg
• File:Bhushan.jpg

Their latest is just this one with the telltale metadata stripped out, so at this point it's obvious that they understand our copyright requirements and are trying to circumvent them. Joe Roe (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Joe Roe, too much generalization, ain't it? I have clearly told that I am new to Wiki. I am trying to make a page for an important academic personality. I am trying to upload a suitable picture for the personality. Different photographers have clicked his pic over the time. But Bhushan owns them all. Instead of understanding the issue you are misusing your power as an editor of Wikipedia, and deleting my information. Can you, for once, tell me what is the solution instead of acting on it? Or where to look for it. Moreover, different editors of wiki have their own opinions of how to edit a page. Some other editor told me to put the information in bullets form, I did that, and it got deleted. Can you all just be consistent?Devgurera (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done File deleted, user warned. Ankry (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a regular here, so just to let you guys know that JimmyJoe87, who was previously discussed at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 68#More possible infringements by JimmyJoe87, has been blocked as the latest in a long line of socks of a prolific sockpuppeteer. See en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron/Archive. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Block evasion: HowAboutNo91 and other socks. Using multiple accounts to upload copyvios. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

...but I have several of my photographs attached to it, and would like to be able to manage them and add more.

User name was FlyingCoyote, and there are still images showing my login as the uploader (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peel_cbgbs_2005.jpg )

When I try a password reset, it says there is no FlyingCoyote account. When I try to create a new account with that name, it won't let me, because of course there IS one with that name.

Is there a way to regain access?

- ?@?bergin.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.174.177.186 (talk • contribs) 1:33, 6 April 2018‎ (UTC)

Censored your mail address. I assume you don't like spam. Whoever needs it can find it in the history of this page.

w:Special:Contributions/FlyingCoyote shows your edits on Wikipedia, the last edit was in 2008. Since them Wikimedia changed to a single user account login so you could login from any Wiki.

User:FlyingCoyote was probably also you, but as that could not be confirmed that account was renamed to User:FlyingCoyote~commonswiki.

Assuming you either entered an e-mail address when you registered or you still know your password, you should be able to login on Wikipedia with username "FlyingCoyote" or here with username "FlyingCoyote~commonswiki". I suggest you try logging into Wikipedia first. When you do, I'm guessing you will be given some instructions for a unified login or maybe it will be created automatically. User:FlyingCoyote~commonswiki has only uploaded one image, so you really just want your Wikipedia account.

Welcome back by the way! - Alexis Jazz 01:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@IP/FlyingCoyote: You should be able to login at enwp, but your account is not yet connected to Commons. --Magnus (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Jallow sherif has been uploading "all rights reserved" images from Flickr to Commons. When FlickreviewR inevitably marks the image as failing its review, Jallow sherif removes the review tag and adds a fake CC 2.0 license tag. -IagoQnsi (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

After Jeff warned the user, he has stopped vandalism. If he continues, then he can be blocked. Taivo (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

New user User:Adrian Hernandez has been overwriting images with new images of the same subject, while keeping all original descriptions, user attribution etc. in place. I don't have time right now to go into detailed examples, but see for example File:Lamojarrascript.jpg or the history of File:British Museum Aztec or Mixtec shield.jpg (which is my image, I have now re-uploaded it to reestablish it). Simon Burchell (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, the UI does not make it very clear. The text that links to Commons:Overwriting existing files is halfway down the page. Really the "Upload a new version of this file" should take users to a wizard that asks some clear questions. It isn't surprising that newbies get this wrong, and think also this is an easy way to update the wikipedia version. I don't know how such things get changed. -- Colin (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

How many cameras does this guy have? - Alexis Jazz 18:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

This is also problematic. Assuming he is the author (I can't find any of these pics elsewhere, but why so many cameras?) we now don't have a license for any of these pictures. - Alexis Jazz 18:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Cyprien badiou (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Again uploading copyvios, after a month block for the same.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 00:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Third block, indef. All files deleted or DRed. Yann (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Camilo324 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Uploading more copyvios, after being blocked for a month for the same.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 02:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Done Third block, indef. Yann (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Continuous copyviol activity. --Marcok (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Done I gave a final warning and putted his talk page in my watchlist, further new copyvios uploaded will lead to a block. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 17:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Please block it! — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 92.40.248.29 (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The bot is OK. Guess who may be blocked. --E4024 (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

92.40.128.0/17 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • tools • luxo's • crossblock • block user • block log • checkuser) is globally blocked for two weeks. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

After cropping and retouching a photograph that had originally been taken by me, Lämpel keeps adding himself as "author" to File:Grant Hendrik Tonne - Landtag Niedersachsen DSCF7714 crop.jpg. In my opinion simple cropping and retouching that could as well automatically be done by standard software do not create own authorship and copyrights. I adressed this issue at his talk page, the user did not acknowledge my point. Lämpel reverted me multiple times, even after I suggested to add the template {{Retouched}} with the users name into the source field, for more visibility of Lämpel's contribution to this crop. I feel that this copyright claim and this behavior are highly offensive and disruptive, and ask for administrative support. Thank you --Martina talk 05:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The author field of the {{Information}} template shall list all authors who contributed in a way which is eligible for copyright. Let me quote from the Copyright law of the United States, section 201 about ownership of copyright, paragraph (c): Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of the contribution. The guide about copyrightable authorship of copyright.gov can be helpful here, see section 311.2. Quote: The new authorship that the author contributed to the derivative work may be registered, provided that it contains a sufficient amount of original expression, meaning that the derivative work must be independently created and it must possess more than a modicum of creativity. Thus, we should list only authors in the author field which satisfy these requirements. Otherwise, it should be sufficient to note the author of changes which are ineligible for copyright in the {{Retouched}} template. In this particular case where we compare File:Landtag Niedersachsen DSCF7714.JPG (the original) against File:Grant Hendrik Tonne - Landtag Niedersachsen DSCF7714 crop.jpg (the derived picture), we see mainly a crop and some minor fixes like adapted saturation, contrast, color curves etc. While these adaptations require skill to be successful this does create a copyright claim on its own. Hence, in this case I would recommend to remove the name of Lämpel from the author field and to keep it in the {{Retouched}} template. It is also ok to summarize such alterations along with the name who did it in the source field. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. I was asked for a comment.

The underlying dispute is about whether mere cropping and simple retouching of an existing copyrighted image creates a derivative with a new (additional) copyright by the "retoucher". Our official guideline Commons:Derivative_works#What_is_a_derivative_work? suggests rather clearly that this isn't the case, though "retouching" isn't mentioned expressedly. The German-language guideline/version Commons:Bearbeitungen#Was_ist_die_Bearbeitung_eines_Werks_(abgeleitetes_Werk)? even cites from the copyright law of Germany that a derivative needs to be a "persönliche geistige Schöpfung des Bearbeiters" (transl. personal intellectual creation by the editor), whereby cropping and simple retouching can't create a derivative. However, for German-speaking users this misunderstanding may derive from the German legal equivalent for derivative, which is simply the very general term "Bearbeitung" (editing, processing). So, there is hardly doubt that cropping and simple retouching, as commendable as it is, does neither create a derivative nor a new copyright.

In practical terms: while the name of the retouching editor might be mentioned on the image page, the term "derivative" should not be used, as it has a defined meaning. --Túrelio (talk) 06:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. I was asked for a comment too.

I was also asked for a comment and, well, I think I agree with AFBorchert and Túrelio. On the other hand, prominently mentioning the contributor who cropped/retouched a picture could also be seen as a service to the original uploader who maybe personally doesn't agree with the result of the crop or the retouching, so it's clear to viewers that the original uploader isn't responsible for the appearance of the "derivative" - lack of "authorship" in the sense of copyright notwithstanding. But I think that Lämpel has no base for insisting to be listed as an "author". By the way: I have sometimes used the tool derivativeFX to upload simple crops and similar things, and this tool automatically adds the uploader as the author of a "derivative work", such as in File:Polo Hofer 2011.jpg (but maybe in that particular case it is already an "intellectual creation", because the original file shows two persons and my crop focuses on one of them?)... Gestumblindi (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• In addition to the crop it seems that the color/white balance have been modified, and I think the current infos seen in File:Grant Hendrik Tonne - Landtag Niedersachsen DSCF7714 crop.jpg are perfectly fine. The original author is still listed as author, as well as there is a clear link to the original file, the license and attribution are fine. So there is no copyright infringement. I don't see why administrators should use their tool or their power to remove the text ", derivative work Lämpel", this file is given as example in our guideline and show similar things done by an administrator, and the administrator is also quoted as the "author" of the "derivative work". I don't see any problem here, as well as the first version was also fine IMO, except the lack of link to the original. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not about a copyright infringement but a copyright claim where doubts were raised whether a copyright can be claimed by adding a name to the author field when no authorship in the sense of US or German copyright law is present. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

You may be true for USA but I think German copyright is entirely irrelevant in the sense that the original author published themselves their work in USA. The relevant guidelines can be Commons:Ownership of pages and files, Commons:Overwriting existing files and Commons:Derivative works, but I'm not aware that we have to be more or less restrictive in function that the Commons user is native from Germany, Bangladesh or Greenland. You may be right that the mention "derivative work Lämpel" is not necessary and / or not desirable however the nationality of the original author who is a Commons user is not more relevant here that if they were Chinese or French. I read nothing in one of those three guidelines that prohibit the user to say ", derivative work Lämpel" in the extend that he also give the correct attribution of the original file. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC) and also we are not a legal court of justice to decide at what level a new copyright is created, the case is debatable, as evidence we have this discussion, if it exist please point a legal USA (not "German" please) court case with similar criteria. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Note that since the beginning the required attribution on the file that poses potential problem is perfectly fine, and the new uploader never required any attribution. I just remember that I myself uploaded a derivative work a few days ago. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

This is about someone claiming authorship and thus copyright on my work. The free license grants the right to anybody to adapt the work. In this case, the license requires "to clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original work". The template {{Retouched}} allows an adapter to describe their contribution and fulfills the license requirement just fine. The point in this case though is that the adapter insists to add his name to the field "author". For having done a simple technical adaptation. Retouching a picture is not a new creation because it does not have originality. The user is claiming rights on my work that he does not have. --Martina talk 04:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems you're likely right, but I don't understand this insistence for a work published under a free license, what will you do if you find the same thing on a blog in internet, I mean if you find one of your photos a little modified, but not enough modified to be a DW, with as attribution "Martina Nolte, derivative work MR X.", will you make a trial for false authorship? Seriously? I'm getting out of this case, sorry if I bothered someone. Regards, Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

We must distinguish here between a simple modification and an adaptation (see When is my use considered an adaptation? in the FAQ of creativecommons.org). Cropping and simple retouching is just a modification which does not rise to the level of an adaptation. Such simple modifications can be indicated (this is mandatory beginning from version 4.0, before it is optional, see this FAQ entry) but the copyright notice is to be kept intact which also means that the naming of the original authors must not be changed (see section 4.c of the license). Hence, Martina has the right to insist that the credits in the author field remain unchanged. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

"About the images that you upload
I noticed that you upload so many images about Yunnan to wikimedia commons, thank you for your contributions. But most images didn't classify in a suitable categories, and some images name is wrong. For example File:中國昆明154.jpg, this is a image about Tianjing Ge in Dali City, it's not proper to classify under Category:Kunming. Please note the objects and places before you upload next time, and classify in a suitble category.Thank you.
Please must check all of images you upload, I can't confirm where and what you took photo about many images. Probably involve Kunming, Dali and Yibin in total 3 prefectures"

بنده یک صفحه باز کردم که متاسفانه اسم انتخابی رو دقت نکردم و منتشر کردم، الان مشکلی که دارم اینه که نمی تونم تغییرش بدم ، لطفا راهنمایی کنید. اسم صفحه باید فشنیر ثبت می شد که کاربر:فشنیر ثبت شد ، الانم تصمیم گرفتم یکی دیگه بسازم که اجازه نمی دهد. — Preceding unsigned comment added by فشنیر (talk • contribs) 16:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mardetanha and Ebrahim: could you please check this? De728631 (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It says [s]he has created a user account not carefully and now they want to create another one but the system doesn't let that and to be honest I don't know the system doesn't let that so not sure how to help. −ebrahim^talk 19:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Normally they should be able to create a new account since there are only two global edits that were made with this account. But in case that meta:Global renamers are needed here, let's ping @Ladsgroup: for assistance. De728631 (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

An unapproved "user assisted script" bot run by User:Zache that has uploaded nearly 1,000 photos. Whether or not that qualifies as an unapproved bot is one of the problems here. The other problem being that after taking a quick look at them, a good quantity of them are incorrectly licensed. Which is why I brought it here. To upload that large of a batch incorrectly is appalling. The photos themselves appear to be fine for Commons but they are licensing incorrectly. Take File:Helsingin Muinaismuistolautakunta ja valokuvaaja Signe Brander sunnuntairetkellä katsastamassa kuvauskohteita (hkm.HKMS000005-km002yp5).jpg which should be {{PD-Finland50}}. Not a CC license. So either the "bot's" maintainer isn't watching what they are doing or they don't understand what they are doing. Either way, the amount of work this just caused is immense. --Majora (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, couple things at first. A total number of photos which I am uploading were 1800 and upload is related to Juniorihackathon which is tomorrow. Would be nice if I would not be banned. Even nicer would be if I could finalize the upload. The basic idea for the upload is that at the museum is kids day and there are printed versions of images (example 1 and example 2) and kids can browse photos and add interesting photos to Wikipedia using visual editor. Uploading photos to Commons is for making adding pictures more straightforward.

About the license. I am using same licence than museum is using which is CC-BY (photo in Finna and in museums own web page). Also helsinkikuvia.fi's terms of use page: https://www.helsinkikuvia.fi/terms/ --Zache (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Blindly using whatever license is listed is the problem. Also your first example, (File:Kuvaselaamon kuva Helsingin kaupunginmuseossa.jpg) is a derivative work. We need to know both the copyright status of the photograph and the copyright status of the photo inside the photograph. You just admitted that you are going to create even more work for others tomorrow without regard for the actual status of these images. That is a major, major, problem. --Majora (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

fixed and as i said with references i don't use licences blindly. --Zache (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Putting a CC license on a PD image is using licenses blindly. Putting any restrictions on a public domain image is a form of copyfraud. I fully understand that the museum has listed these photos under a CC-BY 4.0 license. But they can't recopyright a public domain image that fell out of copyright in Finland decades ago (the government can with a new law but the museum can't). All non-artistic photographs taken in Finland prior to 1966 are in the public domain in Finland. Again, I'm not saying that these images need to be deleted. They appear to be fine for Commons. But uploading them via automated script, and then uploading them wrong, presents a large problem. The amount of work you can cause in a very short amount of time with an unapproved bot needs to be taken into consideration. --Majora (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

In Finland museums argumentation goes that the their photographs digitized by them are protected via en:Related rights. In example comment from The Finnish Museum of Photography (2012):

Koska lähioikeudet suojaavat kaikkia valokuvia, voivat esimerkiksi museot ja arkistot periä käyttömaksuja kokoelmissaan olevien vanhojen valokuvien käytöstä. Vaikka alkuperäisen valokuvan suoja-aika olisi rauennut jo vuosikymmeniä aikaisemmin, on museolla tai arkistolla kuitenkin lähioikeuden turvaama yksinoikeus päättää valmistamastaan digitaalisesta kopiosta eli reprokuvasta, jota nykyaikainen printti- tai verkkojulkaisu edellyttää. Tästä syystä näilläkään nettisivuilla julkaistuja valokuvia ei saa kopioida ja julkaista ilman Suomen valokuvataiteen museon lupaa, vaikka alkuperäisen valokuvan tekijä olisikin kuollut jo yli 70 vuotta sitten.

Museums interpretation may be correct or not (it is disputed), but until there is court cases OR somebody changes their interpretations this is reality in Finland. However Helsinki City museum opened highres photos under CC-BY which is clearly improvement here and I don't see any reason why we should fuck up live events with them. --Zache (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I could see how related rights would apply to photographs considered "works of art". That seems to fall in line with what we have per COM:CRT#Finland. But that is not what we are talking about here. These are everyday photos. Also, the fact that you did this the day before your event is not my fault. The fact that you didn't take the time to get authorization for this bot is not my fault. The fact that you did this the way you did this is not my fault. --Majora (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, i am late with this. Practical question: Is it ok that I will finnish the upload for Juniorihackaton and we will check the problems after the event? Eg after I will request a bot permission for FinnaUploaderBot. I can also query Helsinki City Museums helsinkikuvia.fi team about the license issue and wikimedia commons community can decide what we are doing with the licences based on their answer. --Zache (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Because discussion seems to be ended and I am starting to be out of time so i will continue the uploads. I have explained the reason why the license used is CC-BY and even if we eventually decide that it should be CC0 the CC-BY is now better be safe than sorry solution. The photos which i am uploading are photographed by en:Signe Brander (1869–1942) and fi:Ivan Timiriasew (1860–1927) so changing licence should be pretty easy do as a bulk operation with a bot if we decide that the license should be CC0. Tomorrow i will request a bot permission and i will ask the helsinkikuvia.fi teams rationale for the CC-BY licensing. --Zache (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Zache You are obviously going to do what you want and have uploaded hundreds of new photos already. Please use {{FinnaReview}} instead of the general {{LicenseReview}} template. Clogging up the main license review needed category with all of these is not helpful. Thank you. --Majora (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Zache: Your bot has been blocked for operating in violation of the Commons:Bot policy; you continued operating in violation knowingly while also ignoring the requests from the community (above) to stop clogging and overloading our license review process. Another admin or myself are happy to unblock upon opening a bot request for approval. ~riley (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Majora Thanks, i will change the template and thanks for doing botwork for already uploaded files. ~riley Majora didn't commented yesterday about clogging and overloading our license review process via filling the category License_review_needed. If it would have mentioned i would have fixed it at the time. Secondly it pretty much can't kill your license review process because whole case in terms of review is binary. If Majora is right they all are pd, if not they are CC-BY but they don't need case by case reviewing. And if somebody wants check the licesenses case by case they can be tested automatically because both commons and Finna have good apis for accessing data. Anyway still ~1/3 of the images are missing. --Zache (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Now there is bot permission request Commons:Bots/Requests/FinnaUploadBot. Just to be sure. Can i use the tool at the hackathon for upload single files case by case if needed with my personal account (aka Zache) ? --Zache (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I have unblocked your account, thank you for taking the proper channels. It seems you have a sizable edit trial completed which should be sufficient, there should be no further edits until approved. As for your personal account, you may upload single files as per needed but not in mass using your scripts. ~riley (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The day after I made this polite request on Motacilla's talk page, he responded with yet another request for deletion of a category with a typo. As closures of CFD requests are all done manually, each of these takes up an annoying amount of time, and the Commons:Categories_for_discussion backlog is rather insane as it is. It would save both Motacilla and others time if he would use a simple template instead, but numerous requests (both in the CFDs and now on his talk page) have yielded no results. What's the best course for further action? Thanks - Themightyquill (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of CFD is to discuss controversial or changes that you aren't sure what the best course of action is. All of those are clearly uncontroversial, so Motacilla should indeed just tag them with bad name and move on, I'd defer to w:Template:Please prod. Due to the nature of church titles its easier to make errors in the name which should still be unilaterally deleted rather than cluttering up CFD. Does Motacilla not understand CSD or think that they are controversial or is there something else. Note that I've had a small amount of interaction with them both here and at WP. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Given that Motacilla has only just created these categories, I don't see how anyone could imagine the deletion would be controversial. It's also far less effort to add {{bad name|Good name}} than to hit "Nominate for deletion" and type in an explanation for why it should be deleted. It makes no sense. Motacilla has been asked numerous times to act differently but, as far as I can tell, has never even acknowledged these reqests. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I created Category:Hobbs Cross, Matching incorrectly and just simply used BADNAME, a recently created typo created by the filer within a few hours or even days clearly meets COM:REDCAT and w:WP:R3 (and can and should be unilaterally deleted), I don't see why they need to go to CFD. One solution which I think would be a bit OTT would be to topic ban Motacilla from CFD for typos etc. If the bad cats had been around for years or created by someone else I would understand using XFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Personally I would've used {{speedy delete|User request - typo}} as lets be honest no one's going to search for that exact category so why keep it round, In a nutshell Motacilla should stop using CFD and should use the UR template and (in the friendliest way possible) Themightyquill should delete the typo categories instead of being unneededly awkward/pedantic over it, IMHO both are to blame but that's just my 2c. –Davey2010^Talk 14:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Davey: Wait, I don't understand what I did wrong. I've probably deleted like 10 of these typo categories from Motacilla without so much as a comment on a their talk page (until now), and others have done the same. I'm just getting tired of it, and I don't think that's unreasonable. Speedy delete, empty page, bad name - they all do the same thing. I don't care which template gets used, so long as I don't need to manually close CFD discussion after discussion for something that isn't controversial. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: Wait, you don't have a tool for quickly closing CFDs? If there isn't one, there should be, and you should have access to it.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 01:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: No, I don't think such a tool exists. It would be incredibly helpful, but coding it is beyond my ability. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• My sincere apologies Themightyquill - I thought you were closing these as Keep each time, I whole heartedly agree CFD work is tiresome so I understand absolutely, Anyway apologies again, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks at [25].--Strainu (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done User warned. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Look at [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]

He removed a lot of "Category:Art of Keelung," and each edit without giving reason. I think the problem is that he should discuss it first, but he didn't do that. What bothers me is that he would have ended up in these file I've edited with to somehow oppose me. When I found out he had this tendency, I have tried to communicate with him. Unfortunately, he has his own reason, and insists on doing this because he thinks he didn't tracking my edits. You can see look on his talk page(See:1., 2., 3., and 4.). This is why he is not willing to discuss with me. Now, I don't know how to communicate with him.--Kai3952 (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

En reiteradas ocasiones este usuario ha nominado a eliminación varios archivos, se hace la discusión normal respectiva y se dan a entender los puntos sobre el motivo.
Pero ambos hablamos distintos idiomas, ya sea por problemas de idioma o traductor, el usuario retoma solo 1 argumento no válido y lo reitera varias veces, haciendo que un ADM elimine un archivo que cumplía con Commons:Licensing ya que me rehusado a continuar con la discusión.
El usuario ya había sido advertido con anterioridad e hizo caso omiso, actualmente nomino a eliminación File:Logo Grupo Salinas.svg sin saber sobre Commons:Threshold of originality, haciendo alegacion que estaba lejos de ser formas simples (argumento no valido), con esto quiero dar un ejemplo de como maneja su cuenta.
Además el usuario viola el Wikipedia:Etiqueta tras unas afirmaciones (ataque a mi persona) en la siguiente discusión donde también se presentan los puntos anteriores:

• Commons: solicitudes de eliminación / archivos cargados por Victor Gibby

Por su atencion gracias -- Victor Gibby (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

 Comment See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Victor_Gibby. --Discasto _talk 14:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

obvious. 70.21.184.216 11:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked as INC sock. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jcb: Please clean up.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

User has been engaged in uploading images he's pulled off the web which I've tagged for deletion. I've explained, as best I could, why this can't go on, and advised him to upload a selection of such photos to Wikipedia under fair use. Problem is, I don't think he's hearing me, since he genuinely appears to either be ignorant or ignoring copyright rules- I'm leaning towards the latter, since he's pretty much outright lying and claiming 'own work' on all the images to try and get out from under the burden of showing proof of permission from the original copyright holders. He's clearly a new user, as shown by this blanking of a deletion discussion page.

Nevertheless, I've got two questions here:

• So far, I've tagged the images he's uploaded with deletion requests rather than speedy delete. Is this the correct protocol to follow, or can I simply tag these with speedy delete?
• What can be done about this user? - ක - (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Last warning sent, all files deleted or tagged. Next copyvio should result in a block. Yann (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Possible INeverCry? User creates account (39 days ago) and has continuously made edits to categories and stuff. 17k total. Only to commons and no where else. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.128.150.14 (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2018‎ (UTC)

I don't think so, Artix.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 22:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

WPPilot (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is adding illegal restrictions to his licenses and sweeping Admin instruction under the carpet.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 21:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

What a joke, your right I am a bad man, now attribute my photo as required or remove it. Now this goofball is coming here as he does not like the fact that I want notice on use. OMG what a joke. --Don (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

 Blocked I have explicitly told them as an administrator to not remove the warning. Their next removal inevitably leaded to a block. Note that they have been blocked at EN-wiki since 2015 for this kind of issues. Jcb (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Regardless the issue. See this act off canvassing. Natuur12 (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I am perfectly able to act on my own behalf. Did you also see this? Admin:Jcb to User:WPPilot, after blocking him for a week: Have a look at creativecommons.org for the details. You have time enough to do this, now you will be unable to edit Wikimedia Commons for a week. I always thought the basis of Commons was cooperation. But apparently some administrators are entitled to make funny humiliating jokes to their servant-editors. And don't worry: that contributor, who donated a dozen of featured images, won't be coming back. He said: This is the end for me, I will now retire and will not be contributing anymore. Best of luck!. Cheers! Vysotsky (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

There are some serious problems with the attribution and commercial-use requirements imposed by this photographer. Creative Commons By-SA 3.0 says "The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner", yet User:WPPilot/Credits demands "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author ... ALL Credits to Read: "Photograph by D Ramey Logan" on the page that the image is displayed. It must be viewable on the page". Additionally "The license these photos are granted under is not applicable to Facebook, or Commercial Advertising that does not provide attribution on the page the photos are displayed upon. Real Estate companies may NOT use these photos for leads covers advertising or commercial use for profit under the Share and Share alike license" is (with the exception of the Facebook restriction that is correct) unacceptable for CC. And Category:D Ramey Logan says "For detailed commercial use, you MUST contact me at the e mail below".

I don't know what is acceptable to edit such incorrect demands, but they are not legally permitted by CC licence terms, nor by the hosting requirements of Commons. Since Don doesn't own his credit notice or category, I assume an admin can modify the pages, though needs to take care not to put words into Don's mouth and avoid first-person language. -- Colin (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Ksshd (talk · contribs) keeps adding what I can only describe as astrological nonsense to File:Baphomet.png. I have asked them to stop on their talk page but with no effect.--JohnBlackburne (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of how much of it is sense or nonsense, it doesn’t belong on this site: we don’t host articles, least of all on file description pages.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Reverted and warned again. Yann (talk) 09:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Bubblesorg (talk · contribs)

It seem the user was problematic to keep on upload copyrighted image and claimed they are owned by him (see en:Special:Diff/839138489) . After some file had been deleted today, he now upload some original research MS paint style low quality distribution of fossil map to commons. Matthew hk (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, an administrator told me to ask this in the village pump.

I just wanted to report vandalism caused by an registered user. The so called User:MazzyBor keeps uploading mostly Serbian and Yugoslavian flags in a never adopted darker color shade (see file history) or putting colors from the socialist period on the +40 older monarch version (see file history). Recently he started rewriting history (see file history) and spreading Serbian irredentism by overwriting a correct map, claiming former Byzantine lands/almost the entire Balkans were Serbia in the year 1358 and Austria beeing a part of Germany (which was not even unified in that time), he also made countries like the "Republic of Ragusa" totally disappear and created new like "Thrace" - which was a part of the by Ottomans occupied Byzantine Empire. (No sources were even added on this edit; I have reverted it to the correct version)

I just wanted to report this, and I hope someone will have time to check this out.

Best regards, MateoKatanaCRO (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

As of May 3rd, his arguments are "You cant be more knowledgeable then me about my own country.". --MateoKatanaCRO (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Check this and this aswell. He has even been notified by an admin because of uncontroversial corrections. --MateoKatanaCRO (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I warned him not to overwrite files with different content and left him another message regarding his contributions. If this kind of unconstructive uploading continues, a block will be warranted. Supposedly incorrect maps by this user containing original research should also be nominated for deletion if they appear as standalone files. De728631 (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for one week because of intimidation/harassment of user MateoKatanaCRO. De728631 (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@De728631: Block evasion from IP. Ankry (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Blocked and reverted. (You probably mean this edit.) Yann (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Plainjane344 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

All this user's uploads are photographs of luggage made by a company called Skooba; they appear to be copies of promotional photos from the company itself. I nominated a couple for deletion where I could find the original but on reflection that's not the right way to go about it; either the user works for the company (from their Wikipedia contribs, that is a given) and can go via OTRS for permission (and fix the "own work" claim), or the whole lot should be deleted as copyvio. I hope this is an appropriate venue to find someone who can sort this out. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. After you warned her, uploads have stopped. Big photos with EXIF and not particularly promotional. Sometimes company name is even not visible. If she continues, then she can be blocked, but promotion is not totally prohibited in Commons, if they give good free photos about their products. If you suspect, that rest of her uploads are copyvios as well, then you can create a deletion request. Taivo (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I quite follow. I expect if I created a deletion request for any given photo, it would be deleted; while it seems extremely likely to me that Plainjane344 works for Skooba, there is no actual proof that that is the case and even if there was the "own work" source is unlikely to be accurate. I would expect a corporate wanting to release its promotional photos in this fashion (something I agree is not prohibited) to have to go via OTRS. So... can't we do the whole lot at once? Pinkbeast (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Backarn (talk · contribs)

Long-term abuser (already blocked in svwiki, under investigation in enwiki) uploaded two copyrighted files under Fair use: 1, 2. When i add deletion request, he's reverting me. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 09:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: And why do you keep adding the deletion request? Didn't I just tell you: "Here we go again... he keeps slandering me and keeps claiming that the images are copyrighted, thus uploaded under the wrong license despite the fact that I repetadley linked to the respective countries' local laws which clearly allows for uploading such images." [56] Backarn (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4 and Backarn: Do not edit war. Consider this a warning. In case you want to contest a deletion, please open a regular deletion request, where the merits of the deletion can be discussed over a week. The files in question have been speedily deleted now. I consider this issue  Done. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Fanandthelights (talk · contribs) continues copyright violations after warnings and block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done, indef, no useful contributions. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It is likely a sock of Mittalwiki (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user who is not blocked. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Mittalwiki was blocked from 17 April to 24 April for uploading copyvios, and has not uploaded since.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that Califpaint (talk · contribs) has been uploading many images of paintings to Commons, claiming “own work”, (which may be true, as far as photographing the paintings). But I only understand copyright law in a limited way, and only in the U.S. Are their contributions all right for Commons? In many cases, I suspect not, reading through a former notice. I will leave a note on their user page on enwiki and here, but someone with more copyright know-how needs to look at the uploads. Please ping or mention me, as I’m usually on enwiki or at Wikidata, not here. Thanks. NotARabbit (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@NotARabbit: Photos or scans of artworks may be fine when they are on public display in a country with freedom of panorama for artworks. Also when the copyright of the original painting has expired (for example: painting by a US painter published before 1923) they are fine.

I am happy to take a look at them. Should I nominate everything for deletion so I can go through them for a week or can I trust them not to be instantly deleted now? - Alexis Jazz 19:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I certainly can’t delete them; I’m unfamiliar with the procedures here. I did take them out of one en.wiki article on my watchlist until this is resolved. I do know that the artist in that article only died in 1990. NotARabbit (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@NotARabbit: if that would happen to be an artist from the US, a work from the sixties without copyright notice and not registered with the copyright office it could be covered by {{PD-US-no notice}}. If the artist is from Somalia it could be {{PD-Somalia}}. Funny story: Somalia actually does have a copyright law. However, it requires you to register your copyright with the copyright office. Somalia does not have a copyright office. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Victory rooster.jpg is even more complicated. It has to be checked on a case-by-case basis. - Alexis Jazz 20:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I can’t even follow U.S. laws! :-O NotARabbit (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@NotARabbit, Alexis Jazz, Mike Rosoft, Hedwig in Washington, and EugeneZelenko, @Ellin Beltz: I've been on this merry-go-round before, please see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 64#Contributions of User:Califpaint and these developments on the user's talk page, including direct warnings. My questions were never answered satisfactorily. I think it's time for stern measures.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 00:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. At least until we can sort out the mess: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Califpaint... Yann (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

This user Sanchaa123 (talk · contribs) is blocked at Wikipedia as a sockpuppet of recently globally-locked JimmyJoe87 (talk · contribs). See this edit. Also, this user uploaded File:Anncoffey.jpg, which came from Parliament website, where its photos have copyright different from the GOV.UK's OGL, incorrectly asserted by the user. I recently tagged it for speedy deletion. --George Ho (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, besides Category:Sockpuppets of JimmyJoe87, I found out more coming from Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Marquis de la Eirron, including User talk:Brooklands263. I think the request for checkuser should be filed sooner. Thoughts? George Ho (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Freyjadour (talk · contribs)

Lied to us about having been at some event and using their own camera ("Okay, aside from the obvious reason that I was there when I took them, I've acquired the photos by using my phone") when it looks like Freyjadour just took screenshots of YouTube videos. I am disappoint. - Alexis Jazz 16:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Indef - It's one thing to upload copyright violations, It's another to blatantly lie about it and try to deceive anyone in the process, Can't be trusted here anymore sorry. –Davey2010^Talk 18:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• This is also relevant, and not the behaviour of someone acting in good faith. Эlcobbola _talk 18:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: if you agree this deserves indef we may take it right to m:Steward requests/Global. - Alexis Jazz 18:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

User seems to be productive editing Wikipedia articles. Block here, remove upload privileges on Wikipedia (if that's possible) would be my suggestion. - Alexis Jazz 18:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I do support an indefinite block on the Commons, as this user clearly struggles with images (his first en.wiki block was also for images of this person); because Commons is image based, I believe we need an acknowledgement of the issue and a credible commitment to discontinue. A global lock, however, seems a step too far, as non-image en.wiki contributions appear fine (i.e., an image "topic ban" would be more appropriate there.) Эlcobbola _talk 18:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked him/her for a week. In my opinion longer block is not needed at moment. Taivo (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

習近平同性戀 (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) is an obvious sock of Nipponese Dog Calvero. --B dash (talk) 10:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Already blocked, files deleted. Yann (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Fuckingtiredofusersnames (talk · contribs), who has so far only 1 upload (copyvio), IMO violates Commons:Username_policy#Inappropriate_usernames wrt "Offensive usernames". Which re-user would ever credit such a name? --Túrelio (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The word "Fucking" is apparently not blocked during the registration process. Also, if the Austrian village Fucking is tired of a user called "snames", who are we to judge? However, you could argue this is a confusing username which the policy you linked also mentions. - Alexis Jazz 19:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Will watch, user will most likely go dormant. Re-ping if user becomes problematic. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done I blocked the user indefinitely due to improper username. Taivo (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Just stumbled over some weird edits of SLV100 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. Unfortunately, that fumbling around with other people's contributions (like converting a DR to a Speedy-DR) as well as this obviously uncontrollable attraction to archives (like Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2018/05) immediately makes his "past life" associate — and something about it scares me a little. In any case, that beaviour should — the following parallels in abnormalities should give cause — not only be observed:

• "Deletion" pages/templates: [58]←→[59]
• "Housekeeping": [60]←→[61]←→[62]
• "DR to SD": [63]←→[64]
• "Deletion" by "uploader's request" (socks?):[65]←→[66]

Otherwise I dare to predict that it will not be long before archives are handled again (see the user's disc).

Some probable socks he's trolling around:

• Graf1984 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• 2600:1004:B01A:3722:B5C3:7AAF:3D0C:EDA4 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• 2600:8804:6500:9D80:D0EF:EDE4:C3BC:184D (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Samanthathepirate (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Jonathan35is (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Daniellewu (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Jab7842 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• 107.178.36.24 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• BevinKacon (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:79 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Sja974 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Pika Pika Pikachu Pi! (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• The wheels on Oshwah's bus go round and round... (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• 2604:2000:2103:EE00:84BD:8C1D:654A:29DC (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Time4ARevolution (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Kareenza (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

--Jotzet (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: After a nap it goes on ([67], [68], [69]).

P.P.S.: It is unlikely that the stripper was satisfied for years without any user rights, so such "master account" would have to be determined. --Jotzet (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

 Info [11] and [14] was in response to spam edits by User:2600:1004:B01A:3722:B5C3:7AAF:3D0C:EDA4 saying "I am being hacke" [16], [18], and [21] New user User:Samanthathepirate had uploaded a file and within an hour had requested its deletion. Thus, it qualified for speedy deletion; "Author or uploader request deletion: Original author or uploader requests deletion of recently created (<7 days) unused content. For author/uploader requests for deletion of content that is older a deletion request should be filled instead." The only other account I have used is User:107.178.36.24, because my browser logged me out and I didn't notice. -- SLV100 (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

For the record: I warned User:SLV100 to leave deletion requests alone, after they converted several regular DRs to speedy DRs. If they continue to meddle with our processes, a block is appropriate. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

 Counterexample Some DRs listed at Category:Incomplete deletion requests' subcategories and DRs created only with spam/vandalism by Vandalism-only accounts should be converted/nominated for Speedy Deletion. Note from Category:Incomplete deletion requests: Many of these may be misplaced Speedy Requests. (Keep in mind that on most projects, including the English Wikipedia, "{{delete}}" is a Speedy Delete tag.) -- SLV100 (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I admit I was in the wrong as per User talk:SLV100#Do not fiddle with the logs. I'm even inclined on a block on my account. But on the subject of Socks, I'm also inclined on requesting a COM:CHECK on my account to set the record straight on the allegations above. -- SLV100 (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

See also these two and similar edits where the subject user has been removing posts they didn't make.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 23:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relevant unanswered comment copied from talk page: I would like your input on listings done by Vandalism-only accounts. Jeff G. [70] and I [71] undid Vandalism listings in the DR logs. Some of those DRs were deleted by Yann and the rest are here. -- SLV100 (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Thank you for sharing this thread: User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2018/April#"DENY". So should DRs created by Time4ARevolution be relisted in the DR logs archive? Should the deleted ones be undeleted? Should Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Time, 1942 be listed in the DR logs archive, as the nominator never listed it? I have to be honest, this edit does merit an indef block. -- SLV100 (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@SLV100: Separating out the above questions and statement with attribution to facilitate inline answers:

@Jeff G.: So should DRs created by Time4ARevolution be relisted in the DR logs archive? -- SLV100 (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@SLV100: Not unless doing so would make cleanup faster or easier, and then only the ones which still exist. @Jcb: What do you think?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 01:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Should the deleted ones be undeleted? -- SLV100 (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@SLV100: No.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 01:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Should Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Time, 1942 be listed in the DR logs archive, as the nominator never listed it? -- SLV100 (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@SLV100: No, it's moot now.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 01:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Thanks for the quick response. Could you elaborate further? It shouldn't be archived at Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2018/03/14 (or listed at Commons:Deletion requests/2018/03/14 so Krdbot can archive it)? Seems odd to leave the DR orphaned. -- SLV100 (talk) 03:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@SLV100: Sure, that makes sense. @Maher27777: should have listed it at Commons:Deletion requests/2018/03/14 when it was created.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 04:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I have to be honest, this edit does merit an indef block. -- SLV100 (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@SLV100: I would not oppose.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 01:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment I blocked SLV100 for 1 month for both removing Jeff G.'s comments in this edit among others, and more generally vandalising (whether by intent, negligence or ignorance) the DR process again after a raft of warnings by multiple people. Storkk (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

Youness fourever (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) has never uploaded something useful for the project; it seems like a hosting of personal photos with comments like "bisou bisou", "laila my love" and such.

Something should be done. Maybe a blockage.

Best regards. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Last warning sent. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Yann: File:Hta_l9it_li_tbrini.jpg is out of COM:SCOPE, is under COM:NETCOPYRIGHT (extracted from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7d_j8-0mcc or something). Please, block. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Srittau: Last warning already sent, please block. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done One month. Nothing useful so far. Yann (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• OsmoseIt (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

User:OsmoseIt works for Osmosis. They had a partnership with some members of the Wikiproject Medicine team on English Wikipedia to produce videos on medical topics, where they would appear in the lead section of the articles. Around 300 vidoes have been produced. After a large community discussion, the English Wikipedia community decided these videos were not appropriate and they were removed from the articles. One particular concern was that the videos contained prominent title sections and end credits which appeared to promote the company that made them -- a company that sells subscriptions to training videos for medical students. A few editors created derivative versions where the credits were removed and credit supplied on the file-desription page.

Now that the relationship with Wikipedia is over, Osmosis have decided to add restrictions to the terms and conditions of reuse to disallow the removal of title and end credits. Further they have imposed a watermark burden on anyone reusing and publishing a frame from their videos. The text of these restrictions is published here and currently says:

we require that you retain the front (first 2 seconds of the video) and back bumper (the last 30 seconds of the video). These bumpers have to be included in our videos, as they provide attribution to not only us, but also the authors of the Creative Commons material we used in our videos. If you want to modify our content, our Creative Commons license requires you to indicate that your content is a derivative of our content. If you want to take a screen capture from one of these videos, you must include an unobstructed watermark saying "Osmosis.org" in a corner of your choice within the image. This watermark must have 100% opacity, and be no smaller than a font size of 30 pt on an image resolution of 1000 x 1000 pixels. Images of different resolutions must maintain the proportion of image to watermark.

The text on their site has changed several times this week, each time adding more restrictions or including more videos by date.

OsmoseIt has today modified the page of all 300 videos to say "Please attribute by retaining the initial logo and closing credits. See https://help.osmosis.org/faqs/how-can-i-attribute-reuse-or-share-osmosis-videos for additional details". While the first sentence is merely a request that is acceptable (licensors may request certain methods/styles of attribution, but can't require them), the offline link to further restrictions is not acceptable. It imposes requirements that are not compatible with the CC BY-SA 4.0 licence nor with Commons policy on permitting free re-use of material, or with our requirement that licence terms are fixed and perpetual (vs changing daily).

I request that someone with automated tools modify the file pages to remove the sentence with the external link. The first sentence should be retained, though it probably belongs in a Permission or Attribution box. I hope at this stage no admin action is required, other than a warning to respect the licence terms. -- Colin (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

 Comment Keeping the credits in the videos seems raisonnable to me, but I agree that the external URL is not wanted. It can be easily removed with VFC (no admin right required). Regards, Yann (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The last 30 seconds contains no attribution material. It is purely advertisement. Jbh ^Talk 13:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

And the title isn't attribution, just advertising. But it is important that someone can extract a short clip from these videos, without the burden of the title/credits. The whole point of Creative Commons licensing is to permit others to remix your work in any way they see fit. Including taking screengrabs. The main issue is the external, and ever changing, additional restrictions being imposed on top of CC BY-SA 4.0. I'm not familiar with VFC. -- Colin (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I removed the offending sentence in all files. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict) I believe, although I am unsure, that regardless of any modifications made to the license grant the files are remain available under the original grant which did not specify attribution. The {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} documentation shows that it has an 'attribution' parameter to allow the specification of specific attribution methods and it was not used.

Releasing these videos was part of a business strategy from which they gained massive advertising exposure and claimed to be "the official provider of medical videos to Wikipedia" or some such. As such it was their responsibility to do proper due diligence. That Osmosis is experiencing 'license regret' is simply not our problem.

User:OsmoseIt, by posting a message claiming violation of the license, seems to be embarking on, or at least implying, legal action. Until User:OsmoseIt clearly states that they are not threating legal action I strongly recommend their account be blocked on all Wikimedia projects per the 'No legal threats' policy . I would hope their management has considered the negative press this ill-considered attempt to force Wikipedia to provide them with an advertising platform through legal intimidation will likely generate, as well as the effects it could have on grant applications where they use their relationship with this project as a reference and that they will stop with these games. If not this is a matter for lawyers not volunteer editors and we should promptly pass this matter on to the Wikimedia legal department. Jbh ^Talk 16:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 00:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Jbhunley: Before talking about blocks, I'd like to have OsmoseIt's opinion. As they are now, I don't see any issue with these files. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yann: The issue is the implication of a legal threat on en.wp at File talk:Abscesses 1.webm where they say "Osmosis (the original authors of the video this file is based off of) have given notice that this video needs to adhere to their Attribution requirements. We'll need to edit or remove this video to abide by their requirements within 30 days.". It is a bit squirrely since OsmoseIt is the Osmosis representative and they are referring the themself in the third person but it is a clear notice claiming (improperly in my opinion) a violation of the license and specifying a deadline for cure. The implied follow-up should the 'breach' not be cured is legal action. Jbh ^Talk 18:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Jbhunley, I'm not sure if the en:Wikipedia:No legal threats policy applies to Commons and other sites, but it explicitly excudes complaints of copyright infringement or licence infringement. Such complaints and discussions happen all the time on Commons, and are taken seriously rather than blocking the complainant. I think we'd be more upset if OsmoseIt expliclty threatened to sue User:RexxS. I think Osmosis need to have a chat with their lawyer, who will likely inform them that perhaps they should have talked to them before releasing their videos with CC BY-SA 4.0. -- Colin (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Colin: Ah. OK. I think NLT is a Wikimedia thing but I struck the call to block based on the copyright exception. Regardless their attempts to retroactively preserve their advertising is pretty distasteful and shows how the whole collaboration was based on trading advertising for content.

My concern now is to get some policies in place to prevent similar deals which leverage Wikipedia's reach for the profit of third parties. I fear a repeat since, based on recent events, I think the principals at WPMEDINC have failed to internalize or even examine the poor judgement and COI which brought us here. Jbh ^Talk 00:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Jbhunley: I think that "trading advertising for content" could be quite a good deal. We quite a number of files here with more or less this exchange. One of the first which comes to mind is Bollywood Hungama. Of source, every case has to judged individually, i.e. is the content worth the advertising. So do not throw the baby with the bathwater... Regards, Yann (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

what some call advertising others call attribution. go ahead and block them, they are not coming back. way to go commons. just like Finnish photography museum. is there any GLAM institution you will not bite? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Slowking4 is there any conversation on Commons you won't troll with negativity. You quite obviously have no clue about the history of these videos and why Osmosis ended their partnership. It has nothing to do with Commons. Please don't make further useless/clueless comments here. -- Colin (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

hey there user:colin. thanks for signing. if i sound like a broken record, it is because commons is broken. sorry you do not like the negative feedback. i see a video producer trying to collaborate, and being shown the door over the issue of attribution purity. commons editors should understand that the "no advert" purity will continue to prevent rich video content from being shared here. i take it you do not care. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

As I said, this has nothing to do with Commons. A handful of videos were topped and tailed because Wikipedia didn't like the top 300 vital medical articles on the world's top education website promoting and endorsing a private company selling training subscriptions to medical students. And also because one Wikipedian thought that would be a good way to demonstrate how "easy" they were to edit, like Wikipedians edit articles. He forgot to retain the attribution he chopped off, which simultaneously proved it wasn't quite so easy after all, but also seems to have upset Osmosis.

If the videos were merely hosted on Commons, I doubt anyone would have minded. Most Commoners are aware of WMF Legal advice at Commons:Watermarks and would have left the files alone. But, you know, don't let the facts get in the way of your trolling negativity. -- Colin (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Colin and Slowking4: Could you please keep your bickering off this section? Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Yann, you actioned this admin request ages ago (thanks). So how about you close it rather than keeping it as a magnet for disgruntled trolls to spread disinformation. It is relevant to point out the the Osmosis debacle is entirely of Wikipedia's making and fault. -- Colin (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

ResolvedYann (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Look at [72]. Howard61313 was clearly tracking my edits. I have tried to communicate with him on his talk page, but he still keep tracking my edits(See: [73], [74]). He obviously does not intend to stop. I did not want it to become an "edit war".--Kai3952 (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

You made an outrageous misunderstanding. I didn't track anyone's edits, What I really track are the categories about Taiwan, and what I really care are the improvement and the adding of translations of the categories, it's not a matter of who the former editors are (that is, whether those are your edits or not, I'll do the same thing). Stop removing my translations to the page, which is a nonsense reversion because you are the one who tracks all my edits, no matter what I've added. (see: 1, I've added the translation in Japanese and Korean, but the user reverted it just because it's my edit).--Howard61313 (talk) 23 April 2018 (Mon) 12:13 (UTC)

Look at [75], [76], and [77]. The problem is, when I created a new category, why do you know in a "short time"?--Kai3952 (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I simply edit them following their container categories. I didn't check the time of creation at all, and I don't know whether you (or anyone else) created them or not.--Howard61313 (talk) 23 April 2018 (Mon) 13:01 (UTC)

Look at [78], [79]. I created "Views from Mount Elephant (Taipei)" category at 15:57, and you edited it at 16:27. Can you explain why you knew that I created "Views from Mount Elephant (Taipei)" category half an hour ago?--Kai3952 (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Who knew it? Why on earth should I know it? Why on earth should this be a concern of mine? Like I said before. I didn't check the time of creation at all. It's not my concern when they were created. It's not my concern who created them, either. Half an hour ago, two months ago or ten years ago, they all mean nothing to me. The main problem you've caused should to be blamed. Now it has been proved that your reversions based on the reason of "stop tracking" are unreasonable and nonsense, since the reason turns out to be your own misconception, nobody wants to track you. Even if anyone does, it's said below that "tracking another user's edits for the purpose of improving Commons" are not prohibited. Besides, "stop tracking" is an untenable reason itself to revert anybody's edition. You didn't even check with me whether or not my editions is a matter of tracking "before" selfishly making such reversions and unilaterally judging my editions as something to be reverted with the ridiculous reason. It's funny that you have the nerve to blame me first for "not discussing before".--Howard61313 (talk) 25 April 2018 (Wed) 03:36 (UTC)

In general, it's fine to track another user's edits for the purpose of improving Commons. If someone has made errors or incomplete information across several pages, their Special:Contributions is a good place to find work. Harassment is a different story, of course, and it won't be tolerated. Kai3952, do you disagree with the content of Howard61313's edits? Guanaco (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Guanaco: Look at his edits. You can see from the nature of his changes to my edits, and he are mainly directed at "my translation". The problem is, most peoples would not expect to be tracked by other users. I think he should inform me on my talk page, and to discuss my problem with translation in Chinese. This is why I feel he was tracking my edits.--Kai3952 (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kai3952: Let's step back from the issue of tracking for a moment. Would you consider his edits to be good, neutral, or damaging? Guanaco (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

All I know is that there is a way to translate with more conciseness, which I replace the former, wordy and unsmooth translation with. It's not really my concern who the former translators were, let alone directing at them. Even if the translation is done by anyone else, I'll do the same edit to it. I've had enough with Kai3952's "directed at me" complaining and all his other unilateral accuses on me. Yes, he may mean no harm on me, and he may do all this unintentionally, but no matter what his intentions are, he do misunderstand me, causing me trouble.--Howard61313 (talk) 25 April 2018 (Wed) 03:08 (UTC)

You didn't discuss with me before as well!! My only problem is that your translation is "not very fluent" in my opinion. I think, concise translation may cause misunderstanding. If your comprehension of English is not to the level of a "native speaker"(like those English speakers in English-speaking countries), then I will worry about a problem: Most users of Chinese speakers misunderstand that causes their improper use of categories. This is not what I want to see happen. Therefore, I will choose to change or remove your edits. In other words, I hope you STOP now.--Kai3952 (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I'm already discussing "your English" at COM:HD. See: [80].--Kai3952 (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

No matter what the result is, it is about the relations of buses and automobiles. My correction to the former wordy and unsmooth Chinese translation is another different thing. Don't lump them together. It is me who hopes you to STOP now.--Howard61313 (talk) 28 April 2018 (Sat) 12:35 (UTC)

I know — but this shows that your command of English is "inadequate." Because they told me that the term automobile absolutely do "not" include buses. Moreover, they stressed that it is not normal. If you think there is a problem with my understanding of Chinese, how do you prove that my translation is wordy and unsmooth? I hope you "clearly" point it out, rather than blamed and complained.--Kai3952 (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

It's obvious. Taking Category:Transport by country for example, it is translated as "Category:各國交通" on zh.wikipedia. What the former editions on some categories here are weirdly translating it as "按國家分類的交通", which is "relatively" more wordy and unsmooth. When the translation can be done in concise ways, there is no need to ridiculously replace them with wordy and unsmooth ones. Another example showing that your ability to translate English words is "inadequate" as well, when you changed "緊急機構", the translation for "emergency service", into "緊急服務". The definition for emergency service is referred to as "the public organizations that respond to and deal with emergencies when they occur" on the dictionary. Of course the word "機構" is more proper than "服務" here. Other examples also show that "service" shouldn't be translated as "服務" in some cases, such as the National Intelligence Service, which should be translated as "國家情報院" instead of "國家情報服務". By the way, if the categorization for buses and automobiles doesn't work, I'll simply stop it. I urge you to do the same on the problem you caused.--Howard61313 (talk) 30 April 2018 (Mon) 05:28 (UTC)

Now I finally understand it! What you want to say is that my translation is not "precise" enough. If, as you said, my ability to translate English words is inadequate, then why do you say: "wordy and unsmooth"? Now, I only see you blaming me, because you didn't tell me that any solution to solve the problem. I think, what do you mean should be: Look at the Chinese Wikipedia category, they are translated like that. So you want me to do it the way they would?--Kai3952 (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

By asking the first question, you've proved that you don't understanding actually. It's two problems you've made, yet again you confused one of them with the other. --Howard61313 (talk) 2 May 2018 (Wed) 14:24 (UTC)

@Howard61313: Well...which question are you talking about? I stopped removing your edits a few days ago, but I don't know what you want to discuss. Also, you haven't told me what you want me to do. What do you want me to help you with?--Kai3952 (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, "wordy and unsmooth" is not used to talk about the translation of "emergency service", but the former translations earlier instead. By the way, you've already done me a favor by stopping removing my edits (for the former translations), and I really appreciate this. If you want to help, you can replace all the term of "火車站" with "軌道運輸車站" or other suitable options for the "Category:Train stations in XXX"(City/County) in Taiwan (the reason can be seen in my comment about "軌道運輸車站" below).--Howard61313 (talk) 11 May 2018 (Fri) 13:43 (UTC)

No one knows what you mean when you say "wordy and unsmooth." But I hope you face the problems that your command of English. For example, you confused the term "bus" with "automobile." I suggest you look at "Commons:Help_desk/Archive/2018/04#Do_you_think_the_bus_is_an_automobile?". Otherwise, why should I accept your opinion that what you said is right?--Kai3952 (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I want to ask another question: I noticed your edits, why do you think that the term "train station" means "車站" in Chinese? I think, the term "bus station" means "公車站" in Chinese, but the real problem is that some people also call it "車站." I hope you do "not" firmly believe that this is just my problem.--Kai3952 (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The edition history you give here just shows my reason inside. In Taiwan, MRT stations (sometimes THSR stations as well) are not usually included in the term "火車站". If we both want to avoid the problem about bus, maybe the term "軌道運輸車站" used on the list "臺灣軌道運輸車站列表" of zh.wikipedia can be considered. --Howard61313 (talk) 2 May 2018 (Wed) 14:26 (UTC)

@Howard61313: I know, but you didn't say the "key point." Because you didn't answer my question. Please see clearly, my question is: Neither "車站" nor "火車站" are the best translation vocabularies. What do you think, how should the term "train station" translate in Chinese?--Kai3952 (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I did. One of the suggestion I provide for the term "Train Station" is "軌道運輸車站" because it is suitable for all kinds of train station in Taiwan (MRT stations, TRA stations and THSR stations). Of course, "鐵路車站" seems to be translated more literally, but the reason to keep it from my options is that the term is used for TRA stations on the list "臺灣鐵路車站列表" of zh.wikipedia.--Howard61313 (talk) 11 May 2018 (Fri) 13:40 (UTC)

• @Howard61313: Please reply me fast!--Kai3952 (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Please do not understand English in a native way(means the logic used is different from that in English speakers). About the definition of the term "train station," I suggest you ask at COM:HD. But I think "train station" is synonymous to "railway station." It is not necessary to change "鐵路車站" or "軌道運輸車站."--Kai3952 (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Howard61313: If you have no objection, I'd like to slightly modify your current version.--Kai3952 (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kai3952: I just want to offer the usage of terms on zh.wikipedia. If you prefer the option of "鐵路車站", I won't stop it.--Howard61313 (talk) 16 May 2018 (Wed) 13:10 (UTC)

@Howard61313: No, what I meant to say is: Your understanding of English may be insufficient to fully express, like the native English speaker to understand in themselves. Therefore, I want to add an annotation to your edits that to explain the difference in use between Chinese and English. This is to avoid misclassification due to "translation problems". Do you understand what I say?--Kai3952 (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Look at [81], [82], and [83]. User:Richardw likes to argue with other users. Because I think I have fulfilled his request, he still continues to bother me. I hope administrators will take appropriate actions.--Kai3952 (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. In his last reply, he promised to stop. Let's hope that. Taivo (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I simply made a suggestion (you might want to) and the first reply started with "Are you OK?" and ended with Please do not bother me. That should have been a warning sign, but I tried to explain why I made the suggestion in the first place, and that was replied to in a manner that suggested discussing the topic would be possible. Alas, my next reaction was met with a (in my view) rather hostile answer. And now I'm accused of being unreasonable and turning a discussion into an argument? Never mind, I said would leave you alone. Richard 10:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Taivo and Richardw: The reason I think he is unreasonable, is that he insist on deleting this file: "File:中國大理38.jpg". I have submitted it to delete. See: "Commons:Deletion requests/File:中國大理38.jpg". Now, I hope it can be solved peacefully. I will report him if he continues.--Kai3952 (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Can an admin please look into this brand new user? His only action was to interfere with an administrative action here, regarding the alleged sockpuppeting of User:Solomon203. I reverted his edit, but if this edit was justified, I ask an administrator to revert back. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Obviously not here to contribute positively. Yann (talk) 10:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Yann, it is suspected, that the globally blocked User:Solomon203 is active now under IP addresses and presumably, User:Fegggbgbbdfbv was also used by him. The action carried out here, reminds me strongly to previous rename terror, carried out by him. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

CEphoto, Uwe Aranas: I checked a few edits by this IP, and I can't find anything blockable in itself. A wrong rename request is hardly a reason for a block. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yann, I agree your opinion. It was just an observation. I will keep an eye for edits and name change requests on Taiwan-related content. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

One of the signatures of Solomon203 is, that he is applying for file name changes, requesting to append the date in the form YYYYMMDD to the file name. Is there a way to filter IP edits against name change requests? --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cccefalon: look at w:User talk:Solomon203 #unblock request, please. There were some doubts that Solomon203 (talk · contribs) is the Nipponese Dog from Taiwan. @Yann: the edit may be vandalism but may be good-faith, depending on identity of Solomon203. Can any sock buster understanding Chinese elucidate this? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not in the position, to judge about the identities. I got just aware, that well known schemes of name change requests for Taiwanese images show up. Doubtless, the edits of the IP in question show a general good understanding, how to handle images and a bulk of them can be considered to be useful, e.g. adding Chinese language description. From that, I only urge to keep an eye open. The question, if banned users are now contributing with IP numbers and what do is certainly beyond my tasks as a simple user. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

First, edit warring in user:Solomon203 (hist • logs • abuse log) is something beyond usual provocations by LTA. Second, I can’t discern usual Nipponese Dog’s patterns—slur, Peter Huang, shouting, combativeness—in Solomon203’s editing record which is rather long. Third, the Nipponese Dog (or Jason Lin) uses photo cameras of decent quality, such as Sony G3125 with pixel size 5984 × 3376 (examples) or Sony D6503 with pixel size 3840 × 2160 (example). Solomon203 used SONY DSC-WX7 and resolution of his photos does not matches Nipponese Dog’s. @Wildcursive, Donald Trung, and B dash: your opinions on the case? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I haven't personally gone over Solomon203's contributions but I heard that this user send a photograph of himself to the local Wikimedia chapter in the Republic of China, if this is in fact someone other than Jason Lin they could confirm so in person, Peter Huang is a pretty big personality and advocate so it's possible that others might be interested in him, I'm not that familiar with how the Nipponese Dog (Lin Jason) operates other than his obsessive behaviour towards covering and promoting human rights advocates, from what I can tell about Solomon203's uploads he seems to prefer cosplay conventions and makes rather good content. I don't really have an opinion on if he's Mr. Lin or not and hope that the Taiwan Province chapter of the WMF will confirm whether or not he is in fact someone else. Though I must state that It's suspicious that Jason Lin keeps removing the photograph I placed at that Wikimedia employee's talk page after he stated that he doesn't know how Jason Lin looks, although it's also possible that Mr. Jason Lin prefers to remain private in other respects, I'm not familiar with their psychology. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not familiar with this case. --B dash (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I off-wiki contacted Steinsplitter who initiated the action against Solomon203 on en.Wikipedia. He explicitly refused to comment further. Now questioning a Japanese-Wikipedia admin. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Oops… it turned out that the “Japanese-Wikipedia admin” is indefblocked in the home wiki two months ago and hence hasn’t community trust anymore. My query, predictably, lies without an answer either. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wildcursive: explain Revision of User:Solomon203 please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: Thanks for reminding me about the discussion. I have been edited Wikimedia projects for more than 10 years and had dealt with both zh:WP:KAGE/en:WP:LTA/KAGE and zh:User:Solomon203. Their main political positions are basically opposite and thus differ on articles they paid attention to or editors they focused on. The ways or types they involve vandalism are quite different. At least in zhwiki & the commons, I, along with several administrators and senior editors, know they are 2 persons. It's totally impossible they become one person in other Wikimedia projects. They may have occasionally edited through similar ip addresses but it's not that unique in Taiwan among some other countries. Attributing vandalism by other abusers to zh:WP:KAGE is unfair and can do more harm than good. It's neither accurate nor necessary and unhelpful to prevent further problems. My knowledge or impression concerning them came from long-time observation & interaction. I also know their recent interests & activities and thus can assert the mentioned category was definitely a wrong identification.--Wildcursive (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Glay Liou is obviously a sock of Kagemusha, or known as Nipponese Dog Calvero in Commons, why this account is not indefinitely blocked yet? --219.79.126.110 04:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@219.79.126.110: discover global locks. Did you never have your account locked? You might have flourished in the old ages (before 2012) then. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done, globally locked. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The user reloads the photo without permission. This should be stopped urgently. On deletion request does not give an answer. --Микола Василечко (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Final warning given. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Commons User (talk · contribs) — is this username acceptable? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Why not? Not a great username, but in my opinion acceptable. Taivo (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Looks like something of a default name, like "MyAccount" or "this.User". Misleading and confuse, at least. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Also problematic for attribution. "CC-BY-SA 4.0 image by Commons User from Wikimedia Commons" - eh? - Alexis Jazz 19:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked for having a problematic username, left a note encouraging the user to select another username to be renamed to. Alexis Jazz has a fair point, people unfamiliar (even those who are familiar) may just assume this is a generic attribution, instead of a specific user. Should choose another username to avoid any such issues. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Technically, it should be blocked under "Promotional username", just as "Company name user" would be. Implies shared use and promotes a website/company (this one, but still...). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Not really. That would possibly be true on Wikipedia, but it much less true here. See half the text on Commons talk:Username policy discussing role accounts, see also COM:Role accounts. As long as the actual user is an individual and is not making a misleading statement of representation, I think it would be fine. To me, "promotional" means blatant advertising in this context ("User:Tito's Garage 1800-BUYMYTIRES" or something), not just mentioning a name, or we have lots of longstanding GLAM accounts that need blocking. Storkk (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Or indeed, the tens of thousands of ~commonswiki accounts left over from the great SUL-ification. Storkk (talk) 08:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Storkk: that didn't save Aegon Communications (talk · contribs). I do agree with you when it comes to role accounts btw, as long as they don't misbehave I see no reason to force such accounts to change their name or block them. If they do misbehave (and blame someone else they share the account with) it makes sense though. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 08:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict) If you claim to represent an entity, that requires OTRS confirmation and always has. Do you see no difference between claiming to be (and obviously actually being) a "Commons User" and claiming to represent Aegon Communications? Storkk (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• I asked Aegon Communications to do that as that was needed anyway because the only purpose of that account appears to have been to upload some photos of people on the Aegon management board. But that was not the reason they were blocked. Aegon Communications was not told go to OTRS, they were told to change their username. I can only assume User:Elcobbola was enforcing the policy at w:Wikipedia:Username policy#Shared accounts. (do we have the same policy?) - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 09:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• We do not. Per the talk page I pointed to above, Commons talk:Username policy, it has been proposed and rejected multiple times. Storkk (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Alexis Jazz: Your assumption is incorrect; please read critically. Aegon Communications was told "Your username has been blocked as being inappropriate. Please see our username policy for more information," with that policy linked. That policy (COM:UPOL) says: "Use of the names of 'organizations' is prohibited unless you provide evidence that you are or represent the respective organization [...] If you want to verify your account (in case you represent an organization or you are a well known person), use an official e-mail account (if available) to send an e-mail to info-commonswikimedia.org, stating that the account in question belongs to you or the organization you represent." Эlcobbola _talk 13:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've updated the template. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 14:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Copyleft (talk · contribs)

This could result in attribution like "CC-BY-SA, Copyleft from Commons". Something like "Copyleft lover" would be more clear, but that's up to Copyleft. (the user, not the concept) - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 12:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

So? Storkk (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

See Commons User above. Similar case. If nobody but me thinks this could be confusing when attributing, it's okay. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 13:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Potential confusion when attributing was mentioned (by you), but was not the reason that user was blocked. They were blocked for some combination of the third criterion in our user name policy and a slight possibility of someone being confused on Commons per Tuvalkin, and it was a very marginal call at that IMO. If you uploaded a Beethoven sonata, should we block you because someone might get confused that Beethoven wrote Jazz? I don't see how this is anything other than patronizing silliness. People can ask to be attributed how they want, within reason, and if it might be slightly confusing to someone, that's a risk the artist is (presumably knowingly) taking. Storkk (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope... I see that Jon Kolbert did indeed mention your objection specifically on User talk:Commons User. My mistake. This is still devolving into extreme silliness, IMO. And I don't think it was the best of blocks. Storkk (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not screaming for the user to be blocked or anything, just bringing a similar case to the attention of administrators when I find one. What administrators do with that is not up to me and if this report results in no action I won't report similar cases in the future. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 14:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done no violation of Commons:Username_policy identified. Storkk (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Seriously bad call, Storkk. "User:Copyleft" is a textbook example of an unsuitable Wikimedia Commons user name. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry you feel that way, but calling something a textbook example doesn't make it so. This username isn't promotional, any more than "Freedom" or "Coffee" would be; it's obviously not disruptive; it's does not give the impression that the account has authority it does not have; and it's not offensive (except perhaps to Steve Ballmer). It doesn't fall under the "Confusing usernames" examples either, which (again, please actually look at the examples for elucidation) are intended to avoid things like impersonation ("Tuva1kin") or users like "Dasdpoieqdmcoiaq". Nor would it seem to be confusing for the all-purpose "other reasons": it's hard to imagine anybody who is not being willfully obtuse being at serious risk of confusion, and in any case the only potential harm so far cited would be to Copyleft himself for being wrongly cited. If Copyleft believes this is a real risk, he can request a rename (and indeed, being a sysop on fr.wikiquote, he probably knows the procedures). But so far nothing remotely requiring a block (i.e. stuff that has the potential to harm Commons or re-users) has been suggested, nor has anybody inquired at User talk:Copyleft whether they believe this risk to their intellectual property is real. Storkk (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The penultimate puppet Manwe12 (talk · contribs) was indefblocked as recently as in April 30. I was mostly out of touch with Commons for ∼1 week, but now see Manwe11 (talk · contribs), a new blazingly evident sock. The sock chats with 1Veertje—a Commons sysop—in her user_talk, accompanied by characteristic telecomitalia.it IPs, obviously by the same master. If some quarters of the Commons community bear plans to admit the long-disruptive user back (possibly under restrictions), then where is respective discussion? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Is this passive-aggressive rant a way to tell us that Manwe12 is a sock of some long term abuser? I really can't tell by your byzanthine comment. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, his userpage tells so: Manwe12 (talk · contribs), SP of A3cb1. --Túrelio (talk) 09:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi, Srittau, and Túrelio: The current discussion is at User talk:A3cb1#Path to unblocking.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)