Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Shortcut: COM:AN/U · COM:ANU

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed here.
Archives
10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge

Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~0
• Other speedy deletions: ~0
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~1
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2016-08: ~100
• Undeletion requests: ~6

Other:

• Duplicates: ~2
• Media requiring a split up‎: ~32
• Commons protected edit requests: ~6
• Category:Commons protected edit requests (technical): ~1
• Requests for unblock: ~1

See also: DR, CFD, HMS, ...

Commons discussion pages (index)

Commons Help desk Commons:Upload help Community-wide general discussion Copyright Proposals Graphics and photography discussion Image improvement Photography critiques Categories for discussion Deletion requests OTRS noticeboard Translators' noticeboard Work requests for bots Contact administrators Vandalism User problems (Dispute resolution) Blocks and protections Bureaucrats' noticeboard CheckUser requests #wikimedia-commons webchat Commons mailing list (archive) Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Note

• Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
• Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
• It is usually appropriate to notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
• It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

Spam by User:PeterKeijsers

Please ban this person who keeps adding spam on images. I am reverting him, but i think he will continue (Tomorrow or later). Wikimedia Projects is not 1 big ad. Greets. --Shadowowl (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

 Info: See also his point of view at User talk:PeterKeijsers#Advertising. --Achim (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Shadowowl: Please read COM:Watermarks, carefully, before removing a copyright owner's watermark from their own images, and remember that Commons is not Wikipedia. (this is not a 'warning' in any way other than pointing out the potential legal issue in a friendly manner. I am not your lawyer) Revent^talk 20:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Solving this

Preliminary information

1. PeterKeijsers has uploaded many images to Wikimedia Commons, under both the GFDL and Creative Commons licenses.
2. PeterKeijsers has since overwritten many of those images with versions that include the watermark "Peter Keijsers Art & More".
3. Said overwrites have been reverted by multiple editors. Threats have ensued, in both directions.
4. PeterKeijsers was recently blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia for legal threats and intimidation. He has since been unblocked.
5. PeterKeijsers has apparently (though I have not seen this) filed a DMCA takedown notice with the WMF.

Statements of fact

1. Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable.
2. Wikimedia Commons allows, but discourages, non-promotional watermarks.
3. Watermarks that merely declare copyright or ownership are not considered inherently promotional.
4. The removal of 'Copyright Management Information' from a work may be unlawful under section 1202 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
5. The removal of 'Copyright Management Information' from a work under a CC license that allows for the creation of derivative works, when the information is kept, may be permissible under the license.
6. Wikimedia Commons, as a community, does not endorse or prohibit such removal: contributors do so at their own risk, and can only be advised to seek legal advice before doing so.

Resolution

1. No editor, including PeterKeijsers, may engage in upload warring in regards to these images. This is defined as an editor reverting the state of the file to a state that the editor previously placed the same file in after it was changed by someone else. This does not apply to reverting obviously unrelated vandalism (penii, ceiling fans, selfie shoes, etc.) for obvious reasons.
2. Any previously uninvolved editor may revert the state of a file to a version that was uploaded to Commons under an acceptable license. Editors are asked to seek consensus on discussion pages if a file has previously been reverted multiple times, but the opposition to a single change by reverting once is itself an expression of consensus.
3. PeterKeijsers may ask the community to keep only the preferred versions of his files, or (if technically incapable) ask any other editor to start such a discussion.
4. PeterKeijsers may ask the community to delete any of his uploads, or (if technically incapable) ask any other editor to start such a discussion.
5. Though this is beyond the scope of Commons, any editor may oppose a DCMA notice filed with the WMF: this is neither encouraged or discouraged, we cannot offer legal advice.
6. Any editor previously warned or clearly made aware of this discussion who engages in upload or edit warring may be temporarily blocked as needed, by any admin, to prevent disruptive behavior.
7. If PeterKeijsers makes any legal threat, on Commons, against another editor he shall be immediately indefinitely blocked from editing. He may, if he feels that it is advisable, seek legal recourse outside of Commons.

Please endorse or oppose this, to show a consensus, and ping any involved editors. Revent^talk 09:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@PeterKeijsers: @Shadowowl: @Queeste: @Natuur12: @Achim55: @Alice2Alice: @Gouwenaar: @Robotje:

Endorsements

•  I endorse Natuur12 (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
•  I endorse Oh Definitely, hoping this would be a precedent to other similar cases of selfish promotion on commons of images by photographers with dubious agendas ..just saying..--Stemoc 11:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
•  I endorse --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
•  I endorse --Robotje (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
•  I endorse Gouwenaar (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
•  I endorse Josve05a (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
•  I endorse Platonides (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
•  I endorse Taivo (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
•  I endorse Queeste (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
•  I endorse Where is the ban hammer, please? Wikicology (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Realized a potential ambiguity here... added an 'exception' to #1 in the last part. Revent^talk 23:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• If this means that all images should be reverted to their original state, then  I endorse. I would like to point out one upload in particular (Phil Bee.jpg) which has been edited twice (watermark removed), which is clearly a violation of the above-mentioned. PeterKeijsers (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@PeterKeijsers: Your watermarks are not 'prohibited' by Commons rules, they are just 'discouraged'. If you only personally uploaded (and thus licensed) a version of the file with the watermark included on Commons, and then objected to it being removed by a someone else (by reverting them), then it can be reverted to the version that you licensed and the other editor instructed to upload a 'derivative version' under a separate filename, with attribution, if they wish. You may not, however, upload war with other editors to do so... revert once, then discuss, then appeal to the wider community. You can also ask the community to delete the derivative version, but such a deletion is probably unlikely... a deletion of your watermarked version might be the result.

The reverts on that file were by different editors, and before I wrote the above. I've reverted the file to (your) watermarked version, and asked that any derivative be uploaded separately with attribution. I would simply do a history split, but due to a bug that currently risks the file being irreversibly deleted.

If there are other cases where you have only licensed a watermarked version, objected to the file being overwritten with an 'unwatermarked' derivative, and then been reverted, other editors may (without upload warring) restore your version and ask that the derivative be uploaded separately... this is simply an application of COM:OVERWRITE. You can ask me (or an admin who is aware of this discussion) to do so if your initial 'objection' was reverted... please don't post a list here, though. Revent^talk 20:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, that was all I asked for. My endorsement stands. PeterKeijsers (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

•  I endorse This looks like a good resolution, I am glad that PeterKeijsers can endorse this as well. Carol (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
•  I endorse After further clarification with the above exception, I am happy to endorse. ~riley (talk) 07:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose Because ONE egomaniac starts to cry and then starts to behave like a little child who's toys have been taken away we don't allow certain files to be modified? Whooopie, why not throw the CC licenses out of the window? Or open a 1st and a 2nd class Commons. A courtesy deletion is definitely out of question. He wants to sue Commons and the WMF? Go ahead. I'll will throw the ban towel into the ring as soon as I see a revert because of removed watermarks. Same for mass deletion request because of being p*ssed. Kindergarten is thataway -> www.facebook.com --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 09:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: The only way in which any if this says that 'certain files can't be modified' is that you can't upload war about it at a particular filename. If the author only 'specifically' licensed a watermarked version, and objects to it being overwritten with a cleaned version, upload it separately as a clearly marked derivative work The legal situation of removing such watermarks is not clearcut, no matter how much we would like it to be... as Legal has made clear (and as I tried to indicate) editors are assuming an uncertain degree of legal risk when they do this. In most cases, editors who do this are not marking the files as {{watermark removed}} anyhow, which is also a problem. Revent^talk 19:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Strong oppose This watermark is unacceptable. Its an company. If the watermark was just : PeterKeijsers (In smaller letters) or Copyright Peter Keijsers then there is no problem. and per Hedwig Shadowowl (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It is not a company, according to PeterKeijsers so your point of view is not based on fact. Carol (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• • @User: Carol Fenijn It IS a company. PeterKeijsers says that its not a company, but thats his POV and not a NPOV. Peter Keijsers Art & More is clearly promotional. --Shadowowl (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @User: Carol Fenijn As I already pointed out there is a commercial interest in the watermark as used by PeterKeijsers, see this link [1] where he sells books, art, and pictures. PeterKeijsers may deny it being a "company", that is quibbling about the definition of what is a company. If PeterKeijsers denies a commercial interest it would be contrary to the link given.
    • @VanBuren I see your point. Even though he may not have a company in the legal sense of the word, the link does show the commercial interest indeed. Thanks for clarifying that. @Shadowowl in this light I agree it can be seen as a promotional activity even though it may not be a company in the legal sense of the word. Carol (talk) 08:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Strong oppose Consider that the watermark that is used by PeterKeijsers is surely having a commercial purpose for promoting publications of books, art and pictures. I can therefore not find justification for 'Statement of fact #3: Watermarks that merely declare copyright or ownership are not considered inherently promotional. If it was just the persons name it would be different, but it is not, it is a company's name. The reply by User:Revent (at 20:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)) seems then to support the use of commercial watermarks by stating: "Your watermarks are not 'prohibited' by Commons rules…". Please correct me if I am wrong. --VanBuren (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@VanBuren I think Revent wants fullcolor watermarks diagonally on the images. New industry here : Watermark Spamming. --Shadowowl (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

No he doesn't. Please stop inflaming this situation any more than you already did. Natuur12 (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@VanBuren: Watermarks that are the name of the copyright owner (or a form of their name that they wish to be attributed by) may at some point be ruled by a US court to be 'copyright management information'... if so, the removal would quite possibly be unlawful even if the license allows it, and at least one German court has ruled that cropping out a copyright notice was a violation of the CC-license requirement to keep all copyright notices intact'. An 'inherently promotion' watermark would be one that clearly goes beyond being simply copyright information, like the URL of a photo library. Revent^talk 19:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Revent: I do not see you addressing my point that the "name" used by PeterKeijsers in the watermark is not just a name of a person (therefore a copyright owner if the maker of the photograph) but a combination of words that serves a commercial purpose as I show in the link given. Therefore your "Statement of fact #3" is does not reflect the fact correctly. Consequently the resolutions are based on the wrong fact, and therefore, in my opinion, not valid. --VanBuren (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC) (expanded reply, VanBuren (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC))

•  Strong oppose - Per Shadowowl and Hedwig in Washington and VanBuren. It is verry obvious that - with the name Peter Keijsers Art & More - he has found a way to advertise himself. As I have stated on NL-WP, if he does this, than I'll suggest that we remove the images from the articles. Commons and Wikipedia are not for commercial use. Rodejong (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
•  I endorse I fully agree with Revent, only the first version (watermarked or not) of a file is published under a specific license, all other versions are derivative, and legally, should be uploaded, when it is relevant of course, in another different file as a derivative of the former file. We tolerate minor changes, but these changes should be minor and in any cases with the agreement of the community and with the agreement of the author. When there is no agreement, the only way is to revert on the former version (watermarked or not). Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
•  I endorse Lymantria (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose - If I read the facts as given, the images were uploaded without watermark by the editor, whose name is Peter Keijsers. Then, the owner went back and added a watermark to those files. That watermark was not "Peter Keijsers", it was "Peter Keijsers Art & More", which we have established is his business name. Whether it is legally such is irrelevant; the watermark is identifying an entity holding itself out as a merchant that sells products, and is not the individual. If I read that watermark, my good-faith assumption is that that is a merchant. The individual has clearly identified himself as Peter Keijsers. I believe that this issue is caused by the inability of the user to advertise his business here on Commons. Moreover, if we follow that the first image is the licensed one, then all of the watermarked images should be reverted to the non-watermarked ones as a matter of course. If there is an argument over the watermark, which was that of the company, and which was not present in the original file, then it appears that the perceived need is promotional in nature, as it was not considered necessary in the initial upload. I think the user figured out that people wouldn't buy his photos from him if they could get them for free here, rather like Getty copyrighting PD images. I think the choice is simple - we keep the unwatermarked files only, or delete the lot. We are not a free advertising platform, and nobody should be contributing material with an ulterior motive in mind. MSJapan (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@MSJapan: I specifically said that if the originally uploaded image was not watermarked then it could be reverted to that version by anyone that had not previously edit-warred about that file. Revent^talk 05:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

To clarify. PK uploaded many images without watermarks, and then later added them. Those can be reverted (and, I believe, all have been). He later uploaded images with watermarks on the original version, other people removed them, and he reverted to his watermarked versions. War ensued. If he objects to the removal, you can't war with him, but you can upload a 'cleaned' version as a new file if you want, as long as you comply with the license, and (if you want) DR the watermarked one. Revent^talk 05:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Revent:: Right, and my sticking point is "can" vs. "must". I think it's pretty clear what is going on with the watermarks, and allowing them pursuant to someone else not liking them and changing them is a problem. I think they need to go, period, with no leeway as to "if someone wants to..." COM:PRP says that "nobody will mind or find out" is not an excuse for uploading potentially copyrighted material, and I fail to see why we should employ any less of a level of diligence here. Additionally, Peter will get his way if the community is lazy, because the people who see a problem are specifically prevented from dealing with the problem per the resolution. MSJapan (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@MSJapan: If you want to go to the wider community and ask for a new CSD for his watermarks, or DR any file that has one, be my guest. Nothing about this says you can't, and I'll be perfectly happy to hit the button if the community approves it. But nobody is allowed to try to enforce such a 'rule' by edit warring, and to be honest several of the editors involved here appear to have been using sockpuppets to do so, or at least to have 'migrated' here from another wiki for no other purpose than to edit war.

Since every one of his uploads, watermarked or not, is both copyrighted and freely licensed, the PRP really has nothing at all to do with it. Revent^talk 16:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

•  I endorse, bc PK's method violates Promotional watermarks, which go significantly beyond asserting authorship/copyright, for example to promote a website. IMNSHO  Klaas `Z4␟` V:  04:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment

• I'm neutral regarding this topic and sorry if I leave a little of the story line however it reminds me of something I've thought. Sometime files are overwritted with very different versions and sometimes the new version can have an added educational value and so to be relevant for the project. From my point of view, in a case of "own work", when the photographer himself overwrite one of his upload with a new/different version, then we can assume he agree to a publication under the same license. The issue, after a conflict or when the event comes into the light of the communauty, is that we revert on the former version, and the newest is not necessarily uploaded in a second file. We should have, administrators, a one click button to separate the newest version in a new file under a similar license of the first file. --Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Christian Ferrer: I agree, but https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T141704 makes splits risky, since you have to undelete repeatedly. Revent^talk 19:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Instead of replying in multiple places above, or trying to argue, I'll just put this down here.

The claim is made that using the name "Peter Keijsers Art & More' is intended to serve a promotional purpose, and this is probably correct. The creator of a work, however, is able to specify the name by which they wish to be attributed, and they are in no way obligated to use their 'real name'. We use aliases on Commons constantly, a name becomes 'legal' purely by publicly using it, and the CC licenses specifically allow an author to require that they either be attributed by a pseudonym or to designate an 'attribution party' who will be attributed. The watermarking of an image with a 'name' is a standard way of designating such a means of attribution.

I described the watermarks as not inherently promotional, specifically in reference to the language used in COM:Watermarks, which describes unacceptable promotional watermarks as those that "go significantly beyond asserting authorship/copyright, for example to promote a website". The watermark he is using serves a legitimate purpose outside of pure advertising, as I just described. I am not 'endorsing' the watermarks he is using, at all, but they are not the kind of 'advertising spam' (including websites, phone numbers, or email addresses) that should be speedily deleted. If the community wants to sanction the removal of images with these watermarks it of course can, but the point of this 'solution' is not to do that....that is not something that an admin should unilaterally do.

The sole point of this is to prevent disruptive upload and edit warring, and to clearly indicate that editors attempting to impose a solution through edit warring, upload warring, or legal threats will be prevented from doing so. If it serves that purpose, then people can actually 'discuss' what to do with the images. I think it is fairly clear at the point that most of the editors who commented above understood that. Revent^talk 09:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

We don't have to decide whether the watermarks are OK or not. It doesn't matter. What matters is that ONE user is getting the special treatment for no apparent reason. Removing a watermark is not a derivative work and the original file can be overwritten. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 18:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

It was no way my intention to give anyone special treatment, and I don't think it does other than what is inherent in allowing the 'original uploader' of a particular file to object to it being modified from the uploaded version (and that people should then upload the other version separately).... and that 'special treatment' applies to every uploader. There is an interaction of the DMCA and the terms of CC licenses, here, that is why I wrote this as I did. If a watermark is 'copyright management information' under the DMCA (and the argument could be made, here, even if we want to 'guess' that a court would reject it) then the only way the removal is legal is by arguing that the license allows for the creation of derivatives. That does not imply that the 'derivative' created by removing the watermark has any copyrightable originality... in fact, it would rather be the point to avoid any. Revent^talk 05:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Mayyskiyysergeyy

The user seems to have bulk-uploaded a ton of pictures of George Patton taken from Russian blogs over the last few weeks. He's asserting PD, but those are clearly not the original sources of the photos. A look at the user's talk shows some problems in the past, as do some spot checks on images, like File:Velez-Weissmuller.jpg, which is claimed PD but comes off a site with a copyright notice on it, and File:General_Patton.jpg which I nommed for lack of source, and when the "updated license" was sourced, it pointed right at a copyrighted page. There's upwards of 50 images, and with a spotty history, I'd rather report the user than set up deletions requests for everything, and possibly forestall the problem getting any bigger. MSJapan (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

This is concerning. Wikimedia Common respects the intellectual property rights of others and expects its users to do the same. I have pinged INeverCry for an insight. Wikicology (talk) 09:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

If these were blatant copyvios, they could be quickly nuked, and the uploader warned. It looks like deletion requests will be necessary for these questionable uploads. I would ask Mayyskiyysergeyy to refrain from uploading anything like these until the issues have been dealt with. Someone can ping me again if similar uploads continue, and I might have to implement a block. INeverCry 18:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

* Не вижу ничего удивительного, что герою Второй мировой войны посвящено множество фотографий.

* Ошибки в любой работе неизбежны, будем их устранять по мере выявления; злого умысла у меня не имелось и не имеется, но сказывается малый опыт работы с Викискладом.

* Фотографии для загрузки отбирались по качеству изображения (посредством Google-опции «Поиск по картинке»), а не по местонахождению сайта.

* Фото File:General_Patton.jpg имеет точную привязку по месту и дате фотосъёмки (http://www.lasegundaguerra.com/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=13068), а номер в правом нижнем углу однозначно указывает на применимость к этому фото лицензии {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}.

* Любое фото, на котором изображён генерал Паттон, старше 70 лет, поэтому все фото с неустановленным авторством автоматически попадают под действие лицензии {{Anonymous-EU}}. --Mayyskiyysergeyy (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mayyskiyysergeyy: File:General_Patton.jpg appears to be from the LIFE magazine photo collection, and not a US Government work. It could possibly have been provided to the magazine by the military, but actual evidence is needed. Revent^talk 22:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Image File:General_Patton.jpg was taken by a US Signal Corps photographer (http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205125361). --Mayyskiyysergeyy (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment-- @INeverCry, Revent: I plan to take the images to DR. What do you think? Wikicology (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

  I would suggest separate DRs for each problem image, unless you have multiple files with the same issue that can be addressed together. You definitely want to avoid a big Mass DR, as they tend to get bogged down and remain unclosed for weeks and months. In general, whenever you have a concern about a file's copyright or scope status, a DR is never really a bad idea. If you're right, a copyvio or out of scope file gets deleted; if you're wrong the file gets kept and its status as being appropriate to be hosted on Commons is confirmed. It's a win-win. Talking to the uploader is an option too, but that can be tough if there's a language barrier, or if the editor is inactive, etc. INeverCry 19:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I think one or more of these files had been taken to DR. Wikicology (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't able to track this as closely as I'd have liked. I don't want to dump everything on one person, so I'll see if there are issues with what remains, but hopefully Wikicology reviewed some of them. MSJapan (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@INeverCry: This is still a problem. The user is just pillaging Russian blogs for images, and then claiming they're PD because the blogs give no attribution. He's put up another ten images, and several are from "non-commercial use only, we don't know who the copyright belongs to"-type sites. He's also lying about where exactly he's getting the material - File:General_Omar_Bradley_and_General_George_C._Marshall.jpg as uploaded isn't even the same color tone as the source cited in the license, and File:Lt. General Lesley J. McNair.jpg is larger in the upload than in the source page. File:Lieutenant_general_Lesley_J._McNair.jpg isn't even the same picture as in the source. MSJapan (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here and for the DR. It seems INeverCry previously warned this user to refrain from uploading anything like these until the issues have been dealt with. They just choose to ignore this warning, a behavior I'll considered disruptive. I think a short term block would be in order until the issues have been dealt with. Wikicology (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It's been a day or so since his last upload. I've given him a final copyvio warning. I'll keep his page on my watch-list. I hope a block can be avoided. INeverCry 05:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@INeverCry:, I am not sure this user can take advice from anyone. See this upload today again after warning. Warm regards. Wikicology (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

That's enough. Yesterday commented OK on warning, today another upload. His own works bollocks just earned him a 4 week Commons vacation. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: Unfortunately, I cannot find any evidence that the deleted image being the reason for this block is a real copyright violation. It seems to be neither published nor professional and the uploader was 16 when the photo was made (so he can be the author). While it can be deleted basing on COM:PRP (but I would rather request explanation via "no permission"), I think that user blocks should be based on more evident cases. Just my 2c. Ankry (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm working my way through these images, and many of the URLs are fake - the pictures are there, but the links are to, in one case, gallery pages on Wordpress where the image is not in the resolution we have here. I have tried to find the "originals" in the correct archives, but I've also found a minor quibble where Navy PDs have all been uploaded as Army, and some images I've only been able to source to Getty as present as Time-Life photos still under copyright. Some of the actual PD images eventually come from ww2db.com (such as this one, and the site's ToU says Most photographs seen on WW2DB are in the public domain and those may be used by anyone without restriction. Whenever possible, each photo page lists the name of the source of the photograph beneath the caption of each photo along with the copyright status. If a photograph's copyright status is not listed, please contact us and/or consult an intellectual property attorney. So PRP may apply in certain cases where the license is not made clear. MSJapan (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Additional - I have found four colorized images of Erwin Rommel uploaded by the user which were clearly taken from DeviantArt. Those licenses are incompatible with Commons, and one had a false URL. I also found a colorized image of Patton that was called PD, while the source it came from indicated it was colorized by a contemporary artist. I also found a photo categorized as the battleship Tirpitz when it was the Bismarck (similar ships, but shows lack of care), and several photos of Hans Langendorff that were claimed to be PD by copyright lapse (life plus 70), with no author given, and the person whose collection the photos came from died in 1974, so life plus 70 hasn't happened yet. I think the extent of the violations at this point clearly indicates that the user is not interested in uploading within Commons guidelines, and should be indef-blocked. MSJapan (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

L'artauprésent

See also: Commons:Bistro#Catégories and Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/08/Category:Details by GERMANY 15th-c..

I'm asking for some assistance because I'm involved and don't know how to deal with that. User:L'artauprésent made good uploads and I'm AGF but obviously she didn't understand our category system nor naming scheme. In addition she speaks English poorly I think (some cat names look google-translated). She created and moved a lot of categories (by now about 170) like

Category:WILLETTE Adolphe on his own work

Category:WILLETTE Adolphe by himself

Category:Artists about Artists

Category:Details by 15th-c. unidentified artists from GERMANY

to give some examples. I asked her to stop categorising but she goes on, even reverting my reverts. So on one hand she wants to do something positive to our project (and she does partially), on the other hand she produces a bunch of work of category renaming and deleting for us. --Achim (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

What I see here is a user (L'artauprésent) who is unintentionally and unknowingly disruptive while trying to help. No doubt, a mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess but can we help them to understand how to do this correctly? Wikicology (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm assuming this user is a native French speaker. @Christian Ferrer: @Yann: Is there any way one of you could talk to this guy and see what can be done here? 170 categories isn't a small matter. INeverCry 01:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment I do not understand much about art, nor the potential subtleties of categorization about that. And sadly it's hard for me to understand what is useful or not in its contributions. I noticed User:J'aimelart and User:L'artauprésent are likely the same editor, which increases maybe the number of questionable editions/creations. As I am not familiar with the topic and given the complexity of the issue, and as august is for me a month very busy professionally, take care of this case would take me too long, just to understand correctly the issue. My administrator actions are limited at this moment, to speedy delete the obvious copyvios, actions that I can do when I have only just a few free times. Sorry to can not help you. Regards, Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Some answers:

No “L’artauprésent” and “J’aimelart” are actually 2 different users, I mean physically different; but true, we are quite close, and I speak often with her, and help her sometimes about these Wikimedia matters, as well as I can, because the use of Wikimedia is really not easy for people who have not some IT knowledges (compare with the other well known sites for pictures, the interface is far from being easy); but that is not the question (to my opinion, if there is only 1 point which should be improved on Wikimedia, it’s the user interface).

Other point: true, we are both native french speakers, and still true, our English is very poor (although we don’t use Google translation). So, it would be much more easy if she or we could speak with a french speaking administrator. And by the way I apologize here for my poor English in this message, I hope it will be nevertheless understandable.

Now I will try to explain what I have undestood of her project under Wikimedia (so, it’s just «my» understanding), this could help: she works along 2 axes:

Axis 1) “L’artauprésent»” own thousands pictures of details of thousands of artworks; she thinks (and I agree) that these details are meaningful, and each of them can be seen as a painting inside the painting (or drawing or else), each of them has its own beauty which often is not visible if you just see the whole painting.

Axis 2) “L’artauprésent” has worked a lot, not on the history of Art but on the writings (letters, or books or else) of many artists; and she thinks (and again I agree) that it would be interesting to bring closer the words of the artists to the artworks either by other artists, either by themselves when they speak about their own artworks. So, this implies really many many pictures, and they need to be categorized, and of course there will be a lot of categories (if she remains welcome, of course).

For the axis 1, there will be 1 category for each artwork, including a sub-category with all the details of the artwork; why not directly the details under the category of the artwork? Because this mother-category could contains different pictures of the whole artwork, as some artworks need several pictures (for example from different points of view for a sculpture, or recto/verso for some works on paper, or different kinds of lighting, or other), and also different users could wish to include their own picture of the artwork; moreover the “details approach” is very specific, and it would not be friendly for many people if the whole artwork is just lost among dozens of details. Generally the category dedicated to the artwork is simply linked to the already existing scheme of categories (ex: “paintings by xxxx”, “xxxx”...). The case of artworks by unidentified artists is a little bit more complicated; if useful, to be discussed later.

For the axis 2, the question is much more complicated; as I have spoken with her, I know that she has thought a lot to the question, and what she proposes seems to be coherent to my eye. For example, at first sight you could think that “WILLETTE Adolphe by himself” and “WILLETTE Adolphe on his own works” is the same thing; but it’s not. In fact in the case of Willette, it could be almost the same, but in the general case it’s not, and it’s probably better to have the same pattern for all the cases; indeed the category “xxxx by himself” contains mainly 2 sub-categories: first the category including the words by the artist on his own works (with the photos of these artworks, and of some details when it’s relevant), and then the category including self-portraits and portraits of his family (with or without words, but we could admit that a self-portrait is a way of speaking of himself).

Her work is still in progress (and she will stop if you want she does), so some categories are still unfinished, but please let us take as an example (and model of architecture) the case of the painter Emile BERNARD; there are 3 cases:

• - The other artists writing about (or painting) Emile Bernard
• - Emile Bernard writing about (or painting, or “imitating”) other artists
• - Emile Bernard writing about himself (or self-portraiting...)

Each of these cases is a category, which includes the relevant sub-categories; for example the category “artists about BERNARD” includes (among several others) the sub-category “DENIS about BERNARD”, which includes the sub-sub-category, “DENIS on BERNARD artworks”, including words by Maurice Denis, and pictures by Bernard linked to these words; if Denis has portrayed Bernard or his family (I don’t know), there will be a second sub-sub-category like “DENIS portrays BERNARD”.

Notice, as I said, that her work is still in progress; so, for example the sub-category “GAUGUIN on BERNARD artworks” already contains photos, but no words by Gauguin, and of course this category will be fully relevant when it will include these words; I know she already has the sentences, but it takes time...

All of these categories are included at the top under the “Big-mother-category” “artists about artists”, and of course this category is fully relevant as it contains everything artists have written about other artists or themselves (with relevant pictures of course).

So I understand there could be an issue: there are thousands of artists, and surely many “crossed-categories” (artist xxx about artist yyy, and so on). Also, about naming, she tries to follow the pattern Wikimedia, but she also has made some choices which seemed to her relevant or justified and which could be discussed later. She has some principles, like avoiding too long names for categories, because for most of people some names could become simply unreadable if too long (we are on the Net, not in a book, and the targeted people is very large and many people just stop to read the name after 3 or 4 words and click on the link [or not!]... I do like that myself).

Please notice that “L’artauprésent” is sincere, and acts with good intentions; she is willing to stop immediately her work with Wikimedia and uploads if you just think it’s not the right place to develop her project (finally as a kind of sub-project of the site). This should be decided quite quickly, because it’s a lot of work for her to manage that... Also, you know she is new on the site, and there are many things she still does not understand (and me too by the way!). So any help from your side will be more than welcome, but it would be preferable in French, as it’s difficult for us to well understand English... Thanks for everything and sorry first for the length of this message (but the matter is quite complex) and for any previous troubles! (J'aimelart (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC))

J'aimelart, thank you very much for your quick answering comprehensively. I think we will move the case to a good and satisfying end. Of course L’artauprésent's uploads and efforts are more than welcome here. Uploading valuable files is one thing, categorising them in an appropriate manner (avoiding overcategorisation) another one, and creating well-named categories and linking them correctly to an existing tree a third one. Some hours ago I did rename some categories so I think our vehicle will run better now. But one should always imagine that a user looks at a category first time. If he for example reads WILLETTE Adolphe by himself he will think "self-portraits of Willette". Therefore in some cases we should try to find better category names showing what is expected to be inside. Finally let me say that Commons primarily is a media repository, though texts are not forbidden here one should consider that Wikipedia or Wikisource often are better suitable projects for texts. Best, --Achim (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC) - And: your English isn't poor...

Hello!

I have talked with “L’artauprésent” yesterday evening and today (you know we are quite close). I report here what she has decided, because she is even worse than me in English (and in fact my English is not good, Achim, take into account it took me almost 1 hour to write my previous message).

“L’artauprésent” has decided to stop completely her activities on Wikimedia. There are several reasons for that, but here are the 2 which seem to me the most significant and indisputable:

• - She thinks now that her 2 projects: “artists about artists” (in other words: giving life to the pictures of artworks by the words of artists themselves) and “Details by artist” (in other words: showing artworks inside the artworks which could be not visible at first sight) have definitively not their place on Wikimedia (and, by the way, nor any other Wiki project, obviously). I fully agree with her for the first one, and partially for the second one.
• - She doesn’t feel at ease with this community and the way it works. Nothing to add, a feeling can’t be discussed.

Notice that I did not advise her to decide that; but the fact is I know her, I know who she is, and probably she has done the good choice. So she is trying to find other ways to express herself and share her photos and knowledge. She has insisted to apologize for all the troubles she has caused.

So please consider this topic is now closed. Of course you may do everything you wish with everything she has done, moving, renaming, recategorizing, deleting files or categories (that could be relevant as some were still in progress and thus are not fully meaningful at this step), it’s up to you to decide what is the best for the site.

Probably it’s a “good and satisfying end”; no need to block her shortly or definitively, according the kind and clever proposal by Kelly, and, as she says, “there will be cleanup of any problem caused”, so everything is for the best.

Now, below this line, I speak for myself, still about the previous case although it is closed.

In the previous discussion I have noticed some very funny points; let me quote here 2 of them:

• Achim you wrote: “Finally let me say that Commons primarily is a media repository, though texts are not forbidden...”; that sounds like a good joke! Why? Because open any page “File”: the amount of text is more than 75% of the page from top to bottom (thus less than 25% for the picture)! That’s a matter of fact, I have taken a ruler for measurements! So it appears that the site is not able to apply to itself the rules it asks to apply! Yet it should be very easy to reduce this part of text-system, to reduce most of the fields (description, licensing, history, metadata...) to some links at the bottom of the page, or in thumbnail or other... If you compare with all the other websites which are media repositories, Wikimedia seems to be the most verbose from far. So I don’t think it would not have been an issue to add some relevant lines of texts under the pictures...
• Other example, I quote Wikicology: “a mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess”. This general sentence is surely true, but in this specific context, it sounds also like a good joke. Indeed, from one side I can guarantee that all the categories created by “L’artauprésent” were relevant and meaningful (notice that I say “were” and not “are”, because topic is closed now). That means they followed a logic and were all justified on the basis of this logic. So may be it’s not in the logic of Wikimedia, what is obviously an issue, this caused troubles and some disorder, sure and that’s unfortunate, but it’s not really a mess because there was nevertheless a relevant organization. But, from another side, when helping “L’artauprésent” to define her organization of categories, I have deeply visited the site, particularly the categories dedicated to art matters, and let me say one thing: no need to go deeply to see that Wikimedia IS an ocean of mess, in which can be found here and there some islands of order or organization: the number is unbelievable (hundreds obviously, thousands very probably) of unjustified categories, without any meaning, empty or empty-like, with cranky names, duplicated matters with different names but not the same pictures, in different languages, links to irrelevant categories, files in wrong places, and so on! And I have also found other factors of mess which are not relevant to speak about here. So, in this reality, was it relevant to focus on the 170 organized categories created by “L’artauprésent”? It was up to you to decide...

All the best,(J'aimelart (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC))

J'aimelart, it's a pity and I regret that decision. I already have said that she's welcome here. In this case I made a lot of category renaming and categorisation changes (as well as Llann Wé² did) not for to say "you were wrong" but "look here, this way round does it work, please do so". --Achim (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi all. Guessing they (she-he?) tried to do their best I wrote an answer in French on the French Bistro where they asked for some help. I've renamed some cat's they've created because of the name's order and uppercases use, wishing they'll read and catch the examples given (as @Achim55: did)... But I gave up because a bug shut down my PC and there was too many cat's concerned. Don't be too severe. Have a nice week. --LW² \m/ ^{(Lie 2 me ...)} 21:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done, sigh --Achim (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

EurovisionNim

The user EurovisionNim has been warned and blocked (for example User talk:EurovisionNim/Archive_2#Blocked for violation COM:OVERWRITE again and again. I warned him yesterday (he archived the warning a few minutes after reply), and he did it today again. Please block. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Steinsplitter, I am sorry for the mistake i have made in the past. Can you please forgive me --Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't like the fact that you say "sorry" again and again and then a few days or weeks later you are doing the exactly same again. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Steinsplitter, COM:OVERWRITE is just a guideline. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

We had a number of AN/U cases which are confirming that such actions are controversial and not okay. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I mean, you use the word violation. It is hard to relate that to a guideline. A guideline is not a rule, not a Wikimedia Law. As far as I can see - but I did not inspect all his work - he did not do anything that justifies the word violation. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

 Comment - I found this comment "COM:OVERWRITE is just a guideline" by User:Jan Arkesteijn concerning and worrisome. By the way, are you aware that guidelines are sets of best practices supported by consensus?. Guidelines and policies are developed by the community to describe best practices, clarify principles, and otherwise further our goal of creating a repository of free media. Users who continue to act against community best practices and norms may be blocked indefinitely or banned from the project. Sadly, I am tending towards proposing a minimum of 3 months block for Nim Bhharathhan for acting against community best practices and norms despite multiple warnings. I believe they will use this period to carefully read and understand our policies and guidelines. Warm regards. Wikicology (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Blocked 3 months. --A.Savin 16:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Ah! Worrisome. What do you think this database will look like in a 100 years from now? I can tell you, I guarantee you that most files will have been overwritten. Because Wikimedia was designed to provide content, not to preserve it. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC) @Jan Arkesteijn: Wikipedia != Wikimedia. Your causa was discussed here, and you have been banned by the community from overwriting files. The underlying fact speaks for itself. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC) @Steinsplitter: What do you mean? I have no right to an opinion? Please, think about this. I am not discussing the underlying facts, I am discussing the overlying facts. Why would you think any image would be preserved in the architecture of this database as it is now? Please don't yell at me, answer the question. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC) This discussion is off-topic here. If you want to discuss the overwrite guideline, do it over there. --Sebari (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC) No, it is not, it is about the work of Nim Bhharathhan. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC) That discussion is over. He repeatedly violated a guideline, despite being asked not to and got blocked. You continue arguing the usefulness of the guideline. Please do that over there. Thanks. --Sebari (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC) Ï am not arguing the usefulness of a guideline, I am arguing the extent of the guideline. Or even so, the definition of a guideline. This has gone far enough, someone is blocked for 3 month(!) for improvements . Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Good block - You can't say sorry and then do it again ..... Clearly they cannot be trusted and their sorrys mean nothing so unless they stop with the overwriting then they're going to end up banned like Jan, Jan Arkesteijn DROP THE STICK, You were banned by the community for a very good reason and unless you want to be banned from this site for indef I really would suggest you drop it, You're on very thin ice here as it is!. –Davey2010^Talk 22:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Panoramio upload bot does not honor disambiguation cats

Panoramio upload bot keeps adding photos to disambiguation categories like Category:Kreuzberg. I notified User:Shizhao twice about this problem, but got no response. While this categorization problem is not huge, it causes unnecessary work for other users and should be prevented at the bot level. What I find quite concerning is that a controversial bot like this is seemingly running unsupervised, and its maintainer is not responding to queries on its talk page. Any suggestions? --Sebari (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I see that you left a note for them here on August 2, 2016 and here on August 8, 2016. This user is actively editing. It is not clear why they aren't responding to query. I don't want to believe they ignored you. Wikicology (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

No way Shizhao ignores the problem. Maybe work already started or busy with other stuff. Give it some time. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought as much. Wikicology (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Wafankulo

Improper user name. In Italian it means Fuck off --Sailko (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Done blocked per COM:IU. Эlcobbola _talk 19:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Could an admin end this war?

IMO the IP is right because a sandwich with cheese, a piece of kabanos and a cup of tea isn't an example of pure Polish cuisine. :-D --jdx ^Re: 14:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Protected fully for 1 week. --Achim (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

My internet crashed, so i wasn't able to mark this as  Done. I blocked the ip for editwarring/controversial changes such as here. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

And i have to admin that i misread Jdx's comment (...the IP isn't right...) - sorry. Reduced the block to one day for edit-warring. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I discovered this file in Category:Meals and I was the one who actually put it into Category:Meals in Poland which I now found out, happens to be a redirect to Category:Cuisine of Poland. How about placing it into Category:Picnics in Poland? Or otherwise undo the redirect of Meals in Poland? - Takeaway (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Stas1995

I was unaware of @Stas1995:, until I saw Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Unused personal files. This DR, for over a hundred files, was created by Stas adding files to a personal cleanup category, and a (later clarification: creating a DR page with no list of files) DR page, and then using VFC to 'edit' the individual file pages for the category members to add the deletion template, instead of using the 'nominate for deletion' mode. By doing it this way, not only were the files not listed on the page (thus making it clear what files were nominated, and preventing others from being added later) but none of the uploaders were notified.

I warned him that if he ever nominates a file for deletion again without notifying the uploader I will block him for disruption.

Given the history in his block log and talk page, and given that he has been here previously over deletion nominations, I think the community might want to consider further sanctions. Revent^talk 20:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• I will not nominate any files for deletion (with notifying or without) in future. Thank you. /St1995 20:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment - Since Revent mentioned previous concerns over deletion nominations, I think Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 58#Stas1995 and his speedy tags and harassment may be relevant here. Wikicology (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)