Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 53

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

Please delete

Kenan ataman, usert removes my speedy tag.--Motopark (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done, Thanks for reporting. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

History merging/switching needed

I've just messed up a couple of page histories and now need an admin to do some histmerge/histsplit work.

Earlier, I uploaded an image as File:Todd Street school.jpg. I requested improvements, and someone uploaded the improved version at File:McComb High School-McComb, Ohio.jpg. Not thinking that we needed both, I then uploaded the improved version under the first filename. Now, however, I realise that it was a mistake. Please:

  • Move McComb over Todd, deleting the history of Todd
  • Delete Todd
  • Restore the page history for Todd (but not the stuff that originated at McComb)
  • Restore three of the four image revisions, timestamps 14:29, 15:56, 16:20, and leave timestamp 20:28 deleted

The goal's that the current Todd page history, the original Todd image, and both current McComb images be visible, while the current Todd image and the current McComb file history be left deleted. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done, I think. Nyttend, I've left the second file blank, so you can create a redirect or move the file there if you wish. Green Giant (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this is what I hoped to see. Thanks a lot! Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Licence at follow files

Hello, look the files how File:RA AF F1bLeytenant 1943v.png, own work? de:Benutzer:HHubi is blocked in de.wp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.93.135.42 (talk • contribs)

The 'own work' claim being made is apparently in reference to the rotation and scaling from the source on ruwiki. Probably should just be attributed to the original, since that wasn't a 'creative' change. Very common claim to make, though. Revent (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
According to the block log, HHubi was blocked indefinitely for persistent copyright violations. Someone with admin rights at the Russian Wikipedia might want to check if Георгий Долгопский uploaded this and similar files over there before they were transferred to Commons. De728631 (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Misidentified photo - delete or rename

The image File:Angouleme 1872.jpg is claimed to be of Angoulême, France, but an original image File:Duhauron1877.jpg, which is a featured image, states it is Agen. The details of my interaction with these two images are transcluded below.


Louis Ducos du Hauron 1877 colour photo
==Agen or Angoulême?==

About a week ago I came across File:Angouleme 1872.jpg that was clearly identified as being taken in Angoulême and the bottom of the page identifies the location as Angoulême, so I went through the uses of the image and changed those that stated Agen and changed them to Angoulême. The discussions of the image as a featured picture in 2006 did not question the location. A user posted on my en talk page en:User talk:Ww2censor/Archive29#Louis Ducos du Hauron's picture : Agen vs Angoulême ? claiming the location as Agen with some details to verify their statements.

I was able to visit Agen last week and take some photos that verifiy the location as Agen. I uploaded those images to a Flickr album with a copy of this image for comparison. Unfortunately it is impossible to take any photos from the same vantage point due to the tall trees and very heavily overgrown vegetation in the area, but it is obvious from most the foreground buildings, even though the perspective is not exact, this is Agen. A Google Street View while also not exactly the same Agen view, also confirms the location.

While we usually rely on reliable sources but those sources vary in their location statement, even ones one would expect to regard as reliable gave the location as Angoulême, such as this Time-Life book on Color photography or this Beaumont Newhall book on Photography and even the Kodak George Eastman House, where the image resides, in 1954 misidentified the image though that article was also written by Beaumont Newhall, but some sources do state Agen such as this photography book or this BJP, British Journal of Photography journal in 1989.

Since this investigation I have reverted all Angoulême edits and ensured all that state the location are now Agen.

Ww2censor (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

BTW, the George Eastman House now identify the correct location as confirmed by an email conversation some time ago. Ww2censor (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Should we just delete File:Angouleme 1872.jpg for the following reasons? It is not very high quality, it is not a true straight on copy image but a photo from a book at an angle and the colour is not like the original File:Duhauron1877.jpg? Or should we keep it and remane it? Currently it is hardly used, while the original is extensively used is many articles in several wikis and if we need to have an image without the frame area of the original we could just make a cropped version of that original image. The latter is my preference. Thought? Ww2censor (talk) 10:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I would say, regardless of the factual issues regarding the actual location (which seem confused) that the version at File:Angouleme 1872.jpg is a rather poor copy, and should be redirected to the other as a duplicate. There seems no reason to keep what is at 'least' a fourth generation version (original, printed in book, photographed, retouched) when a higher resolution and lower-generation version is available. Revent (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Category Deletion

Hi, Please delete Category:Ben Ish Chai. I've changed the name to Category:Yosef Hayyim (his proper name), like the article's name in the English (and Hebrew) Wiki and moved all its content to the new Category. Thank you. Liadmalone (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done In the future please move the category so the old one is properly transformed into a category redirect. --Denniss (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, Thank you. Liadmalone (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Ezra Dangur

It seems that the common spelling is "Dangoor". Please delete Category:Ezra Dangur. I have moved its content to Category:Ezra Dangoor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liadmalone (talk • contribs) 10:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Transferred into category redirect. Taivo (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Public account?

Is it allowed to create public accounts like User:Gd0518 (meanwhile tagged speedy)? I didn't check login... --Achim (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I deleted the page and changed the password to some random characters (no e-mail set). --Didym (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Please import meta:template:user info to template:user info meta

Hello,

Could you do the mentioned import please ?

Best, --Scoopfinder(d) 18:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Scoopfinder: It's already here, at {{User info2}}. You can just add a redirect, if you want. Revent (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
@Revent: Aww ! It wont be necessary. Sorry I didn't see it before and thank you. --Scoopfinder(d) 18:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Original version restore

Please delete and close File:Indian People Greatest.jpg and restore original version of File:Greatest Indians.jpg because it was fully sourced and valid--Motopark (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done, just another invalid offspring from a valid compilation iamge. --Denniss (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you fix this?

FahdAbiRashed is not the uploader of the picture about the Atomium. Thank you. --Madelgarius (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Please restore move

Josh DeBruycker has been moved see history, please restore--Motopark (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done - moved back to user talk. Thank you for reporting. Green Giant (talk) 04:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Annie Morton posing.jpg and File:Bridget Hall posing.jpg

I have already nominated them for speedy deletion.

After Túrelio left messages on my talk page notifying me of two copyright infringements I made I decided to take a closer look at all the images I have uploaded here. I found out that the Flickr user I got the images from is not the true copyright owner of them. He states in his profile: "The photos in my gallery are my own magazine scans or web finds."

Please don't ban me for my silly mistakes. I will now be more cautious with Flickr images. I have uploaded more good images than bad so also take that into account. Thank you. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done. Thanks for your attention. --Túrelio (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Assistance, please

Hi I received a difficult message with unnecessary roughness via email from someone upset about the nomination of File:Polypores Fountain. Jean Yves Lechevallier.jpg. Being mean to people results in a fast loss of COM:AGF. Would another admin please take a look at the situation and make a ruling? I'm off to get my cast off this morning and would appreciate any and all help in this regard. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Can't, of course, comment on the email, but the OTRS permission was verified, and I just kept the file on that basis. Sorry for the email drama (it happens, unfortunatelyt) and hope that you are feeling better. Revent (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you @Revent. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

WLE Germany wants to to say thank you to all uploaders

on their discussion page. We had exactly 999 uploaders, see User:Blech/WLE-Namensliste. The text to send is de:Benutzer:Blech/Danke. The ... should be replaced by users names. What is the best way to do it? Is an admin needed to send a note to so many users? Regards, --Blech (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

We can do it through Special:MassMessage (documentation). Can you see this page? -- Rillke(q?) 21:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. No, I cannot see the page, it is limited to administrators. --Blech (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Replace ... with {{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}|1|1}} and it will turn into the user's name. -- Rillke(q?) 22:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Now the text is on Commons, with some technical fixes. --Blech (talk) 05:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done -- Rillke(q?) 07:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. --Blech (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Merge

Please merge Category:Henry Morgenthau senior with Category:Henry Morgenthau, Sr.. Liadmalone (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

New version upload request

Could an admin upload File:Pluto by LORRI and Ralph, 13 July 2015 (fullres).jpg as the latest version of File:Pluto by LORRI and Ralph, 13 July 2015.jpg? Also please update the source based on the fullres. --Njardarlogar (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Except from the source, the description page (including categories) should be the same as the original. :-) --Njardarlogar (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done - Green Giant (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Lang-mp edit request

There are several main page link need to be add in the Template:Lang-mp, see Template talk:Lang-mp. I copy it's code to here: 

<!--pa--><bdi>{{lang|pa|[[ਮੁੱਖ ਸਫ਼ਾ|{{#language:pa}}]]}}</bdi>
<!--bh--><bdi>{{lang|bh|[[मुख्य पन्ना|{{#language:bh}}]]}}</bdi>
<!--or--><bdi>{{lang|or|[[ପ୍ରଧାନ ପୃଷ୍ଠା|{{#language:or}}]]}}</bdi>
<!--cdo--><bdi>{{lang|cdo|[[Tàu-hiĕk|{{#language:cdo}}]]}}</bdi>

please add them, thanks.--El caballero de los Leones (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

File_talk:Emblem_of_Iran.svg

3-month stale edit request to which nobody has really objected, and it seems the central lam/sword should actually protrude as in File:Emblem of Iran (red).svg. Storkk (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Storkk (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Please move

பயனர்:SelvakumarGnanavel to userpage area--Motopark (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal notice

I'd like to see a change that will be visible whenever someone visits a not-currently-existing page title, so I've suggested it at COM:VP/P in the "Page logs" section. If successful, it will require a change to a Mediawiki page; since admins will have to do it, I thought admin input would help the discussion. Nyttend (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Commons is a hell of mess

The more deeply I intrude in Commons the more I see the hell of mess here. Is the Template:header nearly deprecated Special:Diff/85929297? And another little example Special:Diff/165984065 (the first and important page for new people) . Also concrete I wanted in the past correct a German SVG-Help link, but 2 admins (one German: User:Krd before he get bureaucrat here) had decided to keep this nonsense (as this need consensus). If there is consensus (10 vs 1.5) one admin decide there is no consensus (User:Multichill which had no response every time I contact him, he seems more like a strong tech-admin). I know this are some of the best admins which Commons has (other "good" get blocked lately INeverCry, Magog… Fastily?), so this is the representative situation on Commons. Greetings ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  14:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't get the point of the whole complaint. Please repeat more clearly. Thank you. --Krd 15:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
The nonsense is still references from a couple of pages. We prefer not to break links. Please update all links before even attempting to nominate a redirect for deletion; if the link update would be more confusing than helpful (e.g. because the revision history matters), it ain't going to be deleted. And I agree with Krd, please phrase your requests less polemic (Commons is a hell of mess - not helpful to anybody, 'cause we know this) and get on the point more quickly. Thanks in advance. -- Rillke(q?) 16:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, "break links" This is not very intuitive (for new users?). To expect is that, that of course an admin will do the replacements. I've now (after my initial post) replaced the page.[1][2] (thanks to User:Furfur for the new SVG-help-page) And ok, then sorry for the polemic, maybe I want only write my bottle-upped frustration from the soul, maybe I wanted only to entertain some people. No offense ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  19:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Another thing to consider when deleting redirects is that external websites may also be linking to our content, and deleting a redirect breaks those connections. This could be important from a licencing/attribution perspective, and for that reason redirects that have been around for a while should generally be left; they place a very minimal strain on the servers and are not deleted, but more hidden, so deleting them also gives almost no technical advantage. ColonialGrid (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Yma sumac despues de un concierto.jpeg and
File:Yma Sumac 1953.jpg
are Yma Sumac, Peruvian Singer, August 8, 1950
by en:Peter Stackpole, en:LIFE magazine Images © Time Inc. ~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion based on searches

Does someone have the tools to mass delete based on a text search? I have noticed 33 blank scans for this search and would like an easy way of knocking these off when spotted rather than having to mark them all with speedy tags (or writing a special script to do it, which would feel like a 'work creating' sort of extra step to get into)... The same applies for this search. Unfortunately I have no easy method of automatically finding scanned blanks. --Fæ (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

✓ deleted, except File:Architecture et décor des jardins (1920) (19743862552).jpg, which is not really empty. --Túrelio (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I was able to find broken files (at least bit broken on mediawiki) on commons using a sql query. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Self-admitted sock

See rfd reasons: Special:Contributions/G-ZWDE --Pitke (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Already globally locked by WMF. Revent (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Starting to get a pretty substantial pool of WMF blocked accounts. Reguyla (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Bot should probably be stopped

While probably well-intentioned, this bot Special:Contributions/YaCBot is deleting the uploaders from any files that were uploaded with tools for example. I can't imagine this was approved as a bot task. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 23:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine. --Leyo 23:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
@JohnnyMrNinja: feel free to add your suggestion to the list at Commons:Village_pump#Redundant. The actions of this bot remain controversial and without a verifiable consensus. --Fæ (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Letter to Stalin

Copyright violation Image:Letter_to_Stalin.jpg (Ho Chi Minh was dead in 1969, in Vietnam = 1969 50 years)113.190.8.57 14:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done, recreation of content deleted by community consensus. Taivo (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change to de-adminship policy

Please see Commons talk:Administrators/De-adminship#Proposed change to the minimum activity requirement. Green Giant (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T106375

Could some kind admin sharpen the logo in the corner of every Commons page? I mentioned this on the VP, then Tuvalkin described how to fix it, but this requires an admin.

Thank you, --SJ 05:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Almost all logos on portals and wiki pages are independent from uploads in commons since May. IMO the project logos here can be safely semi-protected. Someone upload the (improved?) logo and I'll submit a patch on gerrit (well, if nobody beats me to it) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
phabricator:T37337? --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Crated a bugreport: phabricator:T106375 --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Commented there, pointing to the improved file. --SJ 01:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Improved image ✓ uploaded. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

mislabeled photos

Hi, I am just wondering what Wikimedia Commons does when photos are not correctly identified? This is in reference to botanical identification. In a search of "Verbascum thapsus" there are 54 pictures and at least 20 of them are not Verbascum thapsus. Verbascum thapsus is the most commonly commercially harvested of the mulleins. There are about 360 species of mullein. I'm just curious how you handle inaccuracies. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cafesombra (talk • contribs)

Please note that
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@Amada44: who I know is working in this area. :-) --Fæ (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Cafesombra, if you have an idea of what a mis-labeled file should be called, then you can use the {{Rename}} template to request that the file be renamed, using |2=3 as the reason per the file renaming guidelines. For example: {{rename |1=New name.jpg |2=3 |3=Mislabeled.}}. If you don't know what the correct name should be, you can ask at the Wikispecies village pump, which is generally haunted by good-natured science-oriented people. Green Giant (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
At Verbascum thapsus#Photos there are 54 photographs, must be this what’s meant. Looks like another case of a “gallery” (default namespace) doing a disservice to Commons users. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Authority control

For quite some time now most Wikipedias out there have been using a modernised version of the authority control template (cf. {{Authority control}} with w:en:Template:Authority control). The new, better version uses Module:Authority control and automagically downloads relevant data from WikiData, so in most cases the user only has to input the template alone ({{Authority control}}, without having to type in all the VIAV numbers, ISNI codes and whatnot ({{Authority control|TYP=p|GND=119408643|LCCN=n/79/113947|BNF=cb13746617f|VIAF=59263727|ISNI=0000000081386064}}.

As the page is protected, could any of you please copy over the version from English Wikipedia to Commons? The template has been extensively tested on many wikis, so there shouldn't be any problems (and yes, it's backwards-compatible, so all the instances with numbers typed-in would still work). Thanks in advance. Halibutt (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Halibutt: Does not work: Lua error in Module:Authority_control at line 342: attempt to concatenate field '?' (a nil value).. Please provide us with exact instructions how to make it compatible with commons. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Pinging @Jarekt: for review. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: The instruction is fairly simple:
  1. Copy w:en:Module:Authority control to Module:Authority control
  2. Copy w:en:Template:Authority control to Template:Authority control
  3. ping me so that I could update the Template:Authority_control/doc page
  4. Voila!
Halibutt (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Please don't follow Halibutt's directions verbatim, as the WP version of w:en:Module:Authority control is not suitable as a direct replacement, since it generates Wikipedia categories, help page references, etc. The current Commons Template:Authority control generates Commons-specific categories. Unfortunately there is not a one-to-one mapping between the two sets of categories. At the very least a Commons version of w:en:Module:Authority control will require a little editing. —RP88 (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, w:en:Module:Authority control depends upon w:en:Module:Navbox, which is substantially different on Commons. —RP88 (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 Comment It would be even more useful if the Creator templates are automatically filled up. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
O-oh, I wasn't aware of the current limitations, thanks for the explanation. Also, Jarekt informed me that there is one problem on the WikiData side of the border which will need sorting out before Commons is accepted by them as a viable user (or at least that's how I understand it). :/ Halibutt (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

EChastain

EChastain has made an unblock request, but I'm not sure what to make of it, because it involves one of INC's last blocks, a sockpuppet investigation on English Wikipedia and 50,000 edits here that generally appear to have been constructive. However, I'm not fully convinced that they have only been editing here for nine months because their first edits involved HotCat which I wouldn't normally expect a newbie to use immediately, but I may be entirely wrong. Thus I'd appreciate some extra eyes being cast over this. Thanks in advance. Green Giant (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

There is already a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Discussion on Meta from EChastain. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Doh! Thank you for pointing this out. Green Giant (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit in MediaWiki namespace

Please edit MediaWiki:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js/fa.js and replace this line: 

toolboxLinkDelete: "پیشهاد برای حذف",

with this: 

toolboxLinkDelete: "پیشنهاد برای حذف",

to fix a typo in the translation. Thanks! Huji (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Huji, thanks for reporting this issue. ✓ Done. In future {{Edit request}} might come in handy on Commons and on the English Wikipedia. Kind regards -- Rillke(q?) 21:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Another global ban?

Just for the record: User:Francis Kaswahili, who had his last edit on Commons on July 20th, has been "globally locked" per WMF Office Action without any further information.[3] --Túrelio (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Also for the record:

Candidates for the WMF board of trustees are vetted by the WMF, so having a past trustee candidate office locked is surprising. I had some personal interaction with Kaswahili on meta as part of a discussion of the safety of Wikimedians attending Wikimania in a country where homosexuality is illegal, but have no insight into what is behind this unexplained ban. --Fæ (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Charles Vergo's Rendevous.jpg or File:Anatoliy Pushnyakov.jpg

Is there anyone having problems Flickrpassing images? Is the flickr script down? I never used the license review script. I just signed in this Sunday and I notice that the flickrpass or flickr copvio buttons for images don't pop up...so I cannot flickrpass these images at all. I'll be signing off soon but I was just wondering if its just me having this problem. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Rillke's flickr script works for me. Which script do you use? Your common.js seems empty. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks like MediaWiki:Gadget-Flickrfixr.js is broken. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

missing account

Found a user page without a user account: User:Muhammad Mutawakkil Alallah. Best, --Achim (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

✓ Deleted by Denniss --Didym (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Inter-Service Intelligence Logo (2015).jpg false image and copy rights issues

This image File:Inter-Service Intelligence Logo (2015).jpg has been projected as official logo of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan on various pages which has been removed by one user from parent article [4] recently. There is no such fix logo of this organization showed on google search, author claimed it as "own work". Moreover logo shows that an animal is eating snake painted in colors of Indian flag (also a flag of one another nation) which can be offensive for some. When we are not sure about reliability and copy rights of logo which is offenssive then I think that it should be deleted. --Human3015 (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Also I have found some same kind of "own work" images projecting it as logo of ISI. File:I.S.I.jpg AND File:Official ISI Logo.jpg. Thank you. --Human3015 (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

At least this suggests that there has been such a logo. It is not clear if it was official or not. I deleted one file above as a copyvio, and DRed the others: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Inter-Services Intelligence. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

One Question

There has been hundreds of images have been nominated on Commons:Deletion requests and most of them are not having any "keep" or "delete" comments. For example a week old thread Commons:Deletion requests/2015/07/21 has 282 images nominated and most of them does not have any comments. I just want to know that what happens to those images on which no one is commented? If no one is commenting on our nominated image then how we will able to clean Wikimedia from copyvivo or falsely derived images? Thank you. --Human3015 (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

All deletion request will be closed by an admin in due time. Currently we have a little backlog, so it might take longer than one week until the DRs of 2015-7-21 are completely processed. Nothing to worry about. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Involved block of Russavia

Moved from User talk:Yann, special:diff/166859209. --Nemo 10:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind being specific as to what kind of intimidation or harassment did @russavia engage in as to warrant an indefinite block of his account in addition to the currently ongoing office ban, and where can consensus to block him indefinitely be found?

You should realize that given your personal involvement with russavia, you are probably the last person that ought to block him for anything. (And given my personal involvement with russavia as well, I'm not going to undo your action, but if you can't come up with a good reason, I will bring this issue to the administrators' noticeboard and try to go from there). odder (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

odder, I don't think there's a neutral admin on Commons. What are you trying to achieve here? All that will happen is the same old polarised comments get made, and russavia will remain blocked, one way or another. In my mind, the only rational conclusion that a neutral admin who investigated russavia could come up with was that he was a bully who engaged in intimidation and harassment and should not be permitted to edit here. My guess is that your mind might conclude differently. But you will only dig up the windbags who love to comment on this situation because they themselves are banned in other forums and would like to retain Commons as the Wild West where troublesome editors are appeased because of their large upload log. This achieves nothing productive. Once again you are fixating on process and procedures and missing the bigger picture. Just drop it and find something more productive and less divisive to do with your time. You should be working to help heal the community, not open up the wound again. -- Colin (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Colin: The only person that is working against healing the community is Yann, by unilaterally blocking russavia. As far as I am aware, you can find no evidence that russavia has ever engaged in intimidation or harassment that would warrant an indefinite block (which, if unquestioned, is essentially equal to a community ban). My only aim here it to ensure that no user is blocked punitively for actions that haven't been successfully proven against them, and particularly not by an administrator with hugely controversial personal involvement with said user. This block was made out of the blue, without any evidence at all, and changes nothing, as you can be guaranteed that russavia will continue editing on Commons, as he has ever since his global ban. That you call my questioning of that block divisive is just staggering. odder (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Odder, you should be the last person advocating anything about Russavia. You have made a joke of the whole bureaucrat role in the way you side with your friends, and attack others when it suits you. You should have resigned long ago. It's a shame... As you certainly already knows, I explained that to Russavia himself on IRC. So your post here is pure comedy to create more drama. Yann (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Yann: Funny to see you of all people saying this, given that you have been acting absolutely shamefully ever since the URAA debacle which saw you and russavia on the opposide sides of the argument. I don't think I have to mention the tens of files uploaded by russavia that you deleted just to annoy him and prove your might, even though they were perfectly in scope. I won't be resigning, and certainly not to please you. To me, you are the one causing drama by continuing your personal campaign against russavia, long after he was banned; and by the way, stop accusing me of attacking people if you can't prove any of this (now that's shameful). I am still waiting for an explanation of your block of russavia. odder (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course! And enough. You are just a dark stain in the whole of Commons. Unless you, I like to spend my time doing things positive for this project. Just get out of my way! Yann (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I have to conclude, Odder, that there wasn't much on TV tonight and you bought some popcorn so decided to create some drama on Commons instead. I ask again: what do you think you will achieve? As someone who unblocked a confessed stalker, I don't think you should be lecturing anyone about blocks. I see you have qualified the "intimidation or harassment" with a "that would warrant an indefinite block". So let's all agree that he was a bully who engaged in intimidation and harassment, for to do otherwise distorts reality too much. So what's your alternative? A one week block? A stiff word? A tut perhaps? You are completely missing the picture. The community is divided over russavia and has no mechanism to achieve consensus over this matter. I thought, for a moment recently, you might be interested in developing such a mechanism. But no. Any post to the AN will simply result in a poll (Commons loves polling) where no effort will be made and no progress made towards any agreement in the community. It will be a crapshoot determined by what mob gets recruited by IRC or who is on holiday just now. The sane, who actually value their limited time on God's earth, will ignore it because -- news break -- russavia is globally banned anyway. Are you trying to get yourself de-cratted (is that a word?) by making the most pointy actions wrt blocks on blocked users? It seems you came here to pick a fight and got an angry response to which you give another angry response. This isn't the behaviour I want from a 'crat. You are not attempting to understand Yann (and he you) but just shouting louder and louder as if that will have any effect. Please drop it before both of you say unfortunate things. The community will get over this when russavia gets another hobby. In the meantime, go watch a film with your popcorn. -- Colin (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Colin: I haven't had a telly for about 9 years now, so bad luck there :-) You were there when I unblocked @JurgenNL, you should—and I think you do—know that it had nothing to do with his actions (on which I have never commented), and everything to do with the process itself, which I have explained over and over again. And for my ability to comment on administrators blocking users: every member of this community has the right to do so, and as an active administrator (among others), I think I am in even more of a position to do that.
As far as my qualification of "intimidation or harassment" goes, I changed that because I am aware of a certain number of situations when russavia behaved questionably (to put it mildly) towards other users off-wiki, some of which both you and I know quite well. I'm not trying to get de-cratted, and I'm not planning on acting here in any capacity whatsoever; moreover, I don't think that there is anything inherently evil about asking questions. The idea that my asking questions is not the behaviour someone [would] want from a 'crat continues to puzzle me: so unilaterally blocking a user and then refusing to provide reasoning behind that block is something that you would accept from an administrator? Shouldn't trying to get information on the block actually be actively encouraged instead of criticized? I think you got this one wrong, @Colin.
I am actually trying to understand Yann and the reasons behind his blocking of russavia—perhaps he does deserve an indefinite block and a subsequent community ban—but he's making it considerably hard by responding in the way he demonstrated above ("you are just a dark stain in the whole of Commons") or, as was just the case on IRC, resorting to personal attacks against myself and another administrator present there. odder (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

For others who might not know the whole history of Odder's involvement with Russavia, it may be useful to note that Odder tried to prevent Russavia loosing his admin right, even as he was already banned by the WMF. Which brought him a decrat vote. Or was it for edit warring with WMF staff and stewards about the admin right of another banned user? Does it matter anyway? But it seems he didn't learn the warnings given there. Then again Odder started INeverCry's de-admin procedure after he blocked Russavia and retired from Commons. Please read Colin's post above who explains Odder's drama much better than me. Harassment by Russavia was amply explained here, and Odder knows that very well. So in short, there isn't one bit of good faith in the above request. Just another attempt to create more drama. Playing the virgin while stabbing in the back anyone who does not agree with him. Sorry, it doesn't work here... Yann (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It should, of course, be clarified, that there was no de-crat vote following my re-sysopping of russavia, and that @JurgenNL wasn't banned when I re-sysopped him, and he isn't banned at the moment, either. Commons talk:Administrators/Requests/INeverCry (de-adminship) doesn't contain any conclusive proof of russavia's harassment of intimidation towards @INeverCry, whose de-RfA was started due to his out-of-policy indefinite blocks on @Stemoc and @Fæ, and not as revenge for blocking russavia's sockpuppets. In short, everything in this message by @Yann is a bad lie, which proves that it is him whose only goal here is to create more "drama." odder (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that the block appears to be out of process and unjustified, as well as made in a moment of anger (the day when a discussion was closed with an outcome different from the one Yann proposed). --Nemo 10:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    • *Sigh* Intimidation and harassment by Russavia is proved and clear. It is shame that people, let alone admins, continue to support this long term abuse. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I also agree with odder. Russavia was not blocked by us, he was blocked by the WMF and although we don't know why its almost without question due to a few in ENWP that were fighting hard to get him WMF banned including Jimbo himself and others who work at the WMF due to the Pricasso incident and other mischief at ENWP. Which as we all know is the flagship project of the WMF and often drives what the rest of us do one way or another. So whether we agree or not, we are stuck with the WMF's block but we also do not need to chase him around and revert good edits. If the WMF wants to do that let them do it and waste their time. It is, to me, another example of being pointy and trying to prove a point rather than taking action based on the content of the contributions. There is no harm coming to the project through positive edits and although it is ban evasion, the edits can be pretty easily be determined to be his (by the presence of a bunch of airplanes in them). I would prefer if Russavia talked with the WMF and worked a deal to unblock him because enough time and effort has been wasted at this point and anyone who thinks this block is going to work needs to stop kidding themselves. Also, comments that he was blocked for being a bully, etc. aren't even based on facts or evidence. I haven't heard anything particularly negative about his editing here, in this project, outside the socking since his ban and he seems to have done a lot of good edits both before and after the ban so comments that he was a bully here seem to be offbase. What I have seen is a lot of people provoking and harassing Russavia to prove a point and there has been a lot of unnecessary antagonism that seems to be a sure way to ensure he does not stop editing. Reguyla (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add category to "Gasteria bicolor" page

Need to be able to add the subcategory "Gasteria bicolor var. liliputana" to the greater category of the species "Gasteria bicolor". Don't currently have permissions, so please could somebody add it. Thank you. Code below: 

.*putt?ana.* @Category:Gasteria bicolor var. liliputana

S Molteno (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@S Molteno: I created the category for you. Please add description & cats. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks. S Molteno (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Please delete

User:Chandan Singh Virat out of scope, user removes speedy deletion tag--Motopark (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done by Natuur12. I also deleted Chandan Singh Virat. Thibaut120094 (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Please clean this mess for me

File:Descanso_do_passeio..jpg needs to have its original version restored. I'm editing on a smart phone for now and can't handle the revision thing as evident from the file version log. Blurry roadside photo was user's attempt to get the file deleted after having been declined twice. --Pitke (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Pitke: - You seem to have managed that, but I don't understand why we don't just delete the image as a courtesy. It's not used, only been here two months. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. This is a horrible HDR, and out of scope anyway. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted Pleclown (talk) 06:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

please move

Benutzer:Delta-nox to right area.--Motopark (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jim Morrison 1968.jpg

No new comment was made in the last seven days. Could someone close this? Regards, User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 06:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

As you may know, there is a significant backlog at present, I'm sure someone will get to it asap. Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I only asked, because en:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jim Morrison (2) can't be closed before that. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 11:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

move req

Please, move User:CinSaint/cologneblue.js one level up, no js, should have been user page. Thanks. --Achim (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Achim, sometimes users put random texts on their js pages so other regular users cannot edit them. It could be the case here. However if the user requests the move an admin can surely move it. Thanks. — T. 13:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Bet you didn't have a look at it. Seem to be an old ladies first steps here. --Achim (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't edit user js/css pages unless I have their permission or it's a necessity. This user has only 1 edit so far and no uploads. It's also a new username. If s/he requests, I would be glad to move it. I left a note on his/her talk page. — T. 15:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Bot without permission?

User:FileMove-Bot seems to run out of order (Special:Contributions/Tankist-777) generating pages like User:FileMove-Bot/png→svg/f1. --Achim (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

User notified about this report. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
It does not make the page. It replaces the file reference in connection with the necessity. He's still not working. It made more codes.--Tankist-777 17:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Bad flag rename

I believe File:Pro-Independence Flag of New Caledonia.svg should be renamed back to File:Flag of New Caledonia.svg, but I can not do so myself. The file was renamed today but the reasoning appears not to be sound. Fry1989 eh? 15:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Further discussion here. Fry1989 eh? 16:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

trying to re-upload deleted picture

I am trying to move this file from Arabic Wikipedia, to commons, as I would like to use it in the Al-Sanamayn-article. However, when I try to to that (with upload wizard) it fails, as I get link to this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:معبد_الآلهة_تيكة.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1: Copyright violation,

But from what I can see on the Arabic Wikipedia, it has a backward c: I thought we could upload those to commons? Sorry, if this is a newbie question; I´m really more at home in Middle East history than copyright issues...Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The correct place is Commons:Undeletion requests. Just for your notification, the deletion was because attempt to Flickrwashing it was already deleted also from flickr. -- Geagea (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, I will try there. I checked tineye here, and they could not find it; cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I tried to report it there, but something apparently went wrong, and the page did not get made? Huldra (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
For undeletion requests there are no extra pages like a deletion discussion, but your request got listed at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests. De728631 (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete old versions of file

In "File:Montagem Pau dos Ferros (RN).jpg", I propose that the first two versions (the first charged by Editorworld on 23 November 2010 and myself in October 2, 2011, specifically this and this) are deleted from the file history, keeping only the two latest versions only carried by me on October 24, 2011 and March 14, 2015, since the first two versions, the images are of doubtful authorship because the assembly was loaded directly by Editorworld user without photos had his own and permissions given in licensing, and therefore a likely "copyright", especially the city panoramic image at the bottom of the assembly, in the version carried by Editorworld, which was a copy of a website. As I'm not a very advanced level of English, this request was made from an automatic translator. Marcos Júnior talk 01:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done. Please check if this is OK. Best regards, BrightRaven (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. Thank you, BrightRaven. Marcos Júnior talk 02:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Tukaram print.jpg

Tukarama going to heaven

This file is on Wikipedia article of Tukarama who was 17th century Indian scholar. This file shows Tukarama did not die rather he was lifted to heaven by special plain sent by God. This event is not even related to his life. This is not mythological story, he lived in 17th century which is quite recent time and in his life he himself fought against such superstitions. I think this file should be deleted, which projects unrelated event of person's life and spreads mis-information and superstition. Please delete it. Thank you. --Human3015 (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Washington cutting down a cherry tree - This didn't happen either
Hi Human3015: There is nothing wrong with the copyright of the image, and the depiction of historical figures in art (no matter the culture or religion) is often times far from the truth as understood by 21st century people. There are other images you could substitute instead in the various articles, such as File:Tukaram by Raja Ravi Varma.jpg. In U.S. History, this would be analogous to the 18th Century story of Washington and the Cherry tree depicted in multiple works of art, example the one here - which are in use all over the project. No Washington didn't cut down a tree, but there is the painting - an artist's interpretation of a non-existent event. And like the Tukaram print, there's nothing wrong with the copyright, so it stays. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, this is one of the silliest and most inane reasons I have seen for a File to be deleted. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Ni no Kuni at Tsutaya store in Osaka - cropped.jpg

The uploader cropped this image to focus on a panorama of Nintendo products. Can Commons keep this image? If the answer if yes, please feel free to pass this image. If not please fail it. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ni no Kuni at Tsutaya store in Osaka - cropped.jpg & Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ni no Kuni at Tsutaya store in Osaka.jpg. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Alerta de imagen File:Amarna Miller.jpg

Tengo una alerta por subir la imagen File:Amarna Miller.jpg, dicha imagen esta bajada (como bien se indica) de la página www.carnecruda.com donde todo su contenido esta bajo licencia Creative Commons:

Creative Commons BY-SA Carne Cruda - 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samu.lc78 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 4 August 2015‎ (UTC)

The source site does have "Creative Commons BY-SA Carne Cruda - 2014" in the footer. Unfortunately, it doesn't mention a version of the license or link to a specific set of terms. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Bureaucrats removing admin rights

Please look at, and participate in, the "Bureaucrats removing admin rights" section of Commons:Village pump/Proposals. Nyttend (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

There has been a running wikimedia-l email thread with regard to Haraldbischoff (talk · contribs · logs · block log) making fairly significant claims of damages against reusers (over 500 euros) who fail to give an attribution against published photographs taken from Commons, in particular mouse-over attribution may not be sufficient (based on the sources cited in the emails, e.g. jurablogs.com where failing to provide the attribution text, the license and a link to the correct license appears to be the basis of the claim).

Not all potentially interested administrators follow email lists, and there is no evidence that Haraldbischoff has been informed of discussion, so I am raising this here for the record and notifying Haraldbischoff. This provides both Haraldbischoff an opportunity to explain how they expect re-users to attribute photographs if they take them from Wikimedia Commons, for administrators to consider if this is a reasonable interpretation of our policies for reuse where attribution is required, or whether these legal actions may be excessive or a misuse of policy and harm this project. I welcome others to add any documented evidence of legal action and outcomes, as well as expressing any reasoning as to whether this is an issue worth exploring further.

P.S. Haraldbischoff's uploads to Commons include many high quality portrait photographs of actors, their value to the project and for general reuse is in no doubt. --Fæ (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, of course people may enforce their copyright but making 500 euro claims? No, not even a profesional would claim that much money in my home country if their photograph is stolen. Natuur12 (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know where you live, but in the US that number would not be unusual. Professional societies, such as the Graphics Artists Guild (which I am familiar with), recommend that copyright violation demands be priced at three times what the upfront price would have been. By US statute, the minimal court award is typically $750 for a copyright violation (subject to a potential reduction if the reuser can show that they had a good faith reason to believe they were not infringing copyright). Dragons flight (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The Netherlands. Here the amount compensation would depend on the amount of economical damage the photographer suffers. The regular price of the product also matters. I once read about a lawsuit where the judge only assigned 60 euros to the plaintiff. Professionals don't demand high amounts of money in my experience. (there are exceptions). Not sure why but perhaps they found out that people won't pay if you demand 500-800 euros. Natuur12 (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
One can pursue a claim for actual economic losses in the US as well, but the statute sets a minimum award of $750 per work for copyright infringement regardless of one's actual losses or the nominal price of the work. Dragons flight (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The blog post which triggered the discussion seems unavailable but can be read via archive.org. It does not tell which image on their blog was found infringing but going through older entries one can get a feeling of their image attribution practices, e.g: [5][6][7]. The first is technically incorrect, the other two are arguable, but it is clear they made a well-intentioned effort to credit their images. In the blog post they claim that they are students and their blog is non-commercial. It also seems that this kind of litigation is going on en masse, to the extent that several German lawyers post advertisements saying "contact me for help if you get sued by Harald Bischoff".

IMO large-scale collection of significant damages from bloggers who do not make any money with their blogging and who attempt to use the images legally but slip up on technicalities amounts to copyright trolling. If reusers are sued for doing the exact same thing that Wikipedia does (link to the file description page but do not explicitly mention author or license) that's even worse. Commons needs to take steps to prevent that kind of abuse, just like we expect e.g. Amazon to take steps against people who sell autogenerated Wikipedia article collections for several dozen dollars[8]. "Legal" does not necessarily equal "ethical". --Tgr (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

See my comment on the mailinglist. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Tgr, thanks for repeating the link[dead link] to the Felix Friedrich post and fundraising campaign to pay the demanded money. I read through using Google translate, and it does seem worrying that images the public have taken from Wikipedia on the presumption they are free, especially as Wikipedia does not have license marks or attribution on the visible web page, are used for demands for damage payments based on the licenses here on Wikimedia Commons. The way our projects are set up for transclusions, without making any license attribution requirements (moral rights) explicitly clear is worrying. Essentially this is an accidental bear trap and may be exploited here as a money making scheme.
Photographers can and should be able to ensure their moral rights are protected, this may include claims of damages. However based on the complaints from those who have had demands of money, this does seem to be a flaw in our systems that make the chances of misunderstanding and mistakes being made by reusers highly likely. Systematic speculative demand letters or systematic legal action (which I have not read evidence of) which traps good-faith reusers is potentially a blight against our mission of sharing knowledge freely.
Now, does anyone have any ideas for what action should be proposed, if any? Though a possible problem of good-faith failing, this scenario does not seem to fit COM:BP, nor obviously not comply with COM:L. In his email Steinsplitter suggests this may be a terms of use failure, this may be worth exploring as it could provide a rationale to remove the uploaded images, no matter that they are within scope for this project (essentially, this could boil down to apparently misusing Commons to make money against the project's open values). --Fæ (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I have always felt that clear instructions for attribution requirements are missing from CC templates (and others). And I think we should indef this user and delete files: although he offers some high quality images all he intends to do with them is to make money (with the license/attribution trap). Otherwise he would warn re-users with wrong attribution first and only sue them if they still don't fix attribution in a reasonable amount of time. --Denniss (talk) 10:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with @Denniss: ^^. Sounds reasonable. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, souns like a good proposal. Natuur12 (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This seems to be more a Creative Commons issue than a Wikimedia Commons issue. Commons is just a hosting site for the images and the same thing could happen for files hosted on Flickr or anywhere else. Whenever somebody complains that files they upload to Commons are used without proper attribution elsewhere, the usual advice is that they can take action on their own using whatever means copyright law allows. However it seems like a problem if this user's interpretation of CC attribution is not compatible with Wikipedia standard practice. If they don't want their files attributed in that way, then perhaps Commons shouldn't be offering them to Wikipedia to be linked like that, i.e., the files should be deleted. Although of course Wikimedia will sometimes do what it thinks its allowed to do by its own interpretation of law and licenses and not what the copyright holder may wish. --ghouston (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I support deleting the current uploaded files per Denniss' proposal, as they are an immediate apparent hazard for reusers. If Haraldbischoff does not comment here and their account is blocked, I suggest we keep the door open and treat any appeal in a positive way. The images are valuable and could support the project, if there was a commitment to only upload CC0 licensed images and avoid the attribution problem, or that all Wikimedia Commons images would be shared in good faith, meaning that reusers would get a fair warning (i.e. without any demands for money) if they fail to attribute correctly and a reasonable time to correct problems before making any legal threat (I suggest 6 months), then this might be a reasonable best practice approach going forward. --Fæ (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
There's a wide variety of opinion, by photographers, on how to deal with copyright/licence-terms violations. Some take the view that they aren't actively funding their income through commercial photography so don't see the need to actively protect their creative works from misuse: it is sad when people don't give credit, but not worth losing sleep over. Others may give the re-user a chance to fix or remove the image and educate them on the fact that these images are still copyright and must be used under the terms of any licence. Others will demand a reasonable amount, and others will demand unreasonable amounts as punishment. Attitudes also vary where a non-commercial or an educational publication might be treated less harshly than a big corporation (e.g. Apple). If you follow PetaPixel then you'll see that many pro photographers (and amateurs with pretensions) seem to spend an inordinate (and surely uneconomic) amount of time suing people and giving themselves ulcers because their work is being stolen. There are companies who will help you find misusers and sue them. Commons file pages link to TinEye and Google Images which are tools that help locate re-users, and can be used to pursue misusers.
I think an immediate call to delete and indef block is hasty. This user has been here for five years, and not edited in the last 10 days (so may be on vacation). I don't at all excuse what they are doing: from what I read above, it doesn't fit my ethics. But the legal issues are entirely between the photographer and the re-user -- I don't see how WMF could get involved nor think it wise for Commons users to speculate in case they libel. Many on Commons, including some commenting here, have previously been adamant that off-Commons behaviour is irrelevant wrt blocks and bans. We do not currently require anyone to upload CC0, which is a relinquishment of copyright rights far more than just dropping the "BY" from CC BY-SA. Nor do we ask anyone to forgo revenue from licence offenders should they mend their ways. Think, for example, if a book or magazine was published with one of your images and no attribution. You could have got £100 for that, perhaps. Or if it appears in an advert for a major corporation -- you could buy a new camera with the the earnings from that. How would we actually police such a restriction, given that the correspondence between photographer and re-user is unlikely to be public. -- Colin (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible that the matter is solved or settled in the meantime as the quoted link http://diefreiheitsliebe.de/politik/in-eigener-sache-fast-900-euro-verlust-die-freiheitsliebe-wurde-abgemahnt/ is dead? -- Maxxl² - talk 14:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Is the implication of some of the suggestions here that "must be freely licensed" at Commons is no more and the new requirement put forward is "CC0 or nothing"? Because if the reaction to a photographer using legal means to enforce a legit requirement of the CC-by-sa licence, then that's what we're saying.
There is a question as to how "-by-" is to be implemented and how breaches of it may be enforced. This is a matter of ethics more than legality. However if Commons is to say "No uploader may use legal process to remedy breach of CC-by a legal contract, on pain of banning" then that's Commons going directly against a key principle of CC (that CC is a real document with legal standing, not just nerds playing at lawyers) and it would make CC licences unworkable here. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this is a polarized as you paint. The distinction to make is how a photographer with their images published on Wikimedia Commons, who is legitimately concerned for their moral rights, can or should act in good faith, and whether this means first asking for take-downs or corrections before setting no-win-no-fee lawyers after reusers. Good faith is a reasonable principle to apply in order to keep Wikimedia Commons a non-hostile environment, this should include being concerned for how reusers are treated off-wiki when they have acted in good faith in reusing the media we have freely shared. --Fæ (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Legally, if the re-users are in breach of the licence terms then they are in breach of copyright. How the artist deals with such copyright breaches... I'm really not sure that is any of our business. There are many, many people who view this as theft. If photography is their livelihood, then they claim this is no different to someone stealing from a shop-owner or try to avoid paying for their train ticket. In those cases, the offender is not, typically, given a telling off and asked to put the goods back on the shelf, or simply to pay for the train journey they just took. We might find the aggressive pursuit of money for images to be distasteful, unethical, or against our values, but is it our role to judge someone's business ethics?
This guy has uploaded a relatively small number of images. How would you react Fæ, if some institution who released 30,000 images on Flickr with CC BY-SA 2.0, and which you spent a fortnight transferring to Commons, and countless volunteers then spend time categorising, sending to FP, QI, and inserting on WP articles, then started aggressively pursuing license offenders. Would you take a stand that the CC licence is worth the paper it is written on? Or would you remove this free content because you don't agree with the copyright owner's business practices. -- Colin (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I really don't like the way Haraldbischoff is handling licence problems and I certainly wouldn't do it that way myself, but there can't be any doubt, that he does have the right to take action, when his works are used in a way he did not give a permission for.

The free licences are the base of our project. And therefore it does not sound like a good idea, to kick somebody out of the project and delete all his pictures, just because he tried to reinforce the terms and conditions of such a free licence (the hard way).

Somebody mentioned above that Abmahnungen may be harmfull to Commons' reputation among the reusers of our content. On the other hand it definetly is harmfull to our reputation among authors and photographers, if we would kick a photographer out of the project, just because he tried to enforce his rights written down in the CC-license. Please have in mind, that photography isn't just a hobby but also a profession. And there are a quite a few current and future Commons-contributers (including me) who also make a living from their photographic work. And since, having the right to enforce given terms and conditions, is essential to a professional author, a headline like this would cost us a lot of highquality contributors: "Commons bans photographer for enforcing the Creative Commons terms and conditions". // Martin K. (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Martin K., I think you are absolutely right. I read a post on de.wiki through Google translate (not a good translation) and I think he felt very attacked and defensive and didn't seem to respond to further prods with the pitchforks. I think a better approach would be to try (with native speakers) to talk to him about taking a different approach. Going all "free content project" fundamentalist on him is not likely to work. He may also be rubbed the wrong way by users who are not themselves photographers lecturing him on his property. The images on Commons belong to the photographers (well, except the PD stuff), not to you or I or WMF. It may surprise some people here, but this site would not exist without photographers, and many of them make a living doing that. Generally, such pros are extremely protectionist about their images because that's what they pay the mortgage with. Most people who fail to attribute a CC image properly are probably also taking "all rights reserved" images off the web too -- they just think everything on the web is free. Oh, and you may also be surprised that Creative Commons is more interested in helping artists enforce their licence terms than helping ignorant publishers get away with it. For example. It is hard enough to persuade a pro to donate images to Commons, but if the headline Martin suggested appeared on PetaPixel or DPReview, it would be terrible for Commons. -- Colin (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to put in those images a warning like "the uploader of this image is actively using legal means to enforce the licences and suing webs which fail to use a proper attribution line". That would warn reusers and, if this is not an schema to get money from reusers, the uploader will be satisfied with such a warning.--Pere prlpz (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I like your idea. Something like the message below should attract most reusers' attention. De728631 (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks good, should be placed on a subpage of this user and protected, then bot-placed on all his uploads. BTW not the first time this user became known for unethic actions,even revert-warred to get his images into german wiki in 2013. This sounds more and more like a money-generating backdoor against the principles of Wikipedia. I am not angainst legal actions vs misuse of copyrighted images but one has to assume good faith and warn/notice the reusers and not directly take them to court.--Denniss (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
User:KDS444 has his personal, advisory solution ready and in action. This way of informing reusers seems to be more appropriate to me. By the way, the fact that a user, whose copyright is violated through improper attribution, asks a lawyer to to react, is quite common in Germany. There was no court involved. The 900 Euros are simply the regular charges the lawyer invoiced to violator. The outcry of the blog "Die Freiheitsliebe", which was the starter of the trouble, is deleted in the meantime. The matter appears to be settled. There is really no need for further action beside tagging an informative notice - no warning - on uploads of User:Haraldbischoff. -- Maxxl² - talk 20:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Some more cases from the past:

The first is another case where someone was made to pay damages for using a few images in a non-profit personal project, and in the second case there was good-faith attempt at attribution: the author explains that he put "Foto: Harald B." in the image caption, and listed image licenses at the end of the article, but got hit for damages anyway, on the basis that clicking the images shows them in a lightbox with no attribution. Which is IMO a preposterous argument but this is how the copyright infringement racket works: you either pay up or you go to court, in which case even if you win you'll pay more on legal fees, and defending against copyright litigation is like russian roulette, with a legal landscape that has been shaped by lobbying by large media conglomerates and collecting societies and is extremely pro-copyright-owner, with regulation such as statutory damages. So of course everyone would pay up, even if the way they used the images is borderline but arguably within the scope of the license.

It also does not seem to be the case of an over-eager lawyer doing things without the copyright owner being aware of it, as the writer of the second article claims he reached out to Harald and explained the situation and got refused. --Tgr (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Attribution requirements of CC-BY licensed material still in question

Before taking a far-reaching action, we should keep in mind that it is still discussed controversially whether the image-attribution in most Wikipedias (credit on separate page) does legally comply with the terms of the CC license, as the courts read them. (This was also discussed in the Wikimedia-l thread.) The only known exception is :no which allows below-the-image-credits. A week ago I had started a discussion about this question on the :de-page for copyright-questions (de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Abmahnung / Urheber-Nennung / Wikipedia gibt schlechtes Beispiel). As you can see (if you read German), of two legal experts who replied, one thinks the Wikipedia-way is CC-compliant, one thinks it is not. For example, last year a 2nd-level court in Germany ruled that a mouse-over-credit is not sufficient. --Túrelio (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference between linking to an image which is attributed where it is stored and copying the image and storing it somewhere else, with a link for attribution. The practical difference is that if the image is deleted from the site which is linked for image and attribution, the re-used image is also gone. The copied image remains until someone notices and removes it, so a link is not a safe method for attribution of a copied image. Whether Wikipedia complies with CC-by is another issue. I would reasonably assume that the WMF legal department has considered this and found it is compliant. Whether a court of law would agree is another matter, but in that instance I would also assume that WMF is willing to operate on that assumption and bear the risk. In printed works it is common to provide attribution for photos on a different page to where they are printed. It is usually near the front or back and includes a title like "Photographic credits". My opinion is that this procedure is matched by having the credits for the image on a different virtual page in the same website, particularly on the same page where the image is "stored", and this is particularly practical and reasonable when the image may be changed without warning by anyone, and for this purpose, Commons could reasonably be considered the same website as the Wikipedias, but not the same site as Joe Bloggs' blogsite. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
It would be interesting, and possibly useful, to know why the court ruled that a mouse-over is insufficient. I do not see any immediately obvious logic. How does this fundamentally differ from any other method of attribution in which the credits are not always visible at the same time as the image? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
My understanding (admittedly by way of Google Translate) is that a mouseover was judged not to be a "reasonable way" of presenting copyright information because it meant that the existence of the attribution statement was neither obvious nor available to all users viewing the work. In particular, the court objected to attribution that would only be discoverable if a user accidentally happened to move their mouse over the image and made note of the fact that not all web interfaces have mouse-like capacities (e.g. a tablet / phone may behave differently). Dragons flight (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
P.S. One could make similar arguments that attribution that is only shown after you click on an image is also not obvious, but the particular case didn't address the issue of click-through attribution. Dragons flight (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The issue of attributing CC-licensed images via a link to the image page has come up before, such as in this discussion. Among other things, if Joe Bloggs copies a CC-licensed image from Commons to his blog and then has a link from the image to the image file page on Commons to provide attribution, then it would seem that the responsibility would be on Joe if the link was to break in the future i.e. if the image was to be deleted from Commons. To be sure, if a user encounters an image on Joe's blog, it may not be totally obvious that clicking the image is what will lead the user to the attribution info-if, for example, Joe has a hyperlink next to the image with a note about attribution (i.e. "Credits for this image") and which leads to the page with the attribution info, then that might be easier for a user to discover. Creative Commons has a number of examples for attribution best practices, and there is an example where there is a link to the Flickr page for a CC-BY 2.0 image but with the image title omitted. It is noted that the title should be given, yet the example's being described as a "pretty good attribution" suggests that the attribution is compliant but definitely not ideal. From Creative Commons Australia there is a guide on attribution which among other examples talks about a site attributing Flickr images by including a link the image's Flickr page and the image author's Flickr page; Creative Commons Australia seems to be OK with the practice. --Gazebo (talk) 11:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
CC could do a lot better in this regard. Their track record, of offering advice that wasn't legally wise, is not good. For example, they and WMF used to promote the idea of licensing low-resolution images as CC and giving the impression the high-resolution images where still "all rights reserved" -- but it turns out that isn't true. But Commons/WP could also improve, such as giving examples of appropriate attribute for print and inclusion within video as well as for web/wiki. -- Colin (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a reference for the argument that people can't CC license low-res versions and also retain all rights to high-res versions? Dragons flight (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
It's somewhere on Commons. The related discussion was November/December 2013 or 2014. --Túrelio (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't have the link for the on-Commons discussion, but the relevant FAQs in CC'S own Wiki after their paradigmatic change are at: [9] and [10]. --Túrelio (talk) 10:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
And that FAQ is utterly bullshit as only the copyright holder decides (and is permitted to do so) what he releases ander a free license and what not. It's not something an organization like CC is permitted to add after releasing a license. --Denniss (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
May be. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore that they alerted us about the fact that the permission in the CC licenses legal code is given for the "work" and that "work" may usually be interpreted as the photo as such and not as a file of a specific resolution/size. --Túrelio (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not up to them to define the "work", many legislation may apply "work" to the lowres version (and smaller) and not higher res versions. Plus a similarly looking higher res version may well be a copyvio - even the smallest difference to the lowres version is sufficient. For me it looks more and more that CC is even less suitable than GFDL.--Denniss (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
It appears that the issue of applying a CC license specifically to a lower-resolution or lower-quality version of a work came up in February 2014. In the end, from what one can tell, it was decided that such restrictions should be honored, i.e., if a low-resolution version of an image is licensed under a CC license with a stipulation that the license only applies to that version, then it should not be assumed that higher-resolution versions are covered by the same CC license. At the same time, it was mentioned that it is legally unclear as to whether CC licenses (or, for that matter, other free content licenses) can be applied to a specific version of a specific work as opposed to being applied to all instances of a specific work. --Gazebo (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The impact of file deletion

In the email thread above, it was suggested that if we were to delete files from Commons we expose reusers to increased legal risk. The CC licence ask that you "say where you got it" which will typically be a hyperlink to a Commons page. And some re-users may rely on a hyperlink to supply all CC terms (attribution, where you got it, licence name and details) just as Wikipedia does. If readers follow this link and simply see a "Image delete by admin" page then that link no longer serves its purpose. If re-users are relying on this to provide attribution and licence proof, then we have made their use break the terms of the licence. Images that aren't uploaded by a Commons User (e.g. transferred from Flickr) may be even more problematic, as there is yet another level of proof indirection that is lost.

Should we reconsider how file deletion is performed, so that a stub of a page remains, with licence terms, author details, etc, retained? -- Colin (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

What if someone uploads a file with the filename, say, "X is a paedophile", where X is the name of a prominent person or active editor here, and the final word is munged to get past our filters? Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: That would fall under policies for vandalism, so a different scenario. --Fæ (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
It would be deleted the moment it gets detected. I recently speedied 3 files, which had such a filename (only it was rape). --Túrelio (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Colin, that is an excellent suggestion and just the kind of thing we need to do to help users. We already have a salmon-pink box that explains when and why the file was deleted. We could have a second box with the author, license etc right next to it. I've been mulling over such an idea and I'm glad someone has proposed it. Green Giant (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Green Giant, I'm about to go away on holiday, and may not have internet. I think this should be pursued, perhaps with a notice on some other forum / bug report / whatever. -- Colin (talk) 06:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed changes to CC license templates

At Minimum we need additional text explaining the reusers have to state the author, source and license. In Online media an URI is required for Source and License. This info shall be merged into the Attribution bullet point in the license templates. --Denniss (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the template (and CC's own summary pages) could be better. However, there are "Use this file" links at the top of the page for both web use and wiki use (though, sadly, not print use, which is a serious omission). When I tried it with one of my images, it gave suitable text. The Media Viewer also gave the correct HTML for embedding. People just don't read instructions and think everything on the web or wikipedia is public domain. -- Colin (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't have "Use this file" anywhere on the random images I picked. I remember this was shown in the Information template but only if some text was added into the permission field. That's actually something to begin with, have this important information always shown at the bottom of the information template and not tied to Permission text. Although the link is rather broad than specific to CC.--Denniss (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
This discussion is probably best done on another forum, if it is to lead to any change. -- Colin (talk) 07:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Systematic and known behaviour by this user (was already reported 2013). Improper attribution is the fault of the re-users but they still should get a chance to fix this. No chance is given by this user. I assume he hired an agency scanning the web for his photos and if they find mis-attributed images they capture/record this and send reports to him or his lawyer. The outcome is known then. If I find some time I'll create a template in his userspace using the example from above and ask for a Bot to place it on his image uploads. --Denniss (talk) 07:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

estimation: number of cases

there are a number of commons contributors who in the past were publically cited to behave like harald bischoff:

the german newspaper TAZ cites the german club interessensgemeinschaft gegen den abmahnwahn (club against the madness of using cease and desist letters) that in 200'000 cases 165 million euro were requested in one year. only a small proportion concerns CC-BY-SA though says frauke andresen, a victim lawyer. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

solution: attribute in metadata

to solve most of the "cease and desist" letter cases especially in germany without users intervention i propose to give the ticket about inserting the license information into the works metadata highest priority. additional measures, like publication so other software is adjusted to just copy the metadata accordingly, or display the metadata, e.g. as a browser setting, would be needed. there is phabricator ticket T5361 for this. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


Persistent spammer

Maybe someone could take a look at these contributions. I did the AGF bit on the first upload and simply started a DR (here) however each day they seem to upload another image (I'm removing the links when I see them...) and I've placed a warning on their talk page however I've obviously not got their attention so far. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done - creative spam but spam nonetheless. I've deleted the files and left a firm message. If they continue I will block them until they decide to use the talk page. Thank you for the report. Green Giant (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

promotional and out of scope description in picturs

see Category:Kulturhaus Plessa pictures and description in the pictyres, there are same long text and information, do we have some bot whit that we can remove out of scope text away.--Motopark (talk) 12:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Admin assistance please

I cannot get through to this user that taking a Commons category for his personal bio is not what Commons is about. The SD tag has now been removed 3 times despite warnings. Time for some admin assistance please. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok - ✓ Done and thanks @Túrelio: though whether that will still him remains to be seen. --Herby talk thyme 13:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

deletion?

I had submitted additional observed behavior in an Articles for creation /Pterophylla camellifolia in 2012 or 2013. It was rejected at the time because I had no references. I found it odd because if I am the first to observe the behavior and nothing of the sort was in the entry for the true katydid Pterophylla camellifolia in Wikipedia how could I have references. Discouraged I did not go back to your website. I had not gotten an email on the deletion thing and just saw it today when I finally got back onto your site. Someone said I could use a reference to an article I had on the subject in the Young Entomologists Society Journal in 1987. Although many of the obsevations occurred after that article several were. By the messages I printed up from HasteurBot that said my article would be deleted in 60 days I am assuming it is gone. So do I just start over/ Please let me know . I don't remember the site being so confusing. If you could also send a message to my email glovell1 @juno.com. Thanks. This is what I submitted before with the references added today: 

For Wikapedia  True Katydid

Habitat: heavy wooded areas tall deciduous and some evergreen trees , usually high in the tops of the trees. Rarely below 10 feet. In Toledo Ohio the oak Opening s and Ottawa Park along the creek there and silver creek. Have observed them in willow. Oaks, Silver maple, grapevine, white pine, Apple , birch black walnut, Red pine, Black cherry and cottonwood. Have only found two males below 4 feet above the ground 1986 in Pokagon and 1993 Oak openings. ** Have observed them In various locations since 1986 staying in the same tree for a month or more, most times not moving very far ,sometimes moving in a 10 foot area.** Start singing about dusk . Early to mid August in Toledo ,Ohio area about 9:15pm. Female lays eggs in trunks of trees or cracks , ovipositor used as a drill . Have found them twice with ovipositor stuck in wood. For the most part sing only above 60 degrees F ( an exception was at 55�grees F in a cage on back porch) Adults are very docile when handled or confronted by humans. Have found Singing male adults will drop to lower branches or the ground when majorly disturbed in natural habitat. (shaking the vines vigorously . Despite book info have not verified a female sing , however when held have made noise. (Verified once in 2007). Males have sang again after observed mating with a female ( 1989 and 1993 –caged ). In 1995 I heard one “practicing” – testing perhaps his wings- the sounds weren’t the normal call. On drives on public roads Girdham , Sager, Manor and Monclova) in the oak openings area we have found males and females sitting in middle of the road on certain sections during peak season ( late August to mid September) between 10:20 and 11:30 pm. Can only surmise it’s the warm surface and dropping temperatures.

    • References . Capturing the Elusive True Katydid ,Young Entomologists Society Journal Vol . 4 No. 3 summer 1987 ISSn 0884-6677

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Llevolg (talk • contribs) 18:30, 6 August 2015‎ (UTC)

You seem to be in the wrong part of the Internet. If you look at the address bar in your browser, you'll notice that you're not on Wikipedia, but on Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free, educational media files used by Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, and others. We don't host articles or other non-media content. English Wikipedia is that way and your draft is still there. Cheers, —LX (talk, contribs) 20:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair Use Logos

User:Spartan7W has uploaded a large batch of non-free campaign logos. He claims they are too simple to be non-free, but this is not true for most. For example:

  1. File:Mark Everson 2016.jpg
  2. File:Humphrey 1968.png
  3. File:Walker 2k16.png
  4. File:Jill 2016.png
  5. File:Jindal 2016 (Vertical).png
  6. File:Huckabee Plain.png
  7. File:Perry for President.png
  8. File:Hillary for America Pride.png
  9. File:Chafee for President.png
  10. File:Santorum for President transparent.png
  11. File:Mike Huckabee for President No1.jpg
  12. File:Right to Rise PAC.png
  13. File:Carson for President.png
  14. File:Carly for President Logo.png
  15. File:Marco Rubio 2016 Campaign logo.png
  16. File:Rand Paul presidential campaign logo.png

Among others--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

#2 was not given a copyright notice {{PD-US-no notice}}
#3,6,8,10,11,13,14,15,16 are all clear and obvious examples of {{PD-textlogo}}
Furthermore, other logos which are not simple text, i.e. #1,5,9,10,12 could also fall under this category. If I may point to the case of File:Best Western logo.svg, wherein this logo, while having more complex elements, was denied copyright protection by the U.S. Copyright Office. Thus, these logos are just as simple, if not more. Most are simple text with colors, and basic shapes. Like the crown of Best Western, elements like an arrow, eagle, or two-piece torch are also too simple for protection.
#5 is likely not a free use item, and #5 is bordering on the two.
Spartan7W (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
It would have been much simpler to deal with this on here, but if you insist, I'll make a report for each one.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
No, the Deletion Policy is clear, and this is not the right place for discussing files (specially logos clearly bellow the TOO). So, please follow the Deletion Policy and please stop abusing the AN, that is assuming bad faith. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Hernán Merlo.jpg

Is this image own work and free to pass? The flickr account owner only a few images on his flickr account and this seems to be the uploader's first true upload on Commons. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done I passed it. Taivo (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help Taivo. When its the uploader's first image on Commons, When its the uploader's first image on Commons, I'm a bit more cautious. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Challenge! Backlog!!

The Commons:Deletion_requests are getting hairy with age again. Please take a look as far back as July 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 for a pile of easy ones (and some Star Wars licensing items)... after that date, the challenging ones may still remain. Grab your white hats and your mouse and ride off into the glory of keeping the dire Backlog down! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Filter blocking Scandinavian

I cannot remember where to raise this, so would appreciate this being moved if needed. I just tried API uploading a file starting with "Scandinavian" but found it trapped by the filename filter. Understandably we do not want Scan0100 etc., but I'm sure that variations of Scandinavia can be white-listed. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you give a example of a filename? Then i can add it to MediaWiki:Titlewhitelist. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Try File:Scandinavian influence on English - together with lists of Scandinavian loan-words iin the Ormulum and A bestiary (1887) (14591207657).jpg. --Fæ (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@Fæ: Added File:.Scandinavian. jpg to the whitelist. Please test. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Same problem, perhaps the "." between File: and Scandinavian is a mistake?
Test example result: Odd error bad-prefix with Scandinavian_immigrants_in_New_York,_1630-1674;_with_appendices_on_Scandinavians_in_Mexico_and_South_America,_1532-1640,_Scandinavians_in_Canada,_1619-1620_(14863616008).jpg
--Fæ (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Hm... :/ I removed the . now. It works do to the regex tester. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Auto-detecting blank pages

Example near-blank, used to refine testing

I have started a (conservative) routine to sniff out blank pages in my recent Internet Archive book plates project. The automated results have been satisfyingly accurate so far. If any administrators are interested, I would appreciate the occasional review of Category:Internet Archive (blank pages) during the next week or two, where the Faebot detected pages are gradually being added, along with some manually categorized blanks. I doubt anyone would object to simple blank pages being deleted on sight as out of scope. I hope that if this proves accurate enough, it might be reasonable to let Faebot handle similar deletions for some past batch uploads with blank page problems, without eating up volunteer time. If you happen to spot a detected blank which is a false match, I'd appreciate a note on my talk page to highlight it and I can revisit the detection settings. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

After some more testing based on feedback, I have incorporated this subtle blank-page-test into the upload process for Internet Archive, e.g. page 577 of "The botany of Captain Beechey's voyage" and page 33 of "Botany : current literature" were rejected before uploading to Commons. The bot is still checking through the past 80,000 pages uploaded before this detection routine, however this should avoid uploading detectable blanks from here on. The accuracy of detecting blanks for page scans of books seems to running at 99%. If there are other large collections of scans that suffer from blank pages, please drop me a note as it may be possible to automatically sort them out into a maintenance category. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Templates on main/gallery namespace

Shouldn't they be at Template: namespace? --Friendly Seven (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Moved to template namespace. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

For info - poss puppets

I'm put some money on the fact that this user is the same as this one. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 17:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Right, sock blocked, copyvios and duplicates deleted. Yann (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

145 hoax photos

Wikipedia has deleted numerous hoax articles and blocked several sock puppet accounts related to hoaxes concerning the name “Selim Belmaachi”. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Open Division) A search of the name at Commons reveals there are 145 hoax images with the name “Selim Belmaachi”. (For example, File:Selim Belmaachi 20th Secretary of Defense.jpg is actually US Secretary of Defense Wikipedia:William Cohen, Several (such as, File:Signature Selim Belmaachi.png, File:Les « vacances » de Selim Belmaachi en Floride.tiff, File:Selim Belmaachi, of Eugene, Ore., shakes hands with President Mounir Majidi.png, are actually Wikipedia:Mounir Majidi, File:Mounir Majidi, and his wife, Selim Belmaachi.jpg is George W. Bush, etc. It would be appreciated if a Commons administrator could do a quick sweep and mass delete all of these hoax photos — and block the SPA accounts, as well. Thanks CactusWriter (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Working on it. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks doing all that, Ellin. By the way, a page in a Morroccan online news website seems to describe this as a massive hoax across a number of websites and social media. I'm not sure if you can filter out uploads on Commons by keyword, but if Commons can place a filter on Belmaachi that might help eliminate some future problems. CactusWriter (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

This category

This category and its images should be deleted since there is no COM:FOP in Qatar. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: Please create a deletion request. Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Could someone take a look

When I see the work "hacked" I get jumpy... See here, personally I'd block - it looks like a vandal only account. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 10:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

User has been warned by Thibaut120094. --Túrelio (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Fix incomplete redirects

It looks like back in December 2014 NE2 redirected a set of duplicate road sign files, but left behind a bunch of files on the redirect pages. Could an Admin consider deleting the files (but not the redirect) on each of the following pages:

Thanks. —RP88 (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Some of them are used, for example, A1A and 12 (I did not check them all). Taivo (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes. The confused situation is why I brought the issue here. It seems like there are four things that could be done:
  1. keep the redirect pages but delete the files on the redirect pages so that the redirects function correctly (I think NE2 created the redirects because they were nearly indistinguishable) ,
  2. revert the creation of the redirects, restoring the description, source, author, and license to these files (under the theory that very similar is not the same as literally identical ),
  3. revert the redirects only on the pages still in use by other projects, but delete the files on the remaining redirects so they function correctly (kind of inconsistent, but probably OK policy wise), or
  4. leave things as they are, but this means we are hosting files without displaying the description, source, author, and license (not really OK per policy).
—RP88 (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please delete

User:Tqqt9333 uploads, promotional name in the picture and seems to be copyvio pictures--Motopark (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done I deleted all his/her uploads and blocked him/her indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please close

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Children's Peace Monument (14076265205).jpg--Motopark (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Taivo (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Need help with problem map uploaded by sockuppet on English Wikipedia

Hi all, I'm an admin on the English Wikipedia and I need some guidance, please as I am not familiar with normal practices on Commons. A map on commons, File:Map of languages of Khyber Pakhtun khwa.jpg was uploaded by Maria0333, a confirmed sock of a problematic user LanguageXpert. This map is the subject of dispute at this article (see bottom) where more sock/meatpuppets of LanguageXpert have been trying to keep it in the article. As you are probably well aware, issues related to Pakistan/India are hotbeds for POV editing, etc. I nominated this map for deletion on the basis that it was uploaded by a sock operator who has been pushing an agenda for years. My nomination was reverted by the sock. I'd appreciate any help in the matter. Maybe there's a better way to approach this, I don't know, but it seems that having a MS Paint map that seems to draw disputed boundaries may not be the most helpful tool in the shed. Also, it would seem that indeffing the sock operator might be in order on Commons, although that's clearly up to y'all. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

My mop here is stilly quite shiny so I'm not sure how to handle the socking part at Commons when the show took place at a Wikipedia, but I have so far restored the deletion tag. It's not up to the uploader to remove a deletion request. As to the accounts, we do have LanguageXpert (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) and Maria0333 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) here but neither are blocked. It should be noted though that LX does not have any contributions at Commons. Seemingly this was automatically created as a global account but was never used here. De728631 (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I have blocked the master and some recently active socks left a comment at the DR. --Denniss (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Denniss You blocked me without giving an opurtunity of being heard. Never mind but I want to clarify my position.
Number one like every normal human I am a patriotic who resisted misuse of english wikipedia by a group of Indian editors who are interfering in my country Pakistan articles and WP coattrack is used to dename Pakistan. They are afraid of me due to my experiance and knowledge of WP policies. Any simple editor from Pakistan is easily fooled by them so when they lack arguments against me then they cry and hide behind getting me topic ban or socking. Every one is patriotic its not a crime but I never compromise Nuetrality and never try to edit Indians articles. Sorry i can understand that is not relevent here on Commons .
Number two as an linguist and a thorough professional i contributed on commons with a map (wrongly) uploaded twice by me in 2013 File:Map of languages of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.jpg File:Map of languages of Khyber Pakhtun khwa.jpg . However A pashtun nationalist Adil swati has now replaced his map on File:Map of languages of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.jpg . He want to show every district as Pashtun. If you see his contribution on commons you will see how fanatic nationalist he is. See his contributions on my talk page. He abused me in urdu and Pashto languages.
Now Indian editors has joined him to keep his map File:Map of languages of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.jpg and delete File:Map of languages of Khyber Pakhtun khwa.jpg.
Sir now let me show you reason why my map is genuine. Number one it is as per lingusitc work Cardona, Grierson, Shackle, Nataliia Ivanovna Tolstaia, Lambert M Surhone, Mariam T Tennoe, Susan F Henssonow. Number two Pakistan national Census 1998 which says; 1. Hazara Division is 60% Hindko ( Kohistan district 90% Kohistani languages ;Other districts 80% Hindko). 2. Swat Kohistan, Kohistani language spoken by 90%. 3. In DI khan and Tank saraiki is majiority. 4.Chitral is khowar majiority = 88%.5. Kohat, Peshwer, Noshera cities centres are Hinko majiority.
REFRENCES= 1.District wise Pakistan Census report is available in Pakistan statistical department OR Mr Books Islamabad or Library of Quideazam university Islamabad. Only Mr.books provide these books online. 2. Work of linguists i mentioned is available on line. 3. For kohistani languages see where its spoken with refrences in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardic_languages#Subdivisions 4. For Hindko dialect see where its spoken. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindko_dialect 5. For Saraiki dialect see where its spoken https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saraiki_dialect. 6. For Khowar languages see where its spoken with refrences in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khowar_language. 7. Additionally see http://www.khyberpakhtunkhwa.gov.pk/aboutus/ archive copy at the Wayback Machine official website 8. also see http://www.dawn.com/news/595472/regional-languages-in-danger-of-dying-out Dawn
Finaly sir I am a professional please dont kill me block me on Commons on the noise of egoistic Indian and Pashtun nationalists. See my work with refrences and judge and remove deletion request on File:Map of languages of Khyber Pakhtun khwa.jpg . But delete File:Map of languages of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.jpg if the pashtun nationalist fails to provide any refrence. In fact their map was uploaded by Adjutor101 on 21:23, 6 March 2015 see history. Now See Adjutor101 talk page with his own confession that his map is wrong https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Adjutor101#File:Map_of_languages_of_Khyber_Pakhtunkhwa.jpg_.28_Bara_k_pukhtana_kom.29. My hopes are high on your positive decision. MARIA0333 39.47.168.210 02:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Nobody who has shown such a disregard for the Wikipedia editing community as this editor has should be allowed any forum. It's as if he's saying, "Once you check these references you'll totally understand why I've been subverting longstanding Wikipedia policies to assert my POV." Ridiculous. This editor has robbed the project of countless hours of valuable Wikipedia volunteer time to further his/her ridiculous ethnic/national/whatever war. He's engaged in sockpuppetry since at least 2012 That's 2 1/2 years of this crap on the English project alone, and it's trickled over here. And then there's the POV editing, stonewalling honest discussions (most recently as user Zmaghndstakun along with his meatpuppet Rashidzaman786 at Balochistan, Pakistan and Balochistan along with trying to derail this dispute resolution). This isn't a constructive editor by any stretch of the imagination. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Palace on Wheels

Hi, I want to create Category:Palace on Wheels which is famous luxury train of India. official website archive copy at the Wayback Machine, but there is a notice appearing that I can't create this category because it is black listed. Can someone help? --Human3015 (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It's presumably blacklisted because adding the suffix " on wheels" has a long and sorry history with a particular vandal. However your specific request here is reasonable, so I hope an admin will carry out the creation for you. Please be patient. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I created and categorized the category. Taivo (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Taivo. --Human3015 (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Please modifiy Template:TimoJäger

Hi there,

as per ticket:2015081210022518, Timo Jäger does not want further images to be transferred from his page on airliners.net to Commons. Could someone please adapt the protected template so it not only limits the link from where images can be retrieved but also limits the permission to photos transferred before August 12th, 2015? -- O.Koslowski (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Denniss (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Wybory2007SENAT.svg

I aks you to delete File:Wybory2007SENAT.svg because i made mistake and it's unuseful. Aight 2009 (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. next time please use {{speedydelete|reason}}.  ■ MMXX talk 21:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Please delete

File:Paulinagoto.JPG same picture has been deleted before uploaded as some other user, see articles page history uploader--Motopark (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Denniss deleted the file and blocked the user indefinitely with reason "Abusing multiple accounts". Taivo (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Inactivity run for August-September 2015

Hi admins; this is just to let you know that I have just started the admin inactivity run for August-September 2015.

As usual, all administrators listed in the table on that page have been notified on their talk pages and via e-mail; @Kyro, the only one inactive since the previous inactivity run, has had his adminship removed on Meta by steward Barras. Please join me in thanking @Kyro for his excellent service to our community over so many years as an administrator. odder (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Please close

Commons:Deletion requests/FootballLogosVE--Motopark (talk) 07:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

SEO spammer?

Looking here couple with the fact that I've just removed a weblink from their latest upload and I think this account may need reviewing. Obviously I can't see what was actually deleted but the diversity of the "images" they have been removed suggests an SEO approach from this user. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 09:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeffed - Spammer. --Denniss (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

A suggestion from talkpage discussion

It was suggested to put a redirect from the currently empty Commons:Sockpuppet investigations to the preferred location to report Socks on Commons because Wikipedia users are familiar with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and Commons doesn't have a page named the same. Personally I'd like to make sure something got into help search about sockpuppets, too. At present "sockpuppet" leads to a template discussion page see here and "sock puppet" gets you nothing, see here. The plurals "sockpuppets" and "sock puppets" return same results as singular. The Category:Sockpuppeteers doesn't have any help at the top other than a link to en:wiki Sock puppetry. Perhaps we could think of some way to organize all of this for Commons and provide a guideline and links? Thank you for your help! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I was the person who suggested the redirect from Commons:Sockpuppet investigations to Commons:Requests for checkuser. As @Ellin Beltz: said many people, myself included, are familiar with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and not Commons:Requests for checkuser. So it took me some time to find where I needed to go to report a Sockpuppet. As for "help search about sockpuppets", I'm all for that also, as it did take me a while to locate the page. I had to go to the Wikipida page, click on the "Interwiki" "add link" on the left hand side, and look for Commons on the "Wikidata" page. It wasn't easy to find.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 16:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I like Ellin's suggestion, maybe someone with good english skills can write such a guideline or just creating a {{Disambig}} page? --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter Which page do you think it should point at? In other words where would we best prefer having sock puppet discussions? I'd be happy to write whatever needs written, but I'm uncertain which page is best for folks to use. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: I created the page and a cat. Feel free to improve the page. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

May I draw your attention to a request to edit a protected template?

Please see this request to edit Template:Mérimée. The purpose of the request is to stop the template adding files to the metacategory Category:Monuments historiques in France by name when the template is used on files. That category currently has 28,267 files in it, where there should be none. Similar changes were already made to Template:World Heritage Site and Template:Palissy. Thank you in advance. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much! --Auntof6 (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Please delete

User:Vanyavern user removed speedy tag after warning--Motopark (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done --Didym (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

revdel request

Can someone delete the older revision of File:Fiorina Circle.png? The source/review only applies to the current revision. INeverCry 23:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

please move

W.-D. Haberland user gallery please move under userpage area.--Motopark (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Motopark: ✓ Done. Green Giant (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Mass message to 76 german WLE-contributors

Hello admins, I would like to send a mass message to some WLE-contributors. It is this message and it should be posted on discussion pages of all users listed here. Thanks in advance, --Blech (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Blech: ✓ Done. Green Giant (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Seems it worked, thank you. --Blech (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Just a suggestion: You can use basepagename with subst instead of titleparts :-) (MassMassage is stubsting). --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I simply used our last mass message and changed the text. This was probably the last user page spam I had to do this year. Where can I find more information on that subject? Does it have to do with templates? --Blech (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

see history of talk page

User talk:Americanwindowsglass12 some spam text with some users--Motopark (talk) 08:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done. Blocked three spam accounts. Motopark, thank you for reporting. Green Giant (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

New admin school

Over at en:wp, there's a helpful new admin school meant to help new admins understand their new abilities, both how they work and how they should be used. Is there a comparable page here? I was just granted admin rights a few minutes ago, and while I understand the basic tasks pretty well (the successful en:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nyttend happened in 2007) and am familiar with basic policies here (I've been around since 2006), I'd appreciate a solid introduction to Commons-specific abilities. For example, I know that I can go to User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands to request an uncontroversial category name change, but where do I go to implement one? I know that it's fine to request an uncontroversial category name change or to tag an image for speedy deletion, but am I allowed to do these actions immediately upon discovering such situations, or do I still make a request for another admin to resolve? I could ask lots of other questions, but I don't want to take up anyone's time with lots of questions: I'd like to see a page that tries to answer them. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

 CommentI volunteer to help write said page, but for now there's COM:EIC. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
There is also User:Jameslwoodward/Commons notes for administrators which is quite useful. Green Giant (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Please delete: Mirrored.Shield

files by User:Mirrored.Shield, promotional names in the pictures and fairuse material--Motopark (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleted everything. Do we normally block spam-only accounts on sight (a la {{en:uw-spamblock}}), or do we warn them and give them a second chance? Nyttend (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
It depends. Usually I try to give a second chance, but not always (for example, when prostitution is advertised, then I tend to block indefinitely). Promotional users are not totally prohibited in Commons, because sometimes they give away good photos about their products. Taivo (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Nothing good here (all the contributions were copyvios, not just "ordinary" spam), but I'll remember that for the future. Nyttend (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, as Taivo. I evaluate the possibility of future positive actions by the account. Is it someone who has misunderstood something (copyright or scope), and may do something useful? Or is it just a throwaway account for sending ads or junk, etc. My 0.02 Rs. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Two naye paise? Well, I guess that's simpler than a half anna. Nyttend (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
LoL. At last someone understands. ;o) Yann (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Yann, it's what I get from being a stamp collector since childhood. I knew 12 pies = 1 anna, and 16 annas = 1 rupee, but I couldn't think what the decimal divisions were. Nyttend (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Block required

Sieraleezzz and fairly quickly. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Done by Multichill already. If you need to prevent a notification, I think that Special:Contributions/Herbythyme will provide a link without triggering the notification. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Pages with script errors

Some days ago aside Category:Pages with script errors a Category:Category:Pages with script errors has been erroneously created and fed, probably by a bot. --Achim (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

See phabricator:T95277 --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, forgotten that already, but since a few days there's some movement at the cat. --Achim (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Pages are automatically added by MediaWiki. I am very sorry, but admins can do nothing. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Vandal/attack images

Need attention - see here thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done by Taivo. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 14:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Mass deletion nomination

Moved to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User problems#Mass_deletion_nomination --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Please delete

picturews of User:SlimExpressIndia, promotional--Motopark (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done DRed. You could do that yourself. ;o) Yann (talk) 12:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Another new-admin question

Is it possible to have CommonsDelinker (or some other bot) recategorise a bunch of images rapidly by giving it a list of image names, a list of category/ies to remove from all of them, and a list of category/ies to add? About 150 of the 172 images in Category:Chillicothe, Ohio should be moved to Category:Adena Mansion, and I'd rather have a bot do the work of replacing [[Category:Chillicothe, Ohio]] with [[Category:Adena Mansion]]. Much easier for your-and-my future reference if someone can show me how to do this, instead of doing it yourself :-) Nyttend (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

You can replace category's (not remove/add) on COM:CDC using the template {{Move cat}}. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for intruding, but what is the advantage of that over simply using Cat-a-lot´s move function? (I never use that template and now wonder if I´m doing something wrong.) --Rudolph Buch (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
But the Chillicothe category isn't problematic; I figured {{Move cat}} would end up dumping all Chillicothe images and subcategories (which includes Adena) into Adena. Can we have CommonsDelinker move some images in a category, but not all? When making requests at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands, I always figured that it would empty the old category and move all contents to the new one. And what's Cat-a-lot? Nyttend (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Cat-a-lot is a tool you can enable on your Preferences page (first checkbox in section "Tools for categories"). It shows as a small yellow box whenever you visit a category page. If you click on the yellow box, you can select several files or subcategories on the page and then move or copy them to any other category with just one click. See Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot for more explanation- it´s a great tool! --Rudolph Buch (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd recommend either Cat-a-lot or VFC but start small because you don't want to be making a mistake with so many files. I've moved 144 of the files in that category. Green Giant (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Removing files from page history

I'm working on a batch upload right now and I had a couple of files that ended up overwriting each other because of forward slashes in the file name. Is it possible to remove all past revisions of a file from the version history (for the sake of neatness)? If not, can we just delete these pages? (I'll re-upload the images with the proper names after the bot is done). The affected pages are File:FMIB 39798 Yellow Sponge. From Anclote Keys.jpg and File:FMIB 39812 Wire or 'Bastard Sheepswool' Sponge.jpg. Thanks for any help. BMacZero (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

There were so many images in each page's history that I wasn't sure which one(s) to delete, so I've just deleted everything. Let me know if you want anything to be undeleted. Nyttend (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
That'll do, thanks! BMacZero (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Recreated files?

It looks like User:Perfection shoes has been recreating previously deleted files outside of process (see Special:Log/Perfection shoes). Could someone please check if the newly uploaded files are the same as the ones deleted last month and if so, re-delete and issue the appropriate warning? (If they're not the same photos, they should still be deleted, because just like the previously deleted files, they're copyright violations. For example, File:Сандали от гробницата на Тутанкамон.jpg is not "Own work", but grabbed from http://www.artofcounting.com/2010/07/14/analysis-of-royal-sandals-in-ancient-egypt-part-1/.) —LX (talk, contribs) 17:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

LX, I've deleted all but four of them as re-uploaded copyvios. The exceptions are File:Сандали от древен Египет.jpg and File:Петата запетая, 1957 г.jpg, as both seem like plausible own works, and File:От края на 19-ти век обувната индустрия се измества в заводите и е все по-механизирана.jpg and File:Портрет на Луи XIV.jpg, which are likely too old for copyright (one's a seventeenth-century painting), but given the obviously false authorship claim and the lack of evidence of actual authorship, I've sent them to DR. If you find that the "plausible own works" are copyvios, let me know and I'll trash them too. Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The only thing the uploader might have done with those is to upscale them and sloppily replace the background. Tagged them as copyvios with sources. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Rename reversal needed

I moved File:Ametyst 03.jpg to File:Amethyst 03.jpg thinking it was a misspelling, but it looks to be a proper spelling in Polish, the uploader's language. Can an admin delete the redirect and move it back without leaving a redirect? INeverCry 21:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Ymblanter, why did you move it back? Nyttend (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
There are several other related uploads by the same user with the Ametyst spelling, so this mistaken move by me really should be reversed as it appears Rodhullandemu did. INeverCry 23:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I saw it in the delinker log, and the target was a redlink. I decided this is a technical error. No prejudice against moving back.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a good example why these “improvement” renames are not a good idea (and are proscribed by the relevant guideline). Even if "ametyst" were a genuine typo for "amethyst", it would still be usable as a (part of a) filename, as is understandable, unlike if the image showed, say, rubis or pearls instead — in which case the filename should be changed, typo or no typo. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I probably should have been more attentive when I noticed a redlink, but usually I do not look at the history of the files which get into the delinker log, and INC is an experienced contributor, I just thought he forgot or smth. I will try to be more careful with redlinks, they do not come so often.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Nintendo Super Famicom in box.jpg - hide previous revision due to unfree content

The image File:Nintendo Super Famicom in box.jpg has, among other things, been losslessly cropped to avoid issues with copyrighted packaging included in the picture. As such, it seems that the previous revision should be hidden. Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Taivo (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Morocco.svg

I want upload a new version of File:Coat of arms of Morocco.svg but the upload restrinction is preventing me from doing so, can anyone check it out? --AymanFlad (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

AymanFlad, I've downgraded it to semiprotection. Please let me know when you're done, so I can put it back. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Still cannot overwrite this file. --AymanFlad (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@Nyttend: According to the page info, the file is still full upload protected. INeverCry 02:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Ugg, I modified the move protection, not the upload protection. I think it's correct now. Nyttend (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@AymanFlad: You can upload the new version now. INeverCry 23:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Azhmoerie Ramdhani Muchachaz

I noticed that Azhmoerie moved his user page User:Azhmoerie to gallery namespace at Azhmoerie Ramdhani Muchachaz. I could have just nominated the inappropriate gallery for deletion, but I think it would be more friendly to a new user if an admin would just move Azhmoerie Ramdhani Muchachaz back to User:Azhmoerie (over the redirect) and then delete Azhmoerie Ramdhani Muchachaz. —RP88 (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Usually I delete such userpages on the spot as out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thumbnail

Hi. After requesting to rename File:!cube - Ransumaasta kajahtaa.wav to File:!Cube - Ransumaasta kajahtaa.wav, the file didn't get a thumbnail and can not be played at this Wikipedia article. How can i fix this? Hakken (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

This is something that only an admin can fix. And i don't think my cache or whatever related to my web browser has to do something with it, as all my uploads have thumbnails. Hakken (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Hakken, I've undone and redone the move. Does it work properly at the Wikipedia page now? If not, I'm thinking that we'd be best off trashing the whole thing and restarting. Unless it's working properly, just please upload it under a different name and tag the page with {{speedy|fixing a server hiccup; see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=169542919 section "thumbnail"}} or something of the like. Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
It was not working properly, so instead of starting all over again i decided to reupload the file. And it works, thanks for the help! Hakken (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

IP block exemption (kaganer)

Please grant me IP-except flag, because Commons may soon be blocked in Russia, along with Wikipedia, and I will have to work through the anonymizer. (Maybe need to prepare some separate (simple) procedure for the Russian Wikipedians, because such applications are likely to be several hundred - or several thousand). --Kaganer (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done You should request global IPBE as well. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 05:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks (for permission and for advice). At this time, the blocking has not been applied. So it will reserve the communication channel for the future. "Brave New World"... --Kaganer (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Arvind_Iyer.jpg

The image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arvind_Iyer.jpg has apparently been sourced from the url http://www.arvindiyer.com/Arvind_Iyer.jpg as the license states.This image might have been available on the said url at one point in time but is not there anymore ( Page link leads to an error ) and considering that fact,might it be possible for someone in the admin department or you to consider nominating it for deletion. Thank You for your help.(Rajeshbm (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC))

@Rajeshbm: The image was published under an irrevocable, free license and this was verified by INeverCry through our License review process. This process was made exactly for cases like this: to have a verification of copyright status in case the original source is not available anymore. So unless there is evidence that something wrong with the image and its license in the first place, it is unlikely to get deleted. --El Grafo (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Restore revision of file

File:Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of Italy (1805-1814).svg was removed a long time ago because of this deletion request: a copyright violating element was present in the file. But if my memory is correct, the initial version(s) of this file uploaded by Sodacan did not contain this blue serpent of Milan.

Can an admin check whether somewhere down the line, a user added this element (it might even have been me!), and if so, restore the initial revisions by Sodacan and the file description before that change? Tom-L (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It was indeed you! I have restored all the revisions prior to the addition of that element, so the file should now be free of the problematic content. WJBscribe (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
In my defence, I did not know at the moment that element I added was a copyright violation. :p Thank you for restoring the file! Tom-L (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Some out of scope/copyvio stuff

I'd appreciate it if someone could take the time to look at these. To me a number of poster style ones are probably copyright violations, many of them are promotional and I would suggest almost all of them are out of scope. I have placed some warnings/tags on the talk page which simply seems to have accelerated the uploading... Thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Date format

The date format for the Chechen language wrong It must be so 2015 шаран 21 август. --Дагиров Умар (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Please file a report on phabricator:. Thank you. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
filed. --Дагиров Умар (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
This might be an issue with local commons templates/lua (Not sure). If someone familiar with the commons templates could explain on the bug how the template performs date translation, that would be helpful. Bawolff (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I looked into this, and you're right. MediaWiki/core languages / messages / MessagesCe.php correctly supports Chechen dates (also see phabricator:T94665) and a call to {{#time:Y, j F | 2015-08-21 | ce}} outputs "2015, 21 август". So this appears to be Commons problem (this kind of thing happens a lot, since most wmf wikis are not multilingual). The {{Information}} template uses Module:ISOdate, which in turn uses Module:Date, which uses Module:I18n/date, which does not contain support for Chechen dates. Unfortunately I can't fix it, the pages are protected so only an admin can edit the relevant code. —RP88 (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
What does need to be done? What should be added and where? Regards, Yann (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

If it were me, I'd add a ['ce'] entry to the DateLang table in Module:I18n/date and add a new ['ce-form'] entry to the DateFormat table in the "year/day/month" languages section. For example, from above the preferred formatting for YMD would be 'Y "шаран" j F'. Looking at ce.wikipedia.org I think YMDHMS is 'Y "шаран" j F, H:i:s'. By extrapolation, YMDHM would appear to be 'Y "шаран" j F, H:i', YM would be 'Y "шаран" F', Y would be 'Y', and M would be 'F'. Be really careful if you edit this code, a syntax error in this code will pretty much break every file on Commons. Дагиров Умар, do these look correct:

  • YMDHMS : 2015 шаран 21 август, 20:10:40
  • YMDHM : 2015 шаран 21 август, 20:10
  • YMD : 2015 шаран 21 август
  • YM : 2015 шаран август
  • Y : 2015 (or is "2015 шо" preferred?)

—RP88 (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. --Дагиров Умар (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added a protected edit request at Module talk:I18n/date#ce-form. —RP88 (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Revert-war

This is an odd one: In 2009 File:KathrinSchütz.JPG has been reverted hence and forth between two totally different images (see file history). The Paparazzi-style picture with the cut head and the beer bottle has won - but the license information seems to relate to the other picture. Could someone please sort this out? (But I wonder if we should not simply delete it for lack of quality as several other images of the woman are available.) --Rudolph Buch (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Cleaned up and restored orignal authorship info. --Denniss (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Nominated: Commons:Deletion requests/File:KathrinSchütz.JPG. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Russavia

Hi all, user Russavia, who was blocked by the WMF, is contacting people in a structural way with this misleading text "I am an editor on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I am also an aviation enthusiast. I have been admiring your photos on airliners.net and I was wondering if you would be willing to licence your photographs under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International licence.[1] This would allow me to upload your photos as required to Wikimedia Commons which would allow for usage across Wikipedia projects." - People agree, thinking that they only give permission for usage at Wikipedia, and then Russavia creates some sockpuppet to upload the files and to make a template, e.g. Template:KurtFinger. We recently received a complaint by somebody who felt misled by us, where it was actually Russavia who misled them, see Template:PeterBakema.

This cannot continue this way, Russavia keeps contacting and misleading people in our name. I propose that for any new ticket in this series we delete the files and the template and that if we also received a reply from the photographer that we inform them that we do not cooperate with any action of Russavia. Any ideas? Jcb (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  •  Comment Fine with that. Contacting the WMF might be useful, just in case. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Frankly, the quoted text is not strictly misleading: Indeed, if photographers relicense their work with CC-BY-SA, it can then be uploaded to Commons and used in Wikipedia. There is no sneaky lawyer trick here, although I would have added a sentence as to warn photographers that said license does release their work to wide use and reuse. But of course people should read legal texts before commiting to/through them. This also prompts me to ruminate over two things:
  1. Hopefully this case will allow similar language to be banished from all WMF platforms and campaigns. It could spell the end for brainless things like «This arcticle needs a photo! Snap one now and add it!» or «Lets take a gazzilion pics of monuments/trees/cheese, flood Commons with then, and be ellegibl to win a prize!»… (Nah, who am I kidding — those things are the future, granted!)
  2. I was not a big fan of Russavia when he was around, and some of the stuff he made after the banning was frankly in very bad form, but… boy! — his haters’ club sure seems to harbour quite a bunch of vengeful nitpickers.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Any suggestion implying that Russavia is welcome here is as far from the truth as possible. He is unwelcome here independent of whatever WMF says at this point. That discussion had a conclusive consensus already. If you want to criticize IEG grants, this discussion is the worst place to do it. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Sigh... I cannot even begin to imagine what he is thinking. He has made so much effort to prove why he should not be welcome here. I think we should not let that effort go to waste and make sure he is unwelcome here. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm extremely troubled by the Template:KurtFinger. It contains the text "This permission only extends to photos taken by Kurt Finger at this link and link" and then follows the standard CC4 licence tag. But those links are database queries so return all photos by that author at airliners.net and panoramio. Wow! As a query, this includes photos currently on those sites and any future photo the photographer might upload. Ever. I guess this is part of the problem with Template:PeterBakema. That's absolutely unacceptable. Our image description pages should have per-image permission, and the use of a database search as the scope of any permission should be banned. Could one of Russavia's friends please ask him to stop doing this. And some other Admins need to delete or rewrite those templates. Much of the issues with licences and permissions would be resolved if Russavia had persuaded photographers to join and upload to Commons directly. But I guess doing that is too much to ask of such a huge ego. It is always best if the Community can engage with the creator, whether this is about licence conditions or categorisation or simply fixing up flaws in the image. Commons simply doesn't work if the licence terms of an image are in doubt, and we are on very dodgy ground indeed if a WMF global banned user is acting as an "official" go-between and uploader. -- Colin (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    • If the permission covers this then all is fine. If the permission is revoked the license is still valid for images uploaded up to the revoke date.--Denniss (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Any one of us can talk with the person in question. Feel free to contact the license holder if you like. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 20:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
      • The whole point of a free license is that I shouldn't have to contact the copyright owner, and need to trust that the license offered is genuine. Instead we have a licence tag template created by a banned user, who misleads the photographer about his status on this website, who uploads the image in contravention of the Terms of Use of the website (which doesn't permit him to edit or upload here), and a template tag that looks like a "rights grab". Instead, if the photographer had got an account here and uploaded the image themselves, any issues with the licence could be resolved directly. How soon before Commons appears on PetaPixel because some photographer says they were scammed by a banned user, who the Community knowingly permitted. -- Colin (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Indeed. This is why users here should behave in a manner that shouldn't get them banned if they care about the project at all. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 21:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
        • (EC)Yes, that's why I propose to stop accepting these release. However, like Denniss states above, the files that have been uploaded still have a valid permission. I don't think we should remove them. For new cases, I think we should invite the photographers to upload the files themselves directly to Wikimedia Commons. (and of course not at www.aviationcommons.org, the personal website of Russavia). Jcb (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Jcb this is Scott (Russavia).

Peter contacted me a little over a week ago, and I told him I would try to do my best to help him out. On 15 August 2015, I sent the following email to OTRS with a cc to Peter:

This email is being cc'ed to Peter Bakema, on whose behalf I am sending this email. I expect the utmost professionalism in regards to this email by Wikimedia OTRS.

Peter has contacted me and requested that he end the agreement for the use of his photos on Wikimedia projects.

This means that the template at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PeterBakema will need to be updated accordingly, and no new uploads of Peter's works should be allowed on Wikimedia projects.

Please action this at the earliest opportunity.

Thanks

Scott

If one looks at the lengthy email I sent to Peter back in 2011, they will see there was no misleading.

True to form, we now see just how professional the Wikimedia OTRS people are.....bravo....fucking bravo! 60.228.204.158 21:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  • It seems very much that my fears were correct. Russavia has asked for permission for existing photos from users, and has then created a template that performs a "rights grab" of all future photos. I do not claim this was done out of malice, merely incompetence. No photographer would create such a template, as it gives away far too much. We end up with the mess linked above where the template now warns users that permission has been revoked and adding doubt as to what is legal to reuse. In addition, he has failed as a go-between when explaining licence terms. There may well be OTRS failings, but the issues would be an order of magnitude less of an issue if the photographer had been persuaded to upload images themselves. -- Colin (talk) 09:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not much interested to comment about a user as the ANU thread is archived without any closing note. It seems all of our admins hesitate touch that case. :) But the wording in such templates are leaking as Colin pointed out. See for example, this file. Now the permission is valid as we have alive link to the source at Panoramio. But what happen when we miss that source? I didn't see a License Review like mechanism in that file page stating that a bot/admin/reviewer verified that the file is available in Panoramio in a particular date. Or, am I miss something? Jee 03:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO Russavia is not welcome here only because he is banned from editing the WMF wiki's by the WMF. We can't do anything about that. But saying he is not welcome here is a stretch and not really accurate. Reguyla (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Well that's clearly not true. There are a just handful of editors who persist in claiming support for Russavia, that is all. The rest are either not interested, or are not at all surprised by his global ban. If you'd seen the foul-mouthed and abusive posts made here, you wouldn't be surprised either. -- Colin (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In general, it would be extremely backwards for a free knowledge project to try to discourage someone from spreading the word about free licenses. Anyway, we can't control what a blocked user says outside our wikis; it's way easier to control external activities of someone who isn't blocked (conclusion left as an exercise to the reader). As for disputes over OTRS permissions, the solution is always to make things as public as possible: it makes little sense to have public licenses declared in private documents and there is little excuse for anything first published on the web to use OTRS instead of a statement on the original website: Commons:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? should be fixed to discourage OTRS licensing as much as possible. --Nemo 19:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    Indeed. The photographer can easily mention a license here if he wish. Here it seems people misunderstand that the permission given through OTRS is limited to on-wiki use. If that is true, we need to educate people and discourage OTRS permissions whenever a publicly visible and transparent permission is possible. Jee 02:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Evasion of blocks

According to the log, the user is blocked in Commons. So the edits [11], [12] and User_talk:Denniss#My_talk_page are evasion of blocks and need to be handled by admins per Commons:Blocking_policy. Jee 05:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The block was never decided upon by other admins so it honestly does not count as a block especially by an admin who is biased towards russavia...this thread is about russavia so not allowing russavia to post here is the same as talking behind someone's back..let the communtiy decide fora change? looks like every thing than happens on commons nowadays is either the WMF using their long arm or the admins bickering amongst themselves...--Stemoc 05:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
We are not "talking behind someone's back" because Russavia clearly reads this page. Russavia is welcome to contact one of his many friends if he has feedback, and those friends may post appropriate information here. By that, I do not mean acting as a meatpuppet and copy/paste the abusive text verbatim, but to post only what is pertinent to the functioning of Commons and in a way that deals with the images we host/etc rather than about other users. Russavia has lost his ability to comment on other users here since is is no longer part of this Community. There is absolutely zero reason for any banned editor to be permitted to abuse users on this site. -- Colin (talk) 07:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

On Russavia editing here

Any editor or admin restoring text added by Russavia to this page will be reported to WMF, who will take a dim view of your actions. This user is not permitted to edit here, under the Terms of Use we all agree to every time we press the "Save page" button. -- Colin (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that intimidating users into silence / submission is appropriate. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
He's not a "User:" here any longer. Get over it. -- Colin (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe in trial in absentia. Russavia has also demonstrated that he's in possession of key information, and that information can be valuable in the community making an informed decision. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
You are beating a dead horse... Yann (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
If Colin wants to be a tattle tale and go run to the WMF about stuff that happens here that is a problem that needs to be addressed IMO. The WMF doesn't generally involve themselves in Wiki business so we shouldn't involve ourselves in theirs unless there is some reason to change that. If the WMF wants to take action that's their decision. But we don't need to start running to them every time someone makes an edit. I have not seen any indication that the edits being done do not improve the project so IMO if someone is willing to vouch that the change being made is an improvement, then that is more important than who suggests that the change be done. Reguyla (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Reguyla, which part of "You accordingly may not participate in, edit, contribute, or otherwise modify any content on those sites, platforms, or lists" do you not understand? I can accept that some of Russavia's friends don't personally want to go deleting his edits. But restoring his deleted foul-mouthed rants to the Admin noticeboard is a step too far. Every editor is responsible for all edits they may to this site, whether their own original words or restoring the edits of others. Any editor restoring the edits/content of a WMF globally banned user is on seriously thin ice, and should re-examine the Terms of Use they are editing under. It's not hard to understand. In this modern age, I believe there are countless means of communication between individuals, and any vital information that Russavia wishes to convey can be done so without him actually editing this wiki. Since most of what Russavia wishes to say involves insulting people he doesn't like, I think we could all do without that. Russavia has amply demonstrated, on this noticeboard, why he is banned, and why the community is better off without such ill-tempered individuals. -- Colin (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually the way I see it is that a minority of individuals with a problem with him, mostly on ENWP and most likely as a result of the Jimbo Painting, convinced the WMF to ban him. Its not an issue of "his friends", its a vocal minority of the community. As I said, if I make an edit for anyone, banned or otherwise, its because I have identified it as being an improvement or a positive contribution. I assume others feel the same way. If someone comes to me with an improvement and its reasonable once I review it, then I am going to make it. If the WMF has a problem with improvements being made than thats a bigger problem outside the scope of this discussion. I cannot do anything about him being banned, what I and others can do is review suggestions for improvement and make them if they are an improvement. What is a problem to me is for one or 2 editors to go tattling to mommy and daddy everytime an edit is made that looks like its the result of some banned editor. If its an improvement, then let it go. Reguyla (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll ignore your ridiculous speculation on the ban; it isn't relevant. You talk of "improvement" but Michaeldsuarez restored Russavia's comments simply because he wished to give Russavia a voice on this site. That isn't permissible. Anyone wishing to post information they've received from Russavia should do so in their own words and take full responsibility for them. If you post insults and offensive language and emails for which no permission has been obtained (as occurred the other day) then that's blockable no matter whether you are restoring an edit or writing yourself. You can try all you like to paint an imaginary world where we permit "improvement" edits by Russavia on this site. The fact remains that he must not edit this site and any editor permitting him to do so (e.g. by restoring deleted edits, or adding verbatim text on his behalf) is quite likely to find themselves also banned. You don't seriously think there's any other interpretation of "You accordingly may not " that says "but, of course, you can do all these things if Michaeldsuarez/Regula/whoever makes/restores the edits for you". He's banned and may not edit here. Move along. -- Colin (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Reguyla, had you seen the rev deleted contents posted by that "user"? I think you will not comment this way if you ever saw them. This is not about WMF ban. The fact is that he is blocked here now. We have an established procedure to appeal, and Commons:Blocking_policy very clear on it. Please check how other indefed users are handled. (Further, Odder already stated in his talk page that there is a discussion between WMF and OVs. So he can appeal to the OVs than socking here.) Jee 02:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Of course I am not aware of oversighted information and I am not claiming Russavia is perfect, he has his problems too. What I m saying is that its ridiculous and childish for us to turn on each other and go run to the WMF every time someone makes an improvement to this project that was suggested by him. I have to admit I am sympathetic somewhat to his situation being inappropriately and unfairly banned on another project myself. I am also not talking about comments but about actual improvements. I think Colin has taken an unhealthy interest in his blind ambition to his this apparent self appointed mission of attacking anyone he sees that associates in any way to Russavia. If anyone needs to move along here, its him. Russavia is banned and by the WMF, so the Commons:Blocking_policy doesn't even apply. He cannot appeal it and unless the WMF is willing to unban him there is no reason for him not to edit around it or whatever. Its one of the significant drawbacks of the WMF bans, they are no return so its like backing an animal into a corner, they might as well fight because they have nothing to lose at that point. So again if the WMF wants to police his edits then let them do it. They don't police our bans, we shouldn't police theirs. Reguyla (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
You missed the current status which is a local block with a reason. Jee 12:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
You mean the one from Yann, stating intimidation and harassment? Yann, who has consistently argued about how horrible Russavia was and how we need to go out of our way to block him? Where was the discussion about the block? What's the point, he is already WMF banned, us blocking him is pointless. All that block does is give a few people here, who want more reason to go after him, additional justification for conflict and disruption. We are making way, way more out of this than there should be. Does anyone really think this will help? I hope not because it will almost certainly make things worse. Its a WMF problem, let them deal with it if they want. We should be focused on improving the content on this project, not holding daily/weekly/monthly discussions about how best to deal with Russavia when its obvious he can literally evade his ban forever without much effort. Are we really going to discuss this every day forever? Maybe we should assign a couple admins or checkusers to just sit and watch for signs or Russ! Reguyla (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
"What's the point, he is already WMF banned, us blocking him is pointless." That's why many people here believe the wmf ban should be enforced here. Some other people (incl. you) argued that wmf ban has no effect here. So now he is double blocked/banned. And a local block can be lifted if there is clear consensus for it (per Commons:Blocking_policy: "To avoid wheel warring, they should only be lifted by another administrator if there is consensus to do so, even if there is no clear consensus in favor of the original block."). But a block don't need it; so what Yann did stands. ;) Jee 14:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually I never said the WMF ban has no effect here. It does have an effect, it supercedes the community and is out of our control. As such, its not our responsibility to police it any more than the WMF policies our site bans. If people want to spend all their editing time chasing after Russavia then its their time and I guess they can do that. Personally though, the WMF generally hasn't shown any interest in helping the communities outside keeping the servers running even when asked to help out so I don't think its our responsibility to clean up their mess. They created the monster, let them call Van Helsing and fight it. Oh a double block, that's a big deal! Us adding a local block amounts to a local county charging someone an additional convenience fee for not paying federal taxes. Its pointless and has precisely Zero effect or meaning. The WMF ban supercedes anything we can do here. We cannot unblock him, we cannot know why he is blocked and we cannot block him, its part of how the WMF bans work and the positives and negatives that go with it. Make no mistake, the WMF isn't doing this ban for the community, they are doing it for the WMF and for a couple of advocates that want him gone and have for a long time including people from other projects and Jimbo. Reguyla (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Reguyla, you are simply trolling. -- Colin (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Colin that's bullshit and you know it. I am not trolling. I disagree with you, its not the same and it doesn't mean I am trolling. You need to stop accusing and bullying people just because they disagree, you have a habit of doing that and that conduct is unacceptable and hinders a collaborative environment. If you don't like what I am saying or disagree, that's fine, but don't accuse me of trolling because that is just a lie, I take offense at it and I don't need you telling me I am trolling. People like you are the reason that the WMF projects are in decline and are such a toxic place. Anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, they are trolls and they are disruptions. The bottom line is, the WMF blocked Russavia, it is not our problem. We do not need to get involved, we do not need to police their actions. They do not need us too and we do not need them to monitor our bans and blocks. Period! Now, any admin should tell you to retract that accusation of trolling and apologize but I doubt that's going to happen because you are talking to me, because I am only an editor and because admins in the WMF projects don't give a F!!! as long as it doesn't affect them, their pet projects or their POV. But that is a bigger problem that needs WMF attention and is outside the scope of this discussion Reguyla (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Troll: a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. The original topic of this post concerns a banned user pretending to be a Wikipedia/Commons editor and misleading photographers, not only about his status on this site, but possibly also about the licence release they are making. This banned user then sockpuppets to create a template that claims an enduring authorisation for CC permission for any photo from a given website forever. These are not good things. But the issue of what editors-who-are-not-banned should do about it is derailed by the banned user then posting offensive messages and emails for which he has no permission to this page (which would get any one of us blocked) and then edit warring to retain it. This edit warring was then compounded by Michaeldsuarez helping Russavia restore the offensive text. That's the topic, for which you have nothing to add. I repeat. You are trolling. -- Colin (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok thank you for that accurate description of trolling from ENWP. So, you started this section of this discussion, you posted inflammatory statements directed at me being a troll, you are derailing this discussion with off topic discussions, you are continuing this discussion with the "deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response" from me, which you have. So basically, you are accusing yourself as trolling. Thanks for making my point rather than yours. If you don't want to have a discussion about a topic and have no intention of listening to other peoples viewpoints, then don't start the discussion and just do whatever it is you want to do. But don't accuse people of trolling and insult them because they don't share your viewpoints. Its unprofessional and childish. Reguyla (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. Reguyla you are two days late and completely missing the context. The context was an ongoing edit war involving Russavia supported by Michaeldsuarez. Reguyla, nobody, absolutely nobody, in this particular topic, needs to have a conversation about the fairness of the Russvia block, your unfair blocks on Wikipedia and how all admins are crap and how WMF is evil. There are other things being discussed here, of which you seem to have nothing useful to say. Hence the complaint of trolling. Which stands. Please find something else to do: nobody on Commons cares about your treatment on Wikipedia, and you are unlikely to win any friends by posting "admins in the WMF projects don't give a F!!! as long as it doesn't affect them" on the Admin Noticeboard. -- Colin (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Colin, what are you even talking about. None of what you said even makes any sense and doesn't pertain to anything in this discussion. I didn't mention anything about admins that I don't think is true and not until you started insulting me as and antagonizing the situation by calling me a troll. I also really didn't mention the fairness of any blocks other than indirectly stating I know how it feels. Again, just because I disagree with you doesn't make it trolling and again, this tag teaming that you and Yann do in discussions is ridiculous as I have mentioned before. Your trying to derail this discussion to win your side and that's all their is too it. I am not even on any side. You make some valid points. My point is that whether we block Russavia here locally is pointless. He is already WMF banned so it has zero effect. My other point is that the WMF should handle their own business. If they want to ban someone without input or consultation with this community then they need to handle the details of his block. They don't do anything with our blocks and bans, we shouldn't need to deal with theirs. All this cross talk and finger pointing is just a waste of everyone's time and your baseless accusations of me trolling just show that you don't have any desire to hear anyone's views other than your own. Russavia is banned, fair or not and the WMF isn't going to undo that. We can't do anything about it and its doubtful anything we do, block or not is going to make Russavia stop participating. We need to stop creating new discussions about him every damn week because that's all we are doing on this site is discussing how to resolve an unresolvable situation. Again, the WMF created this problem, let them deal with it. The more you attack people, the more they are going to retaliate. All you are doing is creating drama and making sure that Russavia goes out of his way to create accounts and edits by unnecessarily antagonizing the situation. Just like the song on the movie Frozen. Let it go, let it goooo! Reguyla (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
You really, really, haven't read or understood what this original AN post was about. It wasn't some random rant about Russavia, but a particular ongoing issue we are having with this user. It is ongoing because he continues to evade his block, continues to pretend to be a regular editor here, continues to create problematic "licence" templates... You aren't interested in solving the licence problems this causes. Unlike you, I actually commented on that issue. -- Colin (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
And again, you assume wrong. I read every word of it and fully understand what its about. I even agree that there is validity to it and that Russavia is pushing his luck. I also think that there was validity to the other weekly discussions which also led too....no where. Just as this one will lead too....no where. He is not going to stop evading his block just because we double block, triple block or tie knots around his userpage. Do you really think this new block is somehow going to magically make him stop contributing? I didn't comment on that issue because I am not as familiar with license stuff yet. I'm still learning the commons stuff. What I did comment on was this new discussion, about the same topic that we have discussed over and over and over when you needlessly called me a troll because I think we are wasting our time talking about the same unsolvable issues all the time when the WMF is the one that should be dealing with it instead of kicking the chair out of the way and leaving us standing when the music stops. Again, they created the Russavia mess with their super duper global WMF ban. Where are they now? I don't see them here dealing with this do you? Reguyla (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Protection request

Commons users are being abused by an banned user posted by IP ("wikimuppets" and "nameless dipshits") who is now edit warring to restore this abuse on this page. Hey folks! This is the Admin noticeboard! Do some adminy stuff! -- Colin (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think running around like headless chickens really helps. Since I have no idea why Russavia is banned (or rather I have a suspicion that its for something trivial) I would be inclined to leave all that to WMF. Rich Farmbrough, 04:09 27 August 2015 (GMT).
Rich, I guess you didn't see the posts that were repeated inserted by an IP (Russavia) the other day. If you or I had posted them, we'd be sitting out a block right now. But that option isn't available since -- he's already blocked -- so all we can do is revert/protect. Continued speculation on whether Russavia's ban is unjustified is getting boring and not relevant to the issue. -- Colin (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. It's the "I" part of BRI that seems to be escaping everyone. Rich Farmbrough, 17:45 27 August 2015 (GMT).

Self-image deletion request

File:रामा.jpg. I had de-linked it from my userpages and thought someone will propose it for deletion sooner or later, but it is still there. I request you to please delete that file. (I have forgotten password of that account but it is easy to prove that it is me by uploading million selfies. But it should not be necessary.) Thank you. Ikshvaaku (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletions of non-copyvio images

Moved to COM:AN/U. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Russavia

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon. Discussion has become circular and unproductive. If the situation persists, start a new discussion - be as specific as possible. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, user Russavia, who was blocked by the WMF, is contacting people in a structural way with this misleading text "I am an editor on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I am also an aviation enthusiast. I have been admiring your photos on airliners.net and I was wondering if you would be willing to licence your photographs under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International licence.[1] This would allow me to upload your photos as required to Wikimedia Commons which would allow for usage across Wikipedia projects." - People agree, thinking that they only give permission for usage at Wikipedia, and then Russavia creates some sockpuppet to upload the files and to make a template, e.g. Template:KurtFinger. We recently received a complaint by somebody who felt misled by us, where it was actually Russavia who misled them, see Template:PeterBakema.

This cannot continue this way, Russavia keeps contacting and misleading people in our name. I propose that for any new ticket in this series we delete the files and the template and that if we also received a reply from the photographer that we inform them that we do not cooperate with any action of Russavia. Any ideas? Jcb (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  •  Comment Fine with that. Contacting the WMF might be useful, just in case. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Frankly, the quoted text is not strictly misleading: Indeed, if photographers relicense their work with CC-BY-SA, it can then be uploaded to Commons and used in Wikipedia. There is no sneaky lawyer trick here, although I would have added a sentence as to warn photographers that said license does release their work to wide use and reuse. But of course people should read legal texts before commiting to/through them. This also prompts me to ruminate over two things:
  1. Hopefully this case will allow similar language to be banished from all WMF platforms and campaigns. It could spell the end for brainless things like «This arcticle needs a photo! Snap one now and add it!» or «Lets take a gazzilion pics of monuments/trees/cheese, flood Commons with then, and be ellegibl to win a prize!»… (Nah, who am I kidding — those things are the future, granted!)
  2. I was not a big fan of Russavia when he was around, and some of the stuff he made after the banning was frankly in very bad form, but… boy! — his haters’ club sure seems to harbour quite a bunch of vengeful nitpickers.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Any suggestion implying that Russavia is welcome here is as far from the truth as possible. He is unwelcome here independent of whatever WMF says at this point. That discussion had a conclusive consensus already. If you want to criticize IEG grants, this discussion is the worst place to do it. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Sigh... I cannot even begin to imagine what he is thinking. He has made so much effort to prove why he should not be welcome here. I think we should not let that effort go to waste and make sure he is unwelcome here. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm extremely troubled by the Template:KurtFinger. It contains the text "This permission only extends to photos taken by Kurt Finger at this link and link" and then follows the standard CC4 licence tag. But those links are database queries so return all photos by that author at airliners.net and panoramio. Wow! As a query, this includes photos currently on those sites and any future photo the photographer might upload. Ever. I guess this is part of the problem with Template:PeterBakema. That's absolutely unacceptable. Our image description pages should have per-image permission, and the use of a database search as the scope of any permission should be banned. Could one of Russavia's friends please ask him to stop doing this. And some other Admins need to delete or rewrite those templates. Much of the issues with licences and permissions would be resolved if Russavia had persuaded photographers to join and upload to Commons directly. But I guess doing that is too much to ask of such a huge ego. It is always best if the Community can engage with the creator, whether this is about licence conditions or categorisation or simply fixing up flaws in the image. Commons simply doesn't work if the licence terms of an image are in doubt, and we are on very dodgy ground indeed if a WMF global banned user is acting as an "official" go-between and uploader. -- Colin (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    • If the permission covers this then all is fine. If the permission is revoked the license is still valid for images uploaded up to the revoke date.--Denniss (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Any one of us can talk with the person in question. Feel free to contact the license holder if you like. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 20:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
      • The whole point of a free license is that I shouldn't have to contact the copyright owner, and need to trust that the license offered is genuine. Instead we have a licence tag template created by a banned user, who misleads the photographer about his status on this website, who uploads the image in contravention of the Terms of Use of the website (which doesn't permit him to edit or upload here), and a template tag that looks like a "rights grab". Instead, if the photographer had got an account here and uploaded the image themselves, any issues with the licence could be resolved directly. How soon before Commons appears on PetaPixel because some photographer says they were scammed by a banned user, who the Community knowingly permitted. -- Colin (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Indeed. This is why users here should behave in a manner that shouldn't get them banned if they care about the project at all. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 21:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
        • (EC)Yes, that's why I propose to stop accepting these release. However, like Denniss states above, the files that have been uploaded still have a valid permission. I don't think we should remove them. For new cases, I think we should invite the photographers to upload the files themselves directly to Wikimedia Commons. (and of course not at www.aviationcommons.org, the personal website of Russavia). Jcb (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems very much that my fears were correct. Russavia has asked for permission for existing photos from users, and has then created a template that performs a "rights grab" of all future photos. I do not claim this was done out of malice, merely incompetence. No photographer would create such a template, as it gives away far too much. We end up with the mess linked above where the template now warns users that permission has been revoked and adding doubt as to what is legal to reuse. In addition, he has failed as a go-between when explaining licence terms. There may well be OTRS failings, but the issues would be an order of magnitude less of an issue if the photographer had been persuaded to upload images themselves. -- Colin (talk) 09:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not much interested to comment about a user as the ANU thread is archived without any closing note. It seems all of our admins hesitate touch that case. :) But the wording in such templates are leaking as Colin pointed out. See for example, this file. Now the permission is valid as we have alive link to the source at Panoramio. But what happen when we miss that source? I didn't see a License Review like mechanism in that file page stating that a bot/admin/reviewer verified that the file is available in Panoramio in a particular date. Or, am I miss something? Jee 03:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO Russavia is not welcome here only because he is banned from editing the WMF wiki's by the WMF. We can't do anything about that. But saying he is not welcome here is a stretch and not really accurate. Reguyla (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Well that's clearly not true. There are a just handful of editors who persist in claiming support for Russavia, that is all. The rest are either not interested, or are not at all surprised by his global ban. If you'd seen the foul-mouthed and abusive posts made here, you wouldn't be surprised either. -- Colin (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In general, it would be extremely backwards for a free knowledge project to try to discourage someone from spreading the word about free licenses. Anyway, we can't control what a blocked user says outside our wikis; it's way easier to control external activities of someone who isn't blocked (conclusion left as an exercise to the reader). As for disputes over OTRS permissions, the solution is always to make things as public as possible: it makes little sense to have public licenses declared in private documents and there is little excuse for anything first published on the web to use OTRS instead of a statement on the original website: Commons:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? should be fixed to discourage OTRS licensing as much as possible. --Nemo 19:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    Indeed. The photographer can easily mention a license here if he wish. Here it seems people misunderstand that the permission given through OTRS is limited to on-wiki use. If that is true, we need to educate people and discourage OTRS permissions whenever a publicly visible and transparent permission is possible. Jee 02:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Evasion of blocks

According to the log, the user is blocked in Commons. So the edits [13], [14] and User_talk:Denniss#My_talk_page are evasion of blocks and need to be handled by admins per Commons:Blocking_policy. Jee 05:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The block was never decided upon by other admins so it honestly does not count as a block especially by an admin who is biased towards russavia...this thread is about russavia so not allowing russavia to post here is the same as talking behind someone's back..let the communtiy decide fora change? looks like every thing than happens on commons nowadays is either the WMF using their long arm or the admins bickering amongst themselves...--Stemoc 05:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
We are not "talking behind someone's back" because Russavia clearly reads this page. Russavia is welcome to contact one of his many friends if he has feedback, and those friends may post appropriate information here. By that, I do not mean acting as a meatpuppet and copy/paste the abusive text verbatim, but to post only what is pertinent to the functioning of Commons and in a way that deals with the images we host/etc rather than about other users. Russavia has lost his ability to comment on other users here since is is no longer part of this Community. There is absolutely zero reason for any banned editor to be permitted to abuse users on this site. -- Colin (talk) 07:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

On Russavia editing here

Any editor or admin restoring text added by Russavia to this page will be reported to WMF, who will take a dim view of your actions. This user is not permitted to edit here, under the Terms of Use we all agree to every time we press the "Save page" button. -- Colin (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that intimidating users into silence / submission is appropriate. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
He's not a "User:" here any longer. Get over it. -- Colin (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe in trial in absentia. Russavia has also demonstrated that he's in possession of key information, and that information can be valuable in the community making an informed decision. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
You are beating a dead horse... Yann (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
If Colin wants to be a tattle tale and go run to the WMF about stuff that happens here that is a problem that needs to be addressed IMO. The WMF doesn't generally involve themselves in Wiki business so we shouldn't involve ourselves in theirs unless there is some reason to change that. If the WMF wants to take action that's their decision. But we don't need to start running to them every time someone makes an edit. I have not seen any indication that the edits being done do not improve the project so IMO if someone is willing to vouch that the change being made is an improvement, then that is more important than who suggests that the change be done. Reguyla (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Reguyla, which part of "You accordingly may not participate in, edit, contribute, or otherwise modify any content on those sites, platforms, or lists" do you not understand? I can accept that some of Russavia's friends don't personally want to go deleting his edits. But restoring his deleted foul-mouthed rants to the Admin noticeboard is a step too far. Every editor is responsible for all edits they may to this site, whether their own original words or restoring the edits of others. Any editor restoring the edits/content of a WMF globally banned user is on seriously thin ice, and should re-examine the Terms of Use they are editing under. It's not hard to understand. In this modern age, I believe there are countless means of communication between individuals, and any vital information that Russavia wishes to convey can be done so without him actually editing this wiki. Since most of what Russavia wishes to say involves insulting people he doesn't like, I think we could all do without that. Russavia has amply demonstrated, on this noticeboard, why he is banned, and why the community is better off without such ill-tempered individuals. -- Colin (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually the way I see it is that a minority of individuals with a problem with him, mostly on ENWP and most likely as a result of the Jimbo Painting, convinced the WMF to ban him. Its not an issue of "his friends", its a vocal minority of the community. As I said, if I make an edit for anyone, banned or otherwise, its because I have identified it as being an improvement or a positive contribution. I assume others feel the same way. If someone comes to me with an improvement and its reasonable once I review it, then I am going to make it. If the WMF has a problem with improvements being made than thats a bigger problem outside the scope of this discussion. I cannot do anything about him being banned, what I and others can do is review suggestions for improvement and make them if they are an improvement. What is a problem to me is for one or 2 editors to go tattling to mommy and daddy everytime an edit is made that looks like its the result of some banned editor. If its an improvement, then let it go. Reguyla (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll ignore your ridiculous speculation on the ban; it isn't relevant. You talk of "improvement" but Michaeldsuarez restored Russavia's comments simply because he wished to give Russavia a voice on this site. That isn't permissible. Anyone wishing to post information they've received from Russavia should do so in their own words and take full responsibility for them. If you post insults and offensive language and emails for which no permission has been obtained (as occurred the other day) then that's blockable no matter whether you are restoring an edit or writing yourself. You can try all you like to paint an imaginary world where we permit "improvement" edits by Russavia on this site. The fact remains that he must not edit this site and any editor permitting him to do so (e.g. by restoring deleted edits, or adding verbatim text on his behalf) is quite likely to find themselves also banned. You don't seriously think there's any other interpretation of "You accordingly may not " that says "but, of course, you can do all these things if Michaeldsuarez/Regula/whoever makes/restores the edits for you". He's banned and may not edit here. Move along. -- Colin (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Reguyla, had you seen the rev deleted contents posted by that "user"? I think you will not comment this way if you ever saw them. This is not about WMF ban. The fact is that he is blocked here now. We have an established procedure to appeal, and Commons:Blocking_policy very clear on it. Please check how other indefed users are handled. (Further, Odder already stated in his talk page that there is a discussion between WMF and OVs. So he can appeal to the OVs than socking here.) Jee 02:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Of course I am not aware of oversighted information and I am not claiming Russavia is perfect, he has his problems too. What I m saying is that its ridiculous and childish for us to turn on each other and go run to the WMF every time someone makes an improvement to this project that was suggested by him. I have to admit I am sympathetic somewhat to his situation being inappropriately and unfairly banned on another project myself. I am also not talking about comments but about actual improvements. I think Colin has taken an unhealthy interest in his blind ambition to his this apparent self appointed mission of attacking anyone he sees that associates in any way to Russavia. If anyone needs to move along here, its him. Russavia is banned and by the WMF, so the Commons:Blocking_policy doesn't even apply. He cannot appeal it and unless the WMF is willing to unban him there is no reason for him not to edit around it or whatever. Its one of the significant drawbacks of the WMF bans, they are no return so its like backing an animal into a corner, they might as well fight because they have nothing to lose at that point. So again if the WMF wants to police his edits then let them do it. They don't police our bans, we shouldn't police theirs. Reguyla (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
You missed the current status which is a local block with a reason. Jee 12:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
You mean the one from Yann, stating intimidation and harassment? Yann, who has consistently argued about how horrible Russavia was and how we need to go out of our way to block him? Where was the discussion about the block? What's the point, he is already WMF banned, us blocking him is pointless. All that block does is give a few people here, who want more reason to go after him, additional justification for conflict and disruption. We are making way, way more out of this than there should be. Does anyone really think this will help? I hope not because it will almost certainly make things worse. Its a WMF problem, let them deal with it if they want. We should be focused on improving the content on this project, not holding daily/weekly/monthly discussions about how best to deal with Russavia when its obvious he can literally evade his ban forever without much effort. Are we really going to discuss this every day forever? Maybe we should assign a couple admins or checkusers to just sit and watch for signs or Russ! Reguyla (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
"What's the point, he is already WMF banned, us blocking him is pointless." That's why many people here believe the wmf ban should be enforced here. Some other people (incl. you) argued that wmf ban has no effect here. So now he is double blocked/banned. And a local block can be lifted if there is clear consensus for it (per Commons:Blocking_policy: "To avoid wheel warring, they should only be lifted by another administrator if there is consensus to do so, even if there is no clear consensus in favor of the original block."). But a block don't need it; so what Yann did stands. ;) Jee 14:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually I never said the WMF ban has no effect here. It does have an effect, it supercedes the community and is out of our control. As such, its not our responsibility to police it any more than the WMF policies our site bans. If people want to spend all their editing time chasing after Russavia then its their time and I guess they can do that. Personally though, the WMF generally hasn't shown any interest in helping the communities outside keeping the servers running even when asked to help out so I don't think its our responsibility to clean up their mess. They created the monster, let them call Van Helsing and fight it. Oh a double block, that's a big deal! Us adding a local block amounts to a local county charging someone an additional convenience fee for not paying federal taxes. Its pointless and has precisely Zero effect or meaning. The WMF ban supercedes anything we can do here. We cannot unblock him, we cannot know why he is blocked and we cannot block him, its part of how the WMF bans work and the positives and negatives that go with it. Make no mistake, the WMF isn't doing this ban for the community, they are doing it for the WMF and for a couple of advocates that want him gone and have for a long time including people from other projects and Jimbo. Reguyla (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Reguyla, you are simply trolling. -- Colin (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Colin that's bullshit and you know it. I am not trolling. I disagree with you, its not the same and it doesn't mean I am trolling. You need to stop accusing and bullying people just because they disagree, you have a habit of doing that and that conduct is unacceptable and hinders a collaborative environment. If you don't like what I am saying or disagree, that's fine, but don't accuse me of trolling because that is just a lie, I take offense at it and I don't need you telling me I am trolling. People like you are the reason that the WMF projects are in decline and are such a toxic place. Anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, they are trolls and they are disruptions. The bottom line is, the WMF blocked Russavia, it is not our problem. We do not need to get involved, we do not need to police their actions. They do not need us too and we do not need them to monitor our bans and blocks. Period! Now, any admin should tell you to retract that accusation of trolling and apologize but I doubt that's going to happen because you are talking to me, because I am only an editor and because admins in the WMF projects don't give a F!!! as long as it doesn't affect them, their pet projects or their POV. But that is a bigger problem that needs WMF attention and is outside the scope of this discussion Reguyla (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Troll: a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. The original topic of this post concerns a banned user pretending to be a Wikipedia/Commons editor and misleading photographers, not only about his status on this site, but possibly also about the licence release they are making. This banned user then sockpuppets to create a template that claims an enduring authorisation for CC permission for any photo from a given website forever. These are not good things. But the issue of what editors-who-are-not-banned should do about it is derailed by the banned user then posting offensive messages and emails for which he has no permission to this page (which would get any one of us blocked) and then edit warring to retain it. This edit warring was then compounded by Michaeldsuarez helping Russavia restore the offensive text. That's the topic, for which you have nothing to add. I repeat. You are trolling. -- Colin (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok thank you for that accurate description of trolling from ENWP. So, you started this section of this discussion, you posted inflammatory statements directed at me being a troll, you are derailing this discussion with off topic discussions, you are continuing this discussion with the "deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response" from me, which you have. So basically, you are accusing yourself as trolling. Thanks for making my point rather than yours. If you don't want to have a discussion about a topic and have no intention of listening to other peoples viewpoints, then don't start the discussion and just do whatever it is you want to do. But don't accuse people of trolling and insult them because they don't share your viewpoints. Its unprofessional and childish. Reguyla (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. Reguyla you are two days late and completely missing the context. The context was an ongoing edit war involving Russavia supported by Michaeldsuarez. Reguyla, nobody, absolutely nobody, in this particular topic, needs to have a conversation about the fairness of the Russvia block, your unfair blocks on Wikipedia and how all admins are crap and how WMF is evil. There are other things being discussed here, of which you seem to have nothing useful to say. Hence the complaint of trolling. Which stands. Please find something else to do: nobody on Commons cares about your treatment on Wikipedia, and you are unlikely to win any friends by posting "admins in the WMF projects don't give a F!!! as long as it doesn't affect them" on the Admin Noticeboard. -- Colin (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Colin, what are you even talking about. None of what you said even makes any sense and doesn't pertain to anything in this discussion. I didn't mention anything about admins that I don't think is true and not until you started insulting me as and antagonizing the situation by calling me a troll. I also really didn't mention the fairness of any blocks other than indirectly stating I know how it feels. Again, just because I disagree with you doesn't make it trolling and again, this tag teaming that you and Yann do in discussions is ridiculous as I have mentioned before. Your trying to derail this discussion to win your side and that's all their is too it. I am not even on any side. You make some valid points. My point is that whether we block Russavia here locally is pointless. He is already WMF banned so it has zero effect. My other point is that the WMF should handle their own business. If they want to ban someone without input or consultation with this community then they need to handle the details of his block. They don't do anything with our blocks and bans, we shouldn't need to deal with theirs. All this cross talk and finger pointing is just a waste of everyone's time and your baseless accusations of me trolling just show that you don't have any desire to hear anyone's views other than your own. Russavia is banned, fair or not and the WMF isn't going to undo that. We can't do anything about it and its doubtful anything we do, block or not is going to make Russavia stop participating. We need to stop creating new discussions about him every damn week because that's all we are doing on this site is discussing how to resolve an unresolvable situation. Again, the WMF created this problem, let them deal with it. The more you attack people, the more they are going to retaliate. All you are doing is creating drama and making sure that Russavia goes out of his way to create accounts and edits by unnecessarily antagonizing the situation. Just like the song on the movie Frozen. Let it go, let it goooo! Reguyla (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
You really, really, haven't read or understood what this original AN post was about. It wasn't some random rant about Russavia, but a particular ongoing issue we are having with this user. It is ongoing because he continues to evade his block, continues to pretend to be a regular editor here, continues to create problematic "licence" templates... You aren't interested in solving the licence problems this causes. Unlike you, I actually commented on that issue. -- Colin (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
And again, you assume wrong. I read every word of it and fully understand what its about. I even agree that there is validity to it and that Russavia is pushing his luck. I also think that there was validity to the other weekly discussions which also led too....no where. Just as this one will lead too....no where. He is not going to stop evading his block just because we double block, triple block or tie knots around his userpage. Do you really think this new block is somehow going to magically make him stop contributing? I didn't comment on that issue because I am not as familiar with license stuff yet. I'm still learning the commons stuff. What I did comment on was this new discussion, about the same topic that we have discussed over and over and over when you needlessly called me a troll because I think we are wasting our time talking about the same unsolvable issues all the time when the WMF is the one that should be dealing with it instead of kicking the chair out of the way and leaving us standing when the music stops. Again, they created the Russavia mess with their super duper global WMF ban. Where are they now? I don't see them here dealing with this do you? Reguyla (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Protection request

Commons users are being abused by an banned user posted by IP ("wikimuppets" and "nameless dipshits") who is now edit warring to restore this abuse on this page. Hey folks! This is the Admin noticeboard! Do some adminy stuff! -- Colin (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think running around like headless chickens really helps. Since I have no idea why Russavia is banned (or rather I have a suspicion that its for something trivial) I would be inclined to leave all that to WMF. Rich Farmbrough, 04:09 27 August 2015 (GMT).
Rich, I guess you didn't see the posts that were repeated inserted by an IP (Russavia) the other day. If you or I had posted them, we'd be sitting out a block right now. But that option isn't available since -- he's already blocked -- so all we can do is revert/protect. Continued speculation on whether Russavia's ban is unjustified is getting boring and not relevant to the issue. -- Colin (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. It's the "I" part of BRI that seems to be escaping everyone. Rich Farmbrough, 17:45 27 August 2015 (GMT).
The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_53&oldid=635440984"