Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new section] 		User problems
[new section] 		Blocks and protections
[new section] 		Other
[new section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.


Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.


Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.


Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.

Archives
23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

Note

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

False OTRS ticket

I've deleted about 60 images which were tagged by the uploader, using the false ticket:2014082710003951. The ticket does not exist, and I'm unable to find references to the files anywhere in the permissions queues. The only conclusion I can make is that this was an act of deception.

There were four users who uploaded such images, using the false ticket:

I think this needs to be thoroughly investigated across wikis, and I would like an explanation regarding Darafsh. @4nn1l2, Jianhui67, Meisam, and Mardetanha: I would appreciate any help you can give in figuring this out. Guanaco (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may have missed these two versions that don't have the tag: 1, 2. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've deleted those too. Guanaco (talk) 23:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried many keywords, both in English and Persian, but to no avail. I also checked info-fa queue manually because some permission tickets are handled and kept there. Again I found nothing.
    I have no doubt that User:Dooste Amin is another sock of User:Gire 3pich2005. This user used to brag about his mischievous behaviour at Commons. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your help with this. I've blocked Dooste Amin and tagged the account as a suspected sock. All their uploads are now listed at DR or no source. Guanaco (talk) 07:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all the images uploaded by the user. There are some images which with no reason, are mentioned to be PD-Iran (it may be true but I don't see anything in their description page):

The user also transferred some photos from fa.Wikipedia to commons by changing the metadata. For example File:Sangesar Waterfall.jpg is dup of fa:پرونده:Sangesar-abshar2.jpg but metadata is different. Among them, the photos by User:Seyedkhan have questionable copyright status. The mentioned user is known for copyvio in fa.Wikipedia. [1] and admitted that he just downloads the photos from the photographers' facebook/website pages:

@Mardetanha: Please restore the original photo in fa.Wikipedia and check the license, and author for File:Ali nassiri.jpg -- Meisam (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd: fawiki has its own "OTRS-member" group?   — Jeff G. ツ 15:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the question. What exactly do you mean? --Krd 13:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd: If the "OTRS-member" group at fawiki were not administered by an OTRS Admin, that would be a problem, wouldn't it? See also this list.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is perhaps a fawiki problem. --Krd 06:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Guanaco: Please let us know if the issue has been fully clarified. -- Meisam (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Meisam: It hasn't. Guanaco (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Guanaco: then we should wait for ArchiverBot to archive this discussion and forget it ever happened? -- Meisam (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Meisam: Would you be willing to raise this issue with the fawiki community? Guanaco (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Guanaco: The files has been uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons not to fa.Wikipedia. It should be dealt with here. -- Meisam (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Meisam: I've blocked Darafsh indefinitely. He can request unblock if and when he is willing to discuss it. The other accounts are Stale so CheckUser on Commons would not yield any results. Guanaco (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darafsh: We need an answer here. Please tell us what's going on. Guanaco (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd: Would you mind confirming how this works? My understanding as a past OTRS volunteer, is that if a user is not listed at the meta page search for OTRS members, that that account has no access to the OTRS database or the OTRS-wiki. If that is true, then Darafsh has no current access to OTRS, regardless of what may be flagged on their account at Wikimedia projects. Consequently a failure to learn any more here, poses no current risk in terms of potential misuse of OTRS data. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darafsh is a current OTRS volunteer, which can been seen at meta:OTRS/Users. He has no access to the permission role, so he doesn't have the global OTRS member flag and does not appear in OTRS member group. One could say that this all means he shall not process permissions related tickets. --Krd 14:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to push on this, there may be good reasons not to answer. However it is clear that you did not say whether Darafsh has access to the OTRS database and/or the OTRSwiki. Given the above discussion, there seem to be excellent grounds to ensure that they do not. I guess that taking action is not within the remit of Wikimedia Commons, even though impact is seen here. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, and my previous answer above from 27 October was maybe not serious enough. I will look into details later today to make sure this is not only a major misunderstanding or some language barrier at any side. --Krd 15:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note there may be on-going related email discussion in response to the Commons block, see diff. There is no way for me to tell if this will turn out to answer the issues raised here. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm a bit concerned that this username implies some sort of official status. Not sure if that's a problem or not. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's against the Username policy to take any name which is misleading, and as this name appears to be official, it should be changed. This is a case where asking the user to pick another account name may be done in a friendly way.
Note added at User_talk:CommonsHelp#Username. --Fæ (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not scope

User talk:Master raja is not clear about scope and uploads non-scope medias, and admin intervention is required. --~AntanO4task (talk) 03:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The user uploads all deleted files again. All files are eligible to quick deletion. --AntanO 03:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Files are nominated for deletion. I blocked the karate master Raja for a week. Taivo (talk) 08:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Carolus

User:Carolus has decided unilaterally and for no apparent reason that he don't like "Category:Buckingham Palace detail" and is removing images and attempting to delete the category, Even though it follows the same format as categories nationwide and even internationally. Attempts to communicate on his talkpage are deleted and reversions just lead to an edit war. Oxyman (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should take a break, i never deleted anything, i had it renamed to the correct named Category:Details of Buckingham Palace. If you would create correct categories, others would not need to clean up for you.--Carolus (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should take a break and stop your vandalism. You did delete the category only creating the replacement after edit waring. The naming of the category followed a structure already existing. Not bothered about the rename (but it is pointless and unnecessary) but a redirect is in order. Also you have removed many images from the category with no reason and engaged in edit waring. Oxyman (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you claim that this is a "detail" of a building? You need to be stopped to categorise in this way, this is not a detail, but the whole tower of the bridge!--Carolus (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Carolus: That is only one tower and part of the span, it doesn't qualify as a a photo of the whole bridge. @Oxyman: Both of you, please ping when replying as a courtesy.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Carolus: Anyway, i am not cleaning up that category, if people on the island want to see complete towers as details of a building? We on the continent have a different idea of building-details, that is for sure.:D --Carolus (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Carolus: Pinging yourself doesn't count. Would you prefer a new Category:Tower Bridge towers?   — Jeff G. ツ 15:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One could easy create Category:West Tower of Tower Bridge and Category:Eastern Tower of Tower Bridge or something like that. What is ping accualy, does not exist on NL Wiki?--Carolus (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carolus: @Jeff G.: Not sure about proper use of this "ping" thing so If I got it wrong inform me. As for the edit on this Image of Tower Bridge and others like it, I was just following norms already established by other users. If you want a discussion of what does or does not constitute detail then I suggest starting a discussion about it in Village Pump or somewhere relevant, rather then unilaterally making your own decisions on the matter. I am open to suggestions on what constitutes detail but I suspect it will be hard to determine as in the end it may be just perception. Oxyman (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ms Sarah Welch, an otherwise contributor of good standing, has been uploading numerous modern photographs by museums (such as this, or this, part of a set of modern photographs from the Victoria and Albert Museum here) with a PD license, whereas obviously this should be PD-ART since these are all modern photographs of old PD paintings (obvious here), and are copyrighted by the museum (“The text and images published on 'Search the Collections' are protected by copyright law” and “All images must be credited as follows: © Victoria and Albert Museum, London.” [2]) and in the “Download image" button on the individual page of each image [3], they clearly specify that the image is © Victoria and Albert Museum, London, and they do have very restrictive conditions such as "Non commercial use only" etc... and they ask you to acknowledge all that before downloading. That should be PD-ART.

I have tried explaining the issues [4], I was hoping she would acknowledge the problem, and relicense or DR as necessary, and User talk:Jameslwoodward even confirmed that the images should be licensed under PD-ART [5], but she is in denial [6].

On another plan, she also has several issues with modern museum photographs of old 3D objects (such as here or here and several others) that she claims are usable under PD-ART this time, and which I believe can only be deleted since showing obvious 3D objects, and therefore fully violating copyright rules.

Its all seems rather straightforward, and the rules are clear, but we are stuck as she refuses to take action. There are, I believe, about 40 such problematic photographs overall. I would appreciate your intervention on the question. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 06:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the two you listed as 3D objects probably qualify for PD-Art. The photos are uncreative reproductions of a 2D, public domain work, which just happens to be on a three-dimensional surface. If there were any creativity whatsoever in lighting or composition, I would agree with deletion, but there isn't. As for the others, I agree Ms Sarah Welch should correctly tag the photos of paintings as PD-Art. Guanaco (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just confirming the view from a volunteer who regularly assesses museum works. Photographs of public domain old/ancient manuscripts are almost always presumed to be public domain, so long as the manuscript itself was created as a flat object. Consequently photographs like the two above, where the object is a bound codex or series of tablets are considered public domain as the intention of the photograph is to faithfully reproduce the two dimensional text and the non-flat parts of the tablet or codex are incidental. It would be different if the photograph was a detailed shot of a binding or edge part, where the intention would then be to photograph non-flat object details. We only run into problems when we look at non-flat objects where the text wraps around the object. These are not normally thought of as "manuscripts" but a creative 3D object with writing on it, and photographs may reproduce the text, but the presumed intention would be to capture the 3D object. For example, a photograph of a 18th C. spherical atlas attempts to reproduce the public domain 2D map on its surface, but is clearly a photograph of the spherical object and we have to separately consider the rights of the photographer. --Fæ (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
पाटलिपुत्र: First of all, as three admins now clarify, there is no copyright problem with my uploads. Please drop the stick, stop casting aspersions and incorrectly alleging "Obvious copyright...". All we have here is a dispute about which license category is right and which is wrong, or how many license category should be included. Jim and I discussed this long ago before I began the upload, and again on November 3. I have been doing what I understood the guidance to be. I used PD-old-70-1923 because that is what our standard upload template offers, it is the best fit, and it does not offer other license categories (probably because the uploaded images are hosted on computers in the USA). Guanaco: I would use something else as default, if you would get our template coding wizards to modify the template. It is the template you get, when you click the Upload file under Participate section on the left.
On license categories... please see this. Jim is clearly saying "So the tag [PD-old-70-1923] as it is looks fine" (for context see my question and Jim's explanation of nuances, which I believe is spot on accurate). I believe PD-old-70-1923 license category should not be removed, because we must clarify the image's copyright status in the USA. FWIW, I have also stated, more than once, that wiki is a collaborative effort. If पाटलिपुत्र or someone strongly believes that the license category should be changed, please change it. I am also okay with you or someone adding more than one license categories, that is both PD-old-70-1923, one for India, another such as PD-whatever for elsewhere. I am based in the US, (sort of) know the US law, and try my best to respect it. I have no clue of Indian law or laws in other jurisdictions. I am here to collaborate and volunteer in the best interest of the wiki project, but I do not want to do something wrong because पाटलिपुत्र stalks and pesters me around with a stick, and misunderstands / misrepresents what multiple admins are stating. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ms Sarah Welch: {{PD-Art}} can take additional parameters. I think the solution here is to use {{PD-Art|PD-old-70-1923}} or {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-1923}}. We also have {{PD-art-100-1923}} as a shortcut. I'm looking into improving the UploadWizard licensing options now. Guanaco (talk) 11:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Guanaco: Strangely, User:Ms Sarah Welch apparently has no intention to change the licensing of the problematic files to PD-ART by herself, and now seems to think it is for others to do the work [7]. Based on the precise and unambiguous wording of you remedy "Ms Sarah Welch should correctly tag the photos of paintings as PD-Art" I believe she is supposed to correct herself the wrong licenses, and, I suppose, the sooner the better..... पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let it go, there's no admin intervention needed here. --Fæ (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=266744410"