Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

Shortcut: COM:AN/U · COM:ANU

Community portal
introduction
Help desk Village pump
copyrightproposals
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections

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 report]
User problems
[new report]
Blocks and protections
[new report]
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
12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
Commons discussion pages (index)


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.

User:Howard61313[edit]

Look at [1]. Howard61313 was clearly tracking my edits. I have tried to communicate with him on his talk page, but he still keep tracking my edits(See: [2], [3]). He obviously does not intend to stop. I did not want it to become an "edit war".--Kai3952 (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

You made an outrageous misunderstanding. I didn't track anyone's edits, What I really track are the categories about Taiwan, and what I really care are the improvement and the adding of translations of the categories, it's not a matter of who the former editors are (that is, whether those are your edits or not, I'll do the same thing). Stop removing my translations to the page, which is a nonsense reversion because you are the one who tracks all my edits, no matter what I've added. (see: 1, I've added the translation in Japanese and Korean, but the user reverted it just because it's my edit).--Howard61313 (talk) 23 April 2018 (Mon) 12:13 (UTC)
Look at [4], [5], and [6]. The problem is, when I created a new category, why do you know in a "short time"?--Kai3952 (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I simply edit them following their container categories. I didn't check the time of creation at all, and I don't know whether you (or anyone else) created them or not.--Howard61313 (talk) 23 April 2018 (Mon) 13:01 (UTC)
Look at [7], [8]. I created "Views from Mount Elephant (Taipei)" category at 15:57, and you edited it at 16:27. Can you explain why you knew that I created "Views from Mount Elephant (Taipei)" category half an hour ago?--Kai3952 (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Who knew it? Why on earth should I know it? Why on earth should this be a concern of mine? Like I said before. I didn't check the time of creation at all. It's not my concern when they were created. It's not my concern who created them, either. Half an hour ago, two months ago or ten years ago, they all mean nothing to me. The main problem you've caused should to be blamed. Now it has been proved that your reversions based on the reason of "stop tracking" are unreasonable and nonsense, since the reason turns out to be your own misconception, nobody wants to track you. Even if anyone does, it's said below that "tracking another user's edits for the purpose of improving Commons" are not prohibited. Besides, "stop tracking" is an untenable reason itself to revert anybody's edition. You didn't even check with me whether or not my editions is a matter of tracking "before" selfishly making such reversions and unilaterally judging my editions as something to be reverted with the ridiculous reason. It's funny that you have the nerve to blame me first for "not discussing before".--Howard61313 (talk) 25 April 2018 (Wed) 03:36 (UTC)

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

@Guanaco: Look at his edits. You can see from the nature of his changes to my edits, and he are mainly directed at "my translation". The problem is, most peoples would not expect to be tracked by other users. I think he should inform me on my talk page, and to discuss my problem with translation in Chinese. This is why I feel he was tracking my edits.--Kai3952 (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@Kai3952: Let's step back from the issue of tracking for a moment. Would you consider his edits to be good, neutral, or damaging? Guanaco (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
All I know is that there is a way to translate with more conciseness, which I replace the former, wordy and unsmooth translation with. It's not really my concern who the former translators were, let alone directing at them. Even if the translation is done by anyone else, I'll do the same edit to it. I've had enough with Kai3952's "directed at me" complaining and all his other unilateral accuses on me. Yes, he may mean no harm on me, and he may do all this unintentionally, but no matter what his intentions are, he do misunderstand me, causing me trouble.--Howard61313 (talk) 25 April 2018 (Wed) 03:08 (UTC)
You didn't discuss with me before as well!! My only problem is that your translation is "not very fluent" in my opinion. I think, concise translation may cause misunderstanding. If your comprehension of English is not to the level of a "native speaker"(like those English speakers in English-speaking countries), then I will worry about a problem: Most users of Chinese speakers misunderstand that causes their improper use of categories. This is not what I want to see happen. Therefore, I will choose to change or remove your edits. In other words, I hope you STOP now.--Kai3952 (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
By the way, I'm already discussing "your English" at COM:HD. See: [9].--Kai3952 (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
No matter what the result is, it is about the relations of buses and automobiles. My correction to the former wordy and unsmooth Chinese translation is another different thing. Don't lump them together. It is me who hopes you to STOP now.--Howard61313 (talk) 28 April 2018 (Sat) 12:35 (UTC)
I know — but this shows that your command of English is "inadequate." Because they told me that the term automobile absolutely do "not" include buses. Moreover, they stressed that it is not normal. If you think there is a problem with my understanding of Chinese, how do you prove that my translation is wordy and unsmooth? I hope you "clearly" point it out, rather than blamed and complained.--Kai3952 (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
It's obvious. Taking Category:Transport by country for example, it is translated as "Category:各國交通" on zh.wikipedia. What the former editions on some categories here are weirdly translating it as "按國家分類的交通", which is "relatively" more wordy and unsmooth. When the translation can be done in concise ways, there is no need to ridiculously replace them with wordy and unsmooth ones. Another example showing that your ability to translate English words is "inadequate" as well, when you changed "緊急機構", the translation for "emergency service", into "緊急服務". The definition for emergency service is referred to as "the public organizations that respond to and deal with emergencies when they occur" on the dictionary. Of course the word "機構" is more proper than "服務" here. Other examples also show that "service" shouldn't be translated as "服務" in some cases, such as the National Intelligence Service, which should be translated as "國家情報院" instead of "國家情報服務". By the way, if the categorization for buses and automobiles doesn't work, I'll simply stop it. I urge you to do the same on the problem you caused.--Howard61313 (talk) 30 April 2018 (Mon) 05:28 (UTC)
Now I finally understand it! What you want to say is that my translation is not "precise" enough. If, as you said, my ability to translate English words is inadequate, then why do you say: "wordy and unsmooth"? Now, I only see you blaming me, because you didn't tell me that any solution to solve the problem. I think, what do you mean should be: Look at the Chinese Wikipedia category, they are translated like that. So you want me to do it the way they would?--Kai3952 (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
By asking the first question, you've proved that you don't understanding actually. It's two problems you've made, yet again you confused one of them with the other. --Howard61313 (talk) 2 May 2018 (Wed) 14:24 (UTC)
@Howard61313: Well...which question are you talking about? I stopped removing your edits a few days ago, but I don't know what you want to discuss. Also, you haven't told me what you want me to do. What do you want me to help you with?--Kai3952 (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Anyway, "wordy and unsmooth" is not used to talk about the translation of "emergency service", but the former translations earlier instead. By the way, you've already done me a favor by stopping removing my edits (for the former translations), and I really appreciate this. If you want to help, you can replace all the term of "火車站" with "軌道運輸車站" or other suitable options for the "Category:Train stations in XXX"(City/County) in Taiwan (the reason can be seen in my comment about "軌道運輸車站" below).--Howard61313 (talk) 11 May 2018 (Fri) 13:43 (UTC)
No one knows what you mean when you say "wordy and unsmooth." But I hope you face the problems that your command of English. For example, you confused the term "bus" with "automobile." I suggest you look at "Commons:Help_desk/Archive/2018/04#Do_you_think_the_bus_is_an_automobile?". Otherwise, why should I accept your opinion that what you said is right?--Kai3952 (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I want to ask another question: I noticed your edits, why do you think that the term "train station" means "車站" in Chinese? I think, the term "bus station" means "公車站" in Chinese, but the real problem is that some people also call it "車站." I hope you do "not" firmly believe that this is just my problem.--Kai3952 (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
The edition history you give here just shows my reason inside. In Taiwan, MRT stations (sometimes THSR stations as well) are not usually included in the term "火車站". If we both want to avoid the problem about bus, maybe the term "軌道運輸車站" used on the list "臺灣軌道運輸車站列表" of zh.wikipedia can be considered. --Howard61313 (talk) 2 May 2018 (Wed) 14:26 (UTC)
@Howard61313: I know, but you didn't say the "key point." Because you didn't answer my question. Please see clearly, my question is: Neither "車站" nor "火車站" are the best translation vocabularies. What do you think, how should the term "train station" translate in Chinese?--Kai3952 (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I did. One of the suggestion I provide for the term "Train Station" is "軌道運輸車站" because it is suitable for all kinds of train station in Taiwan (MRT stations, TRA stations and THSR stations). Of course, "鐵路車站" seems to be translated more literally, but the reason to keep it from my options is that the term is used for TRA stations on the list "臺灣鐵路車站列表" of zh.wikipedia.--Howard61313 (talk) 11 May 2018 (Fri) 13:40 (UTC)
Please do not understand English in a native way(means the logic used is different from that in English speakers). About the definition of the term "train station," I suggest you ask at COM:HD. But I think "train station" is synonymous to "railway station." It is not necessary to change "鐵路車站" or "軌道運輸車站."--Kai3952 (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
@Howard61313: If you have no objection, I'd like to slightly modify your current version.--Kai3952 (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@Kai3952: I just want to offer the usage of terms on zh.wikipedia. If you prefer the option of "鐵路車站", I won't stop it.--Howard61313 (talk) 16 May 2018 (Wed) 13:10 (UTC)
@Howard61313: No, what I meant to say is: Your understanding of English may be insufficient to fully express, like the native English speaker to understand in themselves. Therefore, I want to add an annotation to your edits that to explain the difference in use between Chinese and English. This is to avoid misclassification due to "translation problems". Do you understand what I say?--Kai3952 (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Fegggbgbbdfbv[edit]

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

✓  Done Obviously not here to contribute positively. Yann (talk) 10:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Yann, it is suspected, that the globally blocked User:Solomon203 is active now under IP addresses and presumably, User:Fegggbgbbdfbv was also used by him. The action carried out here, reminds me strongly to previous rename terror, carried out by him. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
CEphoto, Uwe Aranas: I checked a few edits by this IP, and I can't find anything blockable in itself. A wrong rename request is hardly a reason for a block. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Yann, I agree your opinion. It was just an observation. I will keep an eye for edits and name change requests on Taiwan-related content. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
One of the signatures of Solomon203 is, that he is applying for file name changes, requesting to append the date in the form YYYYMMDD to the file name. Is there a way to filter IP edits against name change requests? --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

I haven't personally gone over Solomon203's contributions but I heard that this user send a photograph of himself to the local Wikimedia chapter in the Republic of China, if this is in fact someone other than Jason Lin they could confirm so in person, Peter Huang is a pretty big personality and advocate so it's possible that others might be interested in him, I'm not that familiar with how the Nipponese Dog (Lin Jason) operates other than his obsessive behaviour towards covering and promoting human rights advocates, from what I can tell about Solomon203's uploads he seems to prefer cosplay conventions and makes rather good content. I don't really have an opinion on if he's Mr. Lin or not and hope that the Taiwan Province chapter of the WMF will confirm whether or not he is in fact someone else. Though I must state that It's suspicious that Jason Lin keeps removing the photograph I placed at that Wikimedia employee's talk page after he stated that he doesn't know how Jason Lin looks, although it's also possible that Mr. Jason Lin prefers to remain private in other respects, I'm not familiar with their psychology. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not familiar with this case. --B dash (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

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

SLV100 (talk · contributions · Number of edits)[edit]

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

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

Some probable socks he's trolling around:

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

P.S.: After a nap it goes on ([19], [20], [21]).

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

Pictogram voting info.svg  Info [11] and [14] was in response to spam edits by User:2600:1004:B01A:3722:B5C3:7AAF:3D0C:EDA4 saying "I am being hacke" [16], [18], and [21] New user User:Samanthathepirate had uploaded a file and within an hour had requested its deletion. Thus, it qualified for speedy deletion; "Author or uploader request deletion: Original author or uploader requests deletion of recently created (<7 days) unused content. For author/uploader requests for deletion of content that is older a deletion request should be filled instead." The only other account I have used is User:107.178.36.24, because my browser logged me out and I didn't notice. -- SLV100 (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
For the record: I warned User:SLV100 to leave deletion requests alone, after they converted several regular DRs to speedy DRs. If they continue to meddle with our processes, a block is appropriate. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg  Counterexample Some DRs listed at Category:Incomplete deletion requests' subcategories and DRs created only with spam/vandalism by Vandalism-only accounts should be converted/nominated for Speedy Deletion. Note from Category:Incomplete deletion requests: Many of these may be misplaced Speedy Requests. (Keep in mind that on most projects, including the English Wikipedia, "{{delete}}" is a Speedy Delete tag.) -- SLV100 (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

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

See also these two and similar edits where the subject user has been removing posts they didn't make.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg  Relevant unanswered comment copied from talk page: I would like your input on listings done by Vandalism-only accounts. Jeff G. [22] and I [23] undid Vandalism listings in the DR logs. Some of those DRs were deleted by Yann and the rest are here. -- SLV100 (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thank you for sharing this thread: User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2018/April#"DENY". So should DRs created by Time4ARevolution be relisted in the DR logs archive? Should the deleted ones be undeleted? Should Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Time, 1942 be listed in the DR logs archive, as the nominator never listed it? I have to be honest, this edit does merit an indef block. -- SLV100 (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@SLV100: Separating out the above questions and statement with attribution to facilitate inline answers:
@Jeff G.: So should DRs created by Time4ARevolution be relisted in the DR logs archive? -- SLV100 (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@SLV100: Not unless doing so would make cleanup faster or easier, and then only the ones which still exist. @Jcb: What do you think?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Should the deleted ones be undeleted? -- SLV100 (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@SLV100: No.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Should Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Time, 1942 be listed in the DR logs archive, as the nominator never listed it? -- SLV100 (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@SLV100: No, it's moot now.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks for the quick response. Could you elaborate further? It shouldn't be archived at Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2018/03/14 (or listed at Commons:Deletion requests/2018/03/14 so Krdbot can archive it)? Seems odd to leave the DR orphaned. -- SLV100 (talk) 03:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@SLV100: Sure, that makes sense. @Maher27777: should have listed it at Commons:Deletion requests/2018/03/14 when it was created.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I have to be honest, this edit does merit an indef block. -- SLV100 (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@SLV100: I would not oppose.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment I blocked SLV100 for 1 month for both removing Jeff G.'s comments in this edit among others, and more generally vandalising (whether by intent, negligence or ignorance) the DR process again after a raft of warnings by multiple people. Storkk (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

OsmoseIt adding additional restrictions to CC BY-SA 4.0 licence via external site[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Keeping the credits in the videos seems raisonnable to me, but I agree that the external URL is not wanted. It can be easily removed with VFC (no admin right required). Regards, Yann (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
The last 30 seconds contains no attribution material. It is purely advertisement. Jbh Talk 13:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
And the title isn't attribution, just advertising. But it is important that someone can extract a short clip from these videos, without the burden of the title/credits. The whole point of Creative Commons licensing is to permit others to remix your work in any way they see fit. Including taking screengrabs. The main issue is the external, and ever changing, additional restrictions being imposed on top of CC BY-SA 4.0. I'm not familiar with VFC. -- Colin (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I removed the offending sentence in all files. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I believe, although I am unsure, that regardless of any modifications made to the license grant the files are remain available under the original grant which did not specify attribution. The {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} documentation shows that it has an 'attribution' parameter to allow the specification of specific attribution methods and it was not used.
Releasing these videos was part of a business strategy from which they gained massive advertising exposure and claimed to be "the official provider of medical videos to Wikipedia" or some such. As such it was their responsibility to do proper due diligence. That Osmosis is experiencing 'license regret' is simply not our problem.
User:OsmoseIt, by posting a message claiming violation of the license, seems to be embarking on, or at least implying, legal action. Until User:OsmoseIt clearly states that they are not threating legal action I strongly recommend their account be blocked on all Wikimedia projects per the 'No legal threats' policy . I would hope their management has considered the negative press this ill-considered attempt to force Wikipedia to provide them with an advertising platform through legal intimidation will likely generate, as well as the effects it could have on grant applications where they use their relationship with this project as a reference and that they will stop with these games. If not this is a matter for lawyers not volunteer editors and we should promptly pass this matter on to the Wikimedia legal department. Jbh Talk 16:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 00:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Jbhunley: Before talking about blocks, I'd like to have OsmoseIt's opinion. As they are now, I don't see any issue with these files. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Yann: The issue is the implication of a legal threat on en.wp at File talk:Abscesses 1.webm where they say "Osmosis (the original authors of the video this file is based off of) have given notice that this video needs to adhere to their Attribution requirements. We'll need to edit or remove this video to abide by their requirements within 30 days.". It is a bit squirrely since OsmoseIt is the Osmosis representative and they are referring the themself in the third person but it is a clear notice claiming (improperly in my opinion) a violation of the license and specifying a deadline for cure. The implied follow-up should the 'breach' not be cured is legal action. Jbh Talk 18:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Jbhunley, I'm not sure if the en:Wikipedia:No legal threats policy applies to Commons and other sites, but it explicitly excudes complaints of copyright infringement or licence infringement. Such complaints and discussions happen all the time on Commons, and are taken seriously rather than blocking the complainant. I think we'd be more upset if OsmoseIt expliclty threatened to sue User:RexxS. I think Osmosis need to have a chat with their lawyer, who will likely inform them that perhaps they should have talked to them before releasing their videos with CC BY-SA 4.0. -- Colin (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Colin: Ah. OK. I think NLT is a Wikimedia thing but I struck the call to block based on the copyright exception. Regardless their attempts to retroactively preserve their advertising is pretty distasteful and shows how the whole collaboration was based on trading advertising for content.
My concern now is to get some policies in place to prevent similar deals which leverage Wikipedia's reach for the profit of third parties. I fear a repeat since, based on recent events, I think the principals at WPMEDINC have failed to internalize or even examine the poor judgement and COI which brought us here. Jbh Talk 00:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Jbhunley: I think that "trading advertising for content" could be quite a good deal. We quite a number of files here with more or less this exchange. One of the first which comes to mind is Bollywood Hungama. Of source, every case has to judged individually, i.e. is the content worth the advertising. So do not throw the baby with the bathwater... Regards, Yann (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
what some call advertising others call attribution. go ahead and block them, they are not coming back. way to go commons. just like Finnish photography museum. is there any GLAM institution you will not bite? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Slowking4 is there any conversation on Commons you won't troll with negativity. You quite obviously have no clue about the history of these videos and why Osmosis ended their partnership. It has nothing to do with Commons. Please don't make further useless/clueless comments here. -- Colin (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
hey there user:colin. thanks for signing. if i sound like a broken record, it is because commons is broken. sorry you do not like the negative feedback. i see a video producer trying to collaborate, and being shown the door over the issue of attribution purity. commons editors should understand that the "no advert" purity will continue to prevent rich video content from being shared here. i take it you do not care. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
As I said, this has nothing to do with Commons. A handful of videos were topped and tailed because Wikipedia didn't like the top 300 vital medical articles on the world's top education website promoting and endorsing a private company selling training subscriptions to medical students. And also because one Wikipedian thought that would be a good way to demonstrate how "easy" they were to edit, like Wikipedians edit articles. He forgot to retain the attribution he chopped off, which simultaneously proved it wasn't quite so easy after all, but also seems to have upset Osmosis.
If the videos were merely hosted on Commons, I doubt anyone would have minded. Most Commoners are aware of WMF Legal advice at Commons:Watermarks and would have left the files alone. But, you know, don't let the facts get in the way of your trolling negativity. -- Colin (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@Colin, Slowking4: Could you please keep your bickering off this section? Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Yann, you actioned this admin request ages ago (thanks). So how about you close it rather than keeping it as a magnet for disgruntled trolls to spread disinformation. It is relevant to point out the the Osmosis debacle is entirely of Wikipedia's making and fault. -- Colin (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes check.svg ResolvedYann (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Nipponese Dog Calvero[edit]

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

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

Commons User[edit]

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

  • Why not? Not a great username, but in my opinion acceptable. Taivo (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Looks like something of a default name, like "MyAccount" or "this.User". Misleading and confuse, at least. -- Tuválkin 15:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Also problematic for attribution. "CC-BY-SA 4.0 image by Commons User from Wikimedia Commons" - eh? - Alexis Jazz 19:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Blocked for having a problematic username, left a note encouraging the user to select another username to be renamed to. Alexis Jazz has a fair point, people unfamiliar (even those who are familiar) may just assume this is a generic attribution, instead of a specific user. Should choose another username to avoid any such issues. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

another username, who will hardly ever be credited[edit]

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

The word "Fucking" is apparently not blocked during the registration process. Also, if the Austrian village Fucking is tired of a user called "snames", who are we to judge? However, you could argue this is a confusing username which the policy you linked also mentions. - Alexis Jazz 19:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Will watch, user will most likely go dormant. Re-ping if user becomes problematic. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
✓  Done I blocked the user indefinitely due to improper username. Taivo (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Glay Liou[edit]

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

@219.79.126.110: discover global locks. Did you never have your account locked? You might have flourished in the old ages (before 2012) then. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
✓  Done , globally locked. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Youness fourever[edit]

Hi,

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

Something should be done. Maybe a blockage.

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

✓  Done Last warning sent. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: File:Hta_l9it_li_tbrini.jpg is out of COM:SCOPE, is under COM:NETCOPYRIGHT (extracted from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7d_j8-0mcc or something). Please, block. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@Srittau: Last warning already sent, please block. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
✓  Done One month. Nothing useful so far. Yann (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Richardw[edit]

Look at [24], [25], and [26]. User:Richardw likes to argue with other users. Because I think I have fulfilled his request, he still continues to bother me. I hope administrators will take appropriate actions.--Kai3952 (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

  Not done . In his last reply, he promised to stop. Let's hope that. Taivo (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I simply made a suggestion (you might want to) and the first reply started with "Are you OK?" and ended with Please do not bother me. That should have been a warning sign, but I tried to explain why I made the suggestion in the first place, and that was replied to in a manner that suggested discussing the topic would be possible. Alas, my next reaction was met with a (in my view) rather hostile answer. And now I'm accused of being unreasonable and turning a discussion into an argument? Never mind, I said would leave you alone. Richard 10:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@Taivo, Richardw: The reason I think he is unreasonable, is that he insist on deleting this file: "File:中國大理38.jpg". I have submitted it to delete. See: "Commons:Deletion requests/File:中國大理38.jpg". Now, I hope it can be solved peacefully. I will report him if he continues.--Kai3952 (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Copyleft username[edit]

Copyleft (talk · contribs)

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

So? Storkk (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
See Commons User above. Similar case. If nobody but me thinks this could be confusing when attributing, it's okay. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Potential confusion when attributing was mentioned (by you), but was not the reason that user was blocked. They were blocked for some combination of the third criterion in our user name policy and a slight possibility of someone being confused on Commons per Tuvalkin, and it was a very marginal call at that IMO. If you uploaded a Beethoven sonata, should we block you because someone might get confused that Beethoven wrote Jazz? I don't see how this is anything other than patronizing silliness. People can ask to be attributed how they want, within reason, and if it might be slightly confusing to someone, that's a risk the artist is (presumably knowingly) taking. Storkk (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Nope... I see that Jon Kolbert did indeed mention your objection specifically on User talk:Commons User. My mistake. This is still devolving into extreme silliness, IMO. And I don't think it was the best of blocks. Storkk (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I am not screaming for the user to be blocked or anything, just bringing a similar case to the attention of administrators when I find one. What administrators do with that is not up to me and if this report results in no action I won't report similar cases in the future. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

 

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

User:Davey2010[edit]


User:MikeZah[edit]

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

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