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.

Lämpel[edit]

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

The author field of the {{Information}} template shall list all authors who contributed in a way which is eligible for copyright. Let me quote from the Copyright law of the United States, section 201 about ownership of copyright, paragraph (c): Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of the contribution. The guide about copyrightable authorship of copyright.gov can be helpful here, see section 311.2. Quote: The new authorship that the author contributed to the derivative work may be registered, provided that it contains a sufficient amount of original expression, meaning that the derivative work must be independently created and it must possess more than a modicum of creativity. Thus, we should list only authors in the author field which satisfy these requirements. Otherwise, it should be sufficient to note the author of changes which are ineligible for copyright in the {{retouched}} template. In this particular case where we compare File:Landtag Niedersachsen DSCF7714.JPG (the original) against File:Grant Hendrik Tonne - Landtag Niedersachsen DSCF7714 crop.jpg (the derived picture), we see mainly a crop and some minor fixes like adapted saturation, contrast, color curves etc. While these adaptations require skill to be successful this does create a copyright claim on its own. Hence, in this case I would recommend to remove the name of Lämpel from the author field and to keep it in the {{retouched}} template. It is also ok to summarize such alterations along with the name who did it in the source field. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. I was asked for a comment.
The underlying dispute is about whether mere cropping and simple retouching of an existing copyrighted image creates a derivative with a new (additional) copyright by the "retoucher". Our official guideline Commons:Derivative_works#What_is_a_derivative_work? suggests rather clearly that this isn't the case, though "retouching" isn't mentioned expressedly. The German-language guideline/version Commons:Bearbeitungen#Was_ist_die_Bearbeitung_eines_Werks_(abgeleitetes_Werk)? even cites from the copyright law of Germany that a derivative needs to be a "persönliche geistige Schöpfung des Bearbeiters" (transl. personal intellectual creation by the editor), whereby cropping and simple retouching can't create a derivative. However, for German-speaking users this misunderstanding may derive from the German legal equivalent for derivative, which is simply the very general term "Bearbeitung" (editing, processing). So, there is hardly doubt that cropping and simple retouching, as commendable as it is, does neither create a derivative nor a new copyright.
In practical terms: while the name of the retouching editor might be mentioned on the image page, the term "derivative" should not be used, as it has a defined meaning. --Túrelio (talk) 06:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. I was asked for a comment too.
I was also asked for a comment and, well, I think I agree with AFBorchert and Túrelio. On the other hand, prominently mentioning the contributor who cropped/retouched a picture could also be seen as a service to the original uploader who maybe personally doesn't agree with the result of the crop or the retouching, so it's clear to viewers that the original uploader isn't responsible for the appearance of the "derivative" - lack of "authorship" in the sense of copyright notwithstanding. But I think that Lämpel has no base for insisting to be listed as an "author". By the way: I have sometimes used the tool derivativeFX to upload simple crops and similar things, and this tool automatically adds the uploader as the author of a "derivative work", such as in File:Polo Hofer 2011.jpg (but maybe in that particular case it is already an "intellectual creation", because the original file shows two persons and my crop focuses on one of them?)... Gestumblindi (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • In addition to the crop it seems that the color/white balance have been modified, and I think the current infos seen in File:Grant Hendrik Tonne - Landtag Niedersachsen DSCF7714 crop.jpg are perfectly fine. The original author is still listed as author, as well as there is a clear link to the original file, the license and attribution are fine. So there is no copyright infringement. I don't see why administrators should use their tool or their power to remove the text ", derivative work Lämpel", this file is given as example in our guideline and show similar things done by an administrator, and the administrator is also quoted as the "author" of the "derivative work". I don't see any problem here, as well as the first version was also fine IMO, except the lack of link to the original. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
This is not about a copyright infringement but a copyright claim where doubts were raised whether a copyright can be claimed by adding a name to the author field when no authorship in the sense of US or German copyright law is present. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
You may be true for USA but I think German copyright is entirely irrelevant in the sense that the original author published themselves their work in USA. The relevant guidelines can be Commons:Ownership of pages and files, Commons:Overwriting existing files and Commons:Derivative works, but I'm not aware that we have to be more or less restrictive in function that the Commons user is native from Germany, Bangladesh or Greenland. You may be right that the mention "derivative work Lämpel" is not necessary and / or not desirable however the nationality of the original author who is a Commons user is not more relevant here that if they were Chinese or French. I read nothing in one of those three guidelines that prohibit the user to say ", derivative work Lämpel" in the extend that he also give the correct attribution of the original file. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC) and also we are not a legal court of justice to decide at what level a new copyright is created, the case is debatable, as evidence we have this discussion, if it exist please point a legal USA (not "German" please) court case with similar criteria. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Note that since the beginning the required attribution on the file that poses potential problem is perfectly fine, and the new uploader never required any attribution. I just remember that I myself uploaded a derivative work a few days ago. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
This is about someone claiming authorship and thus copyright on my work. The free license grants the right to anybody to adapt the work. In this case, the license requires "to clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original work". The template {{retouched}} allows an adapter to describe their contribution and fulfills the license requirement just fine. The point in this case though is that the adapter insists to add his name to the field "author". For having done a simple technical adaptation. Retouching a picture is not a new creation because it does not have originality. The user is claiming rights on my work that he does not have. --Martina talk 04:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
It seems you're likely right, but I don't understand this insistence for a work published under a free license, what will you do if you find the same thing on a blog in internet, I mean if you find one of your photos a little modified, but not enough modified to be a DW, with as attribution "Martina Nolte, derivative work MR X.", will you make a trial for false authorship? Seriously? I'm getting out of this case, sorry if I bothered someone. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
We must distinguish here between a simple modification and an adaptation (see When is my use considered an adaptation? in the FAQ of creativecommons.org). Cropping and simple retouching is just a modification which does not rise to the level of an adaptation. Such simple modifications can be indicated (this is mandatory beginning from version 4.0, before it is optional, see this FAQ entry) but the copyright notice is to be kept intact which also means that the naming of the original authors must not be changed (see section 4.c of the license). Hence, Martina has the right to insist that the credits in the author field remain unchanged. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Olga.bru/Olga.Bru1[edit]

Socks blocked, images etc deleted, –Davey2010Talk 14:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I recently nominated some images uploaded by Olga.bru for deletion, at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Olga.bru. Olga.Bru1 has now popped up and uploaded the same (if I recall correctly) images, File:VILLA BALBIANO - FRONT GARDEN.jpg and File:Villa Balbiano - from Lake Como.jpg. This appears to be a case of abuse of multiple accounts to evade detection of the fact that the user is re-uploaded deleted images. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Sock blocked, one duplicate deleted. The others are not duplicates of deleted files, DR started. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

瑞丽江的河水[edit]


Patrick Rogel[edit]


User:Mike dichen copyvios[edit]

uploads deleted and final warning given by Guanaco, –Davey2010Talk 14:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've just indef blocked User:Mike dichen on en.wiki after they uploaded a number of images which were obvious copyright violations. From Special:Contributions/Mike_dichen you can see they have uploaded some here too, which also look like copyvios. Rather than nominate each one individually, I thought I'd report the problem here so admins can take whatever action is necessary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. All uploads deleted, final warning given. Guanaco (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abuse of power[edit]


عدم تغییر نام صفحه منتشر شده توسط خودم[edit]

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

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

It says [s]he has created a user account not carefully and now they want to create another one but the system doesn't let that and to be honest I don't know the system doesn't let that so not sure how to help. −ebrahimtalk 19:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Normally they should be able to create a new account since there are only two global edits that were made with this account. But in case that meta:Global renamers are needed here, let's ping @Ladsgroup: for assistance. De728631 (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Motacilla and Categories for Discussion[edit]

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

The purpose of CFD is to discuss controversial or changes that you aren't sure what the best course of action is. All of those are clearly uncontroversial, so Motacilla should indeed just tag them with bad name and move on, I'd defer to w:Template:Please prod. Due to the nature of church titles its easier to make errors in the name which should still be unilaterally deleted rather than cluttering up CFD. Does Motacilla not understand CSD or think that they are controversial or is there something else. Note that I've had a small amount of interaction with them both here and at WP. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Given that Motacilla has only just created these categories, I don't see how anyone could imagine the deletion would be controversial. It's also far less effort to add {{bad name|Good name}} than to hit "Nominate for deletion" and type in an explanation for why it should be deleted. It makes no sense. Motacilla has been asked numerous times to act differently but, as far as I can tell, has never even acknowledged these reqests. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I created Category:Hobbs Cross, Matching incorrectly and just simply used BADNAME, a recently created typo created by the filer within a few hours or even days clearly meets COM:REDCAT and w:WP:R3 (and can and should be unilaterally deleted), I don't see why they need to go to CFD. One solution which I think would be a bit OTT would be to topic ban Motacilla from CFD for typos etc. If the bad cats had been around for years or created by someone else I would understand using XFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Personally I would've used {{speedy delete|User request - typo}} as lets be honest no one's going to search for that exact category so why keep it round, In a nutshell Motacilla should stop using CFD and should use the UR template and (in the friendliest way possible) Themightyquill should delete the typo categories instead of being unneededly awkward/pedantic over it, IMHO both are to blame but that's just my 2c. –Davey2010Talk 14:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Davey: Wait, I don't understand what I did wrong. I've probably deleted like 10 of these typo categories from Motacilla without so much as a comment on a their talk page (until now), and others have done the same. I'm just getting tired of it, and I don't think that's unreasonable. Speedy delete, empty page, bad name - they all do the same thing. I don't care which template gets used, so long as I don't need to manually close CFD discussion after discussion for something that isn't controversial. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Wait, you don't have a tool for quickly closing CFDs? If there isn't one, there should be, and you should have access to it.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • My sincere apologies Themightyquill - I thought you were closing these as Keep each time, I whole heartedly agree CFD work is tiresome so I understand absolutely, Anyway apologies again, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Fruit[edit]


User:FinnaUploadBot[edit]

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

Hi, couple things at first. A total number of photos which I am uploading were 1800 and upload is related to Juniorihackathon which is tomorrow. Would be nice if I would not be banned. Even nicer would be if I could finalize the upload. The basic idea for the upload is that at the museum is kids day and there are printed versions of images (example 1 and example 2) and kids can browse photos and add interesting photos to Wikipedia using visual editor. Uploading photos to Commons is for making adding pictures more straightforward.
About the license. I am using same licence than museum is using which is CC-BY (photo in Finna and in museums own web page). Also helsinkikuvia.fi's terms of use page: https://www.helsinkikuvia.fi/terms/ --Zache (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Blindly using whatever license is listed is the problem. Also your first example, (File:Kuvaselaamon kuva Helsingin kaupunginmuseossa.jpg) is a derivative work. We need to know both the copyright status of the photograph and the copyright status of the photo inside the photograph. You just admitted that you are going to create even more work for others tomorrow without regard for the actual status of these images. That is a major, major, problem. --Majora (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
fixed and as i said with references i don't use licences blindly. --Zache (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Putting a CC license on a PD image is using licenses blindly. Putting any restrictions on a public domain image is a form of copyfraud. I fully understand that the museum has listed these photos under a CC-BY 4.0 license. But they can't recopyright a public domain image that fell out of copyright in Finland decades ago (the government can with a new law but the museum can't). All non-artistic photographs taken in Finland prior to 1966 are in the public domain in Finland. Again, I'm not saying that these images need to be deleted. They appear to be fine for Commons. But uploading them via automated script, and then uploading them wrong, presents a large problem. The amount of work you can cause in a very short amount of time with an unapproved bot needs to be taken into consideration. --Majora (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
In Finland museums argumentation goes that the their photographs digitized by them are protected via en:Related rights. In example comment from The Finnish Museum of Photography (2012):
Koska lähioikeudet suojaavat kaikkia valokuvia, voivat esimerkiksi museot ja arkistot periä käyttömaksuja kokoelmissaan olevien vanhojen valokuvien käytöstä. Vaikka alkuperäisen valokuvan suoja-aika olisi rauennut jo vuosikymmeniä aikaisemmin, on museolla tai arkistolla kuitenkin lähioikeuden turvaama yksinoikeus päättää valmistamastaan digitaalisesta kopiosta eli reprokuvasta, jota nykyaikainen printti- tai verkkojulkaisu edellyttää. Tästä syystä näilläkään nettisivuilla julkaistuja valokuvia ei saa kopioida ja julkaista ilman Suomen valokuvataiteen museon lupaa, vaikka alkuperäisen valokuvan tekijä olisikin kuollut jo yli 70 vuotta sitten.
Museums interpretation may be correct or not (it is disputed), but until there is court cases OR somebody changes their interpretations this is reality in Finland. However Helsinki City museum opened highres photos under CC-BY which is clearly improvement here and I don't see any reason why we should fuck up live events with them. --Zache (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I could see how related rights would apply to photographs considered "works of art". That seems to fall in line with what we have per COM:CRT#Finland. But that is not what we are talking about here. These are everyday photos. Also, the fact that you did this the day before your event is not my fault. The fact that you didn't take the time to get authorization for this bot is not my fault. The fact that you did this the way you did this is not my fault. --Majora (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, i am late with this. Practical question: Is it ok that I will finnish the upload for Juniorihackaton and we will check the problems after the event? Eg after I will request a bot permission for FinnaUploaderBot. I can also query Helsinki City Museums helsinkikuvia.fi team about the license issue and wikimedia commons community can decide what we are doing with the licences based on their answer. --Zache (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Because discussion seems to be ended and I am starting to be out of time so i will continue the uploads. I have explained the reason why the license used is CC-BY and even if we eventually decide that it should be CC0 the CC-BY is now better be safe than sorry solution. The photos which i am uploading are photographed by en:Signe Brander (1869–1942) and fi:Ivan Timiriasew (1860–1927) so changing licence should be pretty easy do as a bulk operation with a bot if we decide that the license should be CC0. Tomorrow i will request a bot permission and i will ask the helsinkikuvia.fi teams rationale for the CC-BY licensing. --Zache (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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