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
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
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.

Sw0[edit]

Hi, I blocked Sw0 (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) for 2 hours for disruptive edits. I don't believe this is a new user. Opinions? I also speedy closed most of the DRs opened with a valid reason. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Unless, there is a clear evidence to suggest that this user is a sock, I think they should have been warned for inappropriate nomination of files for deletion rather than blocking them. If I may ask Yann, are you blocking this user because you think they are sock or you are blocking them because you think they have inappropriately nominated files for deletion? Regards. Wikicology (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
This user created several hundreds DRs in less than a day, and most of them are not appropriate. I made this clear here. I blocked the account for 2 hours only, just to stop them creating more DRs. It worked. But I also think that this account is a sock. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
It appears to be a sort of revenge DR spree. I had just started Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sw0, which covered toys and a couple borderline costumes. Guanaco (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Pourquoimatheo[edit]

Bonjour,

Cet utilisateur, déjà bloqué une première fois pour copyvios, continue dans ses récidives de violations des droits d'auteurs ; cf. sa page de discussion, pleine d'avertissements.
Aussi, je demande SVP un blocage beaucoup plus long que le précédent, voire définitif.

Cordialement. --NB80 (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a month. Yann (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Rewriting the rules?[edit]

Greetings, I have received notice from user Christian Ferrer that some of my edits, replacing the uploader's name with the Creator template of the author of the original work such as here, were reverted on account that "The field "author" in the template "Information" is intended to the name (or username) of the photographer, it is in almost cases required by the licenses terms. You have the possibility to use {{Art Photo}} for the relevant cases." According to said user, "You can not do such thing" [sic]. I find this rather dumbfounding as it blatantly contradicts the language in the Template:Information explicitly stating, "Original author of the file; where appropriate, use {{Creator:Name Surname}}. If the work is derived from or depicts works by someone other than the author, the author of the original work should also be mentioned. For example, for a photograph of a sculpture, make a mention of both the sculptor and the photographer. This field should not be used to specify the name of the person who is the scanner, finder, or uploader of the image; these things do not make them the author." Considering the egregious nature of Christian Ferrer's claims, I'd rather seek resolution by bringing the matter before you and let you decide on those flippant arguments. Likewise, the same user has decided to nominate for delation a file I has imported from wikipedia after it had been reviewed by User:Sfan00 and confirmed as suitable for Commons on grounds that "the photo has a copyright". Such an assertion appears to fly in the face of facts as well. Where is that copyright asserted ?! Thank you in advance for your help in this matter. William C. Minor (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

  • This is a copyright violation because the author of the photo is User:DePlusJean and this photo is published under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license, you can not remove his name. You are free to add {{Creator}} in the field description / or if you use {{Art Photo}} that allow to add infos both for the depicted artwork creator and for the photographer / or if the author of the photo has also a {{Creator}} corresponding to his name / or if the photo is not copyrightable (2D photo). Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I added the art photo template to File:France Gard Aigoual - Le Vigan - IMG 5051.jpg. Guanaco (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Like that it is fine. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Greetings to all,
I allow myself to answer William C. Minor as much as the initiative to come to complain on the page of the administrators for a user problem, indeed:

  • When we make mistakes, which can happen to all, we apologize simply to the stakeholders and the people concerned, without this being subject to some possible interpretations. I do not have to be removed from my contributions as a result of your interpretation of the contents of the labels, whether they are contestable or not. Thus, the mention sculptor and photographer does not indicate that I must disappear.
  • When complaining about interpretations of the explanatory content concerning the models, please discuss them on the corresponding pages, they are made for that. And we strongly invite you to share your contributions so that there are no forms of ambiguity on the subject. The present space does not deal with these topics.
  • When one comes to add a resentment rancor in the same topic that you have titled "Rewrite the rules?" is to write an evil spirit of which you are the only author and whose community does not have to support your actions.

To speak of stupid action when one erases the names of authors of photographs and of casual arguments following these actions to then ask a resolution of problematics to your failures returns to an elementary gageure. I allow myself to salute Christian Ferrer and Guanaco for their wisdom of initiatives.
So me, a contributor, simple ordinary like yourself, asks you and does not authorize you to remove my username from my contributions in the same way that it would not happen to me to do this action for others. The other topics discussed belong only to their respective sections for which we would be happy to refer you to them. The administrators do not have to support your remonstrances of appreciations on your defects of actions.

Yours truly, —— DePlusJean (talk) 09:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

BilAl KhokhAr socks[edit]

It appears BilAl KhokhAr has been spam socking. See Bilal Khokhar (designer) and related contribs, particularly uploading File:BilAl KhokhAr.jpg again. Chrissymad (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked by Taivo. Yann (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
He created third account. I blocked master and sock indefinitely, tagged them and created category:Sockpuppets of BilAl KhokhAr, also nominated their userpages in en.wiki for speedy deletion (now deleted too). Taivo (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Colin[edit]

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.

Hi. Can someone warn this user of no need for being judgemental and no personal attacks. --Gnosis (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I warned the user. At moment, no other action is needed. Taivo (talk) 07:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
For the record, there was no "personal attack". I have informed the admin of their mistake. All edits here are open to criticism, including Gnosis's and including mine, but no need to start waving a block stick around. Gnosis's last two "oppose" votes at FPC have been, shall we say, suboptimal. Users who donate their photos here and users who nominate photos at FPC deserve better than that. -- Colin (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Colin: It may be very well justified to call out votes that appear unfair or unrespectful. But comments starting with “you are” and followed by terms like “trolling” or “confused” are perceived as personal as they appear to not merely reflect on the vote but on the voter. This could be done better and there is still opportunity to rephrase that comment. @Taivo: why did you feel it necessary to phrase the warning as threat along with this inappropriate image? @Gnosis: Please reconsider COM:FPC#Votes. Much is won if votes are respectful and well-written assessments that go beyond mere “No wow” or simple votes without any rationale. FPC should be used to give valuable feedback that encourages to upload more great images to Commons. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

AFBorchert, thanks. I accept I didn't word it in a friendly manner so User:Gnosis I apologise for that. I've removed my response from the nomination. The word "confused" meant simply that they may have voted on the wrong nomination, not that they were generally a confused person. To be clear, a "personal attack" that warrants a block is a very specific thing: attacking someone for who they are -- their race, gender, profession, affiliation, home-wiki, religion, sexuality, etc. It is always unacceptable, and either forms part of an ad hominem argument (which is a worthless argument not justifiable) or simply being mean for the sake of it. Criticising actions and behaviours, and sometimes motivations, just falls into the general mix of how we interact. It happens all the time on this page, and forms some of the reasons given by admins for blocking users. Some of us do it better than others, that's for sure, but making threats of blocks is frankly no way to engage with others to encourage better approaches, manners, wording, etc, etc. That's simply a misuse of adminship. I note in the contribs of several admins, a tendency to block and threaten to block, for minor behavioural issues that are best dealt, imo, in more constructive ways. Perhaps sometimes admins block so many copyright violators, which is an easy call, they then get a bit casual with the stick. -- Colin (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@Colin: Thanks for this edit. I close this now. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@AFBorchert.Thank you for your thoughtful and productive comment. From now on, I will do better with my written assessments and thanks for looking into this. Also @Colin your apology accepted. I think this had a good listen for all of us. --Gnosis (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2017 (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.

User:Mackpie[edit]

Hi, I don't know of any previous interaction with this person on my tenure here but I think this person needs to not call people a "troll". I am in the middle of cleaning up the my own uploads and I didn't appreciate him mass removing categories, (I had put them in a category in order for me to track them. Artix Kreiger (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Artix Kreiger, Mackpie looks a very suspicious account. Admin please investigate. -- Colin (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@Colin:, how so? Artix Kreiger (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks like an INC sock to me. -- Colin (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Aschroet[edit]

Heavy misuse of VFC tool by Aschroet. This user recently did edits like this one on several thousands of my photos within a few minutes. They used VFC, did all the edits without bot flag, without even marking them as minor edits (!). The result for me is the absolute overflood of my watchlist so that I cannot monitoring any recent edits other than by Aschroet (because only a maximum of 1,000 edits can be monitored, but there were much more edits within a few minutes). The "corrections" themselves are actually pure timewasting, as the error in sourcecode didn't affect the appearance of file descriptions, categories etc. in any way. If ever, such edits would have been OK with bot flag. But Aschroet apparently prefers mass editcount pushing for their main account. This is clear misuse of VFC tool and vandalism. My attempt to contact them resulted in a this response which can be resumed as the following: "Yes I broke rules, but it's for the sake of quality of metadata and I will be doing it in future too". Therefore I kindly request administrative sanctions against Aschroet, as this behaviour is clearly disrespectful and spamming one's watchlist just to collect edits but without bot flag is destructive. Thanks --A.Savin 16:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no Commons policy that requires an account with a bot flag to do large numbers of edits with VFC (or any other tool). In fact this is something I frequently do, with hardly ever having complaints about my actions. If Aschroet offers to do future mass changes with a bot flag, that is as a courtesy. If policy could be improved, please consider creating a proposal with the pros and cons of constraining tool usage.
BTW, if the changes occurred over a few minutes, it is straight-forward to examine that small period using a filter on your watchlist. It's a standard feature these days. -- (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
The error as corrected was caused with the use of VFC, without a botflag by guess who?!? I propose that A.Savin apologizes to Aschroet for starting this thread and that this thread is closed for being a nonsense accusation. Jcb (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Protest. Yes the erroneous duplicate was caused by me, it was an VFC accident during cleanup after INC vandalism, but it affected only my photos and no problems with anyone's watchlist or otherwise occured. But this time's mass edits were done not by me but by Aschroet who even had all possibilities to use a bot for that. Why didn't they use their bot please? Why do I have to pay for this useless editcount pushing the way that I cannot monitoring my watchlist of the recent 12 hours or so? And you are anyways biased in any conflict concerning myself, so your comment here is in no way helpful. Leave me alone please. --A.Savin 18:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
The only reason you may have to think that I would be biased, is that you indeed have been quite uncivil to me several times in the past. But don't worry, I am perfectly able to reflect on a specific situation without being influenced by unrelated bad behaviour from the past. Jcb (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
"Uncivil", of course, what the heart thinks the tongue speaks --A.Savin 19:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Aschroet's response to A. Savin when their action was questioned was rude and uncivil but I'm not sure the users action amount to "spamming one's watchlist just to collect edits". A. Savin, I am sorry you felt disrespected but this may not be the user's intention. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

User:M.rafiei56[edit]

One of the admins please check the file uploaded by M.rafiei56 and compare them with the previously removed images from the same user. The relevant discussion is here: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mozhdeh_Lavasani.jpg. Many thanks -- Meisam (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Yann and bad faith closure of DRs again[edit]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stadsarchief Amsterdam, Afb 010179000246.jpg and abusive closure of multiple other DRs. Not a single valid reason for speedy closure in those DRs. Abusive closures. Jcb (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

If you were not an admin, you would be blocked since long for disruptive edits. :(
These are indeed nonsense requests by an incompetent admin. Jcb seems to never learn from his mistake, i.e. Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2017-11#Agence_Rol. Yann (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
May be we still need to block Jcb for disruptive editing (and one more demonstration they are not qualified to be administrator). The closure is fine, the request here has no merit.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • That DR close was clearly done in bad faith and the stalking of JCB needs to stop, Jcb asked on the DR "please provide some evidence that this would be an anonymous work?" so as such the DR should've remained open until the question was answered - If Jcb agreed then it should've been closed, Yann didn't come across this DR by complete accident and all of this amounts to stalking and it needs to stop. –Davey2010Talk 19:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
    The source where the photos come from lists the author as anonymous. Dutch is Jcb's mothertongue, and it was really difficult not to notice. The source is reliable.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Well if that's the case then someone else should've closed it, if Yann was going through the DRs and noticed it then he should've left it. –Davey2010Talk 20:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed, the DR is bizarre as all that needs to be done is to look at the archive catalogue which states the photographer is anonymous. No ifs or buts. Yann's closure is perfectly correct. DRs on early PD files must be discouraged. -- (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps Yann should have reported Jcb instead off speedy closing the DR's but certainly the DR's are more disruptive then the speedy closings. Natuur12 (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I had already given evidence for all 15 files involved at 16:57 hr. on Jcb's talk page, stating all photos as clear cases of {{Anonymous-EU}} and {{PD-1923}} (photographs made in 1920, all photos indicated as being made by an anonymous photographer -per Municipal Archives Amsterdam in a well described archive). Half an hour later, at 17:36 hr., Jcb asked again to "provide some evidence" in one of these cases. So it's a surprise for me to see Jcb accusing Yann of bad behaviour. Vysotsky (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyright situation itself[edit]

I have called de Stadsarchief, +31 20 2511511 and asked them about the meaning of Onbekend/Anoniem for File:Stadsarchief Amsterdam, Afb 010179000246.jpg and the rest of that collection. (All files beginning with 010179. They have told me that they do not have publication information. They have received this collection as separate pictures and nobody knows whether they have been published at all before they came to the Stadsarchief. So, like I expected, the word 'Anoniem' on their website does not mean that there was an anonymous publication. They simply don't know. They received a box of pictures and simply scanned them and placed them on their website. That means that we cannot use them until 120 years after creation, in line with the discussion and vote that leaded to the creation of {{PD-old-assumed}}. Jcb (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, you should have done this before creating a DR and before creating a dispute yet again with Yann.
Secondly, as has been explained many times, this is Russell's teapot. The photographer remains unknown and the burden of proof is on the would be deleter to show the photographer is knowable. -- (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
By the way, your canvassing of this thread with people who previously ignored the Russell's Teapot fallacy is not very helpful. Your dispute with Yann is not how to have a real discussion on copyright. -- (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Jcb asked me to comment here. There is a clear difference between "unknown" and "anonymous", which is reflected in the laws of the various countries. The UK law speaks specifically of "unknown author" and defines that as one that is unknown after a reasonable search. The rest of the EU uses "anonymous" which means "unknown because the author intended to or was required to remain unknown to the general public". An unpublished photograph cannot qualify for "anonymous". A case such as this, a box of photos with no credits on them, might qualify for "unknown" under UK law, but cannot qualify for "anonymous". Lack of knowledge does not make an image "anonymous". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Jim, could you provide a link to the proposal and consensus that sets 120 years as an enforceable policy as appears to be the claim by Jcb, as opposed to examining each case and the specific definitions of words like "anonymous" and "unknown" for each country or language? I recall a case where in the definitions in the (non-English) copyright act for at least one country, possibly Portugal, that government had specifically defined these words to be implemented as the same thing; unfortunately I think this was an UNDEL, where the archive system is not easy to dig these things out.
BTW, consider reopening the DR if this discussion is going to focus on the case, rather than be generic. Any new outcome should happen there, not here. Thanks -- (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info I think the link asked by is [1]. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that link. This is not a policy. As stated at the close of the discussion, "... this discussion should be taken as indicative of a preference for a 120 year period amongst those editors who favour the idea of a cut-off. The next stage, now, should be to open a wide-ranging discussion and RFC of a more detailed policy..." The suggested RFC has yet to happen where issues such as variations in different countries (including even countries within the EU) and where photographs are released as NCK by institutions where is there is virtually no doubt that they will remain with no known photographer, or where it is certain due to their history that it is logically impossible to ever identify the photographer, can be presented and worked out.
There is no reason for administrators to be making definitive statements about deletions where copyright law, or Commons policies are nothing near definitive.
As Jim has a passionate interest, and happens to be a Bureaucrat, perhaps they might want to take this forward as a pre-Christmas project? -- (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Back to the “anonymous” photographer in question: that person is most likely Gustaaf Oosterhuis (1858-1938). He is mentioned in the description of this archive, and made several photographs at the same ship (SS Johan de Witt) on the same day (27 July 1920) -and was identified as the photographer. Compare this photograph (SS Johan de Witt, 27 July 1920, by Gustaaf Oosterhuis) to this one (SS Johan de Witt, 27 July 1920, “anonymous” photographer & nominated for deletion) –and several more. The photographic experts should decide if Gustaaf Oosterhuis really is the photographer, but until then: anonymous photographer, photo pre 1923: public domain. Vysotsky (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if Jcb and Jim actually read the Dutch auteurswet. Article 38, section 1 states: Het auteursrecht op een werk, ten aanzien waarvan de maker niet is aangeduid of niet op zodanige wijze dat zijn identiteit buiten twijfel staat, vervalt door verloop van 70 jaren, te rekenen van de 1e januari van het jaar, volgende op dat, waarin de eerste openbaarmaking van het werk rechtmatig heeft plaatsgehad. So no, the norm isn't "the author whishes to remain anonymous". Natuur12 (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

English translation from Wikisource: Dutch copyright law, par. 38.1: The copyright in a work of which the author has not been indicated or has not been indicated in such a way that his identity is beyond doubt shall expire 70 years after 1 January of the year following that in which the work was first lawfully communicated to the public. Vysotsky (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
To make that work, you need to tell when it was published ("openbaarmaking") for none of the involved pictures such information is provided. Jcb (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Openbaarmaking has a pretty low threshold. It's unlikely that this threshold hasn't been met. And works like the once listed that aren't "published" become PD after 70 years. Natuur12 (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This appears to be more of content issue than conduct issue. I suggest this thread be closed and Jcb or whosoever is interested start a thread at COM:Village pump/Copyright for wider input. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  

Close this please. There is no administrative action being requested, apart perhaps from banning Jcb from raising yet another thread about what a terrible person Yann is - refer to notice board archives. Any copyright discussion should be done without the context of a pointy argument, making this hostile wikilawyering not consensus building. -- (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree. But there are still a dozen or so photographs nominated for deletion by Jcb. Vysotsky (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
There has been enough said here to close as keep. The argument that these are not PD is increasingly hypothetical and has rapidly shifted about 3 times. Nobody can believe that anyone is going to magically provide evidence either giving details of a copyright holder, or that it will be realistic to find a copyright claimant. If that ever changes, then someone other than Jcb can reopen them. -- (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Beefeeb99[edit]

User has been warned in the past about uploading copyrighted and/or harassing content and has continued with this. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Final warning given. A block at this point would be pointless unless it's indefinite, because this user edits so rarely. Guanaco (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Giovediundeo [edit]

This user has been banned in it.wiki either for multiaccounting or uploading copyrighted content. He uploaded cropped images from Google Street View (Serravallechienti.jpg, ChiesaPollenza.jpg, LoroPiceno.jpg, Via Romamc.jpg, Piazzaappignano.jpg, PiazzaLibertàCentro.jpg) or edited Commons' photos without respecting their licenses (Panoramamaceratatorreechiesa.jpg, PanoramaMaceraty2010italy.jpg). Some of those files lacks description.--Mrtb (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I nominated their images for deletion. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Unable to upload student project[edit]

Hi.. Im a student with Wiki Learning Tec de Monterrey and I am trying to upload a finished animation project I did for school, but it wont let me upload. User: Thelmadatter says it is because I just created the acccount. Would it be possible to change the settings on this account so I can upload the project? You can confirm who I am with her. Thank you. BSchalch (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@BSchalch: Based on her sterling reputation on eswiki, I think not.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Serial copyright infringer[edit]

I have recently come across the work of User:JimmyJoe87. Many of the uploads are from the National Portrait Gallery, and list "unknown" as the author, even when the NPG website clearly gives the photographer name. The problem is that once the photographer is added, it is obvious that the images are not PD. I've nominated File:Dribergtom.jpg and File:JohnKeynes.jpg for deletion, but there seem to be several more with similar problems. I don't do much on Commons, so I'll leave this for others to sort out. - SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks indeed like a serious problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
@JimmyJoe87: I probably missed some, but I reviewed most of the photos uploaded by that editor that I could identify as originating with the NPG, and either updated their descriptions or nominated them for deletion, as appropriate. Thanks for the heads up. —RP88 (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Joannnnna[edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved

Photos probably are still in copyright. Artix Kreiger (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Warned - If they carry on then blocking is the next step, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)