Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 330: Line 330:
:::Could our checkusers please look into possible rangeblocks that might be effective without excessive collateral damage? ''—[[User:LX|LX]] ([[User_talk:LX|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/LX|contribs]])'' 18:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
:::Could our checkusers please look into possible rangeblocks that might be effective without excessive collateral damage? ''—[[User:LX|LX]] ([[User_talk:LX|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/LX|contribs]])'' 18:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
::::{{done}} Tagged and nuked. Also blocked by {{u|Elcobbola}} (Checkuser here). <span style="font-family: Segoe Script; font-size:12px;">[[User:Alan|Alan]] <sup>([[User talk:Alan|talk]])</sup></span> 19:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
::::{{done}} Tagged and nuked. Also blocked by {{u|Elcobbola}} (Checkuser here). <span style="font-family: Segoe Script; font-size:12px;">[[User:Alan|Alan]] <sup>([[User talk:Alan|talk]])</sup></span> 19:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
:::::Yes, {{noping|Rapid83}} is {{confirmed}}; also {{noping|Andrez 89767}}, {{noping|AndrezGTFO}}, {{noping|Fsdfsdsafsdfffsdfsdfd}}, and {{noping|Baron Rojo 0117}}. There are numerous ranges, so a rangeblock would not be helpful at this time. [[User:elcobbola|<span style="color:#038"><i>'''Эlcobbola'''</i></span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:elcobbola|talk]]</sub> 19:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


== Upload ==
== Upload ==

Revision as of 19:17, 13 October 2015

Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU

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

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

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


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


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


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

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


Extortion racket - Long-term_abuse/Orangemoody/Accounts (2)

Apropos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Orangemoody: We should review the local contributions of these extortionists.

  1. Are any of these users administrators here?
  2. Should we block all of them? They've only been blocked en masse on en. User:Jamesally87 was blocked.

Edit: Let's keep discussing 'till resolution is more clear, and open questions are answered.

Specific users

For example, please see the discussion of bad faith editor Arr4, who has over 2000 edits here, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Orangemoody/Accounts . The sock likely pushed for deletion of files, as part of the extortion racket. Possible examples and concerns:

  1. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:D7K_6329_-_Sophie_Dee_(6746800711).jpg is very suspicious. (Also, Arr4 opened the DR, but the page shows that a User:Rahat, wikilinked to User:Ctg4Rahat, opened it, yet neither user exists; I don't see the normal evidence (e.g. logs, redirects) of a user rename.)
  2. File:Mosharraf Karim.jpg,File:Mosharraf karim.jpg, File:MosharrafKarim.jpg, all deleted.
  3. User_talk:Arr4#Your_bad_idea is concerning too.
  4. File:Tony022.jpg is claimed as the work of Ctg4Rahat/Arr4 BUT metadata says Chris Hardy took w/Canon EOS 5D.

The LTA entry on en says in part, 'There are 381 socks currently being blocked as a result of this investigation.' ... 'Some time later the article subject or person who has paid for the article to be moved to mainspace is then contacted again and advised that, for a specific monthly fee ($30/month in examples that have been confirmed), the “editor” will continue to protect the article from vandalism and prevent its deletion, claiming that they had previously done that without charge.'

--Elvey (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC) (feel free to refactor above)[reply]

I think @Denniss: took care of blocking. File:Tony022.jpg deleted as copyright violation. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I don't see evidence of that; I saw only that one sock that was blocked by him. More eyes please. I see you did the deletion but didn't refer to this thread or the LTA in your deletion. :-( What about Arr4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)? --Elvey (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Arr4 account is not a 100% positive account at en wiki, looks like they blocked it because of some similarities + trollish behaviour. I have no time to check all his contribs for trollish, blockable behaviour so this account should at least unfergo a checkuser vs the sockfarm. All socks listed at en with existing accounts here have been blocked and contribs deleted. --Denniss (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Orangemoody/Accounts says "The accounts listed on this page are all verified socks that are interrelated, as evidenced by both Checkuser data and editing behaviour and patterns." In other words, it says Arr4 is a verified sock based on both Checkuser data and editing behaviour and patterns". What Denniss is saying is in direct opposition with that. I see "some similarities + trollish behaviour" as a far cry from "Checkuser data". Risker says Arr4 is a verified sock. Denniss acts as if Risker is wrong about Arr4 being a sock, which seems oddly inconsistent and unexplained. More eyes please. Whether it's the right choice or not, the reasoning is opaque. --Elvey (talk) 05:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You say "All socks listed at en with existing accounts here have been blocked" but the Arr4 account is listed as a sock at en with an existing account here and yet has NOT been blocked. Is it the only such account?--Elvey (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I checked the recent ARR4 edits and there's nothing trollish to be found. He/she could use a last warning for copyvios, but that's about it. Nothing to justify a block according to our blocking policy. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stemoc

Stemoc (talk · contribs) has been uploading copyrighted images, such as File:Queen Elizabeth II September 2015.jpg, File:Queen Elizabeth II and The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards 2015.jpg and File:Queen Elizabeth II August 2015.jpg. And has admitted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prince William September 2015.jpg‎ that he thinks this is acceptable, which is as good as admitting that he intends to continue to upload them. This is despite being informed on a previous occasion (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge March 2015.jpg) that copyrighted images are not acceptable. At the very least, it is inappropriate for him to retain the image reviewer user right, and I recommend that it be revoked.

He has also misused rollback[1]. DrKiernan (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common issue with confusion over Crown Copyright and when the OGL applies. I'll give an opinion based on my large number of batch uploads to Commons of MOD imagery and my amateur understanding over the past few years of changing MOD and UK Gov policies.
An initial look shows me the photo links don't work (probably as they rely on the user being logged in on cookies for a site session). I find the same photo at https://www.facebook.com/RAFConingsby/photos/a.1465478877082720.1073741829.1463649960598945/1498118510485423. This leads me to the RAF site with a gallery of the same event under "© MOD Crown Copyright 2015", which I interpret as "if you want to use this photo, you'd better ask for permission" rather than OGL.
I then ran a separate search using http://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk and found the same photo there, under the MOD News licence. This at least is an explicit licence, however images which are only available under MOD News are not suitable for Commons (though they can be used under Fair Use on Wikipedia and Wikinews for reporting current events).
There is a twist here, please make a note of it; images which are released as MOD News on defenceimagery.mod.uk, have been seen to be changed to OGL after an embargo period (~30 days in practice). This can cause confusion as copies of the images will be around marked as MOD News even though other copies are OGL. In these cases we can safely assume that OGL applies as the stronger licence, however we should take care to validate copies as explicitly OGL to avoid confusion in years to come.: I don't think this needs admin action, but DrKiernan has a valid copyright concern. If Stemoc wishes to retain these images on Commons, then an official source must be produced that can be verified as OGL. RAF/military officers taking photographs in the course of their duties and releasing them as "MOD Crown Copyright" may not be the same thing as OGL, even if we have past examples where in the same circumstances these photographs were later released as OGL. Anyone interested in MOD policies can read thorough 2015 Re-Use Regulations which roughly sets out the case that MOD data is available for public reuse, though it is as clear as mud as to where OGL can be presumed to apply... --Fæ (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kiernan is not even bothering to read the licenses, I did.. YES i know the Catherine images was not free at that time (its probably free now but i can't find it anymore) but he refuses to read 'MOD's Copyright licensing Information' and quote regarding the use of "Photographs/Film footages" ... "In accordance with our delegation from HMSO, MOD uses two types of licence, the Open Government Licence and the MOD News Licence" and I checked all the images i uploaded EXIFs and none of them explicitly mentioned "MOD NEWS Licence" unlike the Catherine image which was deleted months earlier which means that if it was NOT released under the MOD NEWS licence then it was released under the 'OGL'. Kiernan speedy tagged them with a "deprecated"({{CrownCopyright}}) CSD tag without even bothering to ask me why I uploaded them in the first place and had the ones linked above in RED deleted...nowhere in those images did it see "MOD NEWS licence" even though they were under the news section in defenceimagery which is actually quite common place to find OGL images as well..read the DR for the Prince William image, even there they explicitly chose 1 image in that section (and 2 footages) and they are the ONLY ones EXPLICITLY tagged under the MODS NEWS licence in their EXIF...the rest aren't thus are under OGL...every section in the "News" section has the words "Most of these files are currently available for limited reuse only" referring to the MODS News Licence, they don't even use the word" ALL", they used "MOST"..Read them as you wish but unless the exif explicitly has the word "MOD NEWS" in the copyright section, then only can we assume its under that licence, if not, its OGL.--Stemoc 12:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be under a misapprehension. The OGL is not a default licence for MOD photographs if no other is quoted. Neither are MOD photographs a mutually exclusive choice between MOD News and OGL, in fact government policy still leaves the MOD with options to restrict images from the public, including for reasons of privacy that one might expect for news worthy dignitaries. If you have seen an MOD or UK Government website or document that you believe says otherwise, I'd like to see it. My understanding remains that for an image to be OGL for Commons, then we must be able to verify a specific OGL release on a credible source.
You may want to play around a bit more with http://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk. Photographs that are OGL always have the relevant tag and show up in the OGL search ('archiveid=5042' shows all OGL photographs, currently there are 4,120 available and this is the search I use for my regular batch upload as you can read on the category description at Images from MoD uploaded by Fæ). Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been explained, Fae. Stemoc believes that Crown Copyright means the image is allowed on wikimedia, and refuses to believe otherwise. That is why his image reviewer user right should be removed. He does not understand the difference between a copyrighted image and a cc-by one. DrKiernan (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When did I say that?, I do more work on commons than you, only 4000 edits here and you have image reviewer rights.. why? ...just because you are an admin on enwiki?..this is why we do not need useless people like him on commons..go back to enwiki, you are not needed here troll..and I hope we make a policy to remove image-reviewer rights from those who only have it for the sake of it ..again as i explained above, the defenseimagery has images on TWO LICENCES ONLY, read their damn copyright policy, 99% of their images which are protected by the "MOD NEWS" licences HAS the "MOD NEWS" licence tag in their EXIF...just because my recent images uploaded to commons were taken by a "NEW" photographer doesn't mean they were copyright violations..--Stemoc 15:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You said it here. Incivility merely confirms my view that you should not hold user rights. If you wanted me to change my view and withdraw my recommendation, this isn't the way to go about it. I've already shown that the image is released under the news license at the source and is taken from the "News packages" area not from the "Downloadable stock images" area. DrKiernan (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Try to avoid straying into ad hominim argument (you know mine is way way huger than yours :-)). I have read the site licences, and I agree with DrKiernan based on the evidence provided so far. If you have other evidence, present it in the DR. I don't think rehashing the same stuff here will do much more than irritate some folks and there aren't all that many of us around with experience of UK MoD licences. --Fæ (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and again Kiernan, the site EXPLICITLY says that they are releasing the images under 2 licences, "MOD NEWS" and "OGL" and if the images is tagged as "MODS Crown Copyright" but it does not state in the copyright section of the EXIF that its tagged under "MOD NEWS", then we can assume its under OGL...OGL is like PD.. just because its not mentioned doesn't mean its not released under that licence....the EXIF info is not added after the image is taken, especially when photographers take the same camera to take pictures which they intended to release under MOD News and under OGL...someone should probably ping James Forrester as he was involved with this--Stemoc 16:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fae says above that the image is explicitly licensed as MoD News at the site and that OGL is not the default. I agree, and I presume that the admins deleting your uploads do so as well. DrKiernan (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Fæ and DrKiernan. The text Stemoc quotes is not sufficiently precise and clear in scope for one to determine with legal authority that these are the only two licences in use for all photographs and the the OGL is the default. I also note the text goes on to say the the OGL is not suitable for images with recognisable people and that the MOD does not allow the reproduction of images showing members of the Royal Family. I don't know how he thinks "OGL is like PD" in terms of it being something that can be assumed. OGL is a licence; PD is not. There is a significant danger, especially among images of famous people, that one of our re-users gets into trouble based on misinformation provided by Commons. I think if Stemoc continues to not listen and make personal attacks over this, some admin action is required. Copyright is extremely complicated business and unless one is a copyright lawyer then the subject should be approached with humility (I speak from experience, where some time ago, I learned just how impossible the subject can be). -- Colin (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MoD has a delegation from HMSO to handle image relicensing themselves. So if they didn't tag it with OGL it isn't OGL. See [2]. Image deleted. --Denniss (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Denniss: It's been a while, but I'm pretty sure the delegation is purely to the MOD Press Office, and not in general a delegation for all employed under the auspices of the SoS/Defence. So this may not be totally correct, but for obvious reasons TNA are loathe to publicly criticise fellow public servants when the rules are mis-represented with fuzziness. James F. (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any disputes about the scope of Crown Copyright can be handled elsewhere (and have been), and I see no indication that Stemoc has been actively acting in bad faith. The complaint about misuse of rollback is spurious... Stemoc removed a post from his own talk page, which is allowable whether he used rollback or not. Where he supposedly said that he 'intended to continue' uploading problematic images... I see no such statement. A legitimate difference of opinion (or even a misunderstanding) does not constitute a reason for admin action, if the person does not act to subvert the decision that has been reached. This dispute belongs in either DRs or, possibly, COM:VP/C. The 'image reviewer' userright relates to image sources where the situation is far more clearcut (such as Flickr or Youtube), and in the absence of any evidence of either bad faith editing or gross incompetence in the specific field to which the right actually applies, it would be IMO inappropriate to override the consensus that granted him that userright. I'm not going to actually close this, since i can't really claim to be completely impartial here, but any discussion belongs elsewhere. There is, as Fae noted, no need for any admin action. Revent (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Revent, I don't think your contribution here is helpful, if you think comments like "this is why we do not need useless people like him on commons..go back to enwiki, you are not needed here troll" are "no indication that Stemoc has been actively acting in bad faith". There is a limit to the patience of those participating at DR when one user appears to not listen and becomes aggressive. This is why it was raised here. The overwhelming consensus is that Stemoc is entirely wrong in this matter, and if he was a gentleman he should apologise. While no admin action may be required at this point, Stemoc has disgraced himself with the remarks made here to DrKiernan, and his stubborn display of ignorance. Further such remarks, or further examples of "not getting it" wrt MoD imagery, should indeed provoke a swift admin response. -- Colin (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While people should be civil, and an apology would be nice, disliking someone or even being rude to them is not acting in bad faith, and neither is simply being mistaken about the copyright status of an image. Stemoc does not appear to be, from what I see, intentionally trying to upload images that he knows are not allowable... he's argued his point of view, and simply being wrong about something is not a reason for a sanction. Kiernan seems to be mistaken about something as well, in that "Crown Copyright" images are perfectly fine as long as they are acceptably licensed... that is the entire point of the OGL. Again, there is nothing here that needs any admin action beyond the deletion of a few images (I just killed a few more that were marked at the given source as "MOD News license only"), and Kiernan and Stemoc should just try to avoid arguing with each other. Revent (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If Stemoc had been "simply" wrong, there would have been no request made here. And continuing to upload after being told you are wrong, is heading towards a block. Revent, you seem quite determined to close your eyes to what is clearly going on here, and Commons is not a school playground where bully's friends take sides. Stemoc was being outrageously abusive towards DrKiernan and certainly had a bad faith towards him. I have to assume that by continuing to ignore the obvious, you are too blind to the flaws of a friend and too willing to defend bullying -- something very troubling in an admin. -- Colin (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Colin always had an axe to grind with me because of my support for Russavia and has previously tried to get me banned so i would like to ask Colin to back off or his name would be appearing in this thread next time for harassment...this would be my first and only warning for him...also, a user can revert anything they choose from their talk page, there is no laws on any wiki regarding that. I just did not like the fact that Kiernan was 'hounding' my edits...Read James Forrester's comments above, this was a mistake on their part, James has worked with the British government on the OGL licensing framework thus why I mentioned he should be pinged. Kiernan is under the 'misinterpretation' that "NO" crown copyright images are allowed on commons which is false, Crown copyright images created by certain government officials can fall under OGL. TNA, as James mentioned is not explicitly clear on this or bother to try to be. I'm not intentionally adding NFC so i found it rude that Kiernan asked for my image-reviewer rights to be removed when he himself only has the right for the sake of it and has not done any work relating to that in years (if at all)..recently there was a request for more IR on commons and here we have people with the rights who are not doing their job and using it as a 'medal' is not something i like..Colin has now called me a bully and called an administrator my friend and yet somehow when he used his admin friend (yann) to get me banned even though i was a victim of an abuse by another admin is completely forgotten by him..Colin, all you do is harass real contributors and create drama on commons and nothing else..Commons needs contributors and hard workers, you are not it so stop complaining and start working..and if you can't do either, gladly leave..Commons already has a bad reputation of being run amok by trolls and vandals..don't add to it.--Stemoc 07:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try Stemoc, but if you continue to behave outrageously, people will continue to call you out on it. I am not in the slightest bit concerned about your ridiculous claim of "harassment" which is a bit like a pickpocket claiming they are being harassed by the police every time they are nicked. I see you continue with an accusation of bad faith towards me, just as you put DrKiernan into a "group" by suggesting he go back to en:wp. It is quite obvious, from your words, that you have a bad faith attitude towards certain groups on Commons. Your comments to DrKiernan, which is what I spotted here and brought me to this discussion, are bullying. Plain and simple. And Revent disgraces himself by defending them as merely a bit of rudeness we should all put up with. I shall ignore your rant at the end, which is typical of your attitude. Look at what you wrote to DrKiernan above and consider that further such comments will result in a swift block. There is nothing more to say on that matter. It is indefensible. The link with Russavia is merely that it appears you are both bullies, and not any "axe to grind". You will find that if you stop bullying others, and stop defending bullies, then I have no issue with you. -- Colin (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, if anything Colin, over the years, many users have realized one thing, its you who is the bully, Its your way or the highway..I'm not a bully, never have been a bully but i was bullied off wikimedia once so i won't let another bully (you) do it again...Keep acting like you care about this wiki cause you certainly do not..You are not the Eric Corbett of Commons lol..anyways, continue to make it look like I'm the bully here, I just pointed out a fact, something admins should discuss in regards to users keeping certain rights permanently on this wiki which include IR, File movers etc as none of these rights should be permanent..as the referees say in rugby "use it or lose it" ..Funny how you can get away by calling 'others' bullies but yet refuse to be judged by others.. If Kiernan finds what i said regarding his lack of activity on this wiki insulting then he can say that here himself and i would apologise if he does, he does not need a secretary to tell him to do so..and attacking an admin is probably not the best move here Colin especially when that admin had also supported russavia previously...as i said, stop lying, you have an axe to grind with anyone who has or had supported russavia before and people who use the wiki as a battleground for their own personal agendas are not welcome not only on this wiki but WIKIMEDIA as a whole..--Stemoc 08:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stemoc, this is the noticeboard topic where your behaviour comes under scrutiny. It isn't a place for you to rant about me and make all sorts of unfounded and silly personal attacks. Keep digging and you'll find yourself blocked again. With the copyright issue there may well be aspects that DrKiernan didn't get right and there were certainly aspects you did not get right (your images are deleted), so some humility is needed here -- there's always more to learn about copyright and it is not right to attack other users here when they claim you are wrong. But I see you are not getting it. And you were blocked by Yann because you made hugely offensive remarks, repeatedly, about INC, marks regarding mental health that are absolutely forbidden. You weren't blocked because someone with a Russavia grudge found a friend to block you. You were blocked because you repeatedly hugely exceeded the acceptable conduct that users of this site must follow. There are plenty admins and 'crats who would agree with me that your comments then were shameful. Yet you seem to have no shame about it. DrKiernan raised copyright concerns about images you uploaded and the images have been deleted -- yet you think he should go back to en:wp? Tell me how that logic join's up. You seriously need to stick to the current topic, which is your bullying of DrKiernan over DRs and your continued refusal to get the point when others disagree with you, and just drop this "Oh this is because I support russavia" nonsense. -- Colin (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that all Crown copyright images are disallowed: only those not licensed as OGL (as shown by edits such as this). I haven't 'hounded' Stemoc either. Anyone even glancing at my contributions either here or at wikipedia can easily see that they are mainly in the area of the British royal family, and so my commenting on images of them should not come as a surprise. I think the continued incivility (despite my comment above) and the refusal to acknowledge fault strengthens the case for administrative action. Stemoc would be wiser to approach the issue collaboratively rather than combatively. If he'd said "oh yes, thanks for pointing that out. I got that image/those few images wrong; I'll pay more attention in future" then none of this would have been necessary and this thread would have been closed already. DrKiernan (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DrKiernan: Sorry I misinterpreted you, I wasn't stalking 'your' history, but reading through the linked discussions. At least one place you did make a blanket statement about Crown Copyright not being allowed, which is in no way special about it as opposed to any other kind of unlicensed copyright, but it was probably not exactly what you meant at the time. Revent (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a proposition but I need both @Fae: (or someone else who is familiar with crown copyright, OGL etc) and @Stemoc: to agree with this. It is clear that it is confusing when a certain file is licensed under the OGL. Comets made several mistakes and honestly, he doesn't show a lot of self relfection so I am afraid that it will happen again. (Ad homiminem like defence and refusing to understand the point). I would propose that Stemoc stops uploading files which he believes are licensed under the OGL unless he asked for Fae's advice about the file he wants to upload. Natuur12 (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, flattered to be thought of, and it would be nice to have this thread close down. If Stemoc is happy with this informal arrangement for a period, then they can drop me an email and/or have a private chat on IRC (google talk is more reliable for me as I haven't been regularly on IRC recently), and I can have a quick look over of photos or sites without attracting any fuss on-wiki; though I'm not always handy for the internet every day :-). I guess I'm known for my track record over the last year or two for correctly licensing a large number of MoD uploads, as well as a pile DoD uploads with ~99.9%+ accuracy; this should give confidence to move along and get back to content stuff... --Fæ (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Stemoc: if you don't agree with this could you just say so? I know that you have read my comment. Please respond. It is not like there is some kind of penalty if you refuse. Natuur12 (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You already know I don't agree to this ..the longer this wiki allows people who are not here to serve the wiki too much power, the longer it will take for things to get fixed. I have contacted defenceimagery 5 times since February this year, they have only ever replied once, earlier today and this is what they said and quote We try to make as much MOD Crown copyright material available for reuse under the terms of the OGL. However, there are instances where this is not possible due to a number of reasons. For example, we are unable to assigned imagery for reuse under the OGL if the copyright does not belong to the Crown, or if the material contains personal data. It's also worth noting that not all of our material can be assessed for OGL inclusion, as we don't have the resourcing to allow this.
This only goes to prove that I was not wrong, not saying Kiernan was wrong too, it simply means the UK government are too lazy to fix their own policy in regards to this..even Jdforrester would probably agree to that....Some of the images i uploaded (and which were subsequently deleted) may very well have been under OGL, as i mentioned in the DR of Prince William, I understand the reason as to why they have chosen to put some pics under the MOD News licence but it seems like some people here are claiming something else..nevertheless, as i mentioned on IRC to you Natuur, Fae probably is not a good guide in regards to this, there are atleast 50 images (probably more) he has uploaded over the last 24 months which actually falls under the same "MOD NEWS" licence but yet we are keeping them cause Fae added them..I'd like to see JD Forrester or members from WikimediaUK try to sought out a good solution for this in the future cause the one we have right now where everyone thinks they know what is and isn't allowed on commons without an ounce of proof is a sloppy one..If I was based in UK, I would have personally gone there and try to fix the issue myself but I'm not..and again natuur, I do not agree with the 'compromise', either we find a PERMANENT SOLUTION or completely stop uploading from the defenceimagery altogether..we need a long-term solution, making this someone else's problem isn't a solution....--Stemoc 12:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Er, if I have uploaded images under the MOD News licence, I'd like to check them over. Please raise a batch DR or drop a note on my talk page with the list. As far as I'm aware I have no special authority on Commons, so if some of my non-OGL uploads are being kept, I would have guessed this was for other reasons.
Had we chatted on IRC, I would have highlighted that the MoD official OGL releases on defenceimagery have never included portraits or close-up casual shots of members of the Royal family, though I'm happy to be proven wrong if anyone can supply a link. In this regard Government policies are clear enough, they or their agencies have the right to restrict such photographs. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The link to the MOD's licensing information provided by Colin explicitly says "MOD does not allow the reproduction of images showing members of the Royal Family [in general terms]". There is no evidence that any of the deleted images were ever OGL. However, despite this, and everyone but Stemoc agreeing that the images are not OGL, he still maintains that he "was not wrong", that "[s]ome of the images ... which were subsequently deleted) may very well have been under OGL" and seems to blame others for his uploads of non-OGL images. It is this intransigent attitude that needs addressing. The only problem is that one user is uploading non-OGL images. The long-term solution is for that user to stop uploading images that do not meet wikimedia's licensing terms. DrKiernan (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Buckingham palace/Monarchy itself is not OGL, I never said it was thus images taken of royalty at Buckingham is not free but the few images we have of royalty were of them visiting military bases and images taken at these bases do not fall under the same compliance. Stop misinterpreting what i write, its as clear as i can make it out to be and Kiernan, if you had read further, it allows for OGL if there are other people in the picture and not those that focus solely on the royals and none of the images i added focused only on the royals, I cropped those images well enough to focus on them and indeed there is one solution, fix the issue itself, a year from now others will also add images from there, will we be having this discussion again? and again?..also, none of you are looking for a solution. I have not ever added a image that was not tagged as "crown copyright". I'm not the one with the issue here, if anything this discussion has shown us that we need to find a proper solution to this which may need to focus on changing our own policy in regards to this--Stemoc 14:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Stemoc: all I asked of you is to confirm that you indeed not agree so that we can look for another solution. So, what would you suggest? Natuur12 (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Buckingham Palace is irrelevant. The MOD do not license images of royalty as OGL [in general] what is so difficult to understand? You must not upload images from the MOD site unless they are licensed as OGL. It is your continued refusal to accept this simple fact that has now convinced me that you are a disruptive user. I recommend that Stemoc either agree not to upload any images from the MOD website unless they are explicitly and obviously licensed as OGL and if he refuses to agree or then uploads one anyway that he be blocked. DrKiernan (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is NOT enwiki, here we find solutions, not block people..If you can't help in finding a solution, please leave..this isn't some article we are discussing, the outcome here could and would determine the images that can be added here and used across WIKIMEDIA..and natuur, as i said, i have been contacting them since February and they have responded now..I may send them another letter to see where they stand but as you can read above from their comment, they seem to be a bit overwhelmed at the moment regarding the licensing of images..it would be good if we can get an official letter of inquiry from wikimedia or atleast WikimediaUK directed at MoD and maybe at The National Archives..--Stemoc 15:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have said what the solution is three times. This discussion is only continuing because of your obstinate and adamant refusal to accept it. DrKiernan (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stemoc, would you quit with all the enwiki hate right now. I want to hear no more of it -- Commons welcomes editors from all the Wikipedias because were are a Common source of their imagery -- the clue is in the name. Both Fae and Natuur12 have commented that your response has been ad hominem and this seems to be a continued problem for you -- that you can't stick to the argument without making personal attacks on other people. Perhaps you should read up on this flaw in your behaviour, and realise that winning an argument is about presenting facts related to the argument, rather than personally attacking others who have different views. And sometimes, on Commons, we have to agree-to-disagree and the compromise position is often that an image is not hosted. This seems to be the root problem here rather than some argument over defence imagery.
It seems relatively straightforward, as Fae suggests: "we should take care to validate copies as explicitly OGL to avoid confusion" -- where an image is not clearly marked as OGL, we can't upload it. By all means write to the MoD for clarification on individual images but there will always be photos where the licensing is unclear or does not follow what we think are the standards that should be followed, and that is life. It is an important lesson for anyone uploading someone else's work that you don't have any rights to it, and it is dangerous to assume anything. The default with all images is not to upload. It isn't upload and ask everyone to get off your back while you write to the MoD for clarification. I suggest that editors interested in uploading MoD imagery try to document their consensus opinion / advice on one of our guideline pages somewhere.
While Stemoc's view of what is legal-to-upload differs from this consensus, he should be advised not to upload any images in this area. As for making further personal attacks or ad hominem arguments, I think he's been warned enough, and would expect some kind of block if this continues. I don't know what "serve the wiki" means, but it certainly doesn't require insulting everyone you disagree with. Serving Commons purpose is not about hoovering up as many images that appear to be free as possible. If you show any respect for the photographers and artists who created the images you get to upload and use for free, you'll take care with their works of copyright, and make absolutely certain you have an explicit licence to use their work here. Our policies are quite clear on this. -- Colin (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have presented all the facts from the beginning and in the DR of the Prince Williams image, its the rest of you that are not willing to come with a solution. again, if we are going to delete every image not clearly marked as "OGL", lets start with all of Fae's images ok? the MOD site clearly states images are released under 2 licences, MOD NEWS and OGL, technically both would be allowed here if wikimedia didn't take being 'commercial' too seriously..and I'm not the one that likes uploading images 'en masse', I only choose whats needed and ignore the rest...we are "NOT a repository"..thats rule one of commons which many of our editors refuse to follow.. I have no interest in uploading from MoD, there was a need to get HQ quality images of certain royals which I was trying to get, NOTHING MORE.. i have no interest in mass uploading images, you mistake me for someone else..the MoD site is crap, image links are always so long that we prefer to add their exif details instead, and links usually break for most images after a few months because they get moved elsewhere and its close to impossible to search for anything there..so while i wait for a reply from them again....I'd probably send the MoD itself a message to fix their pathetic site first and regarding photographers, read the quote i added from their reply, apparently they don't have the resource to asses every image in their database..--Stemoc 02:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The solution is to delete all the images not clearly marked as OGL and not upload any more. If there are some of Fae's uploads that are not OGL, then (as Fae has already said) they should be examined and if necessary deleted. I did examine the five Megan Woodhouse images you mentioned in the Prince William deletion discussion, and found only one problem (Commons:Deletion requests/File:RAF SAC(T) undertaking maintenance work on Spitfire TE311 LF XVIE in the Battle of Britain Memorial Hangar at RAF Coningsby. MOD 45158869.jpg), which was swiftly resolved. I have just scanned down the first 100 images found by a search for "defenceimagery", and none of them show the faces of people clearly enough to recognise them. Consequently, I am not going to do any further sweep, because I think it unlikely that there are problems with Fae's uploads. DrKiernan (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another example is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iain Duncan Smith May 2015.jpg. Given Stemocs his comment in the DR he still does not understand. (See here for some context). We all make good faith mistakes but a line is crossed when someone keeps attacking everyone who is pointing out the mistake and Fae who did a great job trying to explain everything. It is true that we try to find solutions at Commons like Stemoc says but given Stemocs comments in this discussion and him refusing to accept that he might be wrong makes a block unavoidable if 'he keeps uploading crown copyright files because he believes that they are OGL. DrKiernan gave a solution, I gave a solution and all Stemoc wants is going for some long shot lobby without willing to discuss the current problems. @Stemoc: please reply, and this time without using any ad hominem because those are blockworthy as well. The only reason why you aren't blocked yet is because we won't resolve the copyright dispute if I do. Natuur12 (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I never said I was right but unless i can get actual proof that tells me I'm wrong, I won't budge..its a matter of principle and thats is what i'm trying to gather and regarding the image kiernan pointed above, its obvious the website is crap and they themselves don't know whats happening by tagging images as OGL but not changing the metadata to reflect the changes, then they also add images without tagging them completely and by randomly adding some images to the news section when they belong in the OGL section as i have come across more than a dozen images in the news section with metadata claiming they were under OGL since February..I admitted after adding the Catherine image back in March that i was wrong and made sure i never added any other image where the metadata explicitly claimed to be under "MOD NEWS" and also, there was no 'ad hominem' in my last post here and regarding the Iain Duncan image, i already posted my reason on the DR and the AN board..--Stemoc 13:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Stemoc, you state today on the DR "as long as the work is by a crown officer taken in their course of their duties and thus falls under OGL". This is completely untrue. You ask for proof, but we need to start from a position of assuming all images are under copyright restriction and cannot be used and thus we need proof they can be used on Commons. The default is always delete or to not upload. The Open Government Licence wiki page makes it quite clear that "Crown Copyright" is the default copyright position for all Crown works and that "many but not all" images are given an OGL licence. The Defence Imagery website also makes it clear that "Unless otherwise indicated*, the images presented on this website have been produced by military staff, or civil servants who work for the Ministry of Defence (MOD), and thus are subject to Crown copyright". Crown copyright is highly restrictive. It simply can't be used no Commons without a licence. This is confirmed by Defence Imagery: "In order to use images on this website you will need a licence. A licence is a set of permissions that sets out what you can and cannot use images for. Selected, pre-cleared Crown copyright images have been made available for use under the Open Government Licence (OGL).". This all seems quite simple: only selected works will have a licence and you will be explicitly made aware of this for each image. Please can you accept you are wrong about OGL being a default licence for all works by "crown officer". Given the the MOD interpret the "personal data" exclusion for OGL to include "at least one individual is recognisable", it seems quite likely that this is the legal interpretation for other government departments such as the Office of the Prime Minister, which is the source of the Iain Duncan Smith image. However, I agree there is some confusion. For example, David Cameron appears to come from the GOV.UK site (though I can't find any current links to that image that is now only on the Internet Archive) and the current GOV.UK David Cameron page links to a Flickr image under NC-ND which can't be used on Commons. One must never expect joined-up-thinking from government, and the best one can go on is the current explicit licence for any image. It is possible that the reason that full-sized image is no longer hosted on GOV.UK is precisely because it was incorrectly uploaded there and never should have had an OGL licence. -- Colin (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: Not the best example, though that doesn't invalidate your point about it getting confused. That particular image is the lead in David Cameron's article on enwiki, and is on Commons twice, in both a full-size and a crop, that were sourced from the Number 10 website in 2010, and were available on that website under the OGL for the better part of a year after that.
Regardless, it's pretty blatantly clear at this point that, at the least, if Stemoc uploads any more Crown Copyright images that are not clearly, explicitly, marked as under the OGL then he's going to be blocked. Even if he is right about how broken their system is, he has to be aware by now that there is a clear consensus that it's the standard that should be applied, and given that it's in the site policies (COM:EVID) that uploaders must provide 'appropriate evidence' I don't think any particular agreement from him really matters either way, to be honest. Revent (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a subtlety on the File:David Cameron official.jpg and File:David Cameron Number 10 official photo.jpg images that is important. Stemoc has uploaded new larger file-size versions of this file, and I can't see where those actually came from. They are much bigger than GOV.UK hosted but smaller than the Flickr picture. It is absolutely vital we are honest with our re-users about where we found stuff, and we can't tell if one image at a certain size/resolution has the same OGL licence as another image found elsewhere. If he's just uploading versions he found somewhere over the top of smaller originals, then this must stop also. Particularly so when the source is not updated on the file page. Regardless of what you say about Stemoc's being aware of this or that policy, the last word we had from him on this was defiance in the face of policy: "unless i can get actual proof that tells me I'm wrong, I won't budge" so I don't see how this section/issue can be closed until he backs down and explicitly accepts our policy and consensus on images, and agrees to accurately state the source for images he uploads. -- Colin (talk) 10:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apology. Several times I've stated that Stemoc's position that "as long as the work is by a crown officer taken in their course of their duties and thus falls under OGL" is "completely untrue". I've been reading more about the OGL/Crown Copyright situation and learning as I go. I now think "completely untrue" is unfair and so would like to say sorry to Stemoc. On reading the UKGLF I see in section 7 that there is an Controller's Offer. The Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office manages Crown copyright and Crown database rights. The document states that "the Controller offers information which is subject to Crown copyright and Crown database right, or to copyright or database right which has been assigned to or acquired by the Crown (Crown information), for use under the terms of the Open Government Licence." So this offer does appear to automatically place Crown Copyright works under OGL, and that looks very much like Stemoc's position. However, there are some important exclusions, as listed in section 7.2 of that document. The first important exclusion is "personal data", which we have two good sources say includes photographs of identifiable people. The second exclusion is information/media generated by departments who have a "delegation of authority", and a long list of these can be found here. That list includes the MoD, and I see now what Denniss was referring to above. The MoD make it quite clear that they will explicitly state the licence/copyright situation of their photos and that one can't assume any default licence. I hope we are tending towards clarity on this issue. Unless we get some further advice on how such images get round the "personal data" exclusion, it does appear that quite a number of supposedly-OGL images should be deleted. And furthermore, this investigation shows some very sloppy practice wrt accurately stating the source of our images. -- Colin (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of that passage is different from yours: ISTM you would interpolate “the Controller [automatically] offers [all] information [not excluded below] …”, while I understand it as “the Controller [is authorized to offer] information [at its discretion] …”. In context I suppose my sense of manage implies more than a rubber stamp. Now I have no expertise in this area, so am by no means sure I’m closer to the intended meaning, but I hope I can serve as an example that reasonable people, laymen at least, might disagree on the interpretation.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Odysseus1479, yes, I read it as a legally binding and general offer rather than something discretionary, otherwise why would one list the "delegation of authority" bodies who are able to decide for themselves. And the list of exclusions isn't a "non exhaustive list" as one might expect with a discretionary offer, but actually the specific cases where the offer does not apply. So I do think this is something automatic, for many government bodies, leaving us to wonder (for non MOD images), only if the "personal data" exclusion applies to our headshot photos. But I agree with you that reasonable lay people will certainly interpret these documents differently and one needs to approach such discussions with good faith assumptions wrt all parties, and with some humility and expectation that one might discover one is wrong in part or in whole. Nothing concerning copyright is ever straightforward or follows common sense. -- Colin (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sumita Roy Dutta

Sumita Roy Dutta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

And yet another mass Flickr2C uploader of >>10K files w/o usage, sense, and categories, within few days. Steinsplitter, where's your abuse filter? Really unbelievable what's going up here... ((( --A.Savin 23:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, what’s exactly the problem? I browsed through a few of these and found no glaring scope or license issue. Will you be filing in deletion requests? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvalkin: I think it's largely just a matter of using the tool to create maintenance and cleanup headaches. I haven't seen any copyright issues, but I (and others) have been speedy-deleting a fair number of his uploads as exact duplicates of existing NASA images. Take a look at Special:DeletedContributions/Sumita_Roy_Dutta, it might illustrate why people were getting annoyed. (FWIW, it looks like NASA's habit of changing the EXIF information before uploading to Flickr prevents them from being automatically detected as dupes, since the actual checksum is different). Revent (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Yes, duplicates are a problem, especially when not automaticly detected. However A.Savin complained about «>10K files w/o usage, sense, and categories, within few days», none of which is a problem. Oh, well, I’m glad the duplicates are being deleted. Maybe these dupes could be caught by running a new checksum that accounts only the pixel data, not the file as a whole? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stripping EXIF data might help, but it is bandwidth/processing intensive and would probably be unpredictably unreliable. For any batch upload finding the best IDs and ensuring these are consistently used on the image page, or in the filename, is essential to repairing duplicated uploads. In this case, the Flickr photo_id is at least present, however the NASA numbers should be used to track down duplicates and (possibly legitimate) variations. I note that uploads from the SDASM (which I have uploaded from too) have their catalogue numbers in the description; these could be teased out as well as having the files added to Category:Images from San Diego Air & Space Museum...
I agree that uploading 10,000 files, and then effectively abandoning the batch upload for others to sort out is not acceptable. I am unsure what action we would take as a community, apart from encouraging the uploader to understand our best practices for batch uploading and consider making a project page were everyone could chip in for ideas for improvement.
After taking a look at uploads today, where their scattergun approach to using F2C is creating a backlog headache of virtually uncategorized images with no apparent plan for repairing them by taking responsibility for post-upload housekeeping, I would like to see a throttle imposed for use of F2C until such a time as it is clear that they are taking responsibility. A daily throttle could still be generous, but would allow more time for planning and discussion until users like this demonstrate they are not creating duplicates or poorly named and described images.
The examples from today that worry me are the uploads from the British Library Flickrstream. There are literally /millions/ of clips there, and we already have a million images from that source that have proved very difficult to categorize. Simply adding Category:Photographs from the British Library, with general categories like "People", is not a happy outcome. Though I could spend time creating housekeeping bots to sort this out, I already have plenty to spend my volunteer time on, so I really don't want to be someone else's unpaid cleaner, just because they are uninterested in working out how to tidy up after themselves. --Fæ (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The missing automatic detection of duplicates is not Sumita's fault. The paid WMF coders should have included such a feature years ago. Sumita's uploads include some very valuable and beautiful photo-documents as File:Blue Bird, Nakoda girl (18307939538).jpg for example. In addition, on her talkpage there have been some educational efforts by Revent, 4ing and Bodhisattwa, but only a few days ago. IMO, these efforts should be continued, instead of making it a "user problem". --Túrelio (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I have now blocked them for 2 weeks, since they ignored this discussion (desp. of pinging) and continued their mass upload practice using such "meaningful" categories like Category:Small. Still unclear what to do with the uploads. They may be some potentially useful ones, but no one is able to pick it out and no bot is ever able to do this job nearly as accurate as a human. So, nuking may be an option (pinging Hedwig in Washington for an opinion). --A.Savin 14:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose this unilateral block. Did you notify her about this discussion? I see no note on her talkpage. Did you warn her that she might get blocked, if ... ? I see no note on her talkpage. Was there any consensus about a block in this thread? No! --Túrelio (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have had the "ping" feature for some time now and so it is quite difficult to overlook a discussion you've been mentioned in. I also would like to add that there were requests on the talk page of this user regarding categorization of uploads (albeit no requests regarding the uploads themselves), as well as that the user nonetheless submitted bad categories ("Small" etc.) on their very latest uploads before the block, and that the answer after the block [3] doesn't look like they really have learnt something. Without the block, they would have continued to damage Commons with their mass uploads. What would you suggest otherwise to stop it? --A.Savin 04:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather see an upload throttle or even a temporary removal of related upload rights (can that be done?) rather than a block. Though the uploads may be creating a bit of a backlog headache, this does not normally fall under the COM:BP reasons for a lengthy first block and it's obviously better for the project if Sumita Roy Dutta were free to sort out categorization and other improvements even if they could not upload a file using Flickr2Commons. --Fæ (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about a RFC about making F2C restricted for authorised users only? I am willing to start one so we don't have this discussion over and over again. Natuur12 (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this proposal. I can't understand the logic of giving a tool like this to someone who has no plan on how to ensure the consequences do not create a huge amount of drudge work for someone else. We should have a process where users are authorised to do bulk uploads and somewhere that their activity can be monitored and if necessary stopped, like we have for bots. We've seen too many cases of this tool being misused. -- Colin (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Colin. If we could remove the right to upload, maybe better to have 'crats do this, I am absolutely in favor. Not sure if it would help in this case. I think the block should be removed AFTER we have a reaction of this user. If the block expires w/o any reaction and the uploads continue afterwards, we know what to expect and can think of another option.
I have to agree strongly with Fæ. We are cleaning up enough as it is now. We really don't need anymore random bulk uploads dumped onto ourt desks, I have other things to waorry about and other things I'd like to do but can't 'casuse there isn't enough time. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a new problem, infact similar cases has been brought up atleast 3 times here already, one as recently as 6 weeks ago I think where we agreed on adding some form of a throttle..I personally feel the best option is to not allow users without a 'patroller' tag to mass upload from F2C.. Magnus refuses to update his tool nor fix the ongoing issues but its a really good tool and it will get abused a lot more unless Magnus can update the tool so that when it logs a user on, it will check to see if that user has 'patroller' right (minimum) and if the user doesn't and he/she selected a 'set' to upload to commons, it will refuse to upload them but will allow the user to add one image at a time...Lets not change anything on this side of the wiki, all it needs is a minor change on the tool.. --Stemoc 03:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

I thought it would be useful to examine Sumita Roy Dutta's use of F2C in more detail, especially if there is a consensus for action such as upload throttles or tool usage restrictions. Table below.

F2C Date
Sumita Roy Dutta upload history using Flickr2Commons
105 2015-09-24
1064 2015-09-25
299 2015-09-26
775 2015-09-27
228 2015-09-28
1172 2015-09-30
460 2015-10-01
418 2015-10-02
305 2015-10-03
1000 2015-10-04
2220 2015-10-05
973 2015-10-06
264 2015-10-07
1341 2015-10-08
SQL to generate table 
SELECT count(page_title) AS F2C,
DATE_FORMAT(img_timestamp,"%Y-%m-%d") AS Date
FROM page
JOIN image ON page_title = img_name
JOIN revision_userindex ON rev_page = page_id
WHERE img_user_text = "Sumita Roy Dutta"
AND rev_user_text = "Sumita Roy Dutta"
AND rev_comment like '%Flickr2Commons%'
GROUP BY left(img_timestamp,8);

At the time of the database query (c. midday on 8th Oct), their total number of uploads using Flickr2Commons was 10,624. --Fæ (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the discussion above is thinking in more general terms of a throttle solution, I ran the following query to show who the main users of F2C are so far in October.

F2C Uploader
Flickr2Commons users with >100 uploads 1-8 October 2015
6979 Sumita Roy Dutta
3560 0x010C
1333 Ser Amantio di Nicolao
957 Wolfmann
753 Ww2censor
385 Helmy oved
276 Paris 16
268 Bodhisattwa
199 Kinoko kokonotsu
190 AdamBMorgan
184 Clusternote
148 Benzoyl
140 Einstein2
128 Sporti
112 Wolfmann
105 Geagea
102 Hhm8

--Fæ (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. Revent (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sumita probably should not have been blocked, its not really her fault..we have had similar issues of mass uploading by users using F2C in the past (a block of one actually got the whole of toollabs blocked on commons once as well) and yet we sought not to find a proper solution so blocking Sumita for our own failure is insane..--Stemoc 04:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do think we need a switch for F2C or similar tools to turn it on/off for individual users. However, in the absence of this, and while the user continued to use the tool despite AN complaint and failed to participate in the discussion .. there's no other option. I'm sure most people would like to see this block lifted if the user engaged and worked with others to ensure it was used properly. -- Colin (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The block was necessary to prevent further disruption and to allow this discussion. Sumita Roy Dutta's block may be lifted if she agrees to refrain from bulk uploads and assigns filenames and categories according to guidelines. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User Nino Marakot

User Nino Marakot has continually reverted images on several files that I have edited. Especially on these files: [4], [5], and [6] Often the reasons he puts in the revert log do not make any sense. I cannot seem to get him to converse with me on his talk page about the disagreements. I do not wish to keep reverting and clutter up the upload logs, but I want to keep quality images visible. How should I deal with this behavior? Supportstorm (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? I don't but i reverted that one. the rest is just in the same source. When i say the better version, the better version. Okay? - Nino Marakot (talk) 4:43 P.M, 10 October 2015 (PTC)

I don't understand what that means. You have reverted numerous times without valid reasons. Supportstorm (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dreamnikhil

Dreamnikhil (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  continues to upload copyvios despite endcopyvio warning; at least three times for the same file that's been deleted. Can someone handle this please? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done User indeffed by DMacks. Revent (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revert war

Please, will someone assist me with DasReichenz at File:National Socialist swastika.svg. He's revert-warring with me non-stop. I'm the uploader, I've asked him to upload his version separately, he continued revert-warring. We have a history on enWiki, where I know him by his sock "Dannis243". I feel I'm being harassed across projects. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Full-protection for 1 week. So, Dannis243 (talk · contribs) is a sock of DasReichenz (talk · contribs)? --Túrelio (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not confirmed, but pretty damn obvious in my opinion. Same newbish mistakes and attitudes, same broken English, same rage, revert-warring to push the same edits, and - they/he always religiously blanks his talkpage on every account, never creating a userpage anywhere. On report a couple days at enWiki, awaiting checkuser confirmation [7]. In my experience probably the tip of the iceberg, given the "standardized" appearance of the accounts. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very, very unlikely, per CU logs on en.wiki. Materialscientist (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Even so. I could swear I'm talking to the same person, playing the same (kinda "Nazi-ish"?) game. Their English is the same, DasReichenz continued Dannis' arguments without missing a beat.. they both behave in the same strange manner... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category move/merge request

Please move/merge Category:Saints Cyryl and Methodius Orthodox chapel in Kaniuki into Category:Saints Cyril and Methodius Orthodox chapel in Kaniuki (should be Cyril instead of Cyryl) in order to preserve edit history. --jdx Re: 12:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done And please, make such requests on the Commons:History merging and splitting page in the future. Ankry (talk) 10:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong category list.

A few days ago I was editing files in Category:Rok obrzędowy z Wikipedią w Dubinach when something wrong happened. Since then category list for these files is wrong – it is shown that eg. this file belongs to Category:Rok obrzędowy z Wikipedią and Category:Rok obrzędowy z Wikipedią w Dubinach while actually it belongs only to the last one. I am quite sure that this issue is somehow related to HotCat --jdx Re: 13:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User LM2002sept only uploads copyvio photos

Resolved

LM2002sept (talk · contribs) is only uploading copyrighted photos from commercial sources. Ignores warnings. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Nuked and blocked 1 week. Alan (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abuso de cuentas múltiples

Se solicitó la verificación de cuentas de un usuario problemático con resultado positivo, abuso de múltiples cuentas con intención de saboter el proyecto. Ver aquí

Cuentas relacionadas, verificado por checkuser
Usuario que lo solicita

--Jcfidy (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Muchas gracias por el aviso de la verificación CU en eswiki. Bloqueados y marcados con {{sockpuppet|Kurara7|confirmed}}. Un saludo. Alan (talk) 09:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I came across several of these accounts independently in the past. Good job on getting the connection identified! I went through the contributions for the accounts above and nominated a bunch of files for deletion. The following should also be added to the list:
Could our checkusers please look into possible rangeblocks that might be effective without excessive collateral damage? —LX (talk, contribs) 18:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Tagged and nuked. Also blocked by Elcobbola (Checkuser here). Alan (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Rapid83 is Confirmed; also Andrez 89767, AndrezGTFO, Fsdfsdsafsdfffsdfsdfd, and Baron Rojo 0117. There are numerous ranges, so a rangeblock would not be helpful at this time. Эlcobbola talk 19:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upload

Can I images I have from Google Pictures Upload ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majonitro (talk • contribs) 10:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.
Read COM:NETCOPYRIGHT and COM:L for info.
The 99% of images from internet are protected with copyright.
--Alan (talk) 11:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

inappropriate account/username

IMO, the name of this Commons account Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (talk · contribs), who has so far 3 uploads (but is also active on :en), is inappropriate and should be blocked/changed. --Túrelio (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support Tùrelio's opinion. Block? Alan (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked per COM:UPOLICY. User can request renaming. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uploads are clear copyvios, therefore deleted. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a parody of "Holy Roman Empire of the German Empire". Are parody usernames really inappropriate? None of his or her revisions or creations at enwiki say anything negative about Muslims or Germans. Is Commons a "no fun allowed" zone? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) ::Islamic State = terror organization (i don't thing such a username is allowed, might be unlawful in some county's)? If a other admin thinks that the username is okay he can unblock (user filed a unblock request). Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ISIS isn't the only "Islamic state" in history or even recent memory. "Islamic republic" wouldn't work in the username since the Holy Roman Empire wasn't a republic. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, I know you like to make a good fun, which isn't bad per se. But, Commons users don't live on a virtual ivorytower. Today, the term "Islamic state" has only one connotation. Do I need to go into graphic details? --Túrelio (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed as a parody of "Holy Roman Empire of the German Empire". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, today "fun" is hardly compatible with the term "Islamic state", IMO. Sure, it might be a prank. However, we are neither interested in providing a platform for IS propaganda nor for an agent provocateur intending only to insult or ridicule muslims — generally speaking; I don't claim the account in question so far did any of this. --Túrelio (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have any evidence that the account engaged in either of those at enwiki or here, yet he's banned. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The username is "blocked". He could open a new account under a different (hopefully more appropriate) username. --Túrelio (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
^^ @Túrelio: , @Alan: What do you think? --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The account has also been blocked on :en, though only for 1 week and independently of our discussion. --Túrelio (talk) 12:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO all accounts with clear references to ISIS, Nazism, ETA, ... are completely out of reasonable scope. Alan (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that many Basque nationalists (and Irish nationalists, by comparative extension) would be offended at being grouped together with ISIS and Nazism and at the idea that they aren't permitted to display their love for their country and the people who attempted to liberate their country. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Declined the unblock request for now. Block can always be lifted if consensus evolves thowards unblock but given the comments untill now I think that this is unlikely. Natuur12 (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He reverted you with a strange comment. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And changed the blocked settings. I gave him a fair warning that I would do so if he/she continued to be disruptive. Natuur12 (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think he or she was trying to say "i want [to be] unblock[ed][.] <suggestion for new username>", similar to what he said in this diff. I believe that talk page access should be restored. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to mention that he/she removed my unblock-decline rational twice. And honestly, we already wasted enough of our energie here. This user was going to be blocked indef. The only question was when. Natuur12 (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Newbie errors. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zero contributions except own talkpage. This is really not worthy wasting our time. Leave the account blocked + close this topic. --A.Savin 15:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Zero contributions except own talkpage" only because all other contributions have been deleted. He or she has also been trying to contribute to enwiki. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what? I may create an account, upload 200 copyvios, they get deleted => I still have 0 contribs. --A.Savin 15:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion doesn't erase intent. We still have an user who intended to contribute and share. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True. But at least one of his 3 uploads was a blatant copyvio. The other two were obviously islamist flags, while the filenames were in Hebrew (1) or Arabic (1). --Túrelio (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a person, who deleted some of his uploads, I want to say, that I feel uncomfortable with somebody with such username. Let him come back with new username. My humor vein is situated in another place then his, I do not consider such kind of parody funny. Taivo (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=175586554"