Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 73

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DSFC67

DSFC67 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

DSFC67's only uploads were copyright violations and he is presumably a sock of the blocked FCDS67 (talk · contribs) since he replied to my request to delete one of the latter's uploads at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Сергей Гунько.jpg with what appears to be a profane homophobic slur. --B (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. --A.Savin 17:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Test edits by Lokesha kunchadka

Lokesha kunchadka has been making a large number of inexplicable edits (about 180) to multilingual templates. I've tried asking them what they're doing. Their only response was to create another talk page section with the same heading and the word "add".

The edits include things like adding entries to /lang subpages for translations that don't exist, creating /tcy and /kn translation subpages with no actual translations but just copies of the English version (e.g. Template:Picture of the day/tcy, which is a copy of Template:Picture of the day/en) without the noinclude part, adding nonsensical requests to template talk pages and creating very incomplete translations.

Quite a number of pages are going to need to be deleted, other edits reverted, and if the user doesn't stop, I think blocking them may be necessary. I see no reason to suspect malicious intent, but total incompetence and lack of communication aren't exactly a great combination. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I've gone through all their edits from October and November and reverted changed to about 30 pages. If there are any administrators reading this page, please delete the following pages:

Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 22:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

They seem to have stopped a few days ago. I declined some of their protected edit requests and reversed some edits as well yesterday (I think). In any case

Doing… --Majora (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Done Nuked. The two that are still blue were technically deleted but doing so appears to just revert it back to the default state of "waiting to be translated". --Majora (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Jeff G.

User has been made aware that they were slightly mistaken about one of our policies. Nothing more to be done here. Proposals for changes in templates or policies go to COM:VPP. Jcb (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Could you pleas request to Jeff G. stop spamming my talk page? For no reason he is insisting on insert warnings [1], at my talk page from a case that was already solved, Jcb already message me before him, I already read, and removed it to not clog my talk page.

And now he decided spamming me with a template that was created to users that deliberately inserts copyright violation repeatedly. Clearly not the case. This template is very controversial, and have a big and bold warning on documentation of it:

"Archiving is not demanded by policy and removing warnings is not explicitly discouraged. So, please use this template only, if you know what you are doing." - Template:Dont remove warnings

That he ignored and is not using the template properly.

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 11:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Rodrigo.Argenton: I used the standard "Rem.warning - Please do not remove valid warning templates from your talk page, except while archiving" template, canonically {{Dont remove warnings}}, from the UserMessages gadget because you were removing warnings. Where is the controversy about that template? User talk pages don't get "clogged", or you would remove your "Quality Image Promotion" and "Valued Image Promotion" notices, too. In just the past month, you have removed warnings and notices from Yann, VIGNERON, Taivo, me, Acagastya, Magog the Ogre, Patrick Rogel, Jcb, Jon Kolbert, and Jarash. Some of those warnings and notices were in fact for copyright issues, and yet your copyright issues have continued. For photos, we need information on photographer names and lifetimes, countries shot in, years shot in, and years published in, in order to make accurate determinations of copyright statuses. If Correio da Manhã can't or won't provide such information, we don't need their photos. If you can't or won't provide such information, we don't need your photos, either. I am also disappointed that you came directly here without first trying to discuss with me on one of our user talk pages. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 13:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Support A user should have control over their user pages including talk pages. We already have "archives" they are accessible via 'View history' links. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 13:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Jeff G.,

Template talk:Dont remove warnings

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Dont remove warnings

Now you want to be the curator of my talk page?

"We don't need your photos" - we whom?

See why I didn't write to you? Look what you wrote, and how.

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 14:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Rodrigo.Argenton: Template talk:Dont remove warnings and Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Dont remove warnings have not changed in 5+ years. No, I don't want to be the curator of your talk page. We, the Wikimedia Commons community, don't need your allegedly PD photos like File:Frank Lloyd Wright, Fundo Correio da Manhã.tif and the others mentioned at COM:VPC#Files within Category:Wikimedia in Brazil GLAM initiative with Arquivo Nacional without information on photographer names and lifetimes, countries shot in, years shot in, and years published sufficient to verify their PD licenses. Did you expect me not to defend myself? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 15:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Please note that Rodrigo.Argenton receives {{Dont remove warnings}} simply because he reverts other user's deletion templates (see section "Patrick Rogel" above), like here or here. So @Rodrigo.Argenton: what make you think you're allowed to remove such templates ? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

(apologies, I misread your comment, my reply removed) ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 18:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Not about me, but the second link is very interesting, the Magog the Ogre include the {{No license since}} template because you sir removed the source, the description, the license template, categories,... [2]

That's why I reverted, I re-included the license, what's wrong in my action? How about your action? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 18:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Support The purpose of a warning is to make a user aware of an issue, not to make them look bad for the whole world to see. If they remove the warning you can be pretty certain that they've read it. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

We don't need to have a !vote on whether users can remove warnings from their talk page. Our guidelines already say they can, as is pointed out repeatedly both at Template talk:Dont remove warnings as well as in the big disclaimer at Template:Dont remove warnings. Moral of the story: don't use big scary templates that act like they're policy when they're not, and we probably shouldn't have templates to begin with that are themselves contrary to our official standards. That's just setting people up for failure on all sides. GMG ^talk 17:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: agree, but we should probably think about some sort of proposal for this. For example, I've restored all the warnings on User talk:Zozr789 (don't worry, it's a sock) so their policy violations are less likely to be overlooked. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 18:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Despite the fact that someone is liable to show up and point out that this is not the bureaucratically correct venue to solve the problem, I'm kindof an old fashioned stick-in-the-mud who prefers to solve problems when we find them. But yes, either the guideline should be changed, or the template should be changed. I doubt we'd find consensus to change the guideline, because it runs contrary to the leeway given to own talk pages on every other project. I can easily enough update the English version of the template to something a bit more clear and a bit less bitey, but I'm not really an expert on how we cascade that to all the language versions, and it doesn't really do much good to only change it in one language. GMG ^talk 18:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

And what about this "we don't need their photos" [3] [4] "we don't need your photos" [5]. "We, the Wikimedia Commons community, don't need your allegedly PD" [6] Seems very problematic this allegations in the name of the whole community. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 18:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton, we want all the in scope properly licensed files we can get. That's the whole purpose of the project, and saying otherwise is being unnecessarily combative. However, if someone does point out legitimate problems with a file you've uploaded, it's no big deal. It happens to everyone. I think Fae probably has the record for the most deleted files on the project, because they upload the most. I've got one file at DR right now myself that I've voted delete on even though I uploaded it, because I screwed up and it rightly should be deleted.

But what isn't helpful is folks who don't take that kind of feedback and use it to fix their mistakes, because that just makes a lot of extra work for a lot of other people, and it's understandably frustrating for those people who are trying to set everything right. GMG ^talk 18:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment These are two types of reverts or removals. 1. Removing a message from one's own talk. Although the edit note is not so friendly, it is perfectly OK and no need to push further. 2. Removing a message from one's own uploads without attending the actual issue or without a defending edit note explaining why the message is removed. It is disruptive and may lead to sanctions if repeated (as Jcb warned). J e e 02:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Support for the reasons outlined by Guido den Broeder and Gone Postal. AshFriday (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Along the lines of Jee’s analysis, Jeff is encouraged to revert disruption and interference with legitimate Commons processes, such as file tagging. But user spaces (numbered 2 and 3) are another matter. The respective user generally takes priority over other users, and Jeff has to become an admin to override it. We never saw a successful RfA by Jeff_G. yet. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: I never saw a successful RfA from you here, either. However, if you look closely, you will see that I am an Admin on 3 other WMF projects and at least 6 other non-WMF projects. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 14:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Pissing contest (Q7198426) GMG ^talk 14:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Jeff can warn a user appropriately. The user can also remove templates appropriately. The user who brought this should also reevaluate their use of AN for inter-user communication. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Sixflashphoto: Except that that template is clearly misleading, it claims that there is a policy that removing this template carries penalties. Are you suggesting implementing the policy where any user can ignore the statements by admins about Commons policies, because they can lie as much as anybody else? ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 13:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I was suggesting the temperature can be turned down. Should the wording of the template be changed, possibly. I wouldn't be opposed to it. What i'm really proposing is that people communicate with each other better, and the question of if a user read a template before removing it didn't need to blow up into a thing. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Christophe Christian

Christophe Christian (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

User is removing valid deletion templates on out of COM:SCOPE files. May an Administrator block him until these files are deleted ? Some other users have spammed files of the same non notable person :

Pascal vomien (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions);
Armie Sekofen (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions);
Stéphane Molen (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

An RCU is then needed. Kind regards, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. --A.Savin 16:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

SALOPENEU88

SALOPENEU88 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Uploads files after warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Done blocked for a week. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Whitepowereuropa

Whitepowereuropa (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

The user removes the copyvio-tag from File:Фото Ф.jpg despite that the stated source claims Copyright on it's content. Delete the copyvio-file and take appropriate action against the user. -- Tegel (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Done Image deleted. Please Whitepowereuropa: Don't remove speedy deletion templates without solving the problem. Strakhov (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

And I just blocked them for the completely inappropriate username. --Majora (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The2002 bmw

Continues making fatuous DRs after warning. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 18:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Done by another. --Majora (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mys 721tx and Majora: Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 18:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Reporting User:Alexis Jazz for Wikihounding

Nothing actionable. Once released into the public domain you cannot dictate what is done with it. That is the entire point of the "public domain". Sorry. Nothing that can be done. --Majora (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Hi. Late Sunday evening, I had an encounter with User:Alexis Jazz over at the Simple English Wikipedia. It's ended with him/her reporting me to the AN/I at Simple, where the thread is dealt with and closed, as I have resigned from the project. My final act is to nominate my own work for deletion, which I am perfectly within my rights to do, since it's only in use here and nowhere else. See Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Digital_Behind-the-ear_Hearing_Aids.jpg#File:Digital_Behind-the-ear_Hearing_Aids.jpg. Now, Alexis has decided to come and follow my deletion nomination here, and it's all gonna kick off again. He/she has referred back to the thread on Simple, presumably as a means to pointing out why I'm doing this, and I'm not happy with this at all. I don't know what to do about this, short of either forwarding it here, or (since I can't block people on Wiki) resigning from here too. I just want to get my shit done and for people to get off my case. Is that too much to ask? DaneGeld (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

In the future, use Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 or an even more restrictive license if you want to prevent people from cropping it and creating derivatives. This license is not allowed here though. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 01:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

As you have hammered into me 4 times already. I won't be uploading anything else to commons, especially with you chasing me :) DaneGeld (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

In this place I didn't really say it for you, it was mostly to give others who read this some idea of what the conflict is about. Besides that, I didn't have much to say anyway. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 02:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose @DaneGeld: Your file was too zoomed-out for the use Alexis had in mind, so they made their own crop and used that, all perfectly normal legal behavior. When you blew up, Alexis reported that in the appropriate place. I suggest you calm down. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 02:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

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

AldoGiese

AldoGiese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Mass uploads of possibly non-free files. He's uploading 3D renderings of buildings. While he publishes these with a CC0 1.0 licence, the source is a website that sells the 3D models. The imprint says "MoneyHeros Organization Ltd.", which doesn't convince me that the images are free for use. If he sends a permission and it's not a copyright violation, it still looks like spam. In addition, there is massive overcategorization. All in all, I think that an admin should look at it. --Sitacuisses (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Sitacuisses

I'm in direct contact with the creator of this 3D Models and he decided to share his work. He has made lot of models and so i upload his work with all required permissions.

Thanks for the advice. The massive overcategorization is the product of a very unclear categorie tree of wikimedia script. they could have made it a little more user-friendly i think — Preceding unsigned comment added by AldoGiese (talk • contribs) 11:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

If there is a permission, this needs to be documented, see Commons:OTRS. Also, so far I haven't seen any attempt from you to fix the categories of your uploads. If the category tree is unclear to you that shouldn't lead to an abundance of categories. --Sitacuisses (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

AldoGiese just carries on with his uploads as if nothing had happened. His latest files like File:Brandenburg-102606.jpg still suffer from absurd overcategorization, many of the categories don't have anything to do with the image. Also there are no descriptions. Can we please stop this? --Sitacuisses (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Uploads from 3d-building-models.com tagged as no permission. AldoGiese, please follow the procedure described at COM:OTRS. If you have questions, feel free to contact me. — Racconish ^💬 17:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Caspianstars

Caspianstars (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked on Persian Wikipedia and is using offensive words here and making personal attacks. Hanooz 22:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Done Blocked indefinitely. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

User:JOJOtheWhale.bronxtale

JOJOtheWhale.bronxtale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seems to have some combination of CIR and NOTHERE issues. They're mass-uploading mostly poor-quality images (possibly personal vacation photos) with bizarre filenames and poor categorization. (My attention was drawn by their dozens of additions to normally-empty Category:Boston.) A large fraction of their uploads are so blurred, dim, or weirdly angled as to be completely useless and out of scope, and they seem to be using Commons as a personal photo album. When I suggested to them that flickr or another personal photo-sharing site may be better, their nonsensical responses on my talk page and theirs made it clear that they have no interest in contributing productively in a way that doesn't require other editors to clean up their messes. (As a side note, they're indeffed on enwiki for disruptive editing.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. --A.Savin 19:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Jamalalrajhi

Jamalalrajhi (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Every single upload is a copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

User has been warned. Any further uploads of this kind will result in a block. De728631 (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Tursclan

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

Little edit war with this user about Category:Etruscans. He confuses "Italic people" with the "Peoples of ancient Italy". The Italic peoples are those of Italic ethnicity who spoke an Italic language that we can understand. The Etruscans were not an Italic people (they probably came from Anatolia), in fact their language is not possible to understand. They were a people of ancient Italy but they were not an Italic people. Now the user Tusclan had added to the cat of the Etruscans the cat of the Italic peoples, which I have canceled. He restored it. I explained him the error, but he continues to roll back my corrections. Endlessly. I request the intervention of an administrator. Thank you. --DenghiùComm (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't confuse anything at all. Here if there is someone confused this is just the user DenghiùComm, as it also emerged in the discussion that took place in his talk page. Currently the category Italic people does not only contain the Italic peoples who spoke an Italic language, but at present it contains all the civilizations documented in Italy during the Iron Age, including many non-Italic people (Greeks of South Italy, Lepontii, Ligures, Golasecca culture, Nuragic people, Daunii, Messapes, Camunni...), but the user only shows a fury against the Etruscans. To verify the correctness of what I say, just check the category Italic people. The category in this case uses the term "Italic people" in the widest sense as a synonym for ancient populations of Italy, which is sometimes used by scholars as well, and therefore the Etruscans can also fall into this category. This wider use of the term "Italic people" will not be the most precise but at present it is so. If the Etruscans are removed from this category, then all other civilizations and populations that did not speak an Italic language and that are now in the category (13 or 14 out of 29) must also be removed. Moreover, the fact that the Etruscans came from Anatolia is a theory not believed by many archaeologists and linguists, and it's definitely false that the Etruscan language is not understandable.--Tursclan (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course Greek was not an italic language; but Greeks are a group of the Indo-European ethnolinguistic family. So they can be in a category of ancient italic people (but we can discuss about this). Sure not the Etruscans. What is not correct we remove it. --DenghiùComm (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Your arguments lack even logical coherence, not just a true knowledge of the subject. Why can Greeks be with people who spoke Italic languages? That Greeks spoke an Indo-European language has nothing to do with it, Greek belongs to a linguistic family different from that of the Italic languages. Also these people - Lepontii, Ligures, Golasecca culture, Nuragic people, Daunii, Messapes, Camunni - were not Italic in a strict sense and didn't speak Italic languages. --Tursclan (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

What is not correct we remove it from this category.

Or we move the category name from "Italic people" to "Peoples of ancient Italy" or "Ancient peoples of Italy". --DenghiùComm (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, agreed with that or, alternatively, to create a new category (if it doesn't exist) "Ancient peoples of Italy" and insert in this category all the people who didn't speak Italic languages, and just leave in the "Italic people" category (that must be under the new "Ancient peoples of Italy") those who did speak Italic languages. --Tursclan (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I agree. --DenghiùComm (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Issues with uploading new version of image files

These images where updated with new versions, but they have not taken the place of the previous image, especially in the pages they are used. SBSeal SBFlag SBLogo

From what I see, this may be a glitch. To illustrate this, here is a page where they are used and the updated images are not shown: San Bernardino, California. Fernandillo1 (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Images are cached and updating them does not automatically push them down to pages they are used on until the server updates said cache. This can be forced by purging. See Help:Purge for more information. This is neither an administrative problem nor a problem with a specific user. Please use the village pump for general questions next time. --Majora (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz trashing EXIF and disrupting DR

The DR is now keep-closed. The EXIF may need or may not need some fix, but this is only to be carried out after reaching a consensus. Alexis Jazz will not continue to edit the EXIF before such a consensus is reached. Reverting their overwrite will be allowed for the files where they completely removed the EXIF. Jcb (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

In the DR Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:Faebot/SandboxT Fæ has claimed the EXIF on 258 files is legally incorrect to licence the image with CC4 rather than the CC3 used by the source YouTube video. Whether that claim is true or not (see DR for discuss) the DR has not closed and these claims are still being discussed. But today Alexis overwrote 30 of these images with new versions that contain no EXIF data at all. The original images contained EXIF fields that are useful and are pertinent to the DR discussion. For example File:Bert Meerstadt (2015).jpg has:

Title: Bert Meerstadt (2015)
Caption: Openbaar verhoor Bert Meerstadt - enquêtecommissie Fyra 28 mei 2015
Credit/Artist/Copyright: Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal
Terms of Use URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Embedded colour profile :sRGB
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7zdVpOxAyo
As well as dozens of fields related to the Photoshop CS2 that was used to create the JPG and which are themselves are record that the image has been Photoshopped.

All of these are lost and the removal of the sRGB colour profile means that users do not see consistent colours from browser to browser or or different OS/Displays. I have asked Alexis to stop and revert his changes (User talk:Alexis Jazz#Stop! but he has refused and claims to be currently "fixing stuff to overwrite faster", which I assume he means to trash the EXIF on the remaining 228 files. The overwrites are being made with no edit summary, which is against Commons policy and in violation of the CC licence terms. Should the DR claims actually have merit, a correct action would be to modify the licence URL field to use CC3.0 and nothing else.

I have asked (not for the first time IIRC) Alexis to stop disrupting current DRs by altering the files under review. This is important as anyone joining the DR won't actually see the issue being raised unless they look in the history to see that someone has changed things.

I request an admin ask/insist that Alexis:

stop removing the EXIF from the files
revert changes made so far
desist from disrupting DRs by changing the files under review
always use an edit summary when uploading/overwriting files

And if Alexis does continue to truncate these JPGs then I request his account blocked. -- Colin (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Colin, Additionally i have to add: Alexis also created those page, which should be deleted imho because out of scope:

--Steinsplitter (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Steinsplitter, I have gone ahead to nominate the first two pages for deletion. It think Fae nominated the last one for deletion as out of scope as well. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 08:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Colin: as I told you, I was going to upgrade them (exactly like you said). I've done five now, please tell me if they are okay:

"the removal of the sRGB colour profile means that users do not see consistent colours"

Fifty-fifty it was an improvement. But I admit that was not correct and I won't do that anymore. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 18:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't have much knowledge with EXIF but my preference would've been simply to reapply the data but modify the licence bit, That being said the EXIF data in my screenshots simply say:

"Horizontal resolution 37.79 dpc

Vertical resolution 37.79 dpc

Software used paint.net 4.0.16""

So I don't really see the point in caring - I've screenshotted pics from videos and all contain the above EXIF data (through no fault of my own) so in this case like I said I don't think it's worth worrying or caring over (if all screenshots had precise info then fine but unless there's a fault with Paint then as far as I know they don't). –Davey2010^Talk 18:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Davey2010, how to put this politely...from what you wrote above, you don't appear to have the first clue. Please try to understand the issue and gain some understanding of the technology (Paint is not a suitable program) before commenting. -- Colin (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Colin You my friend are either blind or very very stupid ... because you will see I clearly stated above "I don't have much knowledge with EXIF" ... I will delightfully admit to the peanut gallery that I'm not all that clued up on it but I would certainly say I have a basic understanding of it, "(Paint is not a suitable program)" - My spidey senses tell me you've misread or completely misunderstood my entire comment. –Davey2010^Talk 12:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Also I find it very baffling that you've taken an issue with my comment despite me stating above " I don't think it's worth worrying or caring over" and you state directly below "There is no need to do anything. The DR is still being discussed." .... We are essentially agreeing with each other .... Very baffling. –Davey2010^Talk 12:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know which part of "Alexis Jazz, Exactly you could've been long done by now but instead everything's been put on hold thanks to those few people, Shame really." (on the DR) you think is us both agreeing with each other. Since this discussion is about the importance of EXIF data, you should have stopped at "I don't have much knowledge with EXIF" and put down the keyboard and found something else to do. That's my point, and I suggest you do that. -- Colin (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

At the time I agreed she should've carried on but upon realising my EXIF data didn't state anything I evidently changed my mind, I don't pick up the keyboard Colin and I don't think 99% of the world do either, Nah mate It's a free world and I'm entitled to say what I like and do as I please (within reason) .... If you don't like what I say then don't read it ... simples. –Davey2010^Talk 13:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment I'm just waiting for instructions. Update the images I have already overwritten, update all the images like the five above, or revert the images I have overwritten. If any admin can tell me what to do, please. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 23:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Colin gave you an instruction to stop in the first instance but you refused to listen, rather you accused them of not assuming good faith and you threatened to continue. Which instruction do you want here? T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 09:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no need to do anything. The DR is still being discussed. While the offer of fixing the images clearly destroys Fae's claim that there is no volunteer time to fix the images, there remains the issue of volunteer competency. Part of the problem with Jan was he incompetently destroyed artwork photographs and arrogantly did so on a large scale despite people telling him to stop. Alexis has ironically demonstrated the same issues: a lack of competency combined with rashness and recklessness that does not encourage me to suggest he do any more here. At the very least, Alexis should download EXIFTOOL and learn how to use it. The very most that is required here is to change a licence URL from 4.0 to 3.0, but ... it has not yet been established that that is necessary. He could have fixed one single file as a demonstration, combined with an offer to fix the others. That would been a far less disruptive move, and given people the opportunity to correct/fix/advise if the fix wasn't good. Instead he planned to fix all 258 files without prior discussion or community authorisation. There is no rush. Let me be clear: Alexis is not advised at this point to make any further edits to those files, and to learn some patience and the value of taking baby steps. -- Colin (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Colin, do you think there is still a problem with e.g. File:Alexander Klöpping (2018).jpg? I think it's way more efficient to fix a problem while the DR is open, so that it may be closed as keep, than to have the files deleted first and then having to request temporary undeletion to fix the problem. Of course this must not be combined with the introduction of new problems, that's why I ask you if there is still a problem with the files after the second edit bij Alexis Jazz. Jcb (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see the sample 5 above. Why 5? We know all we need to know from 1. And certainly not the 30 he did or 258 he would have done if I hadn't asked him to stop. Yes, there is still a problem with the file. He has changed the usage terms from

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

to

Original: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Modifications by Jan Arkesteijn: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

The problem is we still don't know or have agreed as a community what the licence url should say. I've asked about this at the VP/Copyright. Either the file has to be offered as CC 3.0, or it is permitted to offer it as 4.0 and so no edits are required at all. It may be someone more knowledgeable than me determines that since the screen grabs are the same work-of-copyright as the video, then they cannot be offered CC 4.0. So at present, we don't know. We have two people's opinions, no consensus, and someone disruptively mass editing the files under discussion. As I noted above, Fae's DR is moot since we already have an offer to fix the EXIF if required. So there is no risk the files will get deleted and need undeleted. We can wait to see what experts/community think the EXIF tag should say. What it absolutely should not say is what Alexis wrote above. The licencing of the the "original" is not the concern of the JPG, but of the Youtube page. Further, Alexis needs to figure out how to upload a new version of the files accompanied with an summary of the changes made. This is a basic Commons requirement. Anyone mass overwriting files with no upload statement of changes made should be blocked and is just creating work and hassle for the rest of the community. This isn't one of those DRs where there is a missing source and so someone goes and helpfully finds the source. Editing the files during the DR, trashing EXIF, offering half-baked alternatives, is simply disruptive. Lets wait and see what the EXIF tag should say. -- Colin (talk) 11:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

So what do you propose? Alexis Jazz stops making these edits for now until consensus is reached and we keep-close the DR for now because there is no real problem? @Colin: @Alexis Jazz: could you both live with that? Jcb (talk) 12:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

There's never been any problem with EXIF data inconsistency that required a DR and Fae knows that. Plenty images get uploaded every day with EXIF saying "(c) All rights reserved XYZ" but the Commons page offers a CC licence or even declares the image to be PD. Yes the DR can be closed since there is no policy reason to delete, just as we wouldn't delete files if someone incorrectly modified the 3 to a 4 on a CC licence template on the file description page. Instead we discuss what should be done to remedy the issue, and there is really no rush. Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Creative Commons CC BY 3.0 Video -> Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 cropped screenshots -- is that valid? is the relevant discussion. Personally, Jcb, I wouldn't advise you to close it given your past history with Fae. -- Colin (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

All this happened because I misread Colin when they said "They are upgradable" as "The files are upgradable" (fixable) when they were talking about the license and Colin misread my "I'll just upgrade the files" as "I'll destroy the color profiles on everything". When Colin told me, I did stop removing the entire EXIF data and color profile, instead adjusting it. I hadn't realized I also removed the color profile.

"Alexis has ironically demonstrated the same issues: a lack of competency combined with rashness and recklessness that does not encourage me to suggest he do any more here."

There is a huge difference. I didn't complain about not wanting to change my ways but just improved my work the moment you told me. No color profile was removed since.

T Cells said: "Colin gave you an instruction to stop in the first instance but you refused to listen, rather you accused them of not assuming good faith and you threatened to continue."

I stopped removing the color profiles, so I did listen. Colin (in his very first message on my talk page) accused me of vandalism, which is downright wrong. While I don't want to call for actual sanctions, I really wouldn't mind if an administrator told Colin this wasn't right.

Colin said: "Ah, I didn't see the sample 5 above. Why 5? We know all we need to know from 1."

Two reasons: I wanted to test if the batch upload was working and more importantly: some issues might not show on every single file.

"Further, Alexis needs to figure out how to upload a new version of the files accompanied with an summary of the changes made. This is a basic Commons requirement."

Commonist doesn't seem capable of it. If would be happy to include one, but can't atm. If you need mass overwriting, you have exactly three options: waste days doing it one by one, create a bot work request (because bot owners have all the time in the world) or you can ask me. Because we've been here before and nobody else was capable of mass overwriting. I could add a notice to the file page with VFC afterwards if you wish.

"The overwrites are being made with no edit summary, which is against Commons policy and in violation of the CC licence terms."

It's obviously not in violation of the latter, but I'm curious which Commons policy you're talking about? I can't find it on COM:OVERWRITE.

@Jcb and Colin: "So what do you propose? Alexis Jazz stops making these edits for now until consensus is reached and we keep-close the DR for now because there is no real problem? @Colin: @Alexis Jazz: could you both live with that? Jcb"

If we must, yes, but I propose something else. Consensus can take a long time to reach, if it ever actually is reached on a case like this. I propose we ask Clindberg, imho the expert when it comes to copyright notices, to make a suggestion and unless someone else than me, Colin or Fæ has severe objections to it, I carry it out. That also means that if Clindberg says "put the Arkesteijn version back like Colin said" I won't moan about it. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

All this tedious trying try rationalise your actions to us, but the history shows otherwise. You prematurely took action on files that were being discussed. You removed all EXIF information from 30 files and uploaded the changes overwiting without making any upload summary. I fully believe that if I hadn't asked you to stop, you'd have carried on doing this for 258 files. When I asked you stop you claimed it was Jan who was the vandal, when in this case he actually added helpful EXIF data to the files and merely got a 3 and a 4 mixed up in the version URL of an obscure field. When asked to stop, you refused and claimed you were preparing to edit faster. That's why were are here at AN/U. No misunderstanding on your part. Just reckless arrogance and lack of patience and respect for waiting for the community to reach a decision before acting. That's the lesson you need to learn, not the above dubious claims you make. Stop wikilawyering and arguing, it just makes you look bad. Jan is also one for "What Commons law did I break?" Sigh. How ironic that "common sense" is a rare thing. Whatever is decided about the licence terms, it amusing that were are discussing at most a one byte change from a 4 character to a 3 character. Instead, Fae wanted to delete all the files in some petty vindictive revenge act, and you hastily wrecked the meta data in some desperate attempt to show off. What a waste of everyone's time. -- Colin (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

"I fully believe that if I hadn't asked you to stop, you'd have carried on doing this for 258 files."

@Colin: You know full well this isn't true. I haven't removed any color profile after you told me about it, as I explained above. I expect an apology. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

"unless someone else than me, Colin or Fæ has severe objections to it, I carry it out" - did you really mean to say that you plan to ignore the opinion of Colin or Fae if your ideas are backed up by Clindberg? Jcb (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jcb: not just Colin and Fæ, also my own. By "objections" I meant opinions. If they have objections about something that could be improved (as opposed to "I don't like it"), no problem. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 23:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

That's not going to happen. You cannot exclude people from the discussion because you don't like their opinion. You will stay away from these files until there is a consensus. Jcb (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Theknight36

Theknight36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent uploader of copyrighted images who had been blocked before. The latest batch contains at least 3 files that may have been taken from someone else -

File:Mrt malaysia.jpg - image found at a few sites, e.g. [7]
File:Bukit bintang.png - also found at a few other site - e.g. [8]
File:Kl skyline.png - likely a screen cap of this video (at around 2:52, identical cloud formation) - [9]
The last one is also likely to have been copied from elasewhere although source not determined. Hzh (talk) 11:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Done I blocked him for a month. Copyvios are deleted by others. Taivo (talk) 08:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Colin

This discussion was already closed, don't continue. Jcb (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

False accusations of vandalism and wikilawyering.

Background: I had overwritten some files and made a mistake, as Colin pointed out to me on my talk page. I hadn't realized I also removed the color profiles. Obviously, even if I had overwritten all the files I would have been willing to overwrite them all again after being made aware of my mistake. I removed the EXIF in good faith. Although Colin does make some arguments for keeping (part of) the EXIF, there are also good arguments to remove it entirely (except the color profile): the EXIF tricked Leoboudv, a license reviewer, into thinking librairie mollat (a YouTube channel) was responsible for it. If a license reviewer can't tell it was Arkesteijn, our re-users certainly can't. But that matter has been settled. I've learned one lesson from the whole thing: upload a few first, then see if anyone can spot any issues before doing the rest. Overwriting for me was almost like a VFC action: if I make a mistake, I'll correct it, but rarely ask for permission first. I've learned overwriting is somewhat more complex, so I'll handle that differently in the future.

The issue: Colin said this in his first message on my talk page:

This is vandalism. If you don't stop, I shall ask for you to be blocked.

Threatening with calling for a block without even awaiting my response seems uncalled for, but what I really take issue with is his "This is vandalism." statement. And Colin, despite multiple opportunities, never retracted that statement.

In the thread above, #Alexis Jazz trashing EXIF and disrupting DR, Colin said:

The overwrites are being made with no edit summary, which is against Commons policy

As far as I'm aware, an edit summary is more like a good description and useful categories on a new upload: very nice to have, but not mandatory. The same information could also be provided on the file page. So I asked Colin which policy said that, so I could read the details. Instead of giving me a link (I still have none, if anyone knows, please tell me), Colin accused me of wikilawyering with a direct comparison to the wikilawyering by Arkesteijn.

To be clear, if anyone wants to tell me "hey, there's a problem with X, can you fix that?", I'm always willing to look into it. If anyone wants to tell me "hey, you suck!", I probably won't even remove your message from my talk page. That's your opinion. But these false accusations, no. I don't believe that is acceptable user conduct. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 07:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Alexis, you have wasted enough of everyone's time already. You appear to be unable to take on board any advice. You respond to requests to stop with a declaration that you will not stop and in fact are planning to speed up, hence the above AN/U. The creative-works we host are not your property, but belong to someone else. The licensed files on Commons are not a shared community resource, like Wikipedia, but legally belong to individuals and organisations, of which Commons is merely a repository. Your edits to those files were vandalism, which is defined as "action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to property". You completely destroyed the EXIF data on 30 files and were planning to do the same for 228 other files. Upload summaries are absolutely required, not only by the community, but by the legal requirements of the CC files you edited. Whether you can find a sentence in policy wiki or not is a matter for wikilawyering, which I have already accused you, and which you continue to do. Nobody here thinks it is permitted to make undocumented changes to other people's files, and anyone continuing to do that when asked to stop, will likely find their account blocked. Some things are just too obvious for anyone to think of documenting as a written requirement, until perhaps we get someone like you who is wilfully determined to be obtuse. Is this part of your "Disrupt Commons to make a point" campaign? If it is, you'll find what happens to those who troll Commons to make a point: we'll document it in policy AND block you at the same time. -- Colin (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and the nonsense about about the EXIF tricking someone ... that isn't even one of the images that Alexis trashed on the 10th, and has nothing to do with this discussion other than it is yet another abuse of the DR process to complain about EXIF tags. There are no good arguments for trashing the EXIF on someone else's files. For crying out loud, we have a PD Mark tag that shouldn't be there. Quite easy to fix. Not "permanently embedded" as Fae claims. User:Leoboudv, how many of us have uploaded or reviewed a file with "(c) XYZ All rights reserved" in the EXIF and yet happy to have a conflicting PD or CC claim on the file description page? Hmm? "(c) All rights reserved" is also "incompatible with Commons licensing policies" and yet nobody bats an eyelid. There are ways of dealing with incorrect EXIF tags without a DR. -- Colin (talk) 08:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

"You respond to requests to stop with a declaration that you will not stop and in fact are planning to speed up,"

As I've explained previously, more than once, there was a misunderstanding of words on my talk page. I was never going to continue removing color profiles after I was made aware of that. The rest of your comment is, frankly, not worth responding to. Just more threats. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 08:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Alexis, the problem with wiki, is it is quite clear to see when you are just making stuff up. The so-called misunderstanding you go on about, was on text I wrote after you said "Jan Arkesteijn is the vandal here. I didn't stop because of you btw - I was just fixing stuff to overwrite faster.". At that point, all I had said was "Stop editing Jan's youtube frames. You appear to be simply removing all EXIF data from the files. This is vandalism. If you don't stop, I shall ask for you to be blocked." There is no misunderstanding with that text. And your response to my comment about colour profiles was to mock me and joke "Fifty-fifty chance they'll look better without a color profile" and "I shall revert nothing". You are in a big stinky hole. Stop digging. -- Colin (talk) 11:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

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

MC880

MC880 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Uploads copyvios after several warnings : almost 30 in less than 2 months. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Done I gave them a final warning. Any more copyvios will result in a block. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

MC880 (again)

MC880 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Apparently doesn't care about the last warning he received. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Done Blocked for a week. All files deleted, or nominated for deletion. Yann (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hoax

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

User was just indef-blocked on en-wiki for perpetrating a hoax (for many years); File:Murno Gladst Fence Wall.svg was used to illustrate it. We appreciate your help. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Murno Gladst Fence Wall.svg‎. Yann (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Aurino Rahal Fernandes

Aurino Rahal Fernandes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Mass copyvios after blocks. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Three previous blocks, including a 3 month block, did not stop the issue. Blocked indefinitely. --Majora (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Géographe96 and his sockpuppet Pommejaune

Coould someone rein in User:Géographe96 and his sockpuppet User:Pommejaune for edit-warring over New Caledonia flags? Thanks... AnonMoos (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Done I blocked Géographe96 for 3 months for edit-warring: complete disregard of a previous warning. The sock is globally locked. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

One puppet and “complete disregard”? This is a Wikipedian sockmaster with ten-months experience and these are just two of many his/her throw-away accounts. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I blocked Jeandu33 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions). AFAIK no other related socks on Commons.

Petitwiktion (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) and Géographe96 are already globally locked. Yann (talk) 06:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, all... AnonMoos (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Keditz

Keditz (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Could please someone take a look at the new uploads by this user?! There are some already deleted images and now the same kind of images come again. As far as I understand it, the guy ON the images is this "Lil-Peep" guy. So he can not made the images. And there are also some images that completely differ from the others. Unlikely the work of one person. But maybe I'm too critic? Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Done Files nominated for deletion, user warned. Yann (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Reykholt & User:Hornstrandir1

Sock puppetry? Chek please. I think same person by contribution log. Sorry, I can't speak English very well. --Batholith (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, both users have names pertaining to Iceland, both upload images from Iceland taken with a Vodafone mobile phone (I think), though different models; but before looking deeper into it, can you please tell us what the problematic behaviour would be? Have the users interacted in a way that would be sockpuppetry? (Multiple accounts as such are not forbidden, but using them in an abusive way is). Gestumblindi (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Allrightnow1970

Allrightnow1970 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Every single upload (or multiple reuploads of the same(s) file(s)) is a copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I think every user should be given a final warning using {{End of copyvios}} before being reported to AN and getting blocked for copyright violation according to COM:BP: "Clear explanations and warnings about Commons policy should be engaged in before and after blocking a user for license problems". 4nn1l2 (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: {{Copyvionote}}, {{Fcs}}, {{Dw image source}}, and {{Dont recreate}} are not clear enough for you? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 13:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I don't say no. However, I think a clear warning which focuses on a subsequent block is more effective. The templates you mentioned above, mainly focus on the content. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

computer was hacked

My computer was hacked into they left us file on my browser please have my information removed from the site

Screenshot 2018-11-14 at 8.46.28 PMScreenshot 2018-11-14 at 8.46.21 PM [[Screenshot 2018-11-14 at 8.46.28 PM] — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 100.11.215.55 (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as the creation of files with those types of file names is impossible we can't really help you as it didn't get uploaded like that. We would either need the file name or if someone has uploaded personally identifying information about you to this site please follow the instructions at COM:Oversight. --Majora (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Yup, we're not unhacking service and we don't know who you are (which username). Besides, all information from Wikipedia projects is public unless it violates some law (like copyright or editor privacy). Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

South African flags

There is currently a problem with a set of images.

DIREKTOR has decided to apply CMYK colour settings to them based on SAVA (the Southern African Vexillological Association). Whilst I have no question that this was in good faith, the settings are very clearly wrong. They are unnatural and do not reflect actual period examples of these flags. The blue appears purple, the red is nearly pink, they are very pale, it is rather obvious that these CMYK settings are incorrect. Furthermore multiple users have taken issue with this. I also politely asked DIREKTOR to consider these flaws and to not revert the files further, but they don't want to hear it. I therefore am forced to request administrator intervention. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The user also has a penchant for blanking pages in own user space, rather than truly archiving. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 18:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Note for Fry1989 and Jeff G.: this is the account Director (talk · contribs) (who had the name “DIREKTOR” in Wikipedia before 2014) the user in question. As for DIREKTOR, we can suppose that it’s an orphaned account belonging to the same person, but I see no evidences thereof. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I used the first userspace link by the OP. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 17:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment These are blatant examples of abuse of COM:OVERWRITE. Do not edit war. Upload new versions as separate files. Any attempt to continue should lead to a block. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with posting an accurate version, but the source in the article is SAVA. Which recommends the colours I used. I.e. - I merely implemented colours according to the article's own, long-standing source. Apparently someone thinks they're "unnatural"... so fine... (more likely the rgb balance on the man's monitor/phone is off) but the file really shouldn't misleadingly cite a source which doesn't support it.

The issue with the blue is due to the widespread mistaken use of a British shade of blue, which was officially addressed as being inaccurate by the SA parliament.

Yes, that's all me. I'm an old-timer from enWiki with 60,000 edits... Director (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about the source of the changes or the apparent mistakes, but the color sure doesn't look good to me (and there is nothing wrong with my monitor). The flag is supposed to be based on en:Flag of the Orange Free State, en:Flag of Transvaal and en:Flag of the United Kingdom, neither of which show such colours, at all. If, like you said, the SA Parliament rejected the blue of mentioned flags, then I suppose you can give a date and a source for that. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC).

I added an image to compare the colors of a flag from SAVA's own website and the version of Director. At least one of these two is not correct. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC).

Converting CMYK to RGB is not straightforward (unlike, say, HSB). If it looks wrong on screen, then it is wrong, unless it is an expected artifact and these SGVs are meant to be stored in Commons not to be displayed on screen but to be used in a print press. If so, however,
- The file names and descriptions should be clear about it (and uploaded as new files instead of overwriting files meant for screen display), and
- the svg code should include the original CMYK values, not an RGB value “converted” off-the-cuff from it (as of SVG 2.0 a fall back RGB value should be present.^[10])

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

As has been discussed a number of times on Flag image talk pages (see File talk:Flag of the United States.svg#10th Edition The standard color reference of America etc. etc.), official flag color specifications are generally defined in a device-independent way, while the RGB colors in computer SVG files are inherently device-dependent, which means that there's no one "correct" conversion for all circumstances... AnonMoos (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

User:A.Savin

This is not going anywhere. If someone is "passive aggressive", whatever that self-contradictory qualification may mean, send them some flowers. If the sockpuppet allegation is serious enough, we have a different noticeboard for that. Jcb (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

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

It is becoming nearly impossible to contribute to Commons in a meaningful manner due to the passive aggressive tendencies of A.Savin. It all started quite mildly, I have decided to categorise post offices in Russia, which at that time were in the state of disarray, this individual did not work on that category and had nothing to do with it. I have spent quite a long time searching for uncategorised buildings and then I have began creating subcategories. It was at this time that I have received my first communication from A.Savin, where I was told to stop creating them, because the way that user has created categories elsewhere were titled differently. I thought that the person was there to help me, but I was very mistaken. I have asked for a very simple thing, to let me know when I could return to work on post offices (something I am quite interested in), but I was not awarded this courtesy. I was not told of the terms that User:A.Savin wanted me to use, I was only told in a very rude manner to stop using 'Thank' functionality of Wikimedia Commons. I do admit that there were cases where I may have made mistakes with copy-pasting something incorrectly, however, as soon as I have discovered such instances I tried to correct those mistakes.

There was also an incident where User:A.Savin has manipulated edits to appear to have been fixing my error, where in fact the error was introduced by the 'corrections'. In Russia and some other post-soviet countries, there is no real concept of 'car accident' ('автомобильный несчастный случай'), rather than that there is something called 'road vehicle incident' ('дорожно транспортное проишествие'). And I have created categories for my own uploads to go into. User:A.Savin did two separate things, first moving those categories to an incorrect location, and then removing my description all together. Now, I can entertain the possibility that somebody may believe that a concept from a different country should be applied in Russia, that will make categorisation slightly more difficult (bicycle hitting a pedestrian fits the latter but not the former), but then the description removal should have been discussed at the very least and not removed with a minor bit set, to attempt to hide it.

I would understand it if I were making all the mistakes and A.Savin were correcting me all the time. But quite often the 'corrections' are introducing the mistakes in the category tree. Today's note that was left on my talk page is the straw that has completely broken the camel's back. The background to it is User:A.Savin incorrectly placing a file from stanitsa Anapskaya inside city of Anapa, which is not a mistake that a person could have made looking at the map for 20 seconds (because these are different geographical locations). I have said in my edit summary that one needs to learn geography before making edits, I concur that it was wrong of me, but honestly I am beginning to feel harassed at this moment.

There were a couple of other interactions I think. I cannot recall them at this moment.

I feel that my contributions are being miscategorised in the way to make them more difficult to find. This user is refusing to engage in discussion and uses commands and threats when we do cross paths. At no single time did this user do something against Commons policies, but the overall climate of communication leaves me in constant stress when I see this user's name popping up. I ask that other people look at what is happening and either tell me how to deal with this individual or ask them to stop interacting with me all together. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 16:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I think A.Savin’s RfD was the first I ever noticed as a Common’s user, and I remember being surprised at the fact that one of his purported qualities was that he’s a great photographer: How exactly would that help in his admin work? Turns out, in no way at all. This person would be just one more annoying, obnoxious user, as such — as an admin he’s a Sword of Damocles over the head of anyone crossing his path, and often there’s no telling where that path lies. My own personal anecdote is when he reverted a filepage edit I had made, containing valid categorization, out of spite over a DR affecting that file. I could forgive pettiness and rudeness, but not when it affects curation and content. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: 67 seconds later A. Savin added some categories. Could this have been an edit conflict? (A. Savin prepares some categories, phone rings, you add categories, they revert to be able to get their own edit through, etc) Not very neat, but is it malice? At least one category was more specific than the one you entered. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 01:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we need not an admin to block me, but much more a checkuser to check the account "Gone Postal", whose behaviour is, by a very interesting coincidence, quite "INeverCry"-like. --A.Savin 04:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Rather than an apology or an explanation for one's actions I get another accusation casually thrown at me. I would like to request an edit restriction. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 04:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

First, server-side tools can do little to identify INeverCry, especially without his fresh reference accounts. Second, Gone_Postal was registered on July 7, 2017, and almost immediately started to edit Wikipedia in a distinctive manner. Note that the Daphne sock scandal and subsequent ejection of INeverCry from Commons and en.Wikipedia happened in August, 2017, and all known INeverCry’s socks active in 2018 (such as this sleeper account) were registered after those events. Looks like a random guess by A.Savin which shouldn’t be published at all, especially in this context. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Not more ridiculous than all the rationales for this "user problem" --A.Savin 14:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Are you saying this was a joke? Try adding a

next time. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 01:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

this was a really snarky comment, Instead of reverting Postal you should've gone to A.Savins talkpage and discussed it so I can understand why A.Savin came to your talkpage in a huff,

That being said A.Savin your last sentence on Postals talkpage[11] is wholly unacceptable - (Instead of saying "If you continue to keep yourself in such an unacceptable manner, the first entry will appear in your lock log." you could've said "Please don't disrupt Commons or you could be blocked" which sounds a lot nicer,

All in all other than the last part of that message I'm not really seeing anything problematic here, If I've missed something please provide diffs. –Davey2010^Talk 14:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Ok, I have began going step by step once again trying to show how I have tried communicating with A.Savin on my page, how I have attempted to ask for an explanation on their page, etc, etc. But none of this is really an issue here. Even the whole demand for checkuser, that people are getting worked up about is completely irrelevant. Every single one of those things is mild, the problem is that the mild aggression is systematic. This results in the fact that toxicity is building up. P.S. I am going to assume that you have made a mistake when you have suggested that A.Savin would leave "Please don't disrupt Commons or you could be blocked" on my talk page, because I am sure that if I were to leave that on theirs after they have damaged a category tree that would be inappropriate. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 17:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Naming categories as "Post offices in Yekaterinburgskaya (sic!!) oblast" despite the fact that it's very easy to look in Wikipedia for the correct name of this oblast, and that all categories on Commons related to this oblast are named same way as in WP, and then accusing the one who fixed it of damaging the category tree? That's kind of "throwing stones from a glasshouse". --A.Savin 00:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I wonder, btw, if talking *to* me instead of *about* me is somewhat considered below your dignity? --A.Savin 00:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

You can see from the comment above that the whole discussion has been derailed to get a reaction from me. Any reaction, that can then be misinterpreted as if I have initiated this altercation. I do not want an altercation, I want this to stop. That is exactly why I am requesting no further interaction with this individual. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 11:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

But I suppose you are aware of the fact that "this individual" has all the right to intervene and to fix your categorization or other edit, in case it is unprofessional and wrong, just like happened with the non-existent "Yekaterinburg Oblast", and that he will do it every time when needed? --A.Savin 13:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree, There's a place for that and it's certainly not here, I do admit he does seem a bit brass ... blunt ? .... at times which I've put down to a language or culture thing, Without sounding disrespectful to AS that's just who he is ....,

When I'm angry on here and elsewhere I have a tendency to swear and tell people to fuck off[12] .... It's just who I am and that's kinda the point we're all different .... No amount of blocks will ever make me not swear or in a temper tell someone to fo and it's the same here ... no amount of discussion will make AS change as that's who he is,

I'm just not seeing any problematic behaviour here sorry. –Davey2010^Talk 18:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I am particularly interested in learning how Gone Postal is a possible sock of INC. If A.Savin has enough evidence to suggest that the OP is a sock of a globally banned user, they should start a discussion at COM:SPI. This is a very serious allegation that should be substantiated by the accuser. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 15:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually I have thought couple of times myself, that Gone Postal and INeverCry are very similar and Gone Postal is likely sockpuppet, but I have never created a formal request to investigate. If this is wrong, then I apologize, but ... they are really very similar users. Taivo (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection to people discussing this. I honestly do not understand why people usually (reading other discussions) get worked up about getting accused of being sockpuppets or somesuch. If you think that I broke some regulation, it is appropriate to discuss that. But this is not a point now. Think about it this way, would it at all be possible for me to be a sockpoppet of another user and at the very same time A.Savin's behaviour being improper? So why mix these two things together? ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 11:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I just cannot find anything wrong committed by @A.Savin: . Sometimes he may seem rude but Commons is not a dinner party, how the Chairman Mao said about it... -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 11:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet allegation

It seems this is serious than I ever imagined. Taivo comment's above suggests the need to start an SPI. Gone Postal is a license reviewer on this project and I think allegation of sockpuppet against them should be substantiated. As we do not want another Daphne Lanter, I'll suggest a CU to weigh in. So, I am pinging our CU here, Elcobbola, Krd, Magog the Ogre and Trijnstel. Regards. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 11:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

If some of our checkusers take it seriously and check "Gone Postal", it would be good anyway. I did not claim GP to be INC, I just said that their behaviour is similar, which is true. If they are INC indeed, this is a VERY professional sockpuppetry. In this case, the big question would be, where the uploaded photos come from (stolen/purchased). --A.Savin 13:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

And now yet another accusation from A.Savin. All of the people who are saying that they do not see that this is wrong baffles me. Let us look at a hypothetical and imagine me asking of A.Savin's photos are stolen or purchased. This is getting completely ridiculous. First there are accusations, then after the discussion is derailed this user comes back with "I was simply making a funny observation", immediately followed by another accusation. Is putting 'If' in front of the sentence all that is required to stay under the radar? ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 13:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

If you were interested in resolving the issue in a constructive way, you maybe would explain: a) how come that you registered nearly at time INC was blocked, b) how come that you got active in meta discussions and License review already quite a short time after registration, without ever having really been a "newbie"; c) why you claim to be a Russian native speaker which is apparently not true; d) why you consider it below your dignity to talk *to* me instead of *about* me ("this individual" etc.) --A.Savin 13:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

So do people still believe despite the comment above that the initial post could be characterised as "I did not claim GP to be INC". Once again A.Savin words everything carefully enough in order to be able to claim to have done nothing wrong, despite the fact that it is clear that the post is meant to be aggressive and provocative. Later on it would be possible to just say "Oh, I have forgotten to add a smiley face at the end of this". ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 14:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, no reply is a reply too. --A.Savin 14:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gone Postal: "Is putting 'If' in front of the sentence all that is required to stay under the radar?" You don't need to do that, admins can make false accusations all they want in my experience.

@A.Savin: While I registered over a decade ago, I haven't been active here as long as Gone Postal. Everything anyone here knows me for happened in the past 11 months. So why is nobody accusing me of being a sock? I feel overlooked.

- Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 15:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

If a user is suspected of abusing multiple accounts, a request needs to be made at COM:RFCU and it must include evidence ("Show what the disruption to the project is, and why you believe the accounts are related." (COM:RFCU)) Pinging CUs in response to a noticeboard musing is not adequate or helpful. Эlcobbola _talk 15:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Petebutt and categorization

User:Petebutt has been blocked repeatedly (mostly but not entirely by me) for failing to accept commons categorization standards, making disruptive edits, and launching personal attacks. The latest block ended about a month ago, and judging from his recent edits and his response to a reasonable request from Apalsola, I'm concerned his disruptive behaviour is likely to continue. I'd rather not be involved in this personally anymore, so I was hoping someone else might respond. Perhaps the most recent issue can be solved with different categorization (Category:Aircraft by Douglas model number to match Category:Aircraft by Boeing model number ?), but it's the pattern of behaviour and talk page responses that concern me. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

That said, what is such Aircraft by Boeing model number category? Do we need such categorization, or Boeing aircraft isn't enough? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 11:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I’d say yes, we need such categorization: there’s enough models of Boeing (and of MCD and many others) to warrant a meta subcat. of them. It could be kept under Category:Boeing aircraft, with a suitable sorting preffix ("№" or "#", e.g.), but like this it’s much more “clean”. (And it’s way more in line with the philosophy behind structured data, even if I say so myself.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

User Ltosnar

May someone please warn User Ltosnar for (mild) vandalism on my user page? This probably is in reaction to the unfortunate deletion of a number of his uploads. Thank you. Ariadacapo (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

That’s not mild. :-\ -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. I warned Ltosnar. Taivo (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Would like to delete a corrupt image that was overwritten using the same file name

Kindly request a deletion of corrupted image file

File:Kimberly_Kowal_Arcand_at_TEDx_Providence_Rhode_Island.jpg

Located at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/f/f2/20181119011509%21

I did upload a scaled down size of the same image to overwrite corrupt image using the same file name and that one is fine.

I checked the FAQ's and Help to no avail. I was not able to tag the corrupt image file for deletion because it is in the history archives.

Thank you for you time and support. Much appreciated.

Tracykarin (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Done @Tracykarin: Generally it doesn't matter if the corrupted image stays but since you asked I deleted it. --Majora (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tracykarin: Not sure about FAQs and Help (as I seldom check them), but every file page has a link at the bottom that reads «Upload a new version of this file»: That’s how borked uploads can be fixed. (But do read COM:Overwrite.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

User:HWAYTABON8888

HWAYTABON8888 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) An RCU is needed for User:HWAYTABON8888 who is probably User:SALOPENEU88, already warned and blocked once. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Done I blocked him/her as porn-only user. All files are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

More exact rationale is needed for indefinite block ... At first, all his/her uploads are now deleted due to copyright problems. In addition, educational value of the uploads was often weak, because there was black rectangle or big dollar sign instead of face. Taivo (talk) 08:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Tuvalkin

Both Tuvalkin and A.Savin are not particularly known for their civil communication. That said, I don't see any thing that should be done at this stage. Jcb (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

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

I'm tired of this user's permanent harassment [13] [14]. Maybe they should look for an admin of "their own's ilk" to close this request without sanctions, so that they can continue to insult users, who happen to have a different opinion, a "wanker" or so. --A.Savin 23:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment I´ve to say that iám appalled in what an reading. If you A.Savin are asking for User:Tuvalkin to be blocked for calling someone wanker, what about an user (you) that call others corrupts , or an Party of crooks and thieves (me, involved in that discussion and Tuvalkin that had nothing to do with that discussion).

But worst yet is that in the same discussion that you linked, without any evidence whatsoever, you said that "I think we need not an admin to block me, but much more a checkuser to check the account "Gone Postal", whose behaviour is, by a very interesting coincidence, quite "INeverCry". Basically you without any ambiguous word or phrase, accused another user of being an sockpuppet.

So is the time to say that, if you want Tuvalkin to be blocked for supposed insults, what is the proper punishment for your insult of calling someone an sockpuppet, you that are an administrator? Please provide proofs what you are saying about an supossed sockpuppet or, without any evidence, suffer the proper block for an insult, if there is any sense of equilibrium. Tm (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I’m surprised that A.Savin could’t find anything worse than that in my edits. Am I that tame? Oh, well. For what’s worth, I did use the w-word back then not knowing it is a terrible insult: I took it by its lexical value wanting to express that the person I aimed it at was wasting everybody’s time with petty matters; following the edit A.Savin quotes above, I did learn that the w-word carries a weight greater than it’s mere denotative value. It’s interesting that A.Savin was dilligent to remember that insult and not the clarification that followed.

Either way, the matter here is not whether I am, or any of us is, gruff and brusque: That’s mostly a given and, as said above to exonerate the very same A.Savin, this is not a dinner party. Fair enough. (In my defence, I’d say I’m never one to start a fight, although I confess I’m not one to de-escalate, either.)

What’s on the table concerning A.Savin is that he’s all those things he is while being an admin. That’s a big issue, and that’s what needs to be fixed. We cannot have admins who will misuse their flags to enact petty vengeance (or just threaten to), even if we can have normal users who have an unpleasant demeanor. When one has the admin bit, it’s extra necessary to rein in one’s unsavoury personality traits, count to ten before doing or saying things, and overall be responsible and professional. I don’t see that in A.Savin (nor in other admins «of his ilk») and this very AN/U post is a good example.

Concerning the substance of his claim, well, the accusation of harassment could be easily flipped around, especially as he’s the one who can have me blocked, and not the other way around. A history of our interactions will show him hounding me here and there, never forgetting I successfully opposed a DR he filed, possibly ever adding to a list of grievances in his mind. However, I don’t think I ever went out of my way to interact with him, let alone annoy or harass.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Tuválkin, if you find it amusing that A.Savin is struggling to get you blocked for harassment based on two recent diffs and a two-year-old insult to someone else, you perhaps also need to examine your own comments that prompted this. You claim "I don’t think I ever went out of my way to interact with him, let alone annoy or harass." yet in the above section, describing a dispute between A.Savin and Gone Postal -- a dispute where you were not AFAIK involved at all -- you took it upon yourself to personally attack A.Savin with a gratuitous insult ("annoying, obnoxious user") and dig up two "personal anecdote[s]" from 2015 that you have apparently not "forgive[n]". So it seems your "list of grievances" is even older than A.Savin's and your grudge just as persistent.

The problem with your contributions to this noticeboard is that you see an AN/U request as an invitation to throw insults simply to be horrible to someone you dislike. And you (and quite a few others) see AN/U on an admin especially, as an invitation to add other old, ancient even, misdemeanours, as though that was in any way helpful to understanding if the current grievance has merit. You don't help us understand if Gone Postal's complaint has any merit by making personal attacks, or diverting our attention onto whether or not the old issues you raise also have any merit. It is a persistent toxic environment here, where any admin, when complained-about, is subject to random additional attacks from others. It is also ineffective, because the topic degenerates to the point where archiving is necessary. I strongly urge you to recognise this flaw in your contributions here, and decided that if you have nothing pertinent and constructive to say, and can't actually be bothered investigating the issue raised, that you say nothing.

IMO, you should have been immediately blocked for the personal attack insult ("annoying, obnoxious user"), and such blocks increased in length with each occurrence until you get the message. -- Colin (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Parts of Tuivalkin's statement suggest that they consider sysops kind of special, in the sense that the rules which prohibit personal attacks and harassment, apply for non-admins lesser than for admins because non-admins have less responsibility or so; which is obviously nonsense. --A.Savin 17:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

To me, “[A.Savin’s] ilk” means in this context “sysops who use threats of block to win edit wars”. Let’s hope they cease this conduct or eventually will be desysopped. Just patience... Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

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

my account has been compromised

I have a mail:

Someone (possibly you) with an IP address of 146.185.211.65 has specified this email address as new to the account "Vash mail pobedil, vam nachisleno 14131p. Polushite po ssilke - www.rnv68.derg.pro 1 " in the Wikipedia project. To confirm that this account really belongs to you, and to enable the ability to send emails from the website Wikipedia, open given below link in the browser. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ConfirmEmail/9411c930686232ebaa62c2927481700e If this account does *not* apply to you, click on the following link to cancel the confirmation of the address https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:InvalidateEmail/9411c930686232ebaa62c2927481700e the confirmation Code is valid until 11:43, 25 November 2018.

The links does not work. Please do something and give me back my account. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.87.205.34 (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like some S [146.185.211.65]—likely a spambot—registered such account with a long name (actually it is something in Latin-script Russian unlikely usable for anything but deception), entering an Email of a third-party person U. Then S tried to validate Email for said account, which resulted in a spam Email received by U. Meanwhile, ru.Wikipedians indefblocked the new account and (in)validation links were disabled. For some reason U [77.87.205.34] decided that the incident has something to do with his/her own “account” and came here. But why to ask on Wikimedia Commons about operators of spambots active in ru.Wikipedia? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Misuse of Copyvio templates by autopatroller

User apparently made a few mistakes and promised to be more careful. Nothing more to be done. Jcb (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

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

The user Patrick Rogel (talk · contribs) tagged the File:Jana Miartusova & Eufrat - back.jpg as "copyvio", providing "Unrecognizable" as reason to deletion (diff, {{copyvio|1=Unrecognizable.}}). As far I know, that's no reason to use {{copyvio}} and if he thinks that the file should be deleted, it should go through Commons:Deletion requests. Still, even not being recognizable, Commons is not censored (Commons:Not censored). So, in my opinion is an abuse of an autopatroller trying misuse deletion templates to censor Wikimedia Commons.--Jim Bangs (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Boldly reverted. You can look at another instance of unintelligible Patrick’s tagging at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the African Union (free).png. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Update: It seems that this user uses {{copyvio}} template for any deletion request, including FOP cases (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:行政院 (160 - 222) (13695028614).jpg).--Jim Bangs (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Those girls are not random girls either: d:Q3806972 and d:Q17748667. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 18:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Indeed, they were notable in their field of work. Still, it isn't a valid reason to use {{copyvio}} template, which should be used to clear (no doubts) copyright violations. Also, those girls are known to be nude models, therefor the existence of nude photographs. Now, if the flickr uploader is or is not the copyright holder, how can I find out or even you? But that's the case of many images from flickr: they can come from legitim sources or copywash. But if we do delete legitim content, what content will remain on Wikimedia Commons?--Jim Bangs (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Not much, but you didn't have to tell me that. I just made an observation for those who are not familiar with these porn stars. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Where is Jim Bangs (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) from? Where is it permitted to discuss a user on a noticeboard without any formal notification? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: maybe same place A.Savin is from. He didn't have to notify Tuvalkin about the thread above either, so apparently that's OK now. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 18:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It's worth nothing that the notice at the top of this page says It is usually appropriate to notify the user(s) concerned., implying that it's not a hard requirement. IMO, if it is a requirement to notify users about noticeboard discussions, that sentence should be reworded and made to stand out more. clpo13_(talk) 19:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Clpo13: the way I read it and the usual practice I have experienced, it means notification is not needed if the user in question is already aware (perhaps made aware off-wiki), notifying the user is not appropriate (such cases would usually be on ANB, can't think of an ANU example) or a user doesn't play a serious role in some case. "User A did something really problematic which was promptly reverted by User B" or "User A did something really problematic, it's similar to what happened last month with User B", no real need to notify User B in those cases. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: First of all, I wasn't aware there would exist a template for notification. Now, I do! Where I'm from is irrelevant since I have the right to my privacy and also I respect Wikimedia Commons, thus why I spend time to contribute to the project as it is. @Alexis Jazz: I find your comment disrespectful and nearly bullying. I understand you may get tired of people that don't respect others and I can assure you that's not the case. Just because I was unaware of the notification, it doesn't mean I was disrespecting someone. Where is the assuming good faith ideology? Gone?--Jim Bangs (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jim Bangs: I think you misunderstood. A.Savin, being an administrator, should know better and I was joking. Well, joking, actually it would be really strange to fault you for not notifying a user when an admin does the exact same thing. I think I understand why you are concerned about your privacy btw. Interesting.. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexis Jazz: Then I misunderstood you, indeed. I didn't know who A.Savin was and I agree with you that an administrator should follow the established rules and procedures. About my privacy, it's just the matter of choosing what to share with other people. Everyone is entitle to choose to reveal or not things about themselves. It's just a matter of choice and everyone choose what to share or what to not share. I guess I do still have that freedom?! But I can assure you I'm not here to disrupt Wikimedia Commons, or any other project. I love that Wikimedia made true all these projects. I'm sorry that I misunderstood you! I'm not here to start a fight with anyone or disrespect anyone! Btw, once there was a girl that I liked and she also was concerned about her privacy that much that she didn't like to other people taking selfies with her, because of the metadata that goes to the internet. It's not just me, as you can see. Once again, I'm sorry for misunderstanding you. Regards, Jim Bangs (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  - Very strange things are happening here. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

*Undelete every file (tagged with copyvio) by Patrick Rogel and then indef him for deceptive purposes, ~~Ofcourse language could be a key part to all of this but that's still no excuse,~~ I honestly see no better resolution that undeleting all copyvio-tagged images and indeffing them. –Davey2010^Talk 19:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Their DRs as well as talkpage messages are all in English which would clearly mean this was done as a backdoor process and not as a language issue, It's deceptive pure and simple. –Davey2010^Talk 19:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: what do you think about this? Patrick isn’t a problem which appeared today or yesterday. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Incnis Mrsi, I think that's staggering to say the least!, Being honest we all follow WP:IAR from time to time myself included but this goes beyond IAR .... This is a user who seemingly disagrees with DRs and is using copyvio as a quickdelete for pretty much everything, Based on past issues with deception I all but strongly support indeffing. –Davey2010^Talk 19:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that a person standing on a low step of wiki hierarchy must conform to trustworthiness standards that high as imagined by Davey2010. Patrick Rogel isn’t anybody like an expert having diploma and licenses, nor should his edits meet standards appropriate for articles in a respected newspaper or declarations by an official. He just generates some stream of information to be processed on our site. This information channel supplies a lot of noise, and we should deal with it in a way smarter than bluntly cutting the transmission line off. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

(Redacted) –Davey2010^Talk 20:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: I agree, on the other hand, I created this report back in April because Patrick Rogel was using copyvio rationales like "https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/8104UJHcFAL._UX250_.jpg". Patrick Rogel produces a lot of correct reports, but some also really miss the mark. Which wouldn't be much of a problem if all admins were very careful before deleting anything, but a few admins don't scrutinize reports sufficiently. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Incnis Mrsi was talking about Patrick, not about you. There are more users here who require constant monitoring, but again, that problem only exists because we have some careless admins. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Only having had less than 6 hours sleep I'm 98% asleep right now and have been for most of the day so as you can probably imagine I didn't even think of that at all

-

That's a very VERY good point - Whilst he's wrong to tag these the dealing admins are also wrong to have accepted his request and carried on deleting them,

But yet again we're a multilingual project and so in some respects "unrecognisable" is obvious to us English folk but may not been so obvious to those who don't speak English or know much about it (Not making excuses for them just thinking of possible reasons). –Davey2010^Talk 21:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry @Jim Bangs: has not notified me but fortunately @Incnis Mrsi: has. However the latter should know he's not an Administrator so he's not allowed to remove a speedy deletion template unless he launches a regular one instead (or perhaps he didn't really want that this issue is discussed). Indeed concerning File:Jana Miartusova & Eufrat - back.jpg I maintain the persons are unrecognizable and I remember an Ivanka Trump picture seen from behing during the Korean Olympics having been deleted for that reason. Concerning File:Gay anal sex.jpg Jim Bangs finally agrees with my rationale (Bad quality picture, selfie) and I remember too user HWAYTABON8888 having been blocked only 3 days ago by @Taivo: (see same section above) as being a "porn-only user." Please note that I haven't nominate Jim Bang's remaing picture since we can see fr:Nella (actrice)'s face on it. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Patrick Rogel: Ivanka Trump is not famous because of her body.. (also, she probably wasn't naked on that photo)

@Taivo: that's a ridiculous rationale, I assume you typed "I blocked him/her as porn-only user." by accident and meant to say something else? On the talk page, it is stated the user is blocked for uploading unfree files after warnings. Which is a valid but completely different rationale. We don't block users because they are only interested in one topic. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 23:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I explained my block more detailed in section above. Taivo (talk) 08:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

There is another possibility. "Nominate for deletion" and "Report copyright violation" links at the sidebar are near each other and their respective windows are also similar. I have made several mistakes myself when I intended to start a regular DR, but reported a copyvio instead or vice versa (most of them were fixed by myself, but some of them ended up deleted). User:Patrick Rogel is highly active at maintenance, and most of his reports are correct and reasonable. I respect his work. When he makes a mistake, admins or any other user (including User:Jim Bangs himself) can simply convert the copyvio report to a DR. Out of process deletions by careless admins should be raised and addressed in a separate thread. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Convert, for this case? The original edit was a pure disruption because no copyvio allegation is presented, and a fresh account making some ten such edits as {{copyvio|Unrecognizable.}} could easily end in indefinite block as vandalism-only. If Patrick can’t notice that didn’t create a regular deletion request although he intended to start it – too bad for him, and nobody should guess his intentions and waste time rewriting nonsensical requests. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, undoing his edit is another option. But, that's beside the point.
User:Patrick Rogel has 57,978 contributions to Commons. Most of his contributions are useful, and he has proved himself good at finding "problematic" files (whether copyvios or those which are deemed to be out of scope or ...). I oppose the deletion of File:Jana Miartusova & Eufrat - back.jpg, however, I don't scold a user who has started a deletion request as long as he can justify it. I think he has justified it by comparing it to a photo of Ivanka Trump. Again, I may oppose his comparison, but that's for another venue (i.e. the DR). I suggest Patrick to be more verbose when he nominates files for deletion, and I ask him to be more careful with using {{Copyvio}}. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Nominating things like Jana_Miartusova_&_Eufrat_-_back.jpg for regular deletion is legitimate, but use of the rollback against nonsense is legitimate too, as one never can be sure where namely did Patrick err. Was it a wrong argument? Wrong tag? Wrong file? Just an accidental copy&paste action or a browser glitch? More safe to revert IMHO. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I oppose any block of this user. Yes, the actions were unfortunate, but they would not have disrupted the project if closing admins take a second to read the rationale for the copyvio template. If the user will continue this practice, then it is possible to have an edit restriction. I see comments that say that we (the community) would ban a new account that did something like this, and if that is true, then it is also wrong and we should not. Closing admins should approach these templates as a polite request, not as a command to delete. Admins should be the servants of the community, but not of the desires of any sigle member thereof. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 05:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I promise I'll be more careful using {{Copyvio}}. Nevertheless I have to warn @Davey2010: (who I don't know) to contact me before propagating fake news about me : no, I'm not a Native English speaker and no again I'm not "using copyvio as a quickdelete for pretty much everything". Besides it's funny to hear the word "disruptive" from his mouth and I'm sorry to tell him that any other fraudulent accusations will result of another block request. Regards,--Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

(Redacted) –Davey2010^Talk 17:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I was blocked for edit warring which in itself is disruptive although I was unblocked 8 minutes later for saying I'll stop (which I did), –Davey2010^Talk 17:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: You're still very funny, "mate" and you are reversing the burden of proof : it's you who didn't provide any diffs supporting your assertion of "using copyvio as a quickdelete for pretty much everything" (despite the "include links as evidence" at the top of this page), hence I'm calling your assertion "fake news". I'll listen to you carefully the day you succeed in an undeletion request about my supposed mass wrong DRs validated by various admins. But what I hear here is a well-known tune about "the dealing admins are also wrong to have accepted (my) request and carried on deleting them". If I were you next time you should open an ANU directly against sysops. To end, there's no "threat" : do you think you're the only one here to be allowed to request a block ? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

(Redacted) –Davey2010^Talk 19:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Alexis Jazz

If a non-admin disagrees with a speedy tag, the correct action is to convert to regular DR (and to add the reason why the file should be kept). Fortunately, in this case a valid copyright situation could be established, so that the file can stay. End good all good. Jcb (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

User Alexis Jazz delivered this deletion request without giving a proper reason. When – on multiple discussion pages (Help desk, Administrators' noticeboard, Village pump, and of course the Deletion request page), because the new user searched for help and understanding – multiple users stated that there is no reason for deletion, adding the proper licenses, Alexis Jazz states there is nothing he can do and he can't remove the deletion request. Alexis Jazz placed the deletion request, so clearly he/she is the one who can remove the request, but he refuses. During the discussion, he/she was not helpfull and wasn't even reading the answers, given the unnecessary repeating of questions. I think and feel Alexis Jazz is just harassing a new user, and I think he or she should get a warning for this, if not a block. This is an evil way to interact with other people, and it should not be allowed. Alexis Jazz is consuming the time of many people, and it's certainly not the first time. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC).

May I add to the above that, not withstanding user's importunate and officious efforts to show his best in restoring files in the Arkesteijn case, that Alexis Jazz himself is also messing with images without stating so in the file's description – here's an example (I added the retouche template): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yulia_Tymoshenko_2015.jpg, that for obvious reasons is requested to be deleted. Alexis Jazz is giving me some real bad vibes at the moment, I suspect his aim is getting attention and consuming valuable time of others. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC).

Hmm. I think it would have saved some confusion if Alexis had stated at the top of the DR that the file was speedy tagged by a bot, and so heading for automatic deletion, and the DR was Alexis opening the issue for discussion. Jürgen appears to think Alexis started the deletion process. Also, it is not uncommon for newbies to be confused about copyright, so I agree everyone involved should be careful not to bite and also to take due care. Alexis did neither when he accused the newbie of forum shopping and when he started speculating the letter might be from the 17th century (a letter, written on a typewriter, invented some two centuries later). Alexis it is perfectly acceptable to ask for help in multiple places. Please restrict forum shopping accusations for when there is attempt to bias a vote or disrupt, rather than honest attempts to understand the law and the facts. Also consider than when a user asks for help in a different forum, they don't expect the same person to pop up there and repeat the same argument -- they want other opinions. Jürgen, your comment about "attention whoring by the requester" is an unacceptable personal attack, for which you could have been blocked. That you were not helping is clearly noticed by the newbie, who is upset that the discussion has deteriorated. Remember that this person has taken time to get the image and share it and really doesn't want the matter dealt with by what appears to be squabbling kids. -- Colin (talk) 08:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to see that you interpreted my words completely wrong. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC).

When I searched for Lord Farrer, that's what came up. I thought the letter was possibly copied using a typewriter from a hand-written letter, but this turned out not to be the case. And forumshopping, that's pretty much what the uploader did. Asking (nearly) the same question in multiple places. I don't consider it a judgment of motive, though depending on context it can be. But not in this case. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 11:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Alexis, I have never met anyone who tries so hard to reinvent the past to justify their actions/writing as you. I accused you of not taking due care. Yes the first clue is the letter is written on a typewriter. The second enormous clue is that the letter is dated 1930 and discusses events in the 18th century. Like, everyone is always copying out 16th century letters with a typewriter... Sometimes it is better just to write "my bad" rather than making stuff up. Especially when you are the subject of an AN/U complaint. And as for the forum shopping, well if you weren't judging their motive, why accuse them of forum shopping at all? That's a rhetorical question, btw. Stop digging. -- Colin (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Colin, I've had more than enough of your false accusations. I didn't read the contents of the letter (sadly much of my energy is drained by ANU reports like these, and you're not helping). Right on top it says "COPY of letter". I was looking for a signature or something to figure out the author, but there is none (we are missing a page I guess?).

"Like, everyone is always copying out 16th century letters with a typewriter..."

You're saying that whenever someone needed a copy of something in 1930, they simply xeroxed it?

"why accuse them of forum shopping at all? That's a rhetorical question, btw. Stop digging."

Why, because it might end up hurting you? I said "forumshop" (literally.. just the word) so everyone would be aware pretty much the same discussion was happening in multiple places. A simple effort to help re-centralize the discussion. Nothing more, nothing less. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 18:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jürgen Eissink: you're beating up the good samaritan.. Read Commons:Deletion requests#Closing discussions: "The nominator may request early closure or withdrawal of a deletion request they started by adding a comment in the deletion request, for example when subsequent edits have corrected problems or missing details on the image page. Deletion requests must not be closed by the nominator that created them unless done before anyone else has contributed to the request."

But on top of that, I'm not the original nominator. That was Krdbot. So Krdbot (if nobody had contributed to the DR) should withdraw. When asked, Krdbot said "You can bite my shiny metal ass".

Oh, and Yulia Tymoshenko 2015.jpg: that one was already photoshopped by the uploader. I'm not fully certain the current version is the best one, but I didn't want to get into a revert war with Vles1 who appears to be using a broken display, so I made an adjustment based on the edit comment of their version. I stated in the edit comment I re-adjusted the colors. I didn't get the colors exactly right (this one was hard), but I think I got closer than Stemoc and Vles1. I made those changes after it was nominated for deletion. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 11:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The Krdbot flag could have been removed by anyone that would have applied the right licenses, and a moderator should of course never have speedy deleted the file, but you were eager to play moderator and placed a request that no one but you could have removed. Your story doesn't add up. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC).

a confusing DR is not a user problem. if the intent was to forestall a speedy deletion, i would have preferred something like: "convert speedy to DR to research license". but the fact that we give a menu to uploaders without much help; and we have bots that speedy rather than put on a maintenance category for human review is not the user's fault. the user could write withdraw, so an admin could close asap. maybe if we modeled good standard of practice in our process, we would have less battleground. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

A speedy deletion in this case would have (or at least should have) been declined, but even if the file would have been deleted the chance is quite big that the file by now would have been re-uploaded with proper license and the case closed. But user practically decided to take a moderator task in his own hands and started a request, a decision on which these days takes weeks, if not months, so the request is frustrating the process, and that nly because user likes to play the good samaritan – a wrong attitude, to say the least, that merely seeks for attention and appreciation. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC).

@Jürgen Eissink: I am more familiar with this place than you. The odds of deletion would have been very high. If the uploader had reuploaded it the same way, they would have been warned for reuploading previously deleted content. The uploader was never going to figure out the correct licenses on their own. Also, the file didn't come from the internet. The uploader was the only person with access to that file. Nobody else would have reuploaded it. COM:UDR would have been the next step. If you don't like DRs, you will absolutely hate UDR. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 18:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Alexis Jazz did nothing wrong. If he hadn't started that DR, the file might have ended up deleted.
What User:Alvanhholmes did was indeed forum-shopping, and one doesn't need to be an experienced user to know that forum-shopping is not acceptable, as it is against common sense.
Finally, I suggest User:Jürgen Eissink to be more careful with their choice of words. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

{{Withdraw}} reads as I withdraw my nomination. Pretty simple to use. --Discasto _talk 17:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Discasto: The problem is that the original nomination wasn't mine. There are people here who would love to see me blocked and are just looking for a reason. So I'm not going to withdraw a converted DR. The problem with that is obvious: convert any copyvio to a DR, then withdraw the DR. Nope, whoever tagged as copyvio will have to do that. In this case a bot. You could maybe ask the bot owner. I've indicated clearly I have no objection to any admin keep-closing it. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 18:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Converting {{Speedy}} into a regular {{Delete}} is exactly what should be done if one wants to contest the deletion. If Alexis Jazz were to then {{Withdraw}} that would of course be a violation, so it makes no sense to bring the fact that no violation has taken place as a violation. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 18:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

It makes no sense to me that moderators follow blindly all requests made by a bot, and if they indeed don't, the converting is completely unasked for. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Jamalalrajhi

Jamalalrajhi (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Everything is copyvio. Already warned. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. Blocked for one week. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Blakeboard56

Blakeboard56 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) User has been unblocked because she said she doesn't understand Commons policies but continues to upload copyrighted files "found on the Web". Pinging @JGHowes: . --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. Blocked for one month. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

IMHO the account should be indefblocked, not due to copyvio but because probably is used by more than one person. On the user_talk, the user alternately refers to themselves as “Mr. Colby aka blakeboard56” or “Natasha” – unlikely names of the same person. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Benf2000

It looks an awful lot like every image this user has ever uploaded has been a copyright violation, going back almost two years, and they continue to upload more, adding a few dozen only today. So that's a problem. GMG ^talk 16:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Benf2000 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user uploads should all be speedy deleted and final warning given.--BevinKacon (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Done Copyright violations stopped after warnings. Any new copyvio must lead to block. Taivo (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Tm and categorization

Do not take someone here over a disagreement without first trying to talk. Jcb (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

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

I removed a number of miscategorized images from "nude or partially nude" categories today. I see that User:Tm has reverted all of my changes. There may be differences of opinion on what "partial nudity" means, but when we're talking about images like File:Crissy Moran.jpg or File:Jean and Sea 2.jpg it is hard to see this as constructive editing by Tm. Tm also undid some category renames that I did and showed up at an unrelated deletion discussion I started. Can someone tell Tm to back off? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the both edits. Unacceptable. --A.Savin 12:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Premongol.png overwritten with copyvio

Look at File:Premongol.png #filehistory and then into the upper left part of the current image (Website and content are Copyright Thomas Lessman, 2004 to Present). I am in no mood to have any friendly discussion with this user who threw a corpse into the well a half of Wikimedia drinks from. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I erased my changes because you say it's "to threw a corpse", meaning, I suppose, a copyviol of Talessman's [15]? Now this map Premongol.png is according to the map uploaded by Fakirbakir and modified, before me, by Comnenus, since the original version of DonBeg here [16]. But, sure, the single guilty man is... myself, --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

We don‘t discuss PremongolEurasia.png. We discuss why doesn’t Premongol.png credit its true creator. File:East-Hem_600ad.jpg isn’t in public domain anyway, and what is nowadays Premongol.png breaks provisions of {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Why should me, Incnis Mrsi, lecture one Spiridon Ion Cepleanu—seemingly an experienced editor—about basics of licensing? Where are administrators of this site? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Cnacubo, but without my changes I'm no more involved in the Premongol.png, PremongolEurasia.png and East-Hem_600ad.jpg status. So, you don't need to lecture for me (or others) the basic of cc-by-sa-3.0 and of licensing rules rules applied to maps or drawings whose sources are other Commons documents cited, apply that prevent the improvement or enhancement of this non-creative documents. That for I'm retired, --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 06:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

User:TrueLegend23

removes copyvio tags from images uploaded via obvious unfree sources, many uploads with bogus/invalid OTRS pending tags. Please delete all files and add an asministrative warning to user talk. --Denniss (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Done I warned TrueLegend and deleted almost all his/her uploads. Any new copyvio or license removal must lead to block. Taivo (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

After this, this and this => indef. --A.Savin 21:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Thank you. What did they do in the third edit, revert my copyvio tag? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 07:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

They removed the copyvio tag, and wrote "CC-BY" on permission without evidence. --A.Savin 10:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Peteratkins

Peteratkins (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Has uploaded various files that also appear on Adobe Stock. And at least some (possibly all) in higher resolution (and unlike Alamy, the resolution claims on Adobe Stock are not inflated). On File:Das Ohr.jpg this was rather clear, Adobe Stock was actually on the file page.

The reason I make this report instead of just filing some copyvios and call it a day are files like File:SLS Karosserie .jpg. Also found on https://stock.adobe.com/images/karosserie-auto-fabrik/67947465 (note that both this one and Das Ohr are from Adobe Stock contributor RAM). On the SLS Karosserie image the metadata claims Peter Atkins (same name as the uploader) is the author. Accident? Faked? Is RAM actually Peter Atkins? I see no upload date on Adobe Stock so it's hard to tell, but it doesn't explain anyway why Das Ohr was downscaled. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 11:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-AMG GT Coupe.jpg (uploaded 17 April 2018) appeared on https://www.mdex.de/news/vernetzung-prototypen/ and http://cal-international.com/automotive-vehicle-engineering/special-operations/vorderrad-erlknig/ in 2017 and is found on Adobe Stock as Vorderrad Erlkönig, again by RAM. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 12:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Under consideration of ticket:2017032710019241 I would consider the whole set to be ok. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@AFBorchert: I'm no OTRS agent (and didn't even notice there was a ticket). If you say it's ok, who am I to argue? But the OTRS template should be added to all those files in that case. Is the ticket also valid for File:Jan Heitmann.jpg and File:Tesla Model S Bildschirm.jpg? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: ticket:2017032710019241 does not refer to the images in question, hence it would be inappropriate to tag the other uploads with this ticket. However, it can be concluded from the ticket that all uploads by this user including their EXIF data are genuine. The problem is that they have been published elsewhere as well. This is also the reason for the deletions of File:Jan Heitmann.jpg and File:Tesla Model S Bildschirm.jpg. While prior publication without a free license is usually a reason for deletion per COM:PRP, it is my opinion that we do not need to be concerned in this case. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@AFBorchert: can OTRS be added to his user page? And can you request undeletion for those photos? I can't see the OTRS ticket, so it makes no sense for me to request it. Also don't forget the no permission I already had added to File:SLS Karosserie .jpg. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, File:Das Ohr.jpg and File:Tesla Model S Bildschirm.jpg remain better deleted as derived works even if they were taken by the uploader. And Jan Heitmann.jpg is unlike the other uploads a low-resolution photo without EXIF. I think that in this case further communication by the uploader could be helpful before we undelete it. I've removed the {{No permission since}} tag for File:SLS Karosserie .jpg. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@AFBorchert: I can turn displays off, if the photo would still be useful after that. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 22:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Giorgi Balakhadze

Giorgi_Balakhadze (talk · contribs)

Continues to re edit files which aren't their own after being told file editing cannot be done for major or controversial edits (like deleting a country/region/zone) See COM:OVERWRITE.

They have a history of rewriting files of others users and the admins of Wiki commons have stated several times that there is no such POV policy here as on Wikipedia. Quote "@Insider, Giorgi Balakhadze: NPOV isn't a policy on Commons in the same way as Wikipedia. It only applies to descriptions, and not to the files themselves. That's why we have templates such as {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}}. So just move on. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)" end quote. I can agree to changing name but I will not be bullied into map revisions for nationalistic agendas.

Also he changed my map name to "Occupied territories by Russia" which is a POV opinion. He doesn't have the right to change it. Without discussion. --User:Lamensi

This isn't the only time either, there is also this incident. --User:Lamensi

I discern topic ban—for Crimea, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia—not far ahead. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The user Lamensi appeared on commons mainly for pro-separatist map pushing (check his/her contribution), from 09:14, 28 October 2018 to 10:49, 28 October 2018 he vandalized several files, all of this edits were reverted by other users. Then he upload world maps where Georgia and Ukraine are without Russian occupied or annexed territories but he/she didn't indicated this fact in title, and replaced original files by such pro-separatist maps across various wikipedia articles.

After this report by him/her and his/her last actions here (File:Europe-Switzerland.svg, File:Europe-Norway.svg, File:EU-United Kingdom.svg) it seems very suspicious to me that he/she can be sock-puppet of the same blocked user Relignments. His/her actions and will are mainly similar to other blocked sockpuppeters that have been blocked (Leftcry or Relignments.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 14:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Go to this page or cease the sock-puppet allegations. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing POV in fact to say that some territories of Ukraine and Georgia are annexed or occupied by Russia, Wikipedia has articles about this where you can clearly read about the fact - en:Temporarily occupied and uncontrolled territories of Ukraine (2014–present), en:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, en:Occupied territories of Georgia--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 14:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Before renaming the file about Francophonie I wrote to him/her that (under this content) file had misleading title, he ignored my entry and then removed it 3 times (check)!--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 14:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

As I already said, I have NOT uploaded ANY map because my edits were rejected. Proof: https://i.imgur.com/7KiYcoe.png I only uploaded TWO maps, BOTH because I could not edit the other ones. I made the first 2018 Francophonie map. The other one was uploaded later. It was me who did it, and it was becasue I could not update the original.

Secondly, how dare you misgender me you transphobic horrible person. I am not a 'he' and if you keep doing that I will take this straight to the administration too.

Thirdly, I am not a sockpuppet (mean accusation by you), this is my only account and I am a new user but long-time minor ip-based contributor to things here and there.

Fourthly, if you keep calling me names I will remove anything you post on my wall. --Lamensi

To be brief, there is no problem in me, problem is in user Lamensi, that appeared here mainly to vandalize maps (in favor of Russian-backed separatists). Simple example, there is 2017 population density map (with international borders) then he/she under mask of "update", uploaded 2018 map under the same name but if you check borders of Georgia or Ukraine they are clipped! Same pro-separatist pattern appeared in his/her other edits. This is not acceptable.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 14:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem is you. I included the population density of disputed territories, as it is still relevant for the purposes of demography. You have such an issue with it because you are Georgian and unsurprisingly this makes you POV biased. The map I made reflects the de facto situation, not the legal situation. If you have such a problem with a Wikipedia map of barely-recognised territories as a threat to your national integrity maybe you should take a break from it. --Lamensi

Furthermore, you've literally deleted maps of Abkhazia and South Ossetia themselves.

Example 1

Example 2 and I quote from you "Politically correct exemplar. There is only one Ossetia and it's in Russian Federation, so united Ossetia looks like this.Reverted to version as of 14:03, 9 January 2014" MAJOR POV.

You are the biased one here and it is you who needs to leave everyone alone. Also no change to your vicious misgendering, I see. But that's fine. I just thought personal insults were against rules. --Lamensi

This is edit of map of Georgia (before your edit vs after your edit) is also ok right? And does not indicate that you are here to vandalize maps of Ukraine or Georgia? Do not fool community, you made clear what your stance was, and that's why all your edits were reverted by other users, including me.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 15:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

No, you reverted the edits as several users have said because you have a POV. I stopped changing them because I read the COM:OVERWRITE rule, of which I was previously unaware. This overwrite rule applies to you as well. The reason I changed that map was to reflect the de facto situation - that the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are not under Georgian control. But the current map is okay, too and I am not going to edit war it. But leave my maps alone. Go complain on the Georgian wiki or something. --Lamensi

Ok now this is а last drop (regarding your examples), "new user" that forgets to sign, digs in my edits from 2014. You are just very well informed about everything to do not have links with other sock-puppet fighters, against me.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 15:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I read it because you changed ALL my entries without even asking me. I saw by your name alone that you are Georgian and it wasn't hard to figure out that you were being nationalistic. I am not a sock-puppet and if you keep accusing me of this I will report this, as well. Keep your conspiracies to yourself or prove them. This isn't your soapbox for performances. --User:Lamensi

Of course it is easy to call someone nationalistic, but that will not change the fact that you vandalized and POV-pushed in various maps, and have been reverted for that not only by me.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 16:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You didn't revert anything of mine and if you try it again this will escalate. But I assume you know that. --User:Lamensi

User:复旦大学张超 overwriting existing files

复旦大学张超 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been overwriting existing files in violation of COM:OVERWRITE and has repeatedly overwriting File:Mongol Empire map 2.gif which has been a heavily overwritten file, even after the warning not too. 10:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

It’s also appropriate for another noticeboard… we seemingly live in the day of the Mongol ☺. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bidgee: Please explain briefly what is going on. Honestly, I don't see any differences between your version and their version. Though it might be a cache issue! 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Isn’t increasing the data size almost 3× “any difference”? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's a difference, but does it violate COM:OW? 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Also look at File:China_-_Southern_Song_Dynasty-en.svg #filehistory… IMHO Bidgee knows something about this conflict on the ancient East Asia, but is unwilling to share with us. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: Please strike "but is unwilling to share with us", I have a life outside of Wikimedia and had gone to bed and is also nothing but an unfounded bad faith accusation. Bidgee (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @Incnis Mrsi. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 11:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Bidgee is fluent in English, Bidgee didn’t share the background story (although requests a block) until 21:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)… how to characterize these conditions? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but where the f*** is your good faith? You've automatically gone off and assumed bad faith, just because I speak fluent English (BTW, I didn't bring that up, you did). It was a very quick post before I went to bed and expanded on it when I logged back on, sheesh I don't live on Commons 24/7! Also where did I request a block? I didn't I only raised an overwriting issue and that was it! Bidgee (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. OK. I found it. It's Sakhalin. I fully-protected the file for one month. Hopefully, this prevents the user from edit-warring. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Excellent job, 4nn1l2. Now I see that 复旦大学张超 made some tweak for China/Goryo border near Yalu River in China_-_Southern_Song_Dynasty-en.svg. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Each of the maps are controversial and in use (some in high use/a lot of articles), in some cases I have seen users make what looks like a minor change but in some cases it is controversial or they mask the controversial change with another reason. It has been going on for a very long time (during my time as an Admin), I take zero view points but if the other user(s) want a different version/view, they should upload it to Commons under a new file name. Bidgee (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

It is quite clear that Incnis Mrsi is unwilling to strike out their unfounded bad faith trolling. Bidgee (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Unlikely this obscure Chinese user is a sock puppet, but s/he included some copyvio into a new article in zh.Wikipedia (then removed by several user including Mys 721tx, a Commons sysop), although it happened in the far-away 2013. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say they were a sock puppet. Bidgee (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

User:SparkTroy

SparkTroy (talk · contribs) appears to be a sockpuppet of Wanabeer (talk · contribs), who has uploaded multiple copyright violations on the Commons and has been indefinitely blocked as WP:SOCK on the Japanese Wikipedia. Some of the files uploaded by SparkTroy (e.g. File:Ma15.jpg and File:Nao35.jpg) are identical to the ones uploaded by Wanabeer (e.g. File:MatsuyouMaid.jpg and File:NakadaiNao.jpg). SparkTroy and Wanabeer also uploaded the images of Asami Oda and Reiko Chiba, all of which have been deleted. Could someone block them? 153.206.47.87 11:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. I blocked SparkTroy indefinitely. All his/her uploads are either deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Mehdi.salimi742

Mehdi.salimi742 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

May someone warn a last time this user? Thanks, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Patrick Rogel: I posted a final warning. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 05:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't care of final warning. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. I blocked him for a month. Taivo (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Aakansha Trivedi

Premature request. Nothing to be done here. Last upload of this user was 16 November and after that there was User_talk:Aakansha_Trivedi#Request. There is no ongoing problem here, please don't try to make up one. Jcb (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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

I don't understand what evidence I'm supposed to provide to say that it is my own work. Normally, people don't prepare receipts and licenses as and when they take photos. How can I possibly provide an evidence for this? My consent apparently isn't enough, so, do let me know what else I need to do to help retain the file on Wikimedia Commons.
— Aakansha Trivedi response to a DR

The photo is a cropped version of https://scontent-ort2-2.cdninstagram.com/vp/29155fbf02b700d3a3aa82700419e825/5CAAE639/t51.2885-15/e35/43681778_513344632472821_4738008137263490957_n.jpg (which is also older than the upload here).

If this actually is own work, I urge Aakansha Trivedi to contact OTRS. But if not (and it doesn't look good at this point), Aakansha lied to us. Which is really not done. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 00:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Marisa Glez Glez Glez

Marisa Glez Glez Glez (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Except public domain historical p^hotos every single photo has been shot with a different camera. Already warned. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Done. Blocked, remaining files deleted. Sealle (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Jcb

This discussion is not going anywhere. The UDR thread will remain open for at least a week, especially considering the request for comment at VP Special:Diff/330321946. An uninvolved admin, maybe myself, will carefully read all discussions at DR, UDR, and VP in the last few months regarding these files and decide about them as well as the files speedied by User:Yann. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Jcb is not a good admin because he always deleted image against the community consensus like Commons:Deletion requests/File:In Miami beach.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream. After those images were posted at COM:UDR, Jcb keep saying his deletion is appropriate. I hope he can respond here, or maybe we should consider a de-admin for Jcb. P.S. this is not the first time that Jcb was put in ANU, please see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 71#User:Jcb. --219.78.191.155 02:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Rather weak reason for an AN/U complaint and your not going to get a de-admin. Bidgee (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Comment To the IP, i was one of those, in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream, that saw JCB delete files against consensus and proofs, but, still, an de-admin request, at this point, is to much. Anyone can make mistakes, from time to time. The problem is not admit that committed them. Tm (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose, the reason given by IP was not convincing enough to have a de-admin. --B dash (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - IP is clearly a sock of someone ...., Discussions should be help on talkpages not DRs. (If discussion has stalled on his talkpage then come here and seek a second opinion - Don't create threads such as these). –Davey2010^Talk 21:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - Come with something next time. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Spelling problem in french

Administrators,can you change the name of a file ?

File:Ouchebetis - Servir les dieux d'Égypte - Musée de Grenoble.jpg

in

File:Ouchebtis - Servir les dieux d'Égypte - Musée de Grenoble.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Milky (talk • contribs) 14:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Done Please use {{Rename}} next time. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

How different genders/sexes are portrayed in page content, inequities in page information

nothing to do here, please discuss your concerns regarding article content ...in Wikipedia. Strakhov (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Dear Wikipedia, It is a concern to me the implicit bias with which certain pages are edited, and the content on them, especially regarding sexism. As a simple comparison, the page entries for labia and penis. The page on labia shows multiple gratuitous pictures of women's genitalia, including with and without stimulation. Whereas the page on penis shows predominantly images of animal penises, only one picture of a human penis. On the penis page, the human form is a sub section, whereas on the labia page, it only shows information about women. The human penis section also does not include any statements on culture or society, or differences among men, or pornography (all sections included on the labia page). There is a huge discrepancy in how women's and men's genitalia are explained.

I edited the labia page to remove these inequities, however, there should be an entire category for flagging and discussing content based on equity and accurate representation (not just for sexism, but also for racism).

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjams (talk • contribs) 21:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

You are here at Wikimedia Commons, the central image repository of all Wikimedia projects. We don't have articles here. Your concern seems to be about Wikipedia, one of our sister projects. Anyway, we can help you at least with your specific interest in human penises, we have plenty of them. Please see Category:Human penis. Jcb (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Minor correction: The Wikipedia projects are actually 293 different sister projects. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Nino Marakot

closing this, per discussion. Despite the disruptive threat, at this point no action is needed (the image was kept BTW). Strakhov (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

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

At COM:DEL, this user asks for undeletion and ”If rejected, I will force upload the deleted image, despite the consequences.)”. Any thoughts about this from other users? Thuresson (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Pointless threat. It is better to ignore it this time, but if they started to disrupt Commons in deed (not just words), then it would and should be dealt with. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Wargaz and User:Micheletb

Wargaz (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
Micheletb (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

A confused and ongoing problem, request an immediate intervention by any user having knowledge of ancient Chinese scripts.

Wargaz overwrites uploads by Micheletb with other images and then requests renaming; first look at User:Wargaz proper. In some cases other users subsequently delete redirects which remain after file moves. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

As found on his user page, Wargaz (talk · contribs) is : "Replacing and undoing every misleading, low-quality and false content which @Micheletb: has done" As far as I know, the replacement is justified : files were sometimes uploaded with a -bronze suffix, for instance, that were actually -seal, and so on ; and the source has not always been a reliable one, so some files are misnamed also as far as the character is concerned (those were heroic days...). This can be corrected now that better sources are available (those are modern days). So basically, if he says that such or such file should have such or such name, or be suppressed, he has verified it at a correct source (that he documents), and in that case I don't object. But then, of course, the correction can be confusing and is not error-prone, so I guess Wargaz can get mixed up from time to time, and/or not be aware of the correct procedure, and/or the correct "procedure" may be inadapted to those very special cases.

Anyway, he can't do more harm than that he is correcting. I'd say, in that case, ignore the anomalies as false alarms. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC) (sorry for the partial message)

~~Does anybody know this user? A commons administrator who don’t sign postings? Isn’t this account taken over? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)~~

Wargaz has asked for quite a number of deletion on my userpage, and I sometimes handled myself such deletion requests. Usually the correct thing to do is to rename the file to a proper place, and delete the redirection (which would cause problems in the models used in various wiktionaries). Just calm down, there is no conspiration here

Michelet-密是力 (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The explanation above is only partially satisfactory. Look at File:主-bronze.svg (hist • logs • abuse log) and File:示-oracle-3.svg #filehistory. Overwriting a poor-quality image with a better one would be OK. But the file was overwritten with a completely different image and then renamed (under a false pretext). Later yet another user deleted the remaining redirect. Why doesn’t Wargaz explain what does is mean? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that one is a mistake, but the initial 主-bronze picture was incorrect in the first place. I uploaded a 主 oracle picture and make it a placeholder for a bronze period representation (which iss not the policy anymore). He then uploaded a 示-bronze because 主 and 示 had similar forms at that period ; and then asked for it to be renamed 示-oracle-3.svg because it is clearer uder that 示 categorisation. For those series automatically loaded and used in templates, names act as categories, so the relevant rules are rather those of category change. And the image quality is irrelevant in that case (they are all smoothened with inkscape). Michelet-密是力 (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

"intervention by any user having knowledge of ancient Chinese scripts" - well, that's me (taraa). I'm a historical member of that project, and perhaps the only remaining one, at that. And an admin, btw, so perfectly entitled to give my point of view on such questions in this arena.

I haven't looked in details just what User:Wargaz is doing every time, but the end result is OK, so you should look at it from a very relaxed point of view. Maybe some rules made for ancient paintings or photographs are overlooked, but the main reason probably is, this is a project about old Chinese scripts and their evolution, and some replacements that would be heretical in the commons general background ar just fine and OK in this specific background.

I'd be glad to answer any further question (though I don't often roam around here, sorry). Michelet-密是力 (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about ancient Chinese scripts, but @Zhuyifei1999: maybe you know something? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 04:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Their existence is all I know. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I see the original uploader is OK with the overwrites and the subsequent renames. So, that's what Incnis Mrsi took to my RFA, while I was trying to address it on one of the above file's talk page. @Wargaz: Are you willing to comment on this topic? Specially, I'd like to know what makes your sources "modern" and more reliable. Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I am here to explain. FIrst of all, sorry for my absence of the whole discussion. I was busy dealing with some real life in recent days. Thank you, Micheletb, for responding the discussion and understanding what I were doing. Honestly, some of your works really pissed me off, because there were some rookie mistakes but hard to fix for a autoconfirmed user. I definitely willing to show anyone my sources are modern and more reliable. The main source of User:Micheletb is Hanziyuan where based on outdated Chinese studies on ancient scripts. In the new website of Hanziyuan, citations and references are hard to find, and the old website would only redirect you to its new version. For example, the character 車 is the default displayed placement, and you can only see codes like "J29285" provided by Hanziyuan for many ancient scripts of 車. You would not know which book and section it from, which group it was found for an orcle script character, or which bronzeware and time period it belongs for a bronze script character. No, nothing. There are literally zero information about each script character provided by Hanziyuan. In contrast, Sinica database provides all the inormation above. It cited every character by the code from the referenced books, and anyone can check the character in the books by its code. For example, when we look for 車 in the Sinica's oracle script database, we can see that the first character is cited as "拾12.16 合11451". The "合11451" means it from the no.11451 oracle bone from the The Oracle Bone Collection (甲骨文合集), and you can check it based on the number.

Futhermore, let me explain some of my actions. 示 and 主 are developed from the same ancient character, and it's the differentiation that makes we have two characters now. Therefore, it I believe it's better to unified as File:示-oracle.svg, File:示-oracle-2.svg, File:示-oracle-3.svg and etc. For the File:主-bronze.svg, I still will request to delete it, because it is inappropriate to use a sourceless ORACLE image to represent a BRONZE image. Some of Micheletb's uploads should be deleted, because I cannot wait for the deletion precess and administrators did reject me for several time, so I have to use this shortcut to achieve the same goal. I know it may break the community's rule, but my intention is to improve the ACC project. --Wargaz (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Close account.

Please close my Wikimedia commons account. I am no longer using the account. If you cannot delete it, please DELETE all images associated with it. Thanks Tornadosurvivor2011 (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we cannot delete user accounts. If you wish to stop contributing to Wikimedia Commons, all you have to do is stop logging into your account. Regarding deletion of images, I deleted File:Mdt Risk 180515.gif per COM:CSD#G7. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tornadosurvivor2011: You may be interested in en:WP:RTV. I started the deletion process for you at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tornadosurvivor2011, please feel free to comment there. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 23:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Winning at COM:NOTHOST. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Mkyo2012

Every photos posted by User:Mkyo2012 violate copyright. This user copies photos from facebook/instagram/pinterest and other media sources without any permission. Please check and delete these photos. DangTungDuong (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Done User was given a final warning. Any more copyvios will result in a block. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Jan Arkesteijn

This user keeps uploading problematic green-tinted images, claiming they are from the mentioned source, but not explaining the differences, despite being ~~asked~~ told not to. His overwrites in this vein violate COM:OVERWRITE. Please see COM:VPP#Policy proposal concerning edited images. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 14:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: as prior closing admin. This action may violate the consensus of Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_57#Jan_Arkesteijn_(talk_·_contribs)_overwriting_files per "It is de-facto a edit restriction, which means that in case of violation a block is appropriate.". It is for very similar disruptive issues, though to be fair, these are their own uploads. Your opinion? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Please provide links to files with recent bad file overwrites. Uploading new files without saying you've edited them is not the same unwanted activity. Otherwise any block would be inappropriate.--BevinKacon (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@BevinKacon: He "adjusted exposure" of File:Jacob Kistemaker 2008.jpg without using {{Retouched picture}} or similar and a new filename. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 15:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The user has been blocked two times yet (one time by me and the second time by Natuur12) for violating the edit restriction (for which we have community consensus). Therefore i request a indefinite block. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- I second the request. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 16:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with indef block. Jan Arkesteijn uploads without declaring that the source image is not the same as the uploaded image, and has a long-running problem with using the "upload a new version of this file" to do exactly not that -- just upload a new photograph of this artwork from some entirely different source. This gets their edited versions onto Wikipedia without anyone noticing that the image has changed, or being able easily see that this is in fact an amateur-edited artwork, not the original from "Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien" etc. While some archives with photos of artworks are not reproduced very well, others take care to photograph neutrally and with good equipment. We need to respect that, especially if declaring that the image comes from such-and-such a museum. Compare this blue version with the original. Jan's version of the painting looks like one of those 1960's cheap films where they stuck a blue filter on the camera to make it look like night time. A painting on canvas from 1634 will not have white so blue it looks like it was created on some Xerox photocopy paper in 2018. Trying to fix Anthony van Dyck's white balance four hundred years later is not on. The professionals use colour-checker cards and expensive calibrated displays. Such dishonest mucking about with historical works has no place on this site and ruins their educational value. -- Colin (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I support an indef block per the reasons stated by Colin. IT's a pitty that this user keeps damaging all the projects. Natuur12 (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Support, especially since the subject, Jan Arkesteijn, (again) refuses to interact with the community on the matter under review. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC).

Since the block I uploaded some 2.500 images. To my own surprise it included an overwrite. To say that I need to be banned for that is a bit harsh, I think. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The issue is not just overwriting, but then disruptively using the frankly weirdly blue-casted images to illustrate Wikipedia articles when colour-correct versions from official sources are available. I see you did this on the Italian Wikipedia for van Dyck's Filippo Francesco d'Este. With a bit of research we could probably find other unhelpful usage, perhaps you could suggest some that ought to be swapped out globally for "encyclopaedic correct" versions?

As has been alluded to before, your colour changes are misleadingly blue-casted. Doing this for your own amusement is fine, but nobody else should be using them instead of official versions as they are effectively damaged derivatives. I would rather see all fake colour images of old paintings, where not obviously helpful restorations, deleted from Commons. --Fæ (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

All those 2.500 uplaods (mostly artworks) are photoshopped? Some are in use at wikipedia, really concerning having retouched artworks there. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I looked up a few, and the original ones are looking different. Highly concerning. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The pattern of promoting inter-wiki usage is consistent, and all uploaded photographs of old paintings have to be doubted unless independently checked. As we did last time, this may mean putting all the uploads in a "to be reviewed" category. In all challenged cases, either we revert images hosted on Commons to the source versions, or we swap global usage to authentic versions which are also hosted here. I would support deleting or reverting all derivatives, as their existence on Commons will remain a risk of disruption for sister projects. --Fæ (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: for another example, look at File:Jacobus Gerhardus van Niftrik (1833 - 1910).jpg. Yup, Barbie found her Ken. The initial upload was also not the original file from the source (this is), but the overwrite made the image utterly unusable. And yes, that was used on nlwiki. It's true this was Arkesteijns own upload, but this is not helpful. Arkesteijn would be a great contributor, if only he could uninstall Photoshop. Finding images, uploading them, inserting them into appropriate articles - that's all absolutely great. But because of the Photoshop, everything is worthless. And for some images, the source has died since. So we may never know the original colors for those works. Somehow current policy, taken literally, doesn't prohibit this crap. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Support an indef block after tripping over other disruptive misuse. The block should not be lifted unless far more extreme topic bans are agreed, or Jan voluntarily commits to all further colour tampering with images of paintings; after years of this nonsense it looks like addictive behaviour rather than one that could be explained rationally.

Looking at the history and usage of File:Anne-Arsene Charton (1827-1892), by Édouard-Louis Dubufe.jpg, the colours were changed to make the painting have unnaturally glowing pink skin (painted in 1849). Jan Arkesteijn is effectively using Wikidata to covertly add this fake colour image to Wikimedia projects by adding the image to wikidata:Q38911447 so that this has been automatically included in the Catalan article and has been picked up as the "official" image listed as a needed English article as part of the Women in Red project. This change cannot be seen on those sister projects, as they rely on Wikidata's encyclopaedic accuracy. This appears to be deliberate vandalism and should be challenged and handled as such.

Stats: Checking Wikidata contributions shows 364 added or changed P18 image claims this year so far. These include changes like wikidata:Q271950 which introduced File:Albertine Agnes, Princess of Orange, by studio of Johannes Mijtens.jpg, the original of which has completely different colours, yet misleadingly this fact is not mentioned on the Commons file page, and the original at http://oranje-nassau.org has not been uploaded to Commons. Perhaps a worse example is wikidata:Q19861889 where an original authentic copy of the painting has been swapped to a false colour version, but again you would not know these were false colours as only by visiting the source site can you see the difference and would presume that the change was simply to add a higher resolution copy.

--Fæ (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

~~Support~~ Normally I would advise to do everything possible to not block any contributor. Unfortunately I must agree that in this particular case we have an issue of a very time consuming vandalism. Sad really, because in all that time I have come across a couple of images that this individual actually improved in my opinion, but I think even that was mostly a fluke. I am against indefinite block, however. A long block or about a year or even three years, perhaps, but not indefinite. I hope that this individual cools down and gets a chance to contribute constructively. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 14:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Gone_Postal an "indefinite block" is not a permanent ban. It simply says that you are blocked until such time you recognise why you were blocked, agree with the block, and agree to not again to make those faults. I can't see any reason why this years and years of vandalism of artworks should be permitted to automatically recur after x months. -- Colin (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This topic would benefite from a seperation where I broke a commons rule, and the rest. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You have been causing disruption with false colour tampering since at least 2008. The consensus reached after lengthy and time-wasting debate two years ago was clear, to argue that disruption caused by misleadingly using false colouring is somehow not vandalism because a file was not overwritten on Commons is wikilawyering. You knowingly have worked around the restriction and you are deliberately misusing wikidata to get your fake colour images promoted across other projects. You are unable to admit or explain the problem, nor do you seem to be prepared to help fix the damage you have caused to this project and several others.

A lengthy block seems to be the only way to stop the disruption you are causing, nor would it be especially helpful to wikilawyer our policies to make them fully "Jan Arkesteijn proof" when you are unique in the extent and type of damage and disruption you have caused this project for a decade. --Fæ (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I want to see good in people, and I am willing to admit that I voted wrongly, so @Jan Arkesteijn: can you please explain why would you overwrite other people's images with your alterations? ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 15:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Execpt for the mentioned slip, I didn't. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

How about Commons:Forum/Archiv/2018/March#Bilder_überschreiben,_da_entgegen_Quelle_verändertes_Original,_User:Jan_Arkesteijn where there was a consensus for the original colour-correct source image for this painting in use on several projects, and you twice overwrote @Oursana: this year? That's not "I didn't", that's called having a revert war and avoiding a grown-up discussion about the alternatives.
Or how about this 17th C. work, where a correct-colour and higher resolution image was uploaded by @Druifkes: in 2012, but this year, you overwrote it with a freakishly pink-skinned version? That's not "I didn't".
Perhaps a third example clinches the case, this 19th C. painting where @KenjiMizoguchi: uploaded a higher resolution original in 2015, and you overwrote it this year with another weird blue-cast Jan Arkesteijn version? That's not "I didn't".

Some of us have skills for searching down evidence, I suggest you think twice before creating further tangents or obfuscation. --Fæ (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

These were my own uploads. This is not a violation of the edit restriction Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The evidence above shows that they are more precisely you revert warring with other contributors. They are you promoting fictional and damaged images to be transcluded on other projects. They are you pretending that your uploads are from given official sources when they are actually damaged works, in the above case of the 19th C. landscape the trees are barely green any more because the blue overcast is so extreme, yet the original is fine. They are you overwriting where others are uploading the colour correct versions of the files, correctly representing the source that you quoted on your own uploads.

You are wikilawyering as a defence for your deliberate sustained disruption of this project, of wikidata and of wikipedia in several languages. You are an obsessive vandal and you are unable to admit that what you are doing is wrong. --Fæ (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I have checked all the users uploads of the past 3 months and none of them were COM:OVERWRITE violations. If the problem is not bigger than an apparent mistake at File:Jacob Kistemaker 2008.jpg almost six months ago, then I have to

Oppose sanctions. Jcb (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jcb: Do you think it is okay to change colors of hundreds of years old files? There is a edit restriction which was established upon community consensus, the third time the user violated it (he got blocked two times yet). I think a indef. block is clearly needed here. There are tons of old paintings which have been edited by him used in Wikipedia. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course the user has to respect the edit restriction, but the only violation of that restriction that has been presented here dates from May, one edit. I am willing to believe them when they state that they did not intend to violate the edit restriction. All people make mistakes. I think if this old edit is the only violation, that should not be base for a block. Blocks are not meant for punishment. Jcb (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Therefore i ask for a indef. block, then the block is preventive and additionally he wouldn't be able to upload retouched (faked) old paintings. Changing colors of really old paintings is disruptive, they are looking different from the files in the museum, he uploaded those files (sometimes under new filenames) and added them to Wikipedia. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

It is difficult to understand why the evidence above of manipulation of Commons images linked on Wikidata entries, which automatically are used on Wikipedia infoboxes is being ignored as evidence. These changes are happening now, not six months ago, and make a nonsense of COM:EDUSE which states this project's purpose as "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". These misleadingly bright pink-skinned and weird blue cast derivatives for paintings that are centuries old, are neither knowledge nor informative as they actively mislead, misinform and are works of fiction not knowledge. If we have to change OVERWRITE to stop this destructive vandalism, then let's change it, but we do not have to wait for a wikilawyering court case to conclude that Jan Arkesteijn's actions are careful and deliberate cross-project disruption, ignoring all past consensus for what counts as an educational image.

Addendum I have created Commons:Deletion requests/File:Richard Wilson (1714-1782), by Anton Raphael Mengs.jpg as a test case for one of Jan Arkesteijn's fake colour versions where the original is avalable and Jan Arkesteijn deliberately replaced the authentic original on other projects with the fake one. It is hard to describe that damaging action as anything other than using a Commons image in an act of vandalism. --Fæ (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Example: source original & result of manipulation. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Fæ: one could also call it fraud. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 18:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Second addendum I have created a thread at ANI on the English Wikipedia to raise the damage done on articles there by Jan Arkesteijn. Different policies apply, and damage to the English Wikipedia is neither going to be fully researched or corrected by discussion on Commons. --Fæ (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I have uploaded a new version of File:Constantijn Huygens (1596-1687) by Caspar Netscher.jpg (Fæ's #2 above) which is now identical to the source I downloaded form Rijksmuseum but with the insertion of an sRGB colour profile which was missing (which is the default Web standard, but including it guarantees everyone sees the same image regardless of browser or display tech). It is actually less red than @Druifkes: version, which incorrectly had an "eciRGB v2" colour profile assigned. I disagree with User:Jcb that the edit restriction is the only thing Jan can be blocked on. The community has complained for years that he corrupts artworks, particularly his tendency to shift the colour to blue, presumably because he doesn't like the fact the canvass has yellowed with age. This is simply educational and artistic vandalism borne from vanity. It is one thing to make mistakes (like the colour profile) but another to consistently upload obviously colour-distorted artworks and dishonestly claiming they came from an official source. -- Colin (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Another example, demonstrating a decade of false colours. File:Guerin Pierre Narcisse - Morpheus and Iris 1811.jpg was uploaded by Jan in 2009 and the hue adjusted in 2018 a few days ago. The "source" link does not work. But the current JPG at the Hermatage looks like this (if that doesn't work then go to this page and select the download icon). Jan's version is blue/pink rather than a warm sunlit skin. Jan's fake has then been used in a detail clip and someone even stated that this variant had been superseded by Jan's fake. So Jan is causing a cascade of problems with his deliberately altered artworks. -- Colin (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Restoring or fixing colours due to ageing of the painting should definitely be allowed. After re-reading the arguments, and specially the clear misrepresentation of what I have said by Colin (where apparently I was quoted as saying that vandalism should be allowed to continue), I understand that this is not an issue for a ban, but regards disagreement over what it means to have "original colours". Jan Arkesteijn has made some pretty poor judgements when it comes to the hue, but some of the other "originals" do appear to be weathered with time. As such I now vote to

Oppose any ban, and urge people to create a clear policy regarding uploading an edited image and not stating that it has been edited, the discussion is right now on COM:Village pump/Proposals. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 21:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Gone_Postal please provide evidence for this "apparently I was quoted as saying that vandalism should be allowed to continue" or strike your comments about me misrepresenting your position. AFAIK the only comment I've made to you is about what an indef block means. If Jan wants to make an amateur "restoration" of what he (incorrectly) thinks were the original colours 400 years ago, then he can upload that with a suitable title and description clearly stating that this is his own interpretation of the work. We can all then judge, at DR, whether Jan's blue variants have any educational value. What he can't do, and should be blocked indef for, is consistently claim he has uploaded a JPG from an official source, coming from a notable museum or gallery, a photo or scan taken by professionals, and then actually upload his own perverted fake colours. That is simple and straightforward dishonesty, and has no place on this project whatsoever. -- Colin (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Third addendum Commons:Deletion requests/File:John La Farge, by Robert Wilton Lockwood.jpg has been created as another recent false colour upload with damaging saturation of blue and pink, deliberately avoiding uploading the original colour correct file from the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. --Fæ (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Fourth addendum Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nymphs and Satyr, by William-Adolphe Bouguereau.jpg has been created as it is a false/bizarrely blue colour version of a painting that is being actively promoted to Wikipedias due to the phenomenal power of reusers belief that Wikidata facts must be reliable, and verified by somebody. --Fæ (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Fifth addendum Commons:Deletion requests/File:Elizabeth Murray (1626–1698), by Peter Lely.jpg has been created for an upload 3 weeks ago by Jan Arkesteijn which cannot be correctly sourced or verified. Even though these are the highest resolution images of this painting we have, I have created the DR as both the sourcing and digital manipulation needs clear explanation before we can judge whether the photograph is usefully in scope as educational rather than misleading and should be removed as disinformation. There are two versions of the image (original and overwrite) and neither appears to match the source. The EXIF data is also suspect, it would be good for Jan Arkesteijn to explain exactly how they manipulate EXIF data as other accounts have been blocked for misrepresenting the attribution of photographs, or misrepresenting the validity of basic data, by manipulating or oddly copying EXIF data with the intent to misrepresent. --Fæ (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:After the bath, by Jean-Léon Gérôme.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Allegory of Fortune, by Agnolo Bronzino.jpg, this image includes deliberately misleading EXIF data, making it look like the Landesmuseum have released their photograph as public domain or on a PDM license, the source website tells a different story.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mata Hari (1905-1917).jpg The PDM license is fraudulent, there is no such release by the Fries Museum quoted in the EXIF data. The upload of an inaccurate fake-colour image which misrepresents the source, and evidence-free claim of {{Anonymous-EU}} is as bad as blatant Flickrwashing, made worse by the deliberate use of fake EXIF data.
Deletion Request for 258 YouTube frame grabs. Necessary as the embedded EXIF statement states CC-BY-4.0 while the actual license required is CC-BY-3.0.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bernhardus Clesius, by Bartholomäus Bruyn the Elder.jpg

--Fæ (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban from any “adjustment” of colours or retouching, for paintings and similar images, indefinitely. Cropping can be permitted, as well as overwriting with better (by a large margin) image in the cases where colours are not important, such as File:02 The Ravisher.jpg. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Incnis Mrsi what makes you think that the colour is "not important" on photo of an engraving from 1495? The museum/gallery clearly thinks it is worth photographing in colour and presenting the yellowed paper to its audience? Additionally, the b&w version has had the contrast increased, removing fine detail. You can see here the care the BM take to get their archive works colour-accurate, even engravings. This b&w image has all the subtly of a fax. Fundamentally, this b&w image is not the JPG from the British Museum, so the sourcing is dishonest, and the image we see here a derived work that must be indicated as such. A topic ban would not require Jan to acknowledge his faults, meaning we'd have to continue to monitor and discuss whether his contributions were honestly sourced and free of Photoshopping. Much better to outright indef block until such time as he agrees to desist secretly Photoshopping artworks and making false claims. Further, there is the issue noted above about the huge amount of work required to identify and fix all the mess created so far, possibly thousands of images. So I don't think it is reasonable to just ignore that. If someone is a mass vandal, then we don't just say "Naughty boy, here's a topic ban on vandalism". -- Colin (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  Certainly, in comparison to importance in painting. Imagine a villager who dumped toxic waste on a public road; he sometimes also burns rubber tyres on the open air. I proposed to forbid him to dump toxic waste under threat of execution. Should we discuss secondary grievances now? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  - I hear what you're saying, but over here it is not allowed to burn rubber tyres as well. Anyway, I hope moderators can and will take a decision soon, I think the general point is quite clear. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC).

Restoration of official photographs of artworks

What is the best way to identify and fix these artworks? Some could be deleted if the official gallery photo has already been uploaded, though that might require patching up sister projects. Others could be overwritten? Do we have community consensus to overwrite these when the source image does not match the image hosted here? What about all the images where Jan overwrote artworks but didn't fix up the source, leaving the source link incorrect and the source of the new image undocumented. Perhaps we should develop a template stating that this photo/scan of an artwork came from XYZ Gallery or Museum and must not be overwritten unless by an improved JPG directly sourced from that site. -- Colin (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Somehow or other, it would be nice to not have files on Commons that have been edited like these without an obvious "this has been retouched" note. I've noticed on occasion that some of the paintings in Commons have weird color balance, without looking into it more; I'm glad they're being fixed. (I'd kind of assumed they were just bad photos or whatever.) Goldenshimmer (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Reverting false colour image vandalism on Wikidata

For 3 years, Jan Arkesteijn has been damaging Wikidata by replacing or inserting false colour images of paintings and old photographs on Wikidata, deliberately making it appear that these faked images are official, and the best versions hosted by Wikimedia Commons. The earliest example is diff where Arnoldus Geesteranus has been inserted, this photograph is given a source in the EXIF data of Mauritshuis, but the image displayed at that source is radically different in colour. Our overwrite policy was written and agreed for good faith uploads, not to protect or justify obsessive vandalism which the evidence clearly shows is actively being used to damage the educational value of sister Wikimedia projects.

[17] provides a list of 1,588 images which have been overwritten by Jan Arkesteijn and are linked in Wikidata. This is not complete, there may be images like the Mauritshuis photograph which have never been overwritten but are not appropriate for Wikidata, and the list includes photographic portraits which have been "touched up", and we have yet to establish a precedent as to whether this is vandalism. With more patience, someone could probably put together a SPARQL that provides a specific list of Arkesteijn manipulated photographs of paintings on Wikidata.

I propose that all these image insertions are removed from Wikidata, as we would treat any mass interwiki vandalism. Where possible they are replaced with authentically coloured versions that correctly match their quoted official sources, and can be verified as such. Further where a Jan Arkesteijn uploaded image can be replaced with the official sourced image, that any contributor is free to do this, rather than having to go to the extra work of creating a separate file. --Fæ (talk) 11:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

"the list includes photographic portraits which have been "touched up", and we have yet to establish a precedent as to whether this is vandalism"

Imho Ken and Barbie are vandalism. The only reason those images must be kept is as a warning from history, to make sure we will never let this happen again. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 13:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The Olivia_Colman_(2014).jpg stuff is a blatant forgery which has to meet with a lengthy block if not ceased. @Alexis Jazz: what do I miss with “Ken”? Can you please use image notes to explain better? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The examples are almost endless. Compare this original image of a girl with Jan Arkesteijn's scarlet fever patient. It's atrocious. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC).

@Incnis Mrsi: compare his skin with the image that superseded it. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 15:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Better quality, but without reference to source

Look at File:1606 -26 Nova Blaeu mr.jpg #filehistory. Jan uploaded a better image over an existing page (that is good) but supplied a dumb summary – is “higher resolution” wise? Certainly, an average Commoner is not that stupid to miss that pixel dimensions became larger, without any summary at all. Wouldn’t be better to explain where this better file is from? Jan also did nothing to rewrite the {{Information}} record, removing link to an overwritten image (which BTW is now 404) and citing his better source. Hence Jan Arkesteijn made some good job for Commons, but he also left a lot of mess behind, such as misleading source= arguments and untraceable data sources. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It is true that, say, one out of every twenty five might appear to be an accidental improval (I haven't checked your example), but that doesn't justify the giant mess, not even slightly. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC).

This was not an improvement, it is highly misleading. These particular maps are hand coloured, with each version being uniquely different in final colours - try searching the internet, you will be able to compare colours. The original from the now dead page at Helmink has the figure of Ignis (fire) with a very orange coloured cape (which makes perfect sense for fire). Compare with the different copy at oldworldauctions which shows the same cape in a red colouring. The unsourced Arkesteijn version shows the cape in blue, but they were too lazy to load the different map as a different image, or explain the source. Note that the image was already waiting in Category:Image overwrites by Jan Arkesteijn for independent review, a backlog created in 2016 due to Arkesteijn's previously identified vandalism.

I have reverted to the original which may be lower resolution but is encyclopaedically accurate for that unique hand-coloured specific map.

This is a terrible waste of my volunteer time, Arkesteijn should be fixing their own damage, however I have forensically tracked down the source for the original with the blue caped Ignis. The source was the Nederlands Scheepvaartmuseum, discovering the source made difficult because the exhibition is now closed and the image is not directly displayed on their website. This is now uploaded at Nova totius terrarum orbis geographica ac hydrographica tabula. The original I have uploaded has a smaller filesize to the one uploaded by Arkesteijn, but is a higher resolution. The Arkesteijn version appears to have been tampered with in colouring, making the oranges more saturated, thereby damaging the encyclopaedic value of the file for a map where the specific hand colours are highly important for identifying different prints. Pity others will have to fix Arkesteijn's selfish vandalism, and most will probably never get fixed. --Fæ (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

In line with the above example, I have also reverted File:Witches going to their Sabbath (1878), by Luis Ricardo Falero.jpg. This image was uploaded by Staszek99 in 2008, is used on 12 different Wikipedias, and Arkesteijn overwrote the file in 2011 with a totally bizarrely false colour image, frankly so different from the original painting that you could believe there is something seriously wrong with their computer monitor. I have checked the source, and the original file still matches that source. Again this type of vandalism deliberately breaches Project scope as it makes Wikimedia Commons a completely unreliable way of hosting encyclopaedic and educational photographs of artworks. --Fæ (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

In line with the above examples, I have reverted File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 007.jpg back to its original version uploaded by Eloquence in 2005. There are multiple versions of official photographs of this painting, this particular one was correctly sourced to The Yorck Project (2002), a significant early GLAM upload project. In their usual destructive fashion, Arkesteijn overwrote the file in 2013 and again in 2014, making zero effort to update the file description or source. A detailed look at the EXIF data of Arkesteijn's upload shows it came from the Mauritshuis online catalogue and as usual it has been badly tampered with before upload. We have lost nothing in quality, though the global usage may need redirecting to Rembrandt - The Anatomy Lesson of Dr Nicolaes Tulp.jpg which is an authentic copy of the Mauritshuis original and as required by that source has a correct attribution. As the file is globally transcluded over 300 times, and the Mauritshuis version is identical to the previous transcluded version apart from the fake colouring, I am doing an automated global replace, skipping projects where SUL is not working. I rarely automate this as I am not a global steward, and to avoid upsetting locals with unexpected automation. However as there are probably few people around that can technically do a custom replace that would be interested in unpicking this vandalism, and this seems necessary to avoid wasting a lot more volunteer time on a single fix out of hundreds that may be needed. --Fæ (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

A further case with over 400 global reuses is now under a deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rembrandt van rijn-self portrait.jpg. There is no verifiably sourced early version to revert to, and all earlier versions are effectively thumbnail sizes with no value compared to the multiple official alternatives available at Category:Self-Portrait with Two Circles (Rembrandt). This file is a colour vandalized version of File:Rembrandt Self-portrait (Kenwood).jpg, and a redirect should remain in place if the file is deleted. --Fæ (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

If anyone else wants to help restore the original colour files from source, there is a specific backlog at Category:Image overwrites by Jan Arkesteijn for independent review. It would be helpful to add the repaired images to User:Faebot/SandboxJA to help keep track of example case studies of this type of hard to detect vandalism. One thing we can be certain of, based on the last few years of discussion, Jan Arkesteijn is not going to lift a finger to help the community repair this vandalism. The gallery is transcluded here for convenience, rather than creating a paragraph for each case in this thread:

Case studies of images reverted or overwritten to repair colour damage by Jan Arkesteijn
Frick Collection
2018-10-31
Bonhams
2018-10-29
Sotheby's
2018-10-29
Bonhams
2018-10-29
Christie's
2018-10-10
RKD
2018-10-10

Bonhams
geheugenvannederland.nl
Liechtenstein
Liechtenstein
DAMS Antwerpen
Virginia Museum of Fine Arts
Yorck
Yorck
Yorck
Liechtenstein
Liechtenstein
NRC
Christie's
Sotheby's
Rijksmuseum
FP on Wikipedia and Commons
Sotheby's
Musée d'Orsay
WGA
Sotheby's
Sotheby's
Hermitage Museum
Rijksmuseum
Royal Museums Greenwich
Hermitage Museum
Royal Museums Greenwich
Philadelphia Museum of Art
Yale
Sotheby's
Artrenewal
Yorck project
Sotheby's
Helmink

Use of official looking EXIF data, which is not from the source quoted against it

Some of the previous cases I examined had unexpected EXIF data. I raised this on IRC earlier today, but thought this may have been an issue with old uploads only, like the 2012 upload of this Rijksmuseum derivative where the rights owner of the photograph quoted inside the EXIF data was a contradiction of being both the Rijksmuseum and the Christie's auctioneers.

However I am seeing a pattern of faked EXIF data for new uploads by Jan Arkesteijn, where the EXIF data matches up with the source statements on the Commons text but when the true image source is checked, the EXIF data may be significantly different, including statements about copyright. This is a highly misleading practice as both Commons users and reusers on sister projects, rely on the EXIF data being no more and no less than what the quoted source of a photograph put there.

Here are a couple of recent cases:

Jean Charles Sapey (1775-1857), by Élisabeth-Louise Vigée Le Brun, uploaded by JA on 2018-10-09 and overwritten by a fake-colour version two minutes later.
1. The initial upload states includes the EXIF
  Date: September 19, 2018
  
  Copyright: DALiM
  
  (XMP) Rights: DALiM
2. In addition, the second upload includes several extra fields:
  (EXIF) Credit: Christie's
  
  Copyright: DALiM
  
  Terms of Use: Public domain
  
  URL: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/
  
  (XMP) Credit: Christie's
  
  Source: http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=6165200
  
  Date Created: 2018:09:19
  
  Create Date: 2018:10:09
  
  Web Statement: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/
  
  Usage Terms: Public domain
3. The third upload is my upload direct from the quoted original source of Christie's auctioneers and appears to match the initial upload
  (EXIF) Copyright holder: DALiM
  
  Copyright status: Copyright status not set
  
  Date metadata was last modified: 21:15, 28 September 2018
George Gage with two men, by Anthony van Dyck, uploaded by JA a week ago on 2018-10-31, and overwritten by me with the colour-correct original version from the quoted source.
1. The initial upload:
  (EXIF) Credit: The National Gallery, London
  
  Terms of Use: Public domain
  
  URL: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/
  
  Date: October 31, 2018
  
  (XMP) Create Date: 2018:10:31
  
  Web Statement: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/
  
  Usage Terms: Public domain
2. The second upload is my overwrite with the colour correct quoted NPG source, the EXIF data is virtually non-existent, limited to:
  File Comment: CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v80), quality = 75
Ildefonso-Altar - The Holy Family under the appletree, by Peter Paul Rubens, uploaded by JA on 2018-09-18 (7 weeks ago)
1. There is only the initial version at the time of writing. The EXIF on Commons includes:
  Credit: Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien
  
  Terms of Use: Public domain
  
  URL: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/
  
  Date: September 3, 2018 2:32:30PM
  
  XMP repeats the same EXIF data of an official source, credit and license
  
  (XMP) Metadata Date: 2018:09:03
  
  The IPTC repeats the creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark link and includes Source: www.khm.at/de/object/f2e43fa340/
2. The online original, with strikingly different correct original colours, at the quoted source of http://www.khm.at/de/object/f2e43fa340/ shows almost no EXIF data, literally just basic file information and specifically nothing about copyright. Of relevance to us is the dates:
  (EXIF) Date: 2006:05:10 17:22:33+02:00
  
  (XMP) Metadata Date: 2010:01:21

The conclusion must be that Jan Arkesteijn is misleadingly adding their own EXIF data, even on the initial upload, and has been doing the same type of EXIF manipulation since at least 2012. The primary reason this is alarming is that this potentially affects hundreds of Commons hosted files and potentially tens of thousands of Wikipedia pages in multiple languages, especially those that rely on auto-transclusion based on Wikidata assertions about representative images of paintings. Users who might otherwise question the colour or other accuracy of a photograph, will be assured that the EXIF data looks like an official verification that the image they see is the one that the source provided.

This appears serious manipulation of basic data which underpins the reliability of our GLAM collections. Attempting to repair or even track down this manipulative complex form of vandalism, will waste a huge amount of collegiate volunteer time. --Fæ (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

User's esthetic corruption has shocked me to the core, but I could not have imagined such bold evil as seems to perspire from the above. Thank you so much for your investigations, Fæ. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC).

Hmm, I don't agree with the statement "both Commons users and reusers on sister projects, rely on the EXIF data being no more and no less than what the quoted source of a photograph put there." For example on File:Constantijn Huygens (1596-1687) by Caspar Netscher.jpg, the JPG downloaded from Rijksmuseum contained no EXIF data, not even a valid colour profile (which is inexcusable IMO). Rijksmuseum do offer colour-correct TIFF files for professional use, for a fee presumably, so I guess Joe Public just gets these crude truncated JPGs. The revision uploaded by Jan contained a fair amount of the usual fields that Photoshop adds, which are hard to avoid it adding if one uses the tool at all. Indeed any photo editor will dump extra EXIF fields into a file. When I uploaded the latest version from source, I added the sRGB profile using EXIFTOOL rather than with Photoshop so that I wouldn't incur any lossy decompress/compress cycle, but other users may not be so familiar with the command line.

There are various fields in EXIF to do with the camera (aperture, shutter, make/model, lens, etc), the processing (adjustments made in Lightroom, say), and a bunch of fields concerning authorshop and copyright. Being extendible, there is not really any limit to what organisations/companies might add. Wrt artworks there are many useful fields one could supply, just as we supply on the file information page. For example, the title of the work, description, catalogue ID, artist, date painted, date photographed, location, source URL, copyright, etc. If these are missing, I see no problem with someone adding them. Having them in EXIF means the information is retained even when downloaded from Commons. If I was uploading lots of files from Rijksmuseum, and I found they typically contained no EXIF, then I'd probably write a tool that extracting pertinent details from the web page and inserted them into the EXIF before uploading here.

So I don't think fiddling with EXIF is a crime. I see beginner users trash (lose) the EXIF when the use dumb tools like MS Paint or PhotoViewer on JPGs, though I'd expect an experienced user to have learned the importance of retaining this info. What would be bad would be altering the source to be fake or removing credit and licence details on purpose. I think augmenting the EXIF with data from the source website should be encouraged. Embedding things like source name and url and the licence/PD situation is IMO excellent practice. Ideally this should be done using a tool like EXIFTOOL that only touches the metadata, and keeps the image data intact. -- Colin (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that adding the right EXIF data would be acceptable. OTOH, willfully adding wrong EXIF MUST NOT be accepted. Platonides (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I would like to know whether 〠 (Gone Postal) and jcb still oppose sanctions, given the examples that Fæ has given. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC).

I have not followed the further discussion. As you can still read above, I wrote that this user cannot be blocked for breaking their edit restriction or for violating COM:OVERWRITE. If this user would be blocked, a valid reason will have to be formulated and the accidental edit 6 months ago is not a valid reason. Jcb (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The reason opening this section reads: "user keeps uploading problematic green-tinted images, claiming they are from the mentioned source, but not explaining the differences", the overwrite problem is secondary. I think you know very well what the problem is, but don't dear to act or even react proper, if I may be as bold as to say so. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC).

I don't think that I have the reputation that I would not dare to act if I think I should. Jcb (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a case of a user that over a decade has:

uploaded thousands of professional GLAM photographs of paintings
obscured the sources so that frequently the wrong source was given in the image page text or the image was impossible to download to verify
damaged the value of the photographs by bizarrely distorting colours, but leaving this undeclared so that it appears that the now over enhanced photographs are still a genuine copy of the GLAM institution or their photographers' work and creative choices
manipulated EXIF data before uploading, falsely inserting a Public Domain Mark license against the GLAM institution's name and website address and making it appear that the institution released all rights to their photograph as "public domain"
has refused to assist with the correct recovery or restoration of the original photographs when repeatedly challenged over a period of years

Under COM:BP, this behaviour is explicitly defined as "Vandalism", including "Insertion of deliberately false information (e.g. fake image sources)"

Secondly under COM:BP, the evidence shows "Copyright violations", as in "Repeated uploading of inappropriately licensed media".

To make the evidence easy to read, it should be sufficient to

(a) examine the 8 deletion requests raised in the parent thread above which provide a compelling case of disruption and the misleading promotion of fake colour photographs as professional work,

(b) consider the 3 recent sample cases of manipulated EXIF data above, clearly asserting that Christie's auctioneers, The National Gallery and the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, have released their professional photographs as Public Domain Mark, thereby making it appear that rather than the uploader, it is their curators that have confirmed that the photographs are public domain and waive all potential rights, regardless of the IP law in any country of publication.

The fact is that this tiny sample is tip of an iceberg that will never be fully repaired due to the detail forensic investigation it takes each time to discover the original sources that Jan Arkesteijn has obscured and, probably worse, the likelihood that many sources will no longer exist, or even be discoverable, over an uploading period of a decade. --Fæ (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The category Uploads by Jan Arkesteijn with EXIF claim of Public Domain Mark has now been created so that any volunteer can easily find images which have been falsely marked with PDM. Where other versions exist, there seems good reason to delete files with this problem rather than attempting to download from the quoted source, which where it exists may still be wrong or a dead link.

This is a backlog of 1,378 files that need review. --Fæ (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of EXIF here. Fae is claiming that JPG metadata can be "official looking" which leads to the accusation that any information in the EXIF that does not come from the official source is therefore a misrepresentation of the source organsiation. The most egregious of this is apparently the "Public Domain Mark" added by Jan but not the source.

EXIF is just metadata. There is no standard and no practice or precedent that claims such data is holy and must be preserved untouched. Indeed, the Wikimedia thumbnailer alters the EXIF data. It strips out most of the EXIF data, leaving only a handful of fields and the colour profile. And if the image has an sRGB colour profile, it substitutes the tinyRGB profile (from Facebook) to save a bit of download bytes. There's nothing stopping some future API embedding into the EXIF data using machine-readable fields supplied by Commons on the fly. Also nothing stopping Commons API providing online tools in future to allow editors to amend and augment the EXIF data in a JPG. The data itself is just data. It isn't signed and doesn't claim to be from any author or organsiation.
The "Public Domain Mark" is not a licence so claiming "inserting a Public Domain Mark license" is just wrong. If the CC0 Public Domain Dedication had been inserted, then that would be an entirely different matter, as only the copyright-owner can make such a dedication or offer their work with a copyright licence. The Public Domain Mark is simply a statement about work that is made by someone presumably in good faith and with some competence. It is no different to our own PD templates on Commons. And just like the Commons Disclaimer, it doesn't promise to be legally correct: "Unless expressly stated otherwise, the person who identified the work makes no warranties about the work, and disclaims liability for all uses of the work, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law".

JPG does not support the ability to embed a history of changes to metadata, or to mark what data was added by who, or to sign the data to guarantee authorship and authority. We should not read into it that there is any claim of authorship or authority. -- Colin (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Jan Arkesteijn is blocked

Based on this disturbing pattern of falsifying images and falsifying the EXIF data - actions that violate the most basic principles of Commons - and refusing to engage with the community, I have indefinitely blocked Jan Arkesteijn. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: As the block has been immediately appealed, it would be worth considering the necessary future editing restrictions for a successful unblock.

The simplest solution would be to restrict all uploads to files which are digitally identical to the source of the image, and have a verifiable source. This one condition is no more than nearly 100% of everybody else's GLAM related uploads to Commons already are (i.e. "upload" = "upload from the quoted source"), at a stroke illuminates future disruption, and truthfully is of zero extra burden on Jan Arkesteijn. "Digitally identical" technically means that the SHA1 checksum is identical on Commons to the verifiable and quoted source image. --Fæ (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that this is quite restrictive. I often do lossless optimisation before uploading to Commons. However, I do recognise that this is a special case. So I would say that demanding that the initial upload is byte-by-byte identical can be a good idea. After the initial upload checks out and the user wants to edit the file, they can upload other versions, and the community can decide if the changes are an improvement or destructive. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 17:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem is the deliberate obfuscation of sources, and misleading attribution which is hard to describe as anything else than lies. There has been 10 years of this and several years of disruption and debate, for a problem that has only ever been an issue for Jan Arkesteijn. I don't see anything less restrictive being helpful.

As yet another shocking example, I have just spent 15 minutes tracking down the real source at the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts for File:A gentleman, by Bartholomeus Van Der Helst.jpg which was sourced to a dead link. The image uploaded by JA was far too over brightened compared to the professional photograph taken by the Museum, yet this was the only copy of this painting on Commons and so has been the reference image on Wikidata, without any qualification for its encyclopaedic inaccuracy. The shocking part is that JA added EXIF with "© Virginia Museum of Fine Arts" and "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/" when the truth is that the VMFA released the photograph as CC-BY-NC. This is deliberate misrepresentation of the institution and the legal status for reusers. If the USA or Virginia changes copyright law to establish an equivalent of "sweat of the brow", this could have damaging repercussions for reusers who may be relying on accurate EXIF data. --Fæ (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Which is why I have said that in this case I agree that a significantly more restrictive approach than I would accept for anybody else is still reasonable. My thoughts are actually more about how to figure out that this is happening for the future cases. Let's say we have a user who did that only on 5 or 6 images. Chances are it would never have been discovered. And it is reasonably trivial to go to an internet cafe, register for a new account, upload several fake-exif images. Find another cafe, do that again. Rinse and repeat. I think that you have found a huge problem here, and unfortunately I cannot even visualise any solution at this moment. Banning one user even completely isn't going to fix this. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 19:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree, Jan should be topic banned explicitly, notwithstanding the indefinite block. This will force him to sue for peace with the painting community in Wikimedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary or wise to discuss "the necessary future editing restrictions for a successful unblock". Nor to discuss topic bans at this stage. The indef block must work the same way as they all do. Understand and accept the reason for the block, agree past actions were wrong, promise not to repeat them. Any "topic ban" of sorts must come from Jan agreeing what future actions he will and will not perform, and then it is up to us as a community to decide if that is sufficient. Take vandalism as an example. If you are indefed for vandalism, you don't get unblocked the next day, and an "topic ban on vandalism" imposed. The next step needs to come from Jan.

As a side note, it is possible in Photoshop to tell if two JPGs are visually equivalent. Import them as two layers and apply a "difference" blend. The result should be black. Compression would result in small differences, but a colour shift like Jan is fond of, would show up clearly. But there is also the issue of overwriting, and EXIF, and just plain dishonestly about sources. -- Colin (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Speaking as an avid Photoshop user who resorts to it to fix for all kinds of problems it can remotely be of use fo, I say that what you suggest, when it comes to evaluate more than two or three suspect cases, is cumbersome, slow, and error-prone — compared to SHA1 comparison. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Tuválkin, it would be slow indeed if done by hand, though not error prone when you care about "visually identical". Even opening a JPG in photoshop and then saving it again may change the bytes in the JPG blocks without any apparent visual change -- only lossless tools guarantee to modify JPGs in a way that has 0 effect on the image (bar crop, rotate). One could conceivably create a automation script for PhotoShop that takes two images and produces a "black" difference file and then just look at the large thumbnails in Windows to spot the ones that aren't fully black. The problem with tools that are designed to spot similar images is that they very much don't care about subtle changes to colour temperature. But many of Jan's images were uploaded with no source (or kept the source of the previous upload, which is now wrong) so it is hard to get hold of the original for comparison. And he may have cropped/resized too. Anyway, the difference technique might be useful for some other cases, where we suspect someone has altered the colours but aren't quite sure. -- Colin (talk) 08:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

So, a difference layer would not be fully black if there’s subtle RGB diffs in at least a few pixels, due to lossy compression artifacts and/or deliberate tweaking. Why bring the matter up, then? If we want to quickly compare two files SHA1 is fast and efective. A 100% black difference layer indicates two identical images, pixelwise, which may be stored in different files (varying metadata and/or file type), but, for the case at hand, at least, SHA1 comparing is still more effective. After the blackboard number stunt it would surely be a relief to know there's no pixels tinkering in the files Jan ulploaded, but metadata variations are also undesirable, at least, if not outright harmful, especially when they are supposdely coming from a GLAM (to echo Fæ above). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 05:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Tuválkin, well I disagree about there being any issue with EXIF additions. In practice, Jan is far from the only person who ever uploaded a JPG they got from the internet that was altered in some way. The reason the community agreed to block Jan was that his crude and ignorant alterations to the image damaged their educational value and replaced correctly coloured images on Wikipedia with his own abominations. We don't have any policy or guideline that requires people to upload JPGs binary verbatim from external sources. If you want such, then we have another forum for such a proposal, but it would need evidence that this is a widespread problem, and not just a "prevent Jan" policy. I think if we examined JPGs that were uploaded by hand rather than by bot, we'd find quite a lot of evidence of alterations. -- Colin (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I've made an offer an Jan's talk page to write a set of rules, a contract if you will, to end the blue period. Most of it is already in my head now, so I may write it anyway. Arkesteijn is no stranger to wikilawyering, so we probably shouldn't let him set the conditions. And the conditions should be written by a wikilawyer. (like.. me, other candidates may apply) For example, I read about SHA1 checksums here. Not such a great idea, Google already made two different PDF files with the same checksum. Arkesteijn can't exploit such a thing now, but you wouldn't want to use this as a definition of "identical". - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 05:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

«Not such a great idea», you say about trusting SHA1 to clear up doubts about images identical to the naked eye, and you come up with the factoid that «Google already made two different PDF files with the same checksum». Either you’re very ignorant about basic stuff and shameless about it, or you think we all are. Which is it? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: or you misunderstood. If in the not-too-distant-future it would become possible to adjust the SHA1 checksum with the tap of a button, it would be bad if Arkesteijn were forced to upload original images and that was defined like (quoting Fæ here) «"Digitally identical" technically means that the SHA1 checksum is identical on Commons to the verifiable and quoted source image.» - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 04:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

No way: If ever there’s a way to alter the digital data of a file (by changing the RGB of given pixels or changing metadata contents or whatever) to preemptively achieve a predicted/sought SHA1 value (which is a very big “if”, if I’m seeing the matter right), then SHA1 and other such checksum-dependent tests are compromised and we’ll need to move to a better file-comparing paradigm (maybe full-on byte-by-byte matching?), and in that scenario Fæ’s statement is trivially outdated. But it is as far fetched as advising Cæser not to cross the Rubicon because the Senate might have nukes. In short: Fæ is right and SHA1 is the way to go. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 05:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: SHA1 needs to be replaced/upgraded, you got that much right. SHA1 is indeed compromised (and so is MD5). At this moment it requires quite some resources, but the question is not if but when everyone will be able to do it. The fact that you seem to lump all checksum-dependent tests together and would even think of "full-on byte-by-byte matching".. let's just say such suggestions don't put you in a position to say I'm "ignorant about basic stuff". - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 06:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Just curious but if these problems were known since 2016 then wasn't he listed at Commons:Editing restrictions before? I don't think that uploading a different colour scheme image of a public domain painting is bad, but overwriting a realistic image with a retouched image is problematic, if he simply uploaded the retouched files as separate files and didn't go out of his way to replace the real ones this wouldn't have been an issue, but this simply doesn't make any sense to me, who benefits from making the images bluer? I'm usually against any long-term blocks and restrictions but I really can't seem to figure out why this user wants to push his on personal preferences on so many art works. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: Arkesteijn was on (de-facto?) edit restriction.. Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 57#Proposal I guess uploads aren't considered edits and that's why Arkesteijn wasn't listed there? That's just silly if that's the case.. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 08:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why you are so eager to get him back this quick. He should know himself how to get back, if he wants to and shows himself eligible for such. I think he has quite some thinking to do, before applying for an unblock. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC).

Exactly. -- Colin (talk) 12:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jürgen Eissink: Because Arkesteijn, without the Photoshop, could be a valueable contributor. He was given a set of rules in 2016 which strictly he didn't break (only one exception, File:Jacob Kistemaker 2008.jpg, which given how much he uploads I also believe was an honest mistake). Arkesteijn is a wikilawyer and you need another wikilawyer to write the rules to keep him in check. And that's where 2016 failed. Blocks are not punitive. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 12:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

If this is what you mean by a 'wikilawyer', then I don't think we need a wikilawyer at all. Jan Arkesteijn doesn't need you. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC).

That's the kind of wikilawyering Arkesteijn does. I use my power for good. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 23:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

If anyone has any doubt that this editor is a deliberate troll, then open up the following two links in different browser windows and switch back and forth between them. Pay attention to the blackboard behind the subject, specifically the numbers above "3 Feb. 04". [18] [19]. The first is the original, the second is an edit by this editor claiming "levels and hue". The next edit included a minor crop, rotate & re-scaling to the original size which was obviously intended to obfuscate the change of numbers on the board, as most editors would compare the latest revision by that user to the original (this is a common trick among forgers: minor differences in the entirety of a work will do a lot to obscure major differences in a portion of a work. Forgers will frequently frame a work differently than it appears in available photographs, or if no frame is visible in available photographs of the work, they will add a half inch or so of extra background to one or more sides). That's on top of the utterly incompetent brightness adjustment that blew out and desaturated the image. MjolnirPants (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
OMG, This means we have to check all of his uploads for possible fakes. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Very well found, but to Jan's defence: the number 06 etc. is most likely a telephone number, since in the Netherlands all mobile numbers start with 06 and are then followed by 8 digits. Dutch viewers will recognize it as a phone number, so Jan probably tried to obscure the number for that reason. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC).

The apparent name above it does far more to make it look like a phone number than the first digit being a 0. Also, changing a single digit like that is an especially poor way of obfuscating a phone number because it doesn't actually do anything to obfuscate the phone number: It's still right there, still looks like a phone number, and anyone familiar with Dutch phone numbers will recognize that the 2 doesn't belong and should be a zero (which is not dialed, according to everything I know about phone systems and our en.wiki article on the subject). Finally; that doesn't explain the cropping & resizing in the next edit, while the "vandalism" hypothesis does. MjolnirPants (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I have to disagree, with the 2 it does no longer look like a phone number. (And you are wrong in your assumption that the zero would not be dialed). Jcb (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I can do with the phone number whatever I want. Like this. If you are crazy enough to try and contact phone numbers from pictures, it would be only right to put you through to the WhatsApp of a mental health organization. They may actually be able to help.

(obviously I'm not overwriting this image) - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 02:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

"The next edit included a minor crop, rotate & re-scaling to the original size which was obviously intended to obfuscate the change of numbers on the board,"

@MPants at work: there is one minor problem with your theory: the passing of one decade between the second and third version. Interestingly, in 2008 Arkesteijn made the photo blue. In 2018, he made it more "zombie", similar to File:Iris Hond (2018).jpg. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 07:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

You're right: I didn't notice the dates. That doesn't mesh with the notion that he did it to obfuscate the edit. Still, it doesn't do shit to obfuscate the number, so maybe it's just incompetence. MjolnirPants (talk) 13:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I share your overall conclusion in this, but still you talk pretty tough for someone who thinks that your edited version of this original is an improvement, which it is clearly not. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC).

lol Butthurt much? MjolnirPants (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, why not deny criticism by laughing it away. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 09:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC).

@Jürgen Eissink: you gave the wrong link for File:OJGude.jpg. You should compare https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/f/fa/20181029002236%21OJGude.jpg to https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/f/fa/20181029031534%21OJGude.jpg and the latter is clearly an improvement. Whether MjolnirPants should have uploaded it as a new file per COM:OVERWRITE is debatable, but the original uploader also photoshopped the same file and is the one who requested changes in the first place. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 05:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I gave the right link, namely to the original file. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC).

How bizarre. I was showing this case to someone with more painting, art history, preservation, etc. experience than I. They found it fascinating and asked me to ask whether Jan ever provided a clear/detailed rationale for the color changes? There are assumptions we can make, but in looking through this and a couple related threads, I'm not seeing one. Just curious. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I started this discussion because I found it bizar as well. When I asked Jan, September 1st 2018, he answered he adjusted images for purposes of illustration (aangepast voor illustratiedoeleinden). Later, answering somebody else, he stated: many images "need to be edited, because many images in raw form are unsuitable for publication" ("[moeten] bewerkt worden, omdat veel afbeeldingen in ruwe vorm ongeschikt zijn voor publicatie". Statements that defy all common sense. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC).

@Rhododendrites: also note that his views of what is "suitable for publication" changed over time. In 2008, he thought File:Jacob Kistemaker 2008.jpg had to be blue. In 2018, he thought it had to be "zombie" (a color scheme he also applied to other photos). The same photo. File:Filippo Francesco d'Este, Marchese di Lanzo (1621-1653), by Anthonis van Dyck.jpg was made blue in 2018, but that's a painting. I think he handles paintings different from photos. On Commons:Deletion requests/File:Richard Wilson (1714-1782), by Anton Raphael Mengs.jpg I found he most likely applied automatic white balance correction. We could possibly find patterns if we were to dig into it. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 06:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I suppose if "suitable for publication" meant publication in a black and white magazine, then it might be sensible. It's strange that the "bluening" seems to be an effort to lighten parts of the image? I would also like to point out something else that's strange, that I don't see mentioned elsewhere: in the difference between the versions of the first file you linked, Alexis Jazz (before, after), there is also a number changed on the blackboard!! Clearly a cloned version of the next 2 in the sequence... but why?? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This was already mentioned here, right above this in fact. Search the page for "deliberate troll". Arkesteijn wanted to obscure the phone number. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 06:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah so it was. Ah well. May dive into this deeper later out of personal curiosity. Thanks for humoring. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

the larger issue is users photo shopping colour balance, different from institutional sources. i.e. File:John William Waterhouse - Thisbe, 1909.jpg and overwriting old smaller versions, without a clear source. we need a colour balance version workflow to check institutional sources, elevate those versions, and push those to wikidata. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixing things

If you need people to help set things right:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge did a couple for Breugel, i am going through reverse order, and overwriting. will remove EXIF category,
- Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 14:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC), but only with admin permission.

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 73

DSFC67

Test edits by Lokesha kunchadka

Christophe Christian

SALOPENEU88

Whitepowereuropa

Reporting User:Alexis Jazz for Wikihounding

AldoGiese

User:Caspianstars

User:JOJOtheWhale.bronxtale

Jamalalrajhi

User:Tursclan

Issues with uploading new version of image files

Alexis Jazz trashing EXIF and disrupting DR

Theknight36

Colin

MC880

MC880 (again)

Hoax

Aurino Rahal Fernandes

Géographe96 and his sockpuppet Pommejaune

User:Reykholt & User:Hornstrandir1

Allrightnow1970

computer was hacked

South African flags

Sockpuppet allegation

Petebutt and categorization

User Ltosnar

Would like to delete a corrupt image that was overwritten using the same file name

User:HWAYTABON8888

my account has been compromised

Misuse of Copyvio templates by autopatroller

Alexis Jazz

Jamalalrajhi

Blakeboard56

User:Tm and categorization

Premongol.png overwritten with copyvio

Peteratkins

Giorgi Balakhadze

User:复旦大学张超 overwriting existing files

User:SparkTroy

Mehdi.salimi742

Aakansha Trivedi

Marisa Glez Glez Glez

Jcb

Spelling problem in french

How different genders/sexes are portrayed in page content, inequities in page information

Nino Marakot

User:Wargaz and User:Micheletb

Close account.

Restoration of official photographs of artworks

Reverting false colour image vandalism on Wikidata

Better quality, but without reference to source

Use of official looking EXIF data, which is not from the source quoted against it

Jan Arkesteijn is blocked

Fixing things

Navigation menu

Search