Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Microtoerisme

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Microtoerisme (talk · contribs)

[edit]

User Microtoerisme has uploaded 1,452 files since Nov 2012, nearly all containing a prominent watermark promoting his website. It should also be noted that the uploader's stated primary intention[1](in dutch) is to use Wikimedia Commons to advertise his web site.

See Category:Uploads by Microtoerisme with watermarks

Recently a few of these files have been individually nominated for deletion with the reason generally being "advertising". I thought it useful to point those deletion requests (and future ones) to this central location for discussion and resolution. – JBarta (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Files of this uploader that have been individually nominated for deletion:

Commons:Deletion requests/File:1302 Eindhoven - HTC 045.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:InZicht Oirschot Petruskerk 051.JPG
Commons:Deletion requests/File:InZicht Oirschot Petruskerk 054.JPG
Commons:Deletion requests/File:1208 Stavoren 09.JPG (added 3/21/13)
Commons:Deletion_requests/File:1302_Eindhoven_-_HTC_092.jpg (added 3/21/13) DR for different reason. – JBarta (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: uploader has been blocked for one week. – JBarta (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am hesitant to support the deletion of all these files because they are freely licensed and may fall into COM:SCOPE. I do agree that this user's practice is spammy and should be discouraged, but I do wonder if it might be worth it to run some sort of a bot to crop out the watermark and keep the images? Mono 01:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If a bot can crop out the watermarks on the images, that would be a quick and minimally damaging solution. Then in the future, on an individual basis, editors will still have the option to re-remove the watermark without cropping if they wish, as the watermarked originals will remain available in the history. – JBarta (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if I might add, the word "discouraged" is precisely part of the problem. Uploaders think watermarks are "discouraged" because that's what we tell them. Maybe we should find a perfectly clear way to tell uploaders such as this one DON'T DO IT. Then again, a similar problem (misuse of "own work") was met with the reponse (I'm paraphrasing) Uploaders won't listen anyway and we want to be popular like Facebook and make things easy to upload and bad uploads are just maintenance and if other editors don't want to do maintenance then maybe they're just lazy. Everyone has their perspective I guess. – JBarta (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Btw, most (if not all) of the images this user uploaded have spam messages in Dutch, like these: "Deze afbeelding wordt u aangeboden door de Stichting Microtoerisme Inzicht - www.microtoerisme.nl" ("This image is offered to you by the Microtourism Insight Foundation - www.microtoerisme.nl"), or "Op www.microtoerisme.nl kunt u gratis stadswandelingen, audiotours en fietsroutes downloaden. Ook kunt u honderden video's en 10.000+ foto's bekijken. En dagelijks een fotoblog." ("On www.microtoerisme.nl you can download free city walks, audio tours en cycling routes. You can also watch hundreds of videos and 10.000+ photos. And every day a photo blog.". Regardless the outcome of the watermarks discussion, this clearly spammy messages should imo be removed from all his uploads, which shouldn't be too hard for a bot. Wutsje 01:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I have requested that this user be unblocked as the one week block does not appear in accordance to the Blocking policy. Uploading watermarked images is not spamming. If these are ear-marked in a suitable category, a batch action can remove the watermarks. The moral rights that this uploader is concerned about are protected by attribution in the CC licence. This should be patiently explained so that the licence clearly includes the attribution they are looking for (at the moment, the examples I find have no proper attribution in the licence). I would be happy to amend the licences by bot, should the attribution statement be agreed, and all the images to be fixed put in one large backlog category. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't seem to understand what this case is about. This user is not "concerned about moral rights", and it isn't about attribution. This user is spamming his website. He is spamming on the images, he is spamming in the descriptions of the images, he is spamming in the EXIF information. And even worse, when asked, he said he admitted he is uploading to promote his website, and draw more visitors th his website. He also said he will not stop spamming, and he said he is going to continue spamming, even though he was asked not to. LeeGer (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete A clear COM:ADVERT violation. I recommend to delete all uploads from Microtoerisme and permban the useraccount as this is the name of the website. To be clear: I have no problem when Jan Geerling under his own name creates an account and reuploads his photographs of the Netherlands, but without the watermarks, and without the advertising statement on the pages and with a clean EXIF tag. As he has all the originals, he would be the most suitable person to reupload these 1452 images. It is not the job of the community to clean up the mess that Microtoerisme created in the first place. Hans Erren (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are quoting a shortcut (ADVERT) to a sentence within a guideline, that itself entirely relies on an interpretation of a subsection of scope. The key point of that paragraph in the scope official policy is that content should realistically be of an educational purpose. All these images fit that description, so there is no tangible rationale for a deletion here. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete It was and is this user's stated intent to spam using these images. Even though the images are not used in any articles (as far as I know), they do appear when clicking {commonscat} sisterlinks in articles (again: user's intent to make this happen was clearly shown by his consistent over-catting, even after being asked several times not to do that). To avoid this type of abuse growing into epidemic, we need to give a clear signal by deleting all images and blocking the user indefinitely. Per Hans Erren, user can create a new account and resubmit clean versions of the images, with regular source annotation. It's unrealistic to have the community clean up 1452 images. Whaledad (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As it happens, it is not unrealistic to have a bot do a standard size trim off 1,452 files. Of course, were we to be able to work with this project contributor to reach a common understanding of how best to use the attribution licence, rather than finding ways to punish them, they may well choose to release unwatermarked versions. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:VanBuren has already tried to convince the user to submit pictures without watermark. Microtoerisme's response was: "Het plaatsen van foto's zonder watermerk, waar jij mij toe probeert over te halen, is voor mij niet "lonend" ("Upload of pictures without watermark, which you try to persuade me to do, would have no payback for me."), showing again that his SOLE purpose in uploading these pictures is to draw visitors to his website. Whaledad (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good. I'll quite happily add the website link as a legally required attribution to the 1,400+ images. That's is perfectly well within Commons norms for attribution rather than spam and Microtoerisme might see this as useful reward for their work. As the website provides free downloadable material for the public, this seems like a great win-win. If this uploader still wants to help out with Commons content by making unwatermarked photographs available after the block and criticism, then that would be super.
I suggest using {{cc-by-sa-3.0|attribution=Gratis stadswandelingen & fietsroutes - http://www.microtoerisme.nl}}.
Folks seem to be importing a big argument from another project to Commons, the system works a lot better if that does not happen as Commons is quite different in terms of policies and norms compared to other Wikimedia projects. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to try where VanBuren "failed" (knowing VanBuren he did anything and everything possible). Microtoerisme's email address can be found at [2].
I would object to an advertzing line in the attribution statement. I would accept "{{cc-by-sa-3.0|attribution=www.microtoerisme.nl}}", but not "{{cc-by-sa-3.0|attribution=Gratis stadswandelingen & fietsroutes - http://www.microtoerisme.nl}}".
As for importing problems from other projects. In this case the problem lies on commons (which is a COMMON service to all Wikimedia projects) and cannot be solved at nl.wikipedia. It was first discussed there, as the problem became visible there. The problem can only be solved at commons. Whaledad (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Licences have had the attribution added as suggested. --Fæ (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The intent of the uploader was bad (though we might mention he's hardly alone), but once the watermarks are removed, the images are fine. I think a mass crop is the best solution. If editors wish to go back later and re-remove the watermark without cropping, the original watermarked version will be in the history for them to do so. The advertising blurb from the image description pages should also be removed. In other words, the images are here, they are decent images and we should try to make them acceptable. On the issue of blocking the uploader, I think his block should be indefinite and the lifting of it conditional on his agreeing that any future uploads will be without watermarks, without the advertising blurb, without over catting and in a manner generally acceptable to the community. If he can do this, we should forgive and welcome him back. If he cannot agree or reverts to his old bad ways, he should be blocked permanently. – JBarta (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how easy/hard it is to automatically perform this cropping, and how long it would take. If a considerable amount of time is involved, I would plead for a "de-cat" in the meantime, to avoid those pictures showing up on {commonscat} sister links until they are cleaned. Whaledad (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused about this business of "{commonscat} sister links". Could you explain that to me further so I can see what you're talking about? – JBarta (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm suppressing visible categories. It's a bit of a hack but nicely reversible, so long as these images are in a handy category when we want to find them to reverse this suppression. (Commonscat is a way of indicating on various Wikipedias where images related to the topic can be found in a Commons category. Suppressing the visible categories makes these effectively vanish for the moment.) --Fæ (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still confused. Why would you "supress" what appears to be a perfectly proper category? – JBarta (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Ok, nevermind... I think I understand. it's a punitive thing to try and make these images "disappear" from various categories. Personally I think that's a little silly, overdoing things and it just creates more work because someone has to go back and "unsupress" them. I think we should eliminate improper categories but leave the proper ones alone. – JBarta (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not "punitive", but spam avoidance. Because the categorie listing provides the free advertizing (spam) that the user intented. I'm glad that Fae found a hack that's reversible. One more thing: the last 300 or so files were uploaded with "InZicht" (the other name of the website and the organization) as the first part of the file name. Is there a bulk way to change that too? Whaledad (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I'm going AFK - leave a note on my talk page explaining what is needed, and I could deal with it tomorrow at some point unless someone gets on to it before me. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's somewhat common to have uploader information in the filename. Before changing it, it would be good to check if such a thing is actually contrary to Commons guidelines. After all, we don't want to completely smite the uploader. He does have a legitimate right to get credit for his work. – JBarta (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • To the closing admin: (obviously not me) There is no consensus to unblock the uploader at this time, but please check the uploader's talk page or wait for the block to expire before closing this DR. The block I applied will expire Sat, 23 Mar 2013 00:37:28 GMT. Mono 22:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: cropping: I think there IS a consensus for cropping off the offending watermarks en masse. If someone has the technical ability to accomplish this, I would suggest he go ahead and do it. – JBarta (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps CropBot is an option, I don't have any experience with it. Hans Erren (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I agree with Jbarta - the images are fine, annoying watermarks aside. If we can find a way to crop out the watermarks within a reasonable amount of time, then we should keep them (otherwise I may reconsider delete). If the uploader continues to upload images with watermarks after his block has expired, I also agree that he should then be blocked for a much longer time, if not indefinitely. Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Agree with Skeezix1000; this is a recurring problem for which we need indeed a systematic approach. All images in category: Sint Petrus Banden (Oirschot) have been cropped manually. --Foroa (talk) 07:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep but crop. I run a few mass cropping efforts in the past and might be able to help with this, however at the moment I am a little bit swamped. It would be easier and we would end up with better images, if uploaded would reupload the original images --Jarekt (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several attempts have been made to convince the uploader to upload non-watermarked image, which he refused. He also refuses to come and discuss this here (but he IS reading this). At one point he told VanBuren he was willing to upload pictures with a white border, where the watermark was in the border so we could more easily crop them. It's not clear to me where the gain would be for him, as it would only cost us some work, but the end result would be clean images (and no advertizing for him). At this point he has made it known that he won't be uploading anything anymore, even when his block expires. It's too bad a better understanding with this person could not be reached. Whaledad (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. unblock, and stop living in the stone age, or stoning age as the case has become. No sooner can you point to a watermarked image than someone makes the watermark disappear, wake the fuck up people.
Watermarks are becoming so trivial as software advances that a bot can be written to remove them and no doubt cause complaining that someone ripped out all the watermarks from some list of images without first getting consensus and blah blah f**king blah.
Argue if it is this or this at your leisure later. It's not block/delete first and then discuss at village pump later and maybe you were right but if you fucked the project don't worry about it cause that's ok, otherwise everyone would be blocked for everything until admins learn everything and images are proved ok, now how the F can you do that if you can't see the images.
handle the project with care lest it become as failed as en.wiki Penyulap ☏ 12:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll respond to one of your points... as one who has removed at least hundreds of watermarks. Most watermarks require a certain amount of time and effort to remove. Some may be cropped out, but that's about the limit of what a bot might do. The idea that a bot can be written to remove all but the most trivial and croppable watermarks is nonsense. In the end, watermark removal requires (wastes?) a LOT of editor effort. – JBarta (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Penyulap, it is so refreshing to hear someone so eloquently arguing their clear thoughts. I would suggest, that perhaps instead of arguing about how easy it is to write watermark removal bot, you should just write one so we can "stop living in the stone age". --Jarekt (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite busy redrawing some horsies on a carousel right now TOP priority work for a barnstar :)
plus, there is the issue of whether people will ever stop blocking and nuking watermarked images in the first place.
There are enough images to do botwork on, but who is to say they won't be deleted first ? what is the point of writing a bot for images that are deleted from view but still on the server ? is someone going to make my bot a sysop without making me one ? and like as if that idea isn't the 5th horse of the apocalypse right there. Maybe I should make an attack-an-admin-bot which makes thousands of requests for undelete at the same time, because the images will, won't, will, won't, will, won't, will, won't, be deleted, it's all been decided hasn't it ? By the time admins stop fucking with contributors who upload these useful images will there be any that come back ?
All this argument bullshit should be at the village pump working out watermark policy rather than randomly blocking and unblocking, like someone got a hand free from the straight-jacket and is making quick work of the project.
As for suggesting something can't be done, prove it. The addition is in the exact same place in every image, it's a total nobrainer to write a plugin, or a script (maybe I could learn that part in a day). In the meantime as I am busy drawing, can you goto the Bot discussion groups and ask someone there to please take over drawing the carousel for me, it looks like this one but totally different. When someone from the bot groups can take this drawing job off my hands for a few moments, I'll pop over there and write a bot, ok ?
Plus, on the subject of me operating a bot, which you bring up, last time I got a bot flag for a bot, someone couldn't work out who was not operating it because it was indef blocked, and they had to use checkuser to work out who was not operating the indef blocked bot. That didn't go well as complaining about abuse of tools just gets your ass blocked forever, that did not concern me in the least. What concerned me was the phone call. I lived in fear of the phone call. You see, I knew he was plotting to kill me and other editors agreed that it was an excellent idea so if they ever worked out where on Earth this rogue homicidal bot was operating from it could have turned out rather poorly.
So you see, operating a bot is fraught with danger, I have nothing against homicidal bots with lasers for eyes and missiles on their shoulders, or those predator combined missile and laser things all on the shoulder in one neat and easy to carry package, they're delightful and an evil genius's best friend, but it's a great deal of effort to go through the whole process IF that is not something you do a lot. Some people do that a lot, and I have only been studying bots, webscraping, java python mysql and so on for a short time, so I won't be ready until AFTER you lot stop your bickering and take it to the village pump and work out some freaking policy.
In the meantime the images listed at the top of the page as being ruined or whatever from watermarks have no watermarks, show me some examples of images ruined by watermarks please. Penyulap ☏ 17:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find repeated and aggressive use of "fuck" offensive, so I'm taking this page off my watchlist. I hope that Commons does not support editors turning it into 4chan. This type of pointless, disruptive and hostile comment from Penyulap risks Commons losing contributors who will find a more welcoming open knowledge project to invest their volunteer time in. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Penyulap: (A) I second Fae's remark on the F word usage; absolutely unnecessary. (B) It is true that the images listed above and about 50 others have already been edited. There is still about 1400 that contain Microtoerisme's spam: Category:Uploads by Microtoerisme with watermarks. Whaledad (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Language aside, Penyulap does stress an important point... that Commons has no clear watermark policy and any "enforcement" is inconsistent and all over the map. Files get deleted or not deleted depending whether they show up on the radar, on the whims of some random administrator and according to arbitrary standards. It's pitiful really when you think about it. We shoot ourselves in the foot and then complain we're bleeding. – JBarta (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well old ladies shriek at eyebrows and dandies feint at the sight of a belly-button and that is beside the point. The point is THERE IS NO POLICY REGARDING WATERMARKS so please discuss it at Commons:Village pump#Watermarks before those who do not give a crap about nought but belly-buttons and those who care about people being blocked willy-nilly have to put up with listening to each other any longer. Penyulap ☏ 07:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see it looks good. And thank-you, it's very helpful. – JBarta (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words. However, someone noticed that metadata was lost from the files I worked on, and also asked for edit summaries, which I don't know how to do with the script I'm using. Rybec (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those problems with the bot are resolved. My request for a flag for it is again awaiting discussion. Rybec (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the EXIF metadata is also spam, it can be removed. Hans Erren (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Consensus is that the files can be useful if cropped. Issues regarding the user's behaviour in attempting to spam the project should be dealt with - if still a problem - elsewhere. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Microtoerisme&oldid=313898369"