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.
This content belongs to a globally-locked sockpuppet. See Sockpuppet investigation on enwiki. This user, through block evasion on IP addresses, has continued his campaign of forcing his work into every article possible, regardless of quality or worthiness of other files. See this IPand this IPand this IPad nauseam. The only way to stop this abuse of forcing photos into articles is to delete the photos themselves and to WP:DENY recognition to the abusive sockpuppets. --Elizium23 (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Some of these photos are in use in other Wikis, added by innocent parties such as yours truly on Wikivoyage, and your argument as I understand it is not that these photos are a problem on Commons but that the sockpuppet shouldn't be permitted to add them to other Wikis. So the recourse isn't to delete the photos but to revert the vandalism on other Wikis and remove the sockpuppet from Commons whenever their presence is discovered. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per COM:ADVERT this abuser is engaging in self-promotion by force. The IPs are impossible to block. The ranges are in the 11-bit CIDR class: do you realize the collateral damage involved from that? There are acceptable replacements for all of these photos, none of them are unique, they are all heavily-photographed subject matter. If you only knew the pulling-teeth I have to go through to reduce the reference counts to these photos, if you had to endure the vandalism to your home account's contributions, to your user talk page, but you don't, do you? Elizium23 (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a bureaucrat on Wikivoyage, I sure do have to endure vandalism to my home Wiki and my user talk page. I greatly appreciate that you substituted one of the photos on Wikivoyage. If you take the initiative to replace the photos on Wikivoyage, I'm OK with deleting these from Commons. I'll gladly cross out the opposing vote if I can count on your help in replacing any other photos that are visible in Wikivoyage articles, if there are any (I don't care about photos that are just in Wikidata listings). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely will assist in finding and replacing photos as needed. I have already been doing this on other articles. The only time I outright delete a Paride photo is if it is part of a gallery of many similar photos and its representation is unnecessary. There are always suitable replacements for these. Elizium23 (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We don't delete useful images on Commons because somebody is misusing them. I suppose these images are not substandard in any way, but rather among the better images we have of those subjects. COM:ADVERT mostly just says images have to be in scope, and to my understanding no one says these aren't. Of course, if some are redundant and inferior, those could be nominated. –LPfi (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that in the cases of old art, the user has misused the "author" field, inserting their name, while the intention is that "author" and "artist" should be synonymous. These could be corrected. –LPfi (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then we would appreciate a little help in blocking the abusive user so he cannot misuse the photos. So far, metawiki has been insufficient. Elizium23 (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will certainly revert changing photos to worse ones in the articles I monitor, and I hope other Wikipedians do likewise. And really, I think some of the image changes have made the articles worse. I reverted a few now. –LPfi (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elizium23, I'm glad you thought better of your edit, but I assure you I took note of it and will be closely monitoring Wikivoyage to see if you choose to edit war with admins concerned solely with making sure the content of articles is as good as possible for travelers. All of us understand how frustrating it is to deal with vandalism. I've often been frustrated by periods of defenselessness against vandals. But if you find yourself losing all sense of perspective, take a break and do something offline or at least off-Wiki. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan, I think what happened is that I reversed the sense of what LPfi said. When I saw his edits he had reverted the sockpuppet. I am sorry that admins are "concerned solely with making sure the content of articles is as good as possible for travelers" because on the English Wikipedia, the admins also need to balance the collaborative needs of a community of editors, without which Wikimedia would not exist. So I hope that admins here and elsewhere would consider that editors need to be civil, collegial, and considerate of one another here, and this behavior is not condoned of forcing photos in using sockpuppets and abuse and edit-wars. Elizium23 (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What does what thumbnails we choose to have in our articles have to do with Wikipedia? Nothing, IMO. And this isn't about "forcing photos" onto Wikivoyage. When we see people putting terrible photos in our articles, some of us (certainly including me) revert the edits. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you're not understanding is that this individual hasn't been causing trouble on Wikivoyage, so we're just regarding their contributions as among the images we could choose to use, nothing more nor less. I support and sympathize with any efforts to revert vandalism, but this isn't the vandalism we're seeing at Wikivoyage. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What does this mean: "Note: Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st Year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, buildings, bridges or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for states with no formal FOP since the author's works are now copyright free." Elizium23 (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Liuxinyu970226, I just read your link. I think it would be much better for Commons to cease allowing the commercial use of our photos than to delete every goddamned photo of Italy. What the hell kind of repository of images would this be with no photos of Italy? I just broached a proposal on Wikivoyage to upload every photo of Italy we want to continue to use locally, declare that commercial use of images on our site is banned and fork away from Wikimedia if you all at Commons are going to follow through with deleting all these images. This is way, way more serious than a question of whether to delete a few dozen images by one controversial user. Do it at the peril of the credibility and usefulness of the entire Wikimedia family of sites. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If you want to argue about FoP, then let's close this DR and make a new one about the files that may be affected. –LPfi (talk) 11:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly urge Commons to start applying very visible templates on some photos that say "Available for non-commercial use only. Anyone choosing to put this to commercial use may face prosecution." That serves the cause of sharing knowledge much better than insisting on deleting most photos from Italy because allowing every damn photo on the site to be used commercially is so goddamned important. Screw that, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't accept media available only for non-commercial use. Wikipedia is available for commercial use, as are many (all?) of the sister projects. Restraining ourselves to media available for commercial use makes things much more straight forward: now I can choose the best image in a category or gallery, without checking licences, and we seldom have to have "requests for licence review" in addition to the deletion requests. We could have a separate repository for media for educational use only, but I don't see that as our mission. –LPfi (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the only way to stop a long-term sockpuppeteer from repeatedly coming back is, to demonstrate that their activities are unwelcome in general and that it is a waste of time to even try to come back. Livio is unwelcome here for all times, period. However the template mentioned sounds like a serious problem, unfortunately. Does this mean Commons has to delete all pictures of Pisa Tower, Pompeji, Colosseum etc.pp. because it's all Cultural Heritage and in Italy images of CH are not allowed to be commercially used without special permission by officials? If so, it's an incredible problem for us and at the very least the Italian Wikimedia chapter should try to do something about it (maybe they do already, I don't know). Once again, I think the photos in this DR have to be deleted merely because of Livio. I sincerely hope we will never have to delete them or any other media due to Italian laws mentioned. --A.Savin12:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So if I as professional photographer, or film company, regret having uploaded my works under a free licence, all I have to do is to spam Wikipedia pages to get them deleted? We don't delete files of "good" users just because they changed their mind, why allow it for those not asking kindly? –LPfi (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion policy refers to COM:ADVERT (which is in a guideline, not policy) and images uploaded for vandalism in the cases where they are not in scope. COM:ADVERT says you should not misuse Commons, but refers to COM:PS for actual policy: for deletion debates, educational use is what matters, not whether somebody is misusing an image. –LPfi (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the problem with Italian law, Creative Commons has three different licenses which forbid commercial use. Would changing the license for those photos to one of those & adjusting the text in "how to re-use ..." articles on various wikis solve the problem? Pashley (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it's kind of dogmatic for Commons, that only commercial use allowing licenses may be used. I guess, without this rule the main purpose of Commons ("you can take just any picture and use it for just anything you want") is not possible and Commons would be just "yet another picture repository on Internet". --A.Savin13:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The answer would be to display a template on some of the photos on this site, stating that they cannot be put to commercial use. The rest would be usable for any purpose. That serves that cause of knowledge. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright owner would need to grant permission to change the license, and since the presumed owner is banned, blocked and globally locked, he has no voice for such a concession. Elizium23 (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's not handle the Italian FoP and cultural heritage issues in this DR, they are orthogonal to the selection of files and original argument for deletion. Also, the former does not affect photographs of old works (paintings/architecture), the latter is not a copyright restriction, and thus irrelevant according to Commons' current policy. –LPfi (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to say that, but if an Italian re-user in Italy risks prosecution by Italian state for commercial usage of (otherwise correctly licensed, not subject to NoFoP or other restrictions) media from Commons, I'm not really sure it's irrelevant according to Commons policy... --A.Savin17:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least the good ones. IMHO, many of the pictures listed are well-executed; some of them are not perfect, but still usable on Wikipedia, so I wonder why they should be deleted. I have inspected them one by one (although I haven't checked if other versions available are better). Since most of them are good, I list here those having some technical problems or imperfections (of which it's more likely that better versions exist):
With blown highlights or with processing artifacts
Delete The time spent hunting down and fighting sockpuppets is very important; It’s so much time wasted for the whole community. We cannot show weakness in front of unfair contributors. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point. I agree that it's essential that each member, despite being bold in making decisions, respects each other's work, act fairly and in good faith. I believe that an objective solution (or compromise) can be found through discussion when ideas differ. Secondly, I believe that a contributor should not replace pictures arbitrarily, but only if they believe to make a clear improvement over the older one (and listen to other's opinions). If this is not the case, let's take countermeasures to save everyone's time. --Lion-hearted85 (talk) 14:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination, starting from the bad quality ones indicated by Lion-hearted85. I replaced the files with better versions already on Commons. Kept the few that have no equivalent uploaded on Commons yet. (Of course, FoP in Italy isn't relevant here) Ruthven(msg)21:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This content belongs to a globally-locked LTA sockpuppet. See Sockpuppet investigation on Commons, Wikidata, and enwiki. This user, through block evasion on IP addresses, has continued his campaign of forcing his work into every article possible, regardless of quality or worthiness of other files. See this IP and this IP and this IP ad nauseam. The only way to stop this abuse of forcing photos into articles is to delete the photos themselves and to w:WP:DENY recognition to the abusive sockpuppets. The reasoning is thus: the photos existing here are the attractive force which brings Orlando back to edit and abuse dozens of Wiki projects. Let us remove his incentive to abuse us any further.
Keep Don't punish the images or our readers. Why was the person banned, who contributes such beautiful images? Maybe it is time to reassess why the person was blocked and allow a start-over. --RAN (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aîe aïe aïe ! Des images qui n'enfreignaient aucun droit d'auteur ont donc déjà été supprimées ? Pardon mais c'est une faute : il va falloir les restaurer (voir plus bas). Ne les remettez pas dans les articles où vous préférez voir les vôtres si vous voulez mais laissez-les vivre leur vie sur Commons : on est pas obligé de mettre uniquement vos images dans les articles il y a de la place pour tout le monde. Et donc une personne qui donne généreusement de son temps de son énergie et de son talent pour enrichir notre chère encyclopédie sans jamais enfreindre aucun droit d'auteur et ce malgré l'acharnement qu'elle subit serait égocentrique. Pardon encore mais un tel jugement est inqualifiable. C'est un fôné ? et alors ? faudrait arrêter d'être naïf : depuis plus de vingt ans que Wikipédia existe tout le monde est susceptible d'être le fôné de quelqu'un seuls les plus généreux se font taper sur les doigts les plus tordus ricanent. À ce compte là seule importe la qualité des articles et de leur illustration. La communauté s'est prononcée ici à ce sujet : Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2020/04#Request for comment: Deletion/undeletion of uploads by banned/blocked users : « Block/ban evasion/sockpuppetry on its own is not a valid reason to delete media or reject a request for undeletion ». Mandariine (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply] PS : l'auteur de ces multiples requêtes est bloqué indef sur :en PPS : et comme si ça ne suffisait pas il se fend d'un superbe point Godwin : voir le titre du tableau supra et son commentaire non signé ! chouette !
Vedo ora che l'aggressore a lungo termine sta sollecitando persone (come Mandariine, Randy Kryn, Ewulp, Richard Arthur Norton, Achim55 e SHB2000) a partecipare a queste conversazioni sull'eliminazione. Saluti. Elizium23 (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This entire proposed mass deletion "action" is the opposite of w:WP:DENY and for that reason alone would have been better, not to have been proposed at all. The proposed time cost and effort by volunteers would be a wastful negative effort. Time and effort will be better invested in "positive" contributions elsewhere on these projects. Also, image files should not be deleted as "tangential punishment" for the actions of any User. The files/ images are decoupled from any uploader. They stand on their own inherent value and any added value they may bring to each project. Deletions under this proposal would not benefit any project. Thanks, --
Keep We don't delete useful images on Commons because somebody is misusing them. I suppose these images are not substandard in any way, but rather among the better images we have of those subjects. COM:ADVERT mostly just says images have to be in scope, and to my understanding no one says these aren't. Of course, if some are redundant and inferior, those could be nominated. –LPfi (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Delete Sorry @Ikan Kekek, Achim55, and LPfi: Italy doesn't have FOP at all, and unless if they're intend to be participating the WLM ({{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}, which in theory can only be used for files that are audited by MiBAC), they can't be freely used. . --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment The answer would be to display a template on some of the photos on this site, stating that they cannot be put to commercial use. The rest would be usable for any purpose. That serves that cause of knowledge. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
_-_Sea_gates_and_bridge.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Sea_gates.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Interior.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Facade.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Facade.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Facade.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Chiostro.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Interior.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Facade.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Sud_side.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling_1_part.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Apartments_of_Princess_Isabelle_-_Frescos_by_Pinturicchio_and_his_workshop.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Facade.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling_of_the_Room_of_the_Iliad.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Corridor.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling_of_the_first_room_in_the_corridor.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Courtyard.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}