——————————————— Archive, December 2016 ———————————————
Hiya: On Commons:Deletion_requests/Files uploaded by Jonas1639 this close, would you please explain how OTRS is going to fix a series of Newspaper articles? New York Times and others are not possible to cover by COM:OTRS. Thank you for your reply. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ellin Beltz: I am communicating with the individual through OTRS. Agitating them would not be helpful. I agree that news paper clippings are problematic and I will process them in a day or two. A COM:DEL isn't needed for the obvious problems, and others will be OTRS marked. Would this be satisfactory? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- If the end result is the copyvios removed, that's fine, I just don't think that anyone other than the user themself is agitating themself; plenty of other people have had copyvios removed without the special snowflake treatment and survived to be productive members of the Commons community, so I was curious why obvious copyvios were "kept" at all and/or how you planned to save them via OTRS. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ellin Beltz: Indeed. I admit it is strange for me as well as OTRS does not have editorial control after all. Rest assured that I have no intention of keeping copyright violations here. I can simply speedy delete those. They are so obvious a COM:DEL would be a waste of time. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 12:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Actually in this type of case a COM:DEL is not a waste of time because if the uploader reuploads the same image with same name it will click right over to "this was deleted before" with all the links. So for someone with a series of mixed old images claimed as own work and copyright violations also claimed as own work it is beneficial at the Deletion Nomination to include all, so that the entire range of the uploads can be seen together. You know of course that we do not mention "OTHERSTUFF" whether it exists or not, so if Other Files were deleted by speedy, they can't be mentioned in the DN, thereby losing the context. Sometimes it's all about helping out the deleting admin and leaving a nice plump "paper trail" of shiny electrons. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ellin Beltz: However, if the user understands his or her mistake and contributes productively without causing issues adding to our archives we can avoid all the problems. What you are describing suits COM:AN/U more than COM:DEL. Do you want me to handle this issue or not? I can restore the COM:DEL and disengage with the user if you wish. I am trying to win a new user rather than just close a COM:DEL case here. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 18:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- At this point, I am only mentioning concepts for the future. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ellin Beltz: Certainly! I would be more than happy to comply with a procedure which serves the interests of commons, much better than my faulty ad-hoc. The issue I have is that some OTRS requests are less than patient. They are willing to comply but they don't understand why we request information. On top of the case where the user was concerned over deletions (I had to merge seven tickets). Some of my responses this week included the following:
- "No you do not own the copyright of the photograph of yourself, the photographer does"
- "We are not sure you own the copyright of this work, please send from an official email associated with the website the files are from".
- "Wikipedia only is not enough, you need a free license"
- "We do not have editorial control over the content. While I can remove the image for you, anyone can restore it."
- In all cases users offer better files than what we have. Some are less patient with the process as they want the "bad version" gone as soon as possible while they sort and secure the copyright issues. We can always revert to the worse version, it is not like there is an emergency.
- I am more than open in how to deal with such issues as I genuinely want to streamline the process. There are more than 600 tickets on commons queue alone with new ones coming. Dealing with them is non-trivial as I have to verify many things, sometimes going into a small detective work to make sure that gmail or outlook email isn't some random guy pretending to be the copyright holder.
- Add to that the ticket I have with 40 files associated with it. I was hoping to bulk tag all 40 with a bot but I cannot because OTRS tags can only be posted by OTRS members of which my bot is not one. I requested this permission but it was declined.
- -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Ellin Beltz: Just and FYI, I processed most of the users uploads. Deleted most for copyright issues and renamed the remaining so that filenames are human readable. One file still has an issue I am discussing with the user. I am uncertain if this file was taken by someone working for the organisation. It is in the realm of possibility but I am not so sure since it can just as easily be from a newspaper. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 03:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
By closing this early, I think you are denying us the (however unlikely) best possibility of an explanation from a reasonably established user. Storkk (talk) 11:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an interesting case, a DR was probably the wrong procedure. Can I have a copy of the original file please? I may find time to examine it next week. @Revent: --Fæ (talk) 11:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Fæ: I can get you this file... What procedure would you have used instead of a DR? I was really hoping (though not holding my breath) for an explanation since we have started seeing a flood of appended archives, and this was uploaded much earlier than this new flood and by an otherwise apparently good user. The data on the end of this file is appended just like the others, but appears to be much more structured binary data. I haven't had time to look in more detail. If you have the time and inclination, I am also looking at weirdness in the noise of files like File:Granada_2015_10_22_2401_(25772524240).jpg (and many photos by the same Flickr user). Or a file like File:Sedimentary_Rock_Formations_-_Zion_National_Park,_Utah,_USA.jpg, which has appended data that starts with ASCII "RQNX-CLOTHO:256:" before the binary starts, which I think is too coincidental not to be meaningful. Perhaps this should be continued on my talk page, though... Storkk (talk)
- I'm traveling so have no firm view. We may be able to pull a report, or this might be better as a phabricator based investigation. The truth could range from user error up to a security problem, and DRs do not help the analysis needed. --Fæ (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me know. I'm willing to send you any file that I haven't already discovered an actual archive of copyrighted material in (most of those are banal and appear to be either hollywood or burmese movies or android APKs or microsoft ISOs). I will need a way to get you the files privately. Storkk (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Storkk: I am well aware of the ramifications. I haven't closed that discussion randomly. I just do not see a deletion discussion helping the issue in any shape or form. The bigger issue is if what you claim is true or not. I am going to propose amending the speedy deletion policy later today in dealing with such content. I do not want to accuse people of wrong doing without evidence. Issue could simply be some faulty software adding garbage to a file. It could also be much more nefarious that what you are suggesting. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 16:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Storkk: Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#F9_criteria_update. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 18:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and your willingness to assist with mentoring the user. Warm regards. Wikicology (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
.jpg){kind=link}
