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

Shortcut: COM:AN/U

Note

• Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
• Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
• It is usually appropriate to notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.
  

A casual review of this user's uploads shows what appears to be all copyright violations. Would someone with more time than I right now please look into this? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, uploads deleted. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And user warned. Yann (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

This seems an account created only for sending ads. All deleted already. Should we block? Yann (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yann, it appears indeed very unlikely that something useful is to be expected from this account. However, you've just warned him/her and it is the user's first day. Hence, I would recommend to check if any more spam is coming and block that account then. BTW, the same user has written two articles that sound like ads at cs-wp. I have asked a colleague at cs-wp to look into this. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Towards the end of 2012, a number of football kit images were the subject of edit wars between users that wanted to include the logos and users that did not. I ended up giving very strongly worded warnings to Ricky Sen, Lemonade51, Bruno-ban, Walter Görlitz, Gustavo neto, Fma12, PeeJay2K3, and Principal adjoint. I have just discovered that these edit wars have started back up again, and that Gustavo neto and Principal adjoint are in the thick of it, joined by new players Rizky Iconia, Zotteteen1, Buckhorns, Futbase (who was indef blocked by Ankry for overwriting files without consensus in mid June), and a host of accounts that I believe are either socks of Futbase or of one of the other participants in this mess. There are literally hundreds of images that have been the effected by these edit wars, and this has been going on for several years. It needs to end, and for it to end, the admins need to be willing to put teeth behind stopping the edit wars.

Here are some examples of the upload war: File:Kit_body_fcbarcelona0910a.png, File:Kit_body_fcbarcelona1213a.png, File:Kit_body_mancity0910t.png, File:Kit_body_fcb0910h.png, File:Kit_body_mancity1011h.png. Pick any recent kit from any major club and you're likely to find a 20 file long version history of this. Note how far back these go, and how the pattern is that it will be stable for a while, then flare up with a bunch of uploads, then be stable for a while, then flare up again.

As the warnings for Gustavo neto and Principal adjoint are two years old at this point, I don't feel comfortable issuing a block right now. I will note, however, that Gustavo neto has three edit warring blocks and a harassment block (for harassing Principal adjoint), although they are from 2012 and 2013.

Some advice on how to handle this would be appreciated. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking when the participants have yet to make a claim of harassment or similar (in 2014) would appear to be both a punitive and precautionary block, both things to be avoided under Blocking policy.

If an administrator wishes to stick their toe into this, offering a neutral mediated discussion to the participants in order to reach a consensus on avoiding future edit warring might be a mellow way forward. --Fæ (talk) 09:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The word "precautionary" does not appear in the policy. According to the policy, blocks are "designed to be a preventative", and one of the things it explicitly is used for is preventing ongoing edit warring. There is no need for the involved parties to claim that they have been harassed. The edit warriors have had the option of discussing the matter all along but have chosen to edit war instead. It would seem that the involved parties can't quite handle the distraction of simply being able to upload new versions. If there is any discussion to be had about which version to upload, they may need to have that distraction taken away temporarily. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are 12 accounts listed here by Sven Manguard. I see no good reason to block all of them, while blocking fewer would seem inequitable, and considering the history, one would be looking to block all of them for a year or more to make a difference. To my eyes, mediation and consensus is a mellow path. BTW, many words do not appear in Blocking policy, though the policy does mention "blocks are preventative rather than punitive", no warnings have been issued in 2014, so any action here would seem hasty considering that discussion has not been tried since last year. --Fæ (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa there Fae, I never said anything about blocking all of the accounts. I listed the old accounts mainly to illustrate how only two of the people that I had to warn in 2012 are still doing it now (and also to illustrate just how many people have been involved in this at one time or another). I would very much like to see an RfC held on whether or not logos can appear in kit images (sponsor logos, manufacturer logos, and club crests have all been the subject of this edit war). Ideally, that would happen soon, and once it is closed, uploading over existing files with new versions that go against the result of the RfC would result in warnings followed by blocks, as would be the case in repeat vandalism or copyvio uploads. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Madrugasportv and FCBARCA13 indeffed as obvious socks of someone - created in July just to revert those images. --Denniss (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Denniss. The answer to that "someone" indeed seems to be Futbase, who had a small army of other socks as well. See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Futbase. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is to report User:Carriearchdale regarding her recent requests for deletion of five photos that I, myself, have taken, uploaded, and which are being used in Wikipedia articles that I have created. In the past one week, this user has become fixated on me, and has harassed and stalked me on 6 articles on Wikipedia that I created, as well as now in regard to these photos. The user has made an unfounded report against me on the Wikipedia administrative noticeboard, and is now being seriously considered for being indefinitely blocked, which is currently being supported by nearly 20 editors. The user has already had some rights revoked by an administrator until a decision is reached. This is to report that the user's deletion requests of these photos, and the user's continued stalking of me in WikiCommons (in addition to Wikipedia) is unwarranted and has not reflected good faith. All of the user's actions toward me and my work have not reflected any good faith. The user's stalking and harassment is like nothing I have ever experienced on any online forum, and is quite over the top, as can also be read on the Wikipedia administrator's noticeboard. I appreciate your consideration of this matter, and hope that some resolution may be obtained so that this user is prevented from continuing harmful actions toward me and my work here. Thank you, Daniellagreen (talk) 03:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC) The report about which Carriearchdale made and which I referenced above can be found at: [1]. Daniellagreen (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked and found all deletions legitimate. They are either incompatible licensed images from fickr, unsourced previously published images or nominated for deletion as out of scope. Also I found no declaration of consent for theese images in OTRS. Ankry (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In which category falls File:St. Joseph Church, Gowanda, New York, 2007.jpg, one of the images nominated for deletion? It may be a flickr image, I don't know, please provide the link if so; but none of the others are even remotely applicable here. Same applies to File:Gernatt's Richardson Road Pit During Expansion, Collins, New York, July 2005.jpg. I think you are discussing images that have been deleted in May, but this section is about the current deletion requests initiated by Carriearchdale, which would mean that your reply is not really to the point. Fram (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a silly question but did somone try to talk this over with him? Otherwise this report is very premature imho. Natuur12 (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too much words already spilled here. But no need of a quick sanction other than speedy closing or ignoring those DRs. Jee 07:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

edit coflict

OOPS, my fault. My above sentences were about already deleted images, not the nominated ones.

The history of your previous uploads, low images resolution, false photo creation dates and missing EXIF info are reasons for reasonable doubts whether you are the author and then you should be asked to prove your authorship as explained in COM:OTRS. Users uploading copyright violations are always suspicious to continue that unless they prove they do not.

Personally, the most suspicious to be copyright violation is File:Photo of Dan Gernatt Farms Company Image.jpg. If you are really the original author of the picture as you claim, could you provide this picture with higher resolution than present in the book to prove that? (taken from the original drawing, not from the book) Ankry (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to those of you, above, for your follow-ups. Also, as a new user who has been here for less than one year, I am still learning the ropes, and trying to do the best that I can. Please do not assume guilt simply due to my past mistakes or lack of understanding regarding Flickr photos that I uploaded. I believe, as you can see on my talk page, I now have a better understanding of what is acceptable based on images shared on Flickr and that are available for usage. That has been explained to me and I have abided by that. The photos that are used are my own photos, and are not copyrighted. Regarding the Dan Gernatt Farms company image, I clearly stated on the image's page that this is a photo of the image that I took. There is no copyright or trademark on the image. Let me know where I can upload and I will. Daniellagreen (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC) Additionally, the dates are not false dates, but the date that the image was uploaded. I will go back and notate that on the photos. Daniellagreen (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC) Also, in reply to Natuur, I have communicated with this user on several occasions, both here and in Wikipedia, and the user only escalates their behavior (see link provided above to administrative report in Wikipedia). The user is bringing the same behavior over here. Daniellagreen (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, my, my the drama!!! So sorry to the commons here that [user:Daniellagreen] has brought her personal attacks and baseless allegations against me here to try and jumble up the debate as to whether these pics she uploading here are "her own work"

First of all as a poster suggested above none of the file uploads have any EXIF data, which of course is quite questionable. Secondly I posted a response to uploader on each separate page that if these pics are all her own work then she should have no problem either uploading the negative or perhaps a scan of the back of the photograph that she says is her own work. With all the red on the north side of her talk page it appears uploader does have sometimes a misunderstanding of how copyright and the different CC licenses and such work here. But that is really neither here or there.

The CRUX of the situation in my view is that user:Daniellagreen has been claiming in and about the en wikipedia that she "took a photograph of a photograph' in several of these cases with her DIGITAL camera. DIGITAL camera and no EXIF data? come on lady! A couple of those photos are really well done, and are apparently maybe PR or promotional pictures she was given to use with the articles she did post a en wikipedia' The group of articles that she has been reported as doing when being paid to edit while not disclosing the paid editing to wikipedia as is the new policy. There is currently an ANI running there but what uploader did not reveal to you here is that SHE is the subject of the ANI report for being suspected of doing non-disclosed paid editing in violation of TOS. For anyone that has too much time, and not enough drama in there own life you can check over there at en wikipedia and read all about it.

My nomination for deletion of all five of these uploads stand as they are. Please everyone, do have a lovely day!!! ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, and User:Carriearchdale, this is the drama the you, alone, have created, and as is further reflected at [2]. All of the claims and allegations that you have made and continue to make are false, unjustified, and unnecessary. Do you really not have anything better to do with your time? You believe that you are helping Wikipedia's reputation, but I dare say that you are seriously hurting it. I am praying for you, and will not engage in further communications with you here, either, as your claims are unfounded, offensive, unwarranted, and harmful. Daniellagreen (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm an experienced photographer, and a lot of my digital photos have no EXIF data. It's very easy to remove, either deliberately or accidentally, during processing - some simple image processing apps just ignore and lose EXIF. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Zebedee. It is simply that I have never set the date on my camera, so all of the photos that I take reflect the date 2007, because that is when the camera was manufactured. It's as simple as that. Daniellagreen (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Zebedee said, loss of EXIF data happens all the time to me when I crop or modify images. I usually upload the raw image with intact EXIF data for these issues just in case. Froggerlaura (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have uploaded the document from which I took the photo of the image of the horses in Dan Gernatt Farms. You will see that it is a document created by Dan Gernatt Famrs here [3], however the image of the horses is not copyrighted, nor trademarked. I clearly stated in the details section of the image that I uploaded that it is a photo of the image primarily used. If that is not acceptable, then it obviously should be deleted. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

to uploader, "Please do govern yourself accordingly!!!" Please do also have an exquisite day uploader as well to all others!!! ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen by the above comment, just more of the same, Daniellagreen (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To further follow-up, I informed the user about this report last evening, inadvertently on her/his user page, as can be seen here [4], but meant to do so on their talk page. It should be noted that the user archived my comments and did not respond to me on their talk page, as is user's usual MO. Daniellagreen (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note continued harassment by this editor on my talk page, all of which information he/she has provided is untrue, unfounded, and misconstrued, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should be advised that Carriearchdale has been indeff'd at en.wiki due to things associated with this incident. She has exhibited a tremendous lack of clue and is apparently continuing her war on Daniellagreen here. This came after her block on en.wiki. FYI. John from Idegon (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Daniellagreen is referring to this post by Carriearchdale on her talk page, which is merely a continuation of the harassment and unsupported allegations and accusations wildly flung around by Carriearchdale on en.wiki, where she succeeded in getting herself indef blocked.

Of course what happens on en.wiki does not necessarily effect what happens on Commons, but in this case, where the campaign of one user against another has been carried on cross-wiki, I do think that some recognition of the scope of the community indef-blocking there – where there were 24 supports for the block and 3 opposes, and a number of people changed their !vote from oppose to support – should be taken. As the closing admin there wrote:

As per the extensive discussion, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claims of paid editing without a smidgeon of proof being provided, and attempts to track down the off-wiki identity of an "opponent" are wholly unacceptable behaviours anywhere. Add to this a) an unwillingness to follow the simplest of Wikipedia procedures, b) extensive WP:BATTLE behaviour, and c) an astounding lack of competence, the community has determined that the severity of the actions and behaviours needs to be stopped to protect the project and its editors. Although it is uncommon to go from a short block to indefinite, it's clear by the discussion, proof provided, and User:Carriearchdale's own behaviour both in this thread, and elsewhere during this discussion that such a block is necessary.

As I said, this is not, and should not be, determinative for Commons, but it should certainly inform the discussion about Carriearchdale's behavior here, which has been almost as bad (if not quite) as on en.wiki.

I suggest that Daniellagreen's complaint regarding Carriearchdale's harassment be taken quite seriously. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor side issue: you write "The photos that are used are my own photos, and are not copyrighted." That is almost impossible, unless you are very old, took them as an employee of the U.S. government, or a few other weird cases. I'm assuming you mean just to say "The photos that are used are my own photos, and I have granted appropriate licenses," but if you mean something else please clarify. Again, with reference to Dan Gernatt Farms, you say "the image of the horses is not copyrighted" and oddly add "nor trademarked". Why would that image not be copyrighted? I'm having some doubts as to whether you understand what that word means. - Jmabel ! talk 23:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite possible for people of my somewhat advanced years general age to be laboring under the apprehension that things still have to be marked with a date, the copyright symbol and the name of the copyright owner, and be registered in the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress, since that was the case before the law changed. Most people don't keep up with copyright law (a rather esoteric subject), and are probably not aware that copyright in now inherent in text, images, recordings, films, etc., etc. from the moment they are "permanent fixed" in some medium, so that almost everything is copyrighted, if it's something that copyrightable. The question is who owns the copyright - i.e. who wrote or published the text, who took the picture or first published it, etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Unquestionably, Daniellagreen has some to learn on copyright as it applies here but I don't see any mistake that wasn't good faith. Carrie, on the other hand, has shown that combining arrogance with an abject lack of clue leads to disruptive behavior, at enwp, and to a lesser degree, here as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user seems to be back to disrupting closed DR cases. See this fresh example of defacing a closed DR and inserting bogus speedy tags:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Mark_busking_12.jpg&oldid=128633484
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mark_busking_12.jpg&oldid=128632768

Should be warned (not blocked, since this user seems to be engaging also in good work on DR mantainance) and his contributions scrutinized. -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reason for this report. - SLV100 (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SLV100: What would the reason be and how will this report affect further behavior? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 20:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]