Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Shortcut: COM:AN

Note

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

The colour of this file has been argued over for several years. The only stable & sourced version has been [1], and the users who do not like this shade of blue, while providing various different sources and suggestions, have never been able to form a consensus on a single one to use. The file should be reverted back to the version by Sekisama. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am really tired of this being given a blind eye. The file was stable for nearly a year with a source, and was only recently changed without consensus or new sources. The group of users who oppose the previous rendition are completely unable to find one source they can all get behind and therefore their opposition has nothing to replace it with. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping this open until it is properly addressed. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still open. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still open. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear, I'm not going to let this be ignored until I get a clear answer that admins are willing to completely ignore the following facts;

• Current colour is not sourced
• Previous colour is sourced
• Those who oppose the previous colour can not agree upon an alternative

I want admins to admit they are willing to ignore sources in favour of not stirring the pot, or properly address this matter. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still open. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Version by Sekisama has been reinstated as current version. Please discuss color changes before applying them or upload under a different name. Also I have restored all deleted versions of the file description and the file itself as those were not covered by the deletion policy. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On April 27, 2014, I was looking for a file to add to an article when I noticed what I felt was an inappropriate photo. I nominated it for deletion, along with a number of other photos by this same editor named "High Contrast". Most seemed to have no educational value, while others were amateur porn. The uploader got upset, referred to me as a "troll" and "spammer", and actually removed some of the nomination for deletion notices.

Since then, several of the photos I have uploaded have been "targeted" with nominations for deletion. What is interesting, is that those nominating my uploads for deletion "appear" to be connected; three IP addresses: 188.104.125.224, 94.223.178.12, and 178.7.237.121; and one registered user, "High Contrast".

For example, after I nominated one of "High Contrast's" photos for deletion here, 178.7.237.121 quickly defended it, and was soon followed by 188.104.125.224.

On several edits, such as this one, 178.7.237.121 and 94.223.178.12 appear to work together.

After 178.7.237.121 nominated for deletion this photo I had uploaded, "High Contrast" soon joined in.

Here's what's interesting. I looked at some of the places "High Contrast" has been taking pictures lately, and they are places such as Vilshofen, Vilshofen, Dürrnberg, and Munich - all in central Germany. Then I looked up the 3 IP addresses, and they are all registered to Vodafone DSL in Central Germany. If it's just a coincidence, forgive me. But if "High Contrast" is using socks to attack other users and inflate votes for or against deletion, then this is very serious.

Thank you for your help with this. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it. Because High Contrast is an Admin, it may take a little while. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• One more possible IP sock of High Contrast. Notice that High Contrast edited the file "Progress D-27 propfan (Antonov An-70).jpg" here on July 13, 2012.

Then on May 29, 2014, IP 188.104.113.128 made a forum inquiry about that same obsqure photo here (right after High Contrast's post).

Then, 11 minutes later--of the millions of photos on the Commons this user could have nominated for deletion--that user selected this one. And guess where the IP address is registered? Vodafone DSL in Munich. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using 17 different IP addresses in the last ninety days, User:High Contrast has

1. Commented at the DR of an image uploaded by High Contrast, including signing as both a non-existent user and as an IP
2. Started a DR which High Contrast supported with several comments. This was ultimately reopened and then closed by me as a keep.
3. Started a DR against an image uploaded by the editor who started the DR above. This was closed as a keep since the image was actually in use.
4. Started 2 other DRs that were closed as keeps after discussion
5. Started 19 DRs which were closed as deletes without discussion
6. Made 7 miscellaneous edits

The first two of these are serious violations of Commons rules against commenting on the same issue under two or more names. The third is simple retaliation. The last three are not, strictly speaking, against the rules, but it makes me uneasy to have an active Admin starting DRs under an IP name.

I, and other Commons Checkusers, would appreciate the community's input as to appropriate action.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion. Clear cut case of the worst sockpuppet abuse possible. Wilfully deceiving the community, wilfully manipulating DR's, damaging the commons stock with his actions, targeting other users and nominating their pictures out of sheer revenge - there is no doubt that this person has to end his responsibilities as an admin himself or have them revoked as soon as possible. There is nothing more harmfull as an administrator abusing sockpuppets. It is also strange that High Contrast has become inactive after this was brought to the noticeboard.

As to other measures taken I hope others can give input as well. Now we also will have to look into matters to screen all his actions that could have damaged the commons collection. I hope he is willing to cooperate and will tell us what he did and where. Depending on his reaction further measures can be taken. I highly respect High Contrast for his good work but this, I have no words to describe how disappointed I am. I want to thank Jim for executing this difficult task. Natuur12 (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also found several cases where he kept his own uploads. While I understand that he was not happy about the nominations, keeping your own uploads is wrong. Natuur12 (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jim, for diving into this. I understand this is a difficult situation and nobody will be happy with measures that have to be taken, as High Contrast indeed does a lot of valuable work here.

However, I think that the modus operandi High Contrast has chosen is really reprehensible, sockpuppet abuse and perhaps even abuse of admin power (in the cases that Natuur12 mentions) cannot be neglected. Therefore I think that de-adminship should be considered and in addition a serious block would seem advisable. But of course first High Contrast should be notified and given opportunity to react to these findings and give his views, if he feels to. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and left High Contrast a message urging him to respond to this thread. Given the seriousness of the situation, and the fact that he has become inactive, I think he should be given some time to respond. As I wrote to High Contrast, if we do not hear from him in the coming 48 hours, I intend to start a de-adminship request to have his adminship privileges revoked by the community (as there is clear CheckUser evidence of his actions). odder (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note for the record that I pinged High Contrast in the first line of my comments above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sockpuppetry is worrying and may perhaps warrant a de-admin process. Somehow this whole thing looks like a personal conflict that got out of hands. It might be sufficient to instruct both parties to stay away from each others' uploads. Lupo 10:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ohmy, this is so sad. As if we hadn't enough serious problems already. Thanks to Jim for this surely unpleasant research. --Túrelio (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) This is beyond a conflict between two people. The reporter ran into problems yes but I think it has become clear that this pattern is structural - nomination and keeping/deleting different uploads from different people, protecting his own uploads. It was inevitable to come out one day. Natuur12 (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a regular helper evaluating pictures and checking matters here I feel very worried. I agree with Natuur12 and Lymantria above. This is definitely not a conflict between two people. The person reporting this ran into problems but if he/she would not have told us seeing the evidence above a next person had done so since the pattern is clear - keeping/deleting pictures and nominating and dealing with his own matters, misusing sockpuppets getting his way and serving his personal interests, protecting his own pictures and removing others out of revenge - this is very worrying indeed to see happening and should be dealt with. I truly hope the person will come clean and help us out by telling us what and where has gone wrong and help restore matters and give an open account of it at least. As an admin I think the trust has gone for him. I would feel insecure working here knowing in advance things would be dealt with we do to help out here in such a wrong way. MoiraMoira (talk) 10:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We already warned him earlier; so no excuses now. Jee 10:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A word of encouragement for High Contrast.

High Contrast has been contributing here for the last 4 years, becoming one of our top contributors by most measures, certainly far more than most users that are trusted with the admin tools.[2] I think it is fair to say that, though at times I would have appreciated them being a bit kinder in expression and said so quite firmly, the points they made about my uploads were invariably correct, and I went on to try and learn from the points made and improve my future uploads. They have worked hard for this project for a long time, and I hope that members of our community treat them with respect and kindness if they are found to have behaved inappropriately in using alternative accounts, or editing while logged out, in ways that were misleading. I hope that High Contrast will respond to the above assertions, and if they realise they have made an error of judgement, that they will consider handing back the mop without making this a big deal. I note High Contrast has made no edits for the last 4 days, and it would be fair to assume they might have real life commitments making them unavailable for a week or two to reply here properly.

I hope that High Contrast is encouraged by everyone concerned to continue with their support of this project, and that the discussion here is handled in a way that achieves that outcome. --Fæ (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why Heinz-Josef Lücking's post here get reverted; but it pointed me to this DR. I think it is a serious matter and need a wider discussion than just within a DR. As those files are deleted and I see no link to the "custom template" I don't understand the whole issue. But it seems those files have a valid CC license. Note that any additional conditions that mentioned along with a valid license are just "requests" unless agreed by both parties. CC 4.0 clearly mentioned it (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode S7 a, b.). CC 3.0 has many ambitious terms; so depending on it for matters like attribution is not very logical.

Anyway mass deletion of the files (if any) by a potential contributor without proper discussion/guidance is not appreciated. Heinz-Josef Lücking, I'm open to any discussion and willing to clarify your doubts if required. Jee 12:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a long Diskussion on Commons:Forum. I have blocked Heinz-Josef Lücking for editwarring with a dotzend of users on other pages. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I can't follow the German forum due to language difficulties. But it is quite usual that a user behave that way when disturbed. Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:Luftbild Grindelhochhäuser Hamburg.jpg gives me the impression that we should be more careful in future. It a waste of volunteer time, if files get deleted from all articles and restored soon. Jee 12:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The files were deleted because the custom template had a requirement to place the attribution on the image or near the image, this rendered the license invalid as no additional restrictions are permitted. All images uploaded prior to this change to the custom template (or even using a standard license tag that was later changed to the deleted custom version) were undeleted by me as the license had always been fine and the later-added restriction was invalid for them. This has been discussed to the with the author but he's resistant to arguments. --Denniss (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. It works in the opposite way. "no additional restrictions are permitted" = any additional restriction placed on the file description page can be ignored if it restricts the permission granted by the license.

2. Attribution is always required near to the work to help the viewer to identify the copyright holder. But it can be in any reasonable manner like image hyper links, text links, link to another page where all information available, etc., etc. "Near", "immediate visibility", etc. has no strict concrete meaning like "within 1 cm".

3. Some people including many admins here prefer attribution "near the work" for off wiki uses. But there is no such provision in a CC license, and they amended the "reasonable manner part" to "For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information." in CC 4.0.

4. IMHO, all these unwillingness to accept the "attribution requirement" as generous as possible is against the spirit of free concept; but we can be much soft to them. ;) Jee 13:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jee, this case has been extensively discussed among the German-speaking community at Commons:Forum, involving more than 1 admin, users with legal expertise and even a bureaucrat:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Luftbild Grindelhochhäuser Hamburg.jpg
• Commons:Forum#Creative_Commons_by-sa-3.0_Bilder_in_der_deutschen_Wikipedia_nicht_mehr_m.C3.B6glich.3F
• Commons:Forum#Creative_Commons_Weiterverwendung_.26_Korrekte_Lizenzierung_mittels_Verlinkung_der_Bildinformationen_.C3.BCber_das_Bild
• Commons:Forum#Die_Entscheidungen_sind_gefallen_-_Hier_auf_Commons_darf_keine_bildnahe_Namenspositionierung_gefordert_werden
• User_talk:Heinz-Josef_Lücking#File:Luftbild_Grindelhochh.C3.A4user_Hamburg.jpg

Due to the language barrier and the fact that this uploader exhibits a trollish behaviour, IMO an involvement of non-German-speakers in this individual case wouldn't make much sense.

Anyway, a short summary: the problem started when a user detected that File:Luftbild Grindelhochhäuser Hamburg.jpg carried a user-created license template 1) that was transcluded from the user-subpage {{User:Heinz-Josef Lücking/Creative Commons by-sa-3.0 de}} and 2) that showed within the license information the statement "Sichtbar in der Nähe des Bildes - Visible near the picture", which is a specification for the location of the attribution. As CC has stated in its FAQ, CC-BY licenses do not allow the licensor to request (mandatory) a specific location where the credit has to be placed. Therefore, such a specification (as understandable as it is) is a restriction of the CC-BY license and thereby - as we know from CC's last year statement - no longer a CC license. The individual case seems to be complicated by the fact that the user added this license-restriction even to images that he had earlier uploaded without this restriction. However, due to the transclusion from his userpage, the change had gone unnoticed until recently.

Besides, this is not a new issue; in the past we had regrettably to delete valuable images because photographers had made comparable requests in regard to the credit-location and weren't willing to change their mind. As I am a photo-contributor (and have also experienced the massive abuse of my images) myself, I can understand the initial motive of these users and have shown them an license-compliant way to ask (non-mandatory) re-users for a near-image credit. However, many won't give in. --Túrelio (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Túrelio for the detailed reply. I still believe we can handle such cases in a more friendly way with slow actions. We have to agree that many of our volunteers have no clear knowledge about the attribution requirements. Our upload tools are also very poor in this regard. Many think there is strict attribution requirements for off wiki uses; they don't care how attribution is provided in Wiki pages and Wikipedia "export to PDF" pages. Sometimes even WMF projects failed to satisfy proper attribution requirements (that we discussed on PDF and Media Viewer matters).

My conclusion is that all we need is to check whether a viewer can identify the copyright holder from the links, texts or any other means. In free culture, we can only expect the minimum requirements. Otherwise go for ARR and deal with reusers individually with specific requirements. (See how a famous site like GBIF uses my work: my name or username is not mentioned; but a URI is provided: http://www.gbif.org/species/1944503. This mostly due to the failure of the automated tools that failed to pick attribution from the pages.)

I'm aware of the "custom templates" issues. I add them to my watchlist whenever noticed and warn users when any improper change occurs. Usually a friendly note is enough. Here I made a friendly comment to this user on his talk page and willing to discuss with him if required. Jee 14:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this issue is also open at UnDR. This seems to me open and shut. Even WMF projects do not post attributions near the image -- they are under a link. Such a requirement would eliminate all film and video use since they use end credits, and eliminate all print works that collect attributions on one page, all of which is permitted by the CC license.

More to the point, unless an uploader wants to spend time and money policing his attributions, he or she must accept that putting a good image anywhere on the Web means that it will be used in some places without any attribution at all, despite all requests and license requirements. Offenders include major magazines and newspapers as well as individual web sites. Trying to specify the location of attribution is naive -- we should concentrate on trying to get any attribution at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)

Thanks Jim; but my argument was not to support attribution positioning. In fact, I was against it. You can see my templates explicitly allows/encourages mere linking is enough. My protest is against deleting files stating license is invalid due to the extra conditions stated on file page. You all know CC license are machine readable and most uses are made by automated tools. They have no facility to read the "extra terms" and conclude whether a license is valid or not. If the license is invalid, all those users (mostly big sites like eol.org, gbif.org who gather files from Commons and Flickr) will be in trouble. On the contrary, they will be safe if the "extra terms" are treated as invalid as suggested by Martina Nolte in that DR. I made a post at cc community list, but not sure whether a get a formal reply. Nowadays, they avoid legal advise as much as possible after the "whether a license is applicable for all file resolutions" issue. ;) Jee 12:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can speak only to USA law, but I suspect that most legal systems are the same in this respect. If you have a standard printed contract and modify it in ways that conflict with the standard contract, then the modifications control. That can be the case even if the standard contract says that no modifications can be applied. Thus it is well and good to say that as a practical matter the extra terms would be ignored by machine reading users, but if it came to a court case in the USA, while the outcome is unpredictable, I would bet on "attribution near the image" being required.

Given our conservative attitude toward uncertainty as expressed at COM:PRP, I think it is a serious mistake to depend on rules of law and courts all around the world saying that additions to the CC license have no effect. I think we have to assume that there is at the very least a significant doubt whether "near the image" would be enforced in all places and therefore that deletion is justified unless the copyright holder changes his license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jim, it seems a good argument at least for the safety of WMF projects. And it seems more cases are coming. Jee 13:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim is right that the extra restrictions placed on a CC licence are theoretically enforcable, but issue with this is that CC themselves don't regard such a modified licence as a "CC licence" any more, and so dispute anyone claiming it is. I think that is quite reasonable for them to demand the purity of their licences. Our right to use the CC logo and name is dependent on us keeping within the terms that CC themselves require of the licensor -- that no other restrictions are imposed. Theoretically, CC could request we take down the page that misuses their logo/name. But since Commons and CC are supposed to be friends, we shouldn't ourselves permit such abuse. It is in all our interests that licences are clear to understand and recognise, rather than 101 personal variations. So I don't think it is satisfactory for us to say "We'll just ignore your extra restrictions then". Either people use a valid CC licence (or other free licence) or we delete the images. -- Colin (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, modified license (legal code modified) and "extra terms" outside the legal code are entrely different. CC has a FAQ about it: "What if I have received CC-licensed material with additional restrictions? - It is possible that CC-licensed material will appear on platforms that impose terms in addition to the copyright license (though Creative Commons strongly discourages restrictions that interfere with exercise of the licensed rights). These additional terms do not form part of the license for the work. For example, if you download CC-licensed material from a site that does not permit downloading, you may be breaking the terms of use of the site, but you are not infringing the CC license." Jee 15:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See this section in the FAQ: "Except in the limited situation where more permissions are being granted or license conditions are waived, if the additional arrangement modifies or conflicts with the CC license terms, then the resulting licensing arrangement is no longer a CC licensing arrangement. To avoid confusing those who may mistakenly believe the work is licensed under standard CC terms, we must insist that in these instances licensors not use our trademarks, names, and logos in connection with their custom licensing arrangement. " I think an additional restriction on attribution would modify the CC terms and thus invoke the wrath of Creative Commons :-) -- Colin (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...with their custom licensing arrangement. " Custom license tags are not custom licenses. They are just explanatory texts with links to actual legal code. Further, it says "Even for the visitors to your website, any separate terms and conditions do not become part of the license—they remain a separate contractual agreement, and violation of this agreement does not constitute copyright infringement." See this comment too. Jee 02:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course custom license tags are custom licenses. Especially when the additional requirements are supplied as a parameter to the actual license tag (which is what the user in question did [3]). As has already been pointed out, additional restrictions in conflict with the license text void the license ("visible near the image" vs "reasonable to the medium or means"). And I will also reiterate what Jim already stated for the US: courts in Germany (and probably some more places) will generally look for hints of the copyright holder's intention when determining what license was given out. It is highly unlikely that they will simply disregard restrictions added by the copyright holder even though it is clear that he wanted those restrictions in place. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 07:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 1.st: I've not been blocked because of "I have blocked Heinz-Josef Lücking for editwarring with a dotzend of users on other pages" (diff please). I've been blocked beacause i dont trust the german specking forum an wanted my case to be seen for the english specking community too (tried to post here twice and after informing Mr. Steinsplitter).
• 2'nd Because of my block and the changes made while i was blocked, I realize, that i can do nothing against deletions of my pictures or change of attribution.
• 3'rd In many of my images, the attribution was changed without consultation with me and against my will. I do not agree with this procedure and see changes in the attribution by third parties as well as a use, other than in the sense of my original permissions attributing, as a violation of the license. I reserve the right to take legal action in such cases.
• 4'th Beside that. After the deletion of my pictures with the "near the picture" attribute you left all the users outside the wikipedia in an illegal state. They can'nt link to the licence here. And even with a correct attribition they can'nt prove that the usage of my pictures is legal.
• info: The coutrts in germany have a quite clear understanding of "near". The district court of Munich (Germany) wrote in a judgement about the attribution: “Besides, is the court of the view that a duty requires a naming of the name deposited by the originator in the immediate spatial connection with the photo to the naming of the author ("copyright notice")."
• info: The Creative Commons Best Practices page shows quite clear examples for "reasonable" attribution of images in different medias: only examples for attribution close to picture and even with a text proposing a more or less "exact positioning "below".

Heinz-Josef Lücking (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Such a legal action will fail miserably because you added an invalid requirement for reusers months after uploading under a non-restricted license. This requirement is and was invalid and therefore discarded. The other images, which were uploaded with this requirement in effect, were deleted as license violation. --Denniss (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Heinz-Josef Lücking, I have only one question to you: Are you willing to make a change in your license tag as I suggested (as a compromise) so that your files get undeleted? Or you prefer them as deleted? I don't want to part with any here; only trying for a better solution. Jee 16:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For CC-sa-na 3.0 pictures: Are you willing to change the reuse page, the image description pages or other important instruction pages on commons.wikimedia.org that way that it is absolute clear that an attribution of images is NOT a requirement which must be allways followed by a picture user outside wikipedia including examples showing legal ways of not providing an attribution near the picture? Heinz-Josef Lücking (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kreativer Kommunarde --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can stop it. I tested as a sockedpupped the willing to implement such a sentence on the reuse page. If you set up the request just to make me quiet like with the not existing editwar with a "dozen of users" and to block me then block me. Heinz-Josef Lücking (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jee With the pictures in which the attribution were not immediately added after the uploading my attribution have been deleted against my will have been replaced against my will with an attribution by the User:Dennis. It is entitled to me as an originator to decide on whether in which form (attribution) my work is spread to the public and attributed there . My rights were injured by the action. I cannot tolerate that. The practice of handling of license offences with missing attribut, the description of the Best of all Practices, the texts for the uploading of pictures and the automatically generated picture description pages suggested that the attribution was legally. Additionally, my pictures with my attribution have not be complained for years. Should a picture close attribution not be callable by the license I appeal to have been deceived on it roughly. And no user has the right against my will to change the attribution of my pictures. I request you, hence, either to restore and put all pictures in its original state with the attributions I’ve chosen or to remove the aforesaid graphics in were the attribution was changed immediately from your page. Heinz-Josef Lücking (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heinz-Josef Lücking, I'm well aware of this issue; many professional photographers here expressed their discomfort on the way CC dilute the attribution requirements. They think it created a backdoor for the reusers to neglect the attribution part. I have noticed many admis too expressed their discomfort. See the comment by Rillke. But, IMHO, your one man protest will lead you nowhere. Please follow the community guidelines, and try to create community consensus with polite discussions with people who have same view points. Regarding, license tag updates, we had already made some attempts, but lack of participation from other volunteers is the main difficulty we are facing. Jee 03:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify my stand. I'm well aware of the licensing terms and contributes on my own will. But I'm sure that many contributors here are not well aware of the terms. Main confusions are in three areas:

1. Attribution: Many people think we can demand attribution near the work used in off wiki cases. But according to CC, a mere link/hyper link to the source is enough for attribution as we practiced in WMF projects. I don't know whether all courts agree with it; but our contributors should be aware of it.

2. File resolution: Recently CC clarified that the license is applicable for the copyright eligible works; so it may applicable for high quality file of that work too.

3. Personality/privacy rights in case of self portraits: Here also CC advised that such rights may affected.

So we have a responsibility to educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases. Here the user in question says there is no problem for his works here for years. And it is natural that he get upset when a sudden DR pop up and all his files get deleted. Jee 04:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems more complicated; so forwarded to WM list for a wider community attention. (not this single user case.) Jee 12:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding on http://bilderklau.lucan.de/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/LG-M%C3%BCnchen-I-37-O-9798-11-Endurteil.pdf

"In this case, the Court considers that a duty to name the author ("copyright notice") requires a mention of the filings by the creator's name in the immediate spatial context of the photograph. Specifying the picture authors in a linked site, the first by clicking the light image can be achieved, in contrast, does not meet the requirements of the license conditions." - So a copyright holder can demand attribution in the immediate spatial context of the photograph used?

"Linking to another website does not constitute Attribution in this sense, and therefore already complies with the wording of the non- agreed license terms. In addition, this approach is not sufficiently answer the end of the license conditions, as the Internet users who visit the guide - section of the web page of the Defendant, the set there photography not necessarily clicking . If it fails , but the use of the links, viewing the disputed photograph without knowing the author of the image." We are using the works in many language Wikipedias, Wikinews, Wikimediafoundation.org, etc. and only maintained author information in Commons through a "click"? Nowadays mediaviwer added another burden which is slow and make the file page two clicks away?

"At Wikipedia you reach the image description page of Wikipedia , which is on the same server." Not true; we are using works in many websites and provide attribution only in Commons?

"The contents of this file description page , however, the defendant has no influence." True. Volunteers in another Wikimeadia projects have no voice here; here everything is decided by Commons admins.

"Moreover, it is conceivable that the image description page , which is so far on a "foreign" server sometimes is unreachable." True. Sometimes Commons can be down even if the other WMF servers are up.

So I doubt whether any legal support for our current practices? Jee 13:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered that reviewers has enabled Commons:Upload Wizard/Flickr. I'm a member of Amical Wikimedia. We are working in a pilot project to engage members of Flickr's Community to take useful free licensed images for Wikimedia Commons. We sent two photographers (Angela Llop and Maria Rosa) to take photos of Can Papiol Romanticism Museum. It's a first phase with this GLAM agent. They uploaded different albums by CC-BY-SA in Flickr. The next step is upload these images to Wikimedia Commons. We would like to use this special "Upload Wizard/Flickr" to upload these photos. Probably, we will use it in projects coming, too. For that reason, I would like to become a reviewer. What can I do?--KRLS (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would direct you to Commons:License review/requests. However, you are an admin on three projects, have OTRS access, and have 3,000 edits on Commons. I'm pretty sure we can trust you, so I'll just give it to you now. Just please be sure to read Commons:License review and familiarize yourself with the freedom of panorama laws for the areas your project is going to operate in. While you should be fine in Spain, Països Catalans extends into France, and France's laws regarding FoP are very different from Spain's. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this quickly answer. I have read Commons:License review. I know freedom of panorama laws in Spain, copyright laws in France and Italy (Alghero).--KRLS (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tools like flickr2commons or Flickr upload bot would have easily uploaded all the images from flickr (provided its cc-by-sa licenced) there and would have been reviewed by the Flickrreviewbot, don't really see the new to hand out Licence reviewer rights, but I do agree, Commons:Upload Wizard/Flickr should in the near future be available for 'auto confirmed' or 'patrollers' in the near future..Its currently a bit buggy and won't upload more than 50 images from a any set..--Stemoc (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny suggestion: Please take the extra time upload a small test series first, and spend time with each image uploaded by the bot and be sure it is not missing any template information, like source, author or license that would result in dozens of images being tagged and needing additional edits later Some of the museum uploads have had that happen and it's most distressing to have to go back and edit hundreds - or thousands - of images for faulty templates. I think your project sounds really neat and I'm looking forward to seeing the pictures (but not on any of the problem page categories)! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please delete the redirects and files listed here? Thanks. YLSS (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that many of the redirects are "in use" on project pages. --Túrelio (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly it is expected that under the obsolete titles they would go redlinked or automatically hidden. Some project pages are discussions about their renaming, so at the same time they show both the older name and the newer, and only the latter should be correctly represented. Some usage in old archives I did not update because they're archives... YLSS (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YLSS, how many times do you have to be told this? We went over it once already. We're not going to delete redirects that are still in use on sister projects. If the existence of the redirects bothers you so much, fix the links on the sister projects yourself so that the redirects aren't linked to anymore. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are deleted! Maybe not by you, but by others. YLSS (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which does not make it right. If you want to screw over a bunch of users on the sister projects because asking admins until you get one that says yes is easier for you than doing things the right way, that's your prerogative. If you continue to do so, however, I will refer the matter to AN/UP and argue that your deletion nominations are disruptive. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly I do not want to screw anybody! I always struggle to cooperate with all the users, across all the Wikipedias, regardless of what language they speak and how difficult the conversation will be. All the pages on all sister projects I do update, and I even take into account the requests some of the locals users made. Those that I do not update are a) archives – which it may not be proper to update, as they show the way things were at the moment of discussion; b) auto-filled galleries of BSicons at user pages – which are expected not to show any icons under the obsolete names; c) user sandboxes – unless I see that a sandbox is quite recent, in which case I usually update it, otherwise — no, I won't. If only all the users were kind enough to clear their sandboxes once they're done with them... But the things go like this: a user has bestowed upon us a piece of code that needs updating/maintaining/cleaning up, without any chance that it will ever be needed, or which is duplicated by an article in mainspace. So what do you want me to do in this case? Nominate it for deletion — somebody else's user page? Especially if it's in another project where I find it hard to understand the local policies? Or at ja.wp, where user pages are protected from editing by others? No, save me, let the users maintain their user pages by themselves. If you want to discuss this at AN/UP, go on; I do not violate any policies and can defend my position. YLSS (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sleeping? Or you only interested in your own agendas? Jee 05:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not uncommon for edit requests to take a while to be processed. In this case I am reluctant to do it because I don't think there is a clear consensus on what the new version should be. As long as this is the case I will not make a change. Also such a substantial change should IMHO be discussed on a more important community page than just a template talk page. I'd suggest taking this to COM:VPC. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 07:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; it is a tedious job, considering translation requirements, etc. But it is not an excuse for not changing it. Moreover, the issue is not of that single template. CC updated the deed of all versions; changed words like "remix", "work", etc. So every tags need to be updated.

Regarding CC 4.0, there is some differences. 1. "you must indicate if you modified the material and retain an indication of previous modifications. In 3.0 and earlier license versions, the indication of changes is only required if you create a derivative." 2. "URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable."

I don't know which is the right place for discussion. It was told earlier that VP/VPC (?) are language specific; so not attended by all. What about creating a separate page for it (like RfC)? Jee 07:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(The Template is only semiprotected, not fullporotected. Because it is widely used i have changed the protection to edit=sysop) --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, User talk:Dralwik showed up in new page patrol as a gallery, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ANewPages&namespace=0&tagfilter=&username=&hidepatrolled=1

Since there was no link for "Mark this page as patrolled", I did what I always do in that circumstance, deleted the page to clear it lout of the NPP log, with the intention of restoring it ten seconds later. This works when a page has been moved from gallery space to another space, leaving the page in the NPP queue, but without a link for "Mark this page as patrolled".

However, the page is now clearly deleted, but it is still in the queue.

There was an additional anomaly here. Note that the edit comment for the item in the NPP queue is a DR notice. However, that DR notice did not appear on the talk page before I deleted it and the only history for the talk page was one edit, setting the talk page to a redirect to WP:EN. The edit to the talk page is in Special:Contributions/Thegreyanomaly as a blue link, despite the deletion. So what happened to that DR notice? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there is usually a 'delay' in page updates on the 'Special' and search feeds, sometimes as long as 72 hours...--Stemoc (talk) 10:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't surprise me, but it has never happened before that a deleted page was not immediately removed from the queue. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I clicked rename on the wrong wiki when fulfilling a user rename request. I have reverted myself.

--M7 (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem ;). You're not the first one who has accidentally used steward right here. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A well, everyone makes misclicks. So don't worry, be happy and eat a stroopwafel ;). Natuur12 (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot to both of you! Ciao, M7 (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]