Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Shortcut: COM:AN

Category:Mülltonne (english: garbage tonne} (Description: Schrottige Hochladungen (english: bad uploads)) should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.93.174.17 (talk) 19:50, 06 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was mildly tempted to nominate this for deletion, but I wanted to ask advice first. Right now the article for the term "wasted username" is up for deletion on the English Wikipedia. The image File:Screenshot of namewaster account on YouTube.png is currently on the article and was uploaded by Philmonte101.

My problem here is that ultimately we have a photograph that clearly identifies a user and the site, although the actual link to the account is not given. While the username appears to be abandoned and the person may not care that their username is being used in this manner, I'm just worried that this could be construed as harassment considering that the article establishes that the terms "wasted username" and "namewaster" are frequently used in a derogatory manner. FWIW, I don't think that this was Philmonte101's intent, but I don't think that this is the type of situation where a picture would really be a good idea.

Thoughts? Since the link is not given and I can't bring up an actual account by the name of pudding, it's unlikely that people would be able to go directly to this user's page if the article is kept on Wikipedia, but there's still the issue that this is apparently a screenshot of an actual account. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think, that it is impossible to use that image for harassment. Nothing is known about who the "pudding" is. Taivo (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just sort of gun shy since we've had some complaints about stuff like this in the past. It's just that I'm really not comfortable with the idea that someone took a screen shot of someone's YouTube account and uploaded it to illustrate a word that is (according to the article) frequently used as a derogatory term. I don't have the html link, but there is potentially enough here to where someone more familiar with YouTube could possibly find the account in question. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to tell you but that's paranoia; bogus. This account was long since deleted. The person who created it abandoned it in 2005. The person who created the account has 99.9999999% likely forgotten about the account. https://www.youtube.com/pudding This is the proof that "pudding" doesn't exist anymore, but clearly existed back then. I am insulted that this was even brought up in ANI. It's a ridiculous case. Someone please close this. Philmonte101 (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see in the examples in {{PD-user-w}}, the recommended way of entering template parameters does not work. Could an admin fix this? --jdx ^Re: 10:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could Ktr101's license reviewer right please be reassessed? The case is a portrait image from uploaded from Facebook by Ktr101, which then was added to a new English Wikipedia biography created by Ktr101, without ensuring there was evidence of a release from the photographer. The file was not marked with OTRS pending. The copyright file was left on both projects for 3 months. The relevant DR is at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mia_Matsumiya.jpg. I had hoped to leave an observation there for Ktr101's consideration without taking it further, but it has been suppressed (diff) so escalation for independent review seems necessary.

The reply in the DR that "I have a life and am human" is incongruous with three calendar months elapsing, and originally having sufficient volunteer time to correspond with others, act on their behalf to upload a professional copyrighted photograph, and write Wikipedia biographies for them, but not having time to ensure that a valid copyright release was given. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We saw it before regarding how this user deals with OTRS-ticekts and we saw it before regarding his own uploads. User doesn't know the most basic aspects of copyright. The I am a volunteer-card seems to be a poor excuse and indicates that the user isn't fully aware of the severity of such mistake. Yes, they do happen but his good/bad ratio is really bad. Therefor I  Support the removal of his license review rights. Thank you for raising this topic. Natuur12 (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also File:AlabamaNationalCemetery.JPG. No source. File:Mediatrixaltar.jpg. Sculpture from a non-FOP country. File:Stephen Singleton.jpg. com:DW File:Nokia 6280 closed.JPG. com:DW. File:Hardingnewlogo.jpg. Own work? For real? And those are manual transfers, not automated bot imports. And I only checked a couple of his recent uploads.... Natuur12 (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the addition of an OTRS ticket today, Ktr101 appears officially to be giving copyright advice on behalf of Wikimedia Commons. Could someone independent please confirm whether Ktr101 has access to the permissions commons queue, and if not, how this happened? My understanding is that "authorizing" OTRS tickets on Commons, as Ktr101 has done for his own upload from Facebook today, is an issue for Meta as it is not controlled locally. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: That particular ticket looks OK to me FWIW, based solely on the ticket. He has been an OTRS agent since February 2012. Not sure when permissions access was granted... ping Krd? Storkk (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Based on m:OTRS/Personnel, he has access to permissions-en, but not permissions-commons, nor to photosubmissions. Hence my question about access to the Commons permissions queues which we would expect as a prerequisite for an OTRS volunteer to be approving tickets for files hosted on Commons, or to be giving the public advice about uploads to this project via OTRS, especially with regard to copyright policies.

As you can see the ticket, could you confirm there was an email from the photographer? It remains odd that the only photograph released was the poor quality version (which appears enlarged from a thumbnail image) used on Facebook and Twitter with no relevant EXIF data. --Fæ (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: it passes the standard of evidence that I generally require. I don't, however, do things like routinely checking WHOIS records and I generally accept tickets where the domain looks OK and the language is unambiguous. I would guess in this case that someone saw the Facebook photograph, then asked the photographer who emailed us the consent for the facebook photograph. Storkk (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I have been pinged: Yes, he is a permissions agent (as visible from the OTRS member global user group, but I have no link at hand to make it visible), and the permissions role is not devided between languages or projects. As far as I read the ticket, it has been handled correctly. --Krd 18:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout my seven years on Commons I have worked hard to help contribute thousands of photos to the project. Sadly, as I hope we are all well aware, mistakes will be made and the occasional oversight will occur. In this particular instance, I thank Fæ for bringing this issue to the community's attention (as we all should in these instances), as I have requested and received the necessary email. As I hope you can see from this speedy resolution, the permission was given long before this issue was raised, but no OTRS email had been received. This has now happened.

This is, of course, an error on my part, and I always strive to improve on my work. While my status as a volunteer does leave my work at a less than professional standard, I feel that taken as a whole, my contributions show that I am more than up to the task of both productively and accurately helping Commons expand. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktr101: Natuur12's links above are troublesome to me for a permissions-commons agent. Storkk (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin Rutherford Just some thoughts: Maybe you like to run a confirmation at Commons:License review/requests? Then the community can decide. :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the public on-wiki record is not up to date, could you confirm whether you have access to permissions-commons in order to add tickets to Commons files? (Tangent) There appears a miscount with 'thousands'. Here are a couple of links to help verifying statistics going forward; your account was created in 2009 and this search shows a total of 42 OTRS tickets to current files on Commons, while the database shows 1,376 images uploaded and 41 images have been deleted since upload. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do, and thank you for correcting the number bit above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktr101: Can you please answer my question as well? --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, as I was dealing with the situation below and completely forgot to respond. I'll mull it over for the next few hours, and get back to you later today. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktr101: could you please reply? You seem to be rather busy at Wikimedia Commons. If you don't reply I will just remove your LR rights so we can be done with it. Natuur12 (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, as I have been busy in real life as well. In terms of running that again, I would have to decline as I know where I made my mistakes, and am more than willing to correct them. As such, I even plan on supporting your deletion nominations, as I erred and want to ensure that that does not happen again. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I doubt that since this is more like a "been here, done that" type of situation. Could you please explain in more detail what you have done wrong and fix the uploads I mentioned but didn't nominate yet? (Which makes me believe that this is more like somekind of tactical excuse.) Natuur12 (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of what I did wrong, I uploaded images without checking the proper licensing and ensuring that they were correct. I also did not make sure that there were sources on the images (or that the sources were valid, such as appears on this image). I also did not check the authorship, which would have caught this image. However, it was a mistake, and I was sloppy in my workmanship. As such, you have gone through a few of them, and I plan on working on the rest of them this weekend, once I finish some more classwork, in order to ensure that everything is correct and that no mistakes remain on the site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for summarising what other people have already said before but that is not what I asked. Please explain why those files are problematic. Why is it a problem that a US-gov file doesn't have a valid source (when no valid exif data present), why are the files I point out derivatives of non free content instead of the copyrighted elements being DM, please explain why a photograph of a scuplture could be problematic. Please explain the underlying rationals instead of repeating what other people already pointed out. Look, if this was a "first time offence" I would give you some slack but it is not. And don't think that evading the topic is going to safe your LR-flag since you are this close of having it removed. Last change. Show us that you understand copyright law. Natuur12 (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the US-gov one, there are multiple reasons. Two of them that I am thinking about at this time are that someone could place a tag on an official-looking image and falsely claim that it was taken by a government official, even though that person was either never a government official, or they were taking it outside of their official capacity. If it is the latter, then the image cannot be kept and we would have to see permission just as we would for any other non-federal photographer. The other reason is that it gives us no way to tell if the photo was published by an official source, going off of what is mentioned in the previous sentence. In regards to the Alabama cemetery link, there is no way to see if this was published on an official site or not, and we have no way of knowing if the uploader was the one who produced the work.

For the derivative one, the image you pointed out would have been alright, except that he is holding another image, and that image itself would need the author's permission to exist on the site and allow for the derivative to stand. The phone photo has a phone which is under copyright, so permission would be needed to host it on the site from Microsoft, the new owner of Nokia.

For the sculpture one, this depends on the jurisdiction, as the sculpture could be under copyright by the artist. In the United States, this would apply if the sculptor died after 1846. This is because the photographer is taking a photo of something that is still copyrighted. As such, the photo is under copyright of the sculptor once it is created. While architecture such as buildings and structures do not fall under this copyright, anything sculpted remains under the copyright of the sculptor, and they hold rights to any reproductions of their work. As Filipino copyright does not allow for freedom of panorama, the above statue is unusable on the site. In the United Kingdom, works of art fall under the same rules as architecture, and anyone can reproduce these sculptures without permission from the artist.

I hope this clears things up a bit, as I have a few more images to go through in the next few days, pending other tasks on the projects. The Harding image was not a reproduction, and I should have tagged that when I saw it, instead of assuming good faith. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ktr101 unfortunately you don't learn from your mistakes, but you repeat them time and time again. Case in point is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ellinair Avro RJ85 at Craiova Airport.jpg. Albatrossaer (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone look over Connor7617's uploads and see if any of them are copyright violations. I heavily suspect that they are an incarnation of Bwmoll3, who was blocked in July of 2014 on the English Wikipedia for massive amounts of copyright violations. Oddly enough, the thread above is what prompted me to look into Bwmoll's edits (my second edit was one of this user's files), when I discovered that Connor was essentially doing the same topic areas. Additionally, Bwmoll added a bunch of images on Wikipedia under false claims of fair use, so I suspect at least one of these will come up as being an issue, and I wanted to have another set of eyes on this going forward. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello—I could use some help with a batch file rename. There are about 100 new files in Category:Bernie Sanders presidential campaign kickoff, May 2015 with the name structure "Sanders presidential campaign kickoff, 2016 Bernie Sanders" and it should be something like "Sanders presidential campaign kickoff, May 2015" (I uploaded with the wrong date). Could someone help me with this, or is there a tool where I can do it myself? I don't know of a gadget that supports renames. czar 23:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no standard tool. I'm changing ", 2016" to ", May 2015" which should be sufficient. --Fæ (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thanks! If there is a non-standard tool, could be useful.  czar 22:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I asked some time ago to indef block several socks who were already CU blocked on Wikipedia,[1] but who were still active here on Wikimedia. My request was immediately put to action back then. The further problem is however, that there are some really problematic maps, images, etc of this serial puppet abuser (whos really fond of image/map hoaxing) lingering forth here on Wikimedia, which he uses everytime he returns with new socks on Wikipedia. I know he can just upload more of them the next time he returns, but we cant support such extreme violation of integrity both here as well as on Wikimedia.

Here are the images that really need to be deleted from here (the most dire need, so to say);[2]-[3]-[4]-[5]

Thanks in advance, bests - LouisAragon (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin hide this revision: [6]. INeverCry 04:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 04:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. INeverCry 04:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there are other users here but I have had a disheartening experience. I admit that I made a few mistakes and vandalised some photos. I am genuinely sorry for that and I wish I hadn't done so. However, I have been subjected to some sort of ritualised behaviour on the part of a User Tm. He or she has undone all of my edits to photo descriptions including ones that are actually descriptive. I don't understand his or her response and I am at a loss to understand why they can get away with this. Please ask them to stop doing this because if they don't, I am going to write a formal complaint about this abusive behaviour. Is this how new people are treated on this website? What exactly is achieved by doing this? Please find the links below to this persons bizarre actions.

Sincerely 188.29.164.129 18:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:AktstudienTreppe_10FWS_07.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=187499323 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:2009-08-31-akt-muehla-074.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=187499281 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Antoinette_02.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=187498496 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Adeaa_Nude_Perfection_4_0001.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=187498390 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Bella_Vendetta,_age_22,_at_the_beginning_of_her_art-star_career.jpg&diff=next&oldid=187501086 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Artistic-naked-woman.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=187498252

• See this ip editions to see that my reversions are do to vandalism, not a knee jerk reaction. I only reverted editions that are 1 - are vandalism or are describing nude models as pieces of meat, with descriptions in detail, that given this ipfirst editions with mentions to models not having ajob, free porn, tits, etc are worrysome and troubling. Tm (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I admit that. I'm guilty of bad behaviour but your continued response is childish in the least. What is wrong with describing a photo properly? Is "Adeea nude perfection" really a descriptive caption? In fact I would go so far as to say that that description is sexist. Is there a point where you get off your high horse and stop this childish response? Is there anybody else on this crazy website? 188.29.164.129 19:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to an image creator's description in such a subjective manner is, as you say, wrong. Although we don't have a neutrality policy as such here, it seems to be generally accepted that the uploader's description of an image is respected unless factually wrong. Calling other editors out for correcting your edits isn't good practice- see here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps 188.etc should stop using phrases like wtf is wrong with ..... And after this little stunt it is only resonable to treat his edits as suspect. (No, a I am sorry but please look at the other guy campaing won't set you free) Natuur12 (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi admins; this is just to let you know that I have just started the admin inactivity run for February-March 2016.

As usual, all administrators listed in the table on that page have been notified on their talk pages (by myself) and via e-mail (by Natuur12); @O, the only one inactive since the previous inactivity run, has had their adminship removed on Meta by steward MarcoAurelio. Please join me in thanking @O for their excellent service to our community over so many years as an administrator. odder (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there’s an inactivity run going on? Well, that explains why I’m getting watchlist warnings about deletion of categories like Category:1893-08-01. Nice! — admins working hard, hmm?… Because of course that’s a useless empty category, never to be filled — everybody knows that nothing happened on August 1st 1893 (maybe it went straight from July 31st to August 2nd…?).

Because deleting a bunch of empty categories without a second thought (something a bot could be instructed to do!) is an action worth of an admin, unlike, say, actually do something useful and search the parent cats (Category:August 1893 and Category:1 August) for items and/or subcats that should be dissiminated to this more specific category.

Utterly underwhelming. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tuvalkin, I'm pretty sure you haven't forgotten that 1 August 1893 was the day that Alexander of Greece was born. If that's not worth having a category for, I don't know what is! Green Giant (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is populated. Please undelete. Josve05a (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]