Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard
Revision as of 19:29, 27 September 2018 by GreenMeansGo (talk | contribs) (→‎Images uploaded by User:Ruffneck88: "Die 88 bezieht sich auf mein Geburtsjahr" ... "The 88 refers to my birth year")
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new section] 		User problems
[new section] 		Blocks and protections
[new section] 		Other
[new section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.


Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.


Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.


Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.

Archives
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

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.
  • It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

Diseynous / Ben.chazal

Those two users are active around the singer Rekman Seller, posting non free medias about him. Recently, Diseynous has removed twice the permission template on File:Rekman_Seller.png, not taking into account the messages left to him, both on Commons and Wikipedia.

Some help would be appreciated. Thanks, Trizek from FR 07:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I blocked Ben.chazal for a week for uploading copyright violations after a final warning, and Diseynous indefinitely for sockpuppetry. All copyvios deleted. A formal check user request might be useful. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Yann. I'm adding ETRGRNUIS (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  to the list. Trizek from FR 16:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And Ertyik (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Trizek and Patrick Rogel: Could you please create a check user request? Thanks, Yann (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yann, there is an ongoing RCU on fr.wp. Would that be enough? Trizek from FR 11:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Trizek: Yes, fine. Link? Yann (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is ongoing as I said. No results yet. Trizek from FR 11:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User Bmunir.pak

Everything by Bmunir.pak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) got deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Artwork by Halin de Repentigny on September 6. Then the user just re-uploaded at least three of them on September 14–15. File:Unnamed (1)565.png, File:Papier Mache Mammoth by Halin de Repentigny.png, File:"Canal Sans Fin".png Do they need to be reminded, blocked or other? Far as I can tell they are 100% uncommunicative here or at ENWP. Bri (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see jmabel already took care of this. Bri (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request help with dispute

I have tried to reason with user Panam2014 over Parliament of Turkey 2018 Current.svg. My position is that the diagram should use the traditional left to right spectrum as all diagrams of all European and Asian parliaments do and as it was actually the original author's intent. All my efforst to reason with him have failed. He lost his temper with me, left me some very agressive edits on my talk page, I have make my best to be polite and to argue with him, but he says that he owns the file because he update it and that no one is allowed to change it without his permision unless a new change in the seating happens and then a new editor "wins" in time by udpating the file. I have no idea why he thinks that or were he took the idea that's a policy but my efforst to try to explain to him that's not the case also failed. I'm open to suggestion, I havn't respond to his rudeness in anyway.

My argument for the change is that if not it is confusing and some people may even find it offensive. He argues that "right-left spectrum doesn't exist in Turkey" which I requested him to give me reliable sources that confirm that cuz I never heard such a thing and I'm skeptical. I'm not saying that I'm not part of the problem nor I want to blame all on him, I probably have part of the responsability for the discussion, I don't want to start an edit war, I really would like to see feedback from admins and other editors. I welcomed the invitation he did to user Aleat on the talk page and I really would like to see his input on this. I might be wrong about it but the way how Panam acted doesn't seem right to me and how he claims ownership of the file I think si something that has to be cleared to him even if the change I proposed is not made. In any case thanks for the mediation. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dereck Camacho: the original author is a socketpuppet and he have been blocked in en.wiki. So, we couldn't taking account his opinion. And he have been aggresive in my own talk page. He wowed to edit the file without consensus. --Panam2014 (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the owner but there are no consensus to edit the file. So, I am the first author of the version with the most recent repartition of seats so he should reach a consensus before editing the file. If he want to use the right-left spectrum he should be the first to update it. Try again in the next months. There are no consensus to change. But my change was needed to upload the file. If the seats repartition change again and he have the chance to upload the file before me, he could upload it with the spectrum. --Panam2014 (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see you still edit the pages after you push "publish changes" causing edit conflicts.
"the original author is a socketpuppet and he have been blocked in en.wiki. So, we couldn't taking account his opinion." Fine, but you still don't have ownership over the file just because you updated as you claimed several times.
" And he have been aggresive in my own talk page. He wowed to edit the file without consensus." I do not feel my intervention was agressive but admins woul be the judges of that, and yes I do not think consensus is needed for that particular changes which is standard.
" Try again in the next months. There are no consensus to change. But my change was needed to upload the file. If the seats repartition change again and he have the chance to upload the file before me, he could upload it with the spectrum." there's no such policy in Commons, man, how hard it is for you to get that. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I have never claimed having ownership. But you have not any ownership over the file. Please read CONSENSUS read. All editor have the right to update the file. And when he update it, he is free to using or not the right left spectrum. And reuploading an outdated version to a file called current is a form of vandalism. But now, there are no consensus to change the file after the uploading so you must discuss now. --Panam2014 (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"All editor have the right to update the file. And when he update it, he is free to using or not the right left spectrum." There's absolutly no policy in Commons that says that the right-left spectrum can only be aplied when updating a file.
"nd reuploading an outdated version to a file called current is a form of vandalism." I have no intention to upload an old version. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about the spectrum. I say that this is a version with or without the spectrum, is not outdated, it is not a reason to change the file without consensus.--Panam2014 (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted to an old version of the file and protected it for a month. This edit warring is unacceptable, and the next step is a block. If you can't come to an agreement about the best version, upload your preferred images as separate files. Guanaco (talk) 05:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Guanaco: the problem is the file is called current and you have uploaded an outdated version. The file that you have uploaded this version is not current. It is the party's repartition in July 2018. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the version was not stable. Dereck Camacho have upload an consensual version 40 days after the last upload and he have been reverted after 10 days. The real stable version is the July's version. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On my behalf I apologize for any inconvenient and will comply with what the admin suggested. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Typhoon2013

Typhoon2013 still use the RSMC storm name as the image title before it was being named. See File:Trami Geostationary VIS-IR 2018.png (The file was created at 10:55 UTC, Sept 21, but the storm was being named at 13:10 UTC). As administrator Juliancolton said at the previous report: any further offenses will require a block. --223.197.139.21 06:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand the problem. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Srittau: See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 72#User:Typhoon2013 for more information. --B dash (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
May be @Juliancolton: can handle this case better. --B dash (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Other uninvolved users and admins seem to believe this isn't a real problem, so I don't think it would be appropriate for me to take any action. The biggest issue is the lack of communication and cooperation from Typhoon2013, so that still needs to be addressed, but I suppose the premature/speculative file naming will have to be tolerated until there is evidence of serious resulting damage. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader declared "own work", but the image can be found here:

https://foodyoune.skyrock.com/262619090-la-panthere-de-l-atlas.html

--Jkbw (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, final warning. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry and Copyrights Максим Огородник (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Accounts of Максим Огородник

User:Obsuser

User is uploading 90 % senseless images out of scope, which have to be deleted (see here for an example. --j.budissin+/- 18:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Obsuser. --j.budissin+/- 18:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done User warned. Was already blocked last year for uploading copyvios and reuploaded images deleted before. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:13zmz13

User is edit warring in File:Gal Gadot in 2018.jpg. User repeatedly deletes the copyvio and delete templates. --Miaow 19:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done User warned, copyright violation deleted. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Three day block now after re-uploading the photo in question. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Can someone kindly show this fellow the door? GMGtalk 17:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. @JuTa: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meggy124

User working for the subject of the article (deleted as pt:Nuno Gracias Fernandes so COM:OOS) uploads and reuploads since 3 weeks copyrighted pictures despite warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Three day block for now. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fadel M Irfan

Every single upload is copyvio. Reuploads already deleted files. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Last warning by User:EugeneZelenko. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I eat bananas 101

I agree with the following: "I eat bananas is either trying to harm Commons or a complete idiot. That's not a flame or an opinion but a verifiable fact. He requested a bot permit despite not knowing any programming language, screwed with the MOTD, nominated Wikipe-tan for deletion, imports files from enwiki with improper license information (including one of a toy car, the very thing he knows can't survive on Commons), copy pastes Guanaco without attribution, doling out barn stars like candy and their very very worst crime of all: nominating me for admin. ... This is TheMillStone. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)" per these edits.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks suspiciously like a troll account. I put up a vandalism warning, but would support an indefinite ban if this behaviour continues. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Srittau: their last act was the installation of Wikibreak enforcer. So if the vandalism doesn't continue right away you know why. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done I blocked I eat bananas for a year. It seems to me, that (s)he is not an idiot (I would block an idiot forever), but very young and does not understand well, what (s)he is actually doing. At moment, his/her overall activity harms Commons, but maybe (s)he becomes more mature during a year and can make useful edits. The wikibreak enforcer lasts only one month, but (s)he will not become enough clever during single month; more time is needed for that. Taivo (talk) 08:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User Jena Fi

User is reverting deletion nominations and stating "yes I DO have Permission !!". Images: File:1 ANTHONY Field Ahn do.jpg, File:WIGGLES 2017.jpg, File:Anthony Field 2011.jpg. // sikander { talk } 15:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Seems to have stopped for now and I have left an explanation on her talk page. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Satoshi_Kondo vs two users

These users disagree over geographical distribution of languages – examples with Bookworm8899… and Irish1028. Satoshi Kondo mostly wages upload wars against the other two. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:K.e.coffman

K.e.coffman (talk · contribs) is campaigning to remove colorized versions of Nazi-era images. He believes that colorized Bundesarchiv photos are "Nazi fancruft", and calls the uploader (Ruffneck88) a neo-Nazi without any evidence in the nominations, other than the number "88" in his username, which also could be his year of birth.

Examples of deletion requests:

Taivo (talk · contribs) closed some of the similar requests because the colorized versions were used in several projects. K.e.coffman pressured the admin to back off with "You are not sure if you should be deleting unused Nazi fancruft? This is an interesting position..." and "Perhaps you should let others close such discussions."[1]

After the closures, K.e.coffman removed the colorized versions of von Leeb from several Wikipedias, including the Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Dutch, Portuguese and Chinese Wikipedias (see global contributions). Now he wants the the images deleted because they are not used anymore. This is clearly a manipulation of the deletion process. --AnEvenBetterSpot (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well I'd certainly like to know if this is similar to this, because if we're deleting colorized images of WWII tanks because they're supposed to be out-of-scope, then we're wrong. For that matter, if someone is willing to take the time to colorize historic photos (and does a decent job at it), then we should probably be retaining them period, as we would well-done colorized versions of presumably any historic photograph. If we're removing used photographs en masse for the sole purpose of having them deleted, well that's damn near vandalism. GMGtalk 12:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The picture you are talking about was just a Tiger tank moving next to some bushes, so yes it was similar. And it's not the first time K.e.coffman has interfered in projects to help his deletion requests in Commons. In May 2017 he nominated a colorized Adolf Hitler picture for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1990-048-29A, Adolf Hitler-colorized.jpg. In the discussion, it was pointed out that the picture is used in some projects including no.wikipedia.org. Before the request was closed, K.e.coffman went to remove the picture from the Norwegian WP (see his no-wiki contribs) on May 15, even reverting one Norwegian editor in the process. --AnEvenBetterSpot (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, this does seem to be a bit of a crusade going back at least 18 months or so, at times removing images that had remained on various projects for multiple years, and most recently a tidy little polemic on their user page on en.wiki. I couldn't tell you how many of these have already been kept after landslide DRs, but I'd like to know if there's a way to find how many of these have been deleted as out-of-scope after being removed from active use across projects, since obviously that's a pretty good indication they're well within scope, since they're being used, and only removed in a COM:POINTY effort to have files they personally dislike deleted. Will likely have to take a batch of them to COM:UNDEL, but I don't know how to track how many are affected without going through daggum three dozen projects worth of contributions. Is there any way to track centralized past usage of a file? GMGtalk 14:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I closed 2 DRs. Not my cup of tea, but if someone finds it useful... One could request undeletion of the 2 remaining files. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yann, is there a DR search tool for Commons similar to http://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/ ? GMGtalk 21:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An authentic portrayal? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Some clarifications:
  1. the deletion reason that I alluded to in my nomination (No educational value to the project) is COM:EDUSE. The image adds nothing educationally distinct to the collection of BW images we already hold covering the same subject.
  2. Can we really be certain that Leeb looked so rosy in real life?
  3. An admin closing a discussion noted that such images cannot be considered to be out of scope if they are used in other projects. I disagree (see below), but to accommodate the objection I replaced (not removed) the image in good faith.

K.e.coffman (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images uploaded by User:Ruffneck88

Here are the sample images in question, including the SS and Nazi Party leaders, along with various forms of Nazi iconography:

  • "Heydrich in colour".
    "Heydrich in colour".
  • Himmler, too.
    Himmler, too.
  • SS parade
    SS parade
  • Göbbels
    Göbbels
  • More Nazi fancruft
    More Nazi fancruft

A more disturbing selection. Who would want to colourise / glamourise depictions of atrocities, victims, and the war dead?

  • [No caption]
    [No caption]
  • "toter britischer Soldat Recolored"
    "toter britischer Soldat Recolored"
  • The Jews of Mogilev
    The Jews of Mogilev
  • From the Stroop Report
    From the Stroop Report
  • From the same report. Such nice uniforms!
    From the same report. Such nice uniforms!

I find these uploads problematic for several reasons:

  1. The images are out of scope, as Wikipedia already holds the exact same (minus the colourising), authentic images provided by Germany’s Federal Archives.
  2. The colourising is done by an amateur, with no apparent qualifications. We cannot be certain that this is an accurate portrayal. Using such images amounts to falsification of history.
  3. 100% of the user’s uploads are dealing with Nazi Germany. Ruffneck88 also added images to categories such as “Nazi armbands” [2], “Skulls and crossbones symbols of Nazi Germany” [3], and others. This shows a preoccupation with “Nazi fancruft.”
  4. For someone who exclusively deals with the subject of Nazi Germany and is concerned that images (not) relating to Nazi armbands are “correctly” classified not to be aware of the symbolism surrounding “88” is odd. Hence my conclusion that Wikimedia commons is being inappropriately used as a web host for someone's private hobby and potential advocacy.
  5. On at least one occasion, it was shown that Ruffneck88 stole somebody else’s image and uploaded it as his own. See:
I would like to hear from Ruffneck88 if there are other images that may have been misappropriated in this way.

Lastly, I’m not alone with having these concerns. Here’s a deletion discussion where the images were described “fake”:

I welcome further discussion of this matter. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for responding K.e.coffman. There's a few things to unpack here:
  1. The scope of commons is pretty daggum broad compared to en.wiki. As I pointed out in one of the DRs, we would normally keep a version of the same B&W even if it were just a different file type. We also fairly regularly keep comparatively minor crops of the same image. So it's not clear that the existence of the original version is really a crisis from the standpoint of Commons.
  2. If there are historical inaccuracies in the colorization, we can deal with that. In fact, we could use your expertise in the area to help us identify and fix any existing issues. We do this kind of thing all the time with regard to maps.
  3. Although it's a bit up in the air legally with regard to colorization of a single photo, it's certainly possible that the courts would eventually rule definitively that these are protected by copyright, and so holding a freely licensed image to a colorization is valuable from the perspective of a media repository.
  4. Also from the perspective of a media repository, among scores of millions of files, who the uploader is isn't terribly relevant. We have to treat these the same as if there was just someone who colorized old photos, and some of the photos they colorized happened to be related to Nazi Germany. From the perspective of being a source for free media for Wikimedia projects and for the general public, the effect is the same. We either have the resources or we don't, and the uploader is immaterial.
Besides that, in a more meta perspective, removing used files for the purpose of deletion on Commons, especially files that have been used to many years, and especially reverting editors on a project where you don't necessarily speak the language well enough to have a nuanced discussion on the matter, is pretty cross-wiki disruptive. Please don't do that anymore.
Other than that, as you point out, if the images are non-free, then please nominate them for deletion. I don't think you're going to find anyone here who is going to do anything other than thank you for doing so. GMGtalk 23:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Edit conflict) Many images on Commons have near-duplicates that differ in minor ways. That alone doesn't mean they're not educationally useful. Regarding point 2: "falsification of history" could apply to any colorized image, since there's no way for any retoucher (amateur or otherwise) to know exactly what the scene looked like at the time the photo was taken. Besides, the accuracy of the colorizations is a moot point as far as Commons is concerned, per COM:NPOV. The solution there is to put {{Retouched picture}} and a link to the original on the modified image and let the Wikipedias and other reusers decide which they want to use. clpo13(talk) 00:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another authentic portrayal? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: “We can deal with that” – what is the plan to “identify and fix any existing issues”? Are users here experts on Leeb specifically or the Nazi era in general? On to the substance of the matter: The majority of the uploads by Ruffneck88 are COM:NOTUSED. “A media file which is neither:

  • realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor
  • legitimately in use as discussed above”.

I contend that the educational value of such images is actually negative, presenting someone’s personal interpretation as “historical truth”. As I mentioned, the best way to describe these images is “fake”; they have no (legitimate) place in articles on historical subjects.

When used, it’s possibly being done out of ignorance. From a personal perspective, when I first encountered such an image sample article, I had assumed that it was the original. I thought “the Nazis were so advanced, of course their official portraits were in colour” :). These images could also be used a subtle form of advocacy; as in: Look at those fabulous uniforms! Etc. (see samples above)

That Wikimedia Commons is being used as a depository for ahistorical images is inappropriate. Separately, Ruffneck88 was shown on at least one occasion to have uploaded a stolen image. AGF only goes this far. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The uploader seems to have a case of Wehrmacht & Waffen-SS hero worship"

Such accusations are not appropriate on any wiki project. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
K.e.coffman may have a point. Colorization is not a problem in itself, but using these images to promote Nazi ideology is a problem. As well as using them to paint Nazi people as rosy characters and WW2 attrocities in good light is not OK. So this needs more careful evaluation. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Yann: a colorised version of a B&W photo has EDUSE and might be used. Wikimedia Commons should be a depository for historical images because of it's COM:SCOPE. Nazi propaganda (or any other propaganda) has nothing to do with it. So please do not nominate for deletion files on these basis. Ruthven (msg) 06:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's evidence of actually using these image to promote Nazi ideology, though. It seems like not adhering to assuming good faith if pretty much anyone uploading Nazi Germany files would be presumed to be a neo-Nazi just because the files could potentially be used to promote Nazism. That's not to say all colorized versions are useful, but deleting them like this is just wrong. --AnEvenBetterSpot (talk) 06:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: some are done better than others. In the case of File:FeldmarschallVonLeeb.jpg something really went wrong. I don't believe these images make Nazis look like rosy characters. The Feldmarschall actually looks like he's suffering from some kind of skin disease. People have all kinds of reasons to contribute here. So what if a historian is fascinated by Nazi history and has a degree in photoshop? K.e.coffman is openly accusing a user of worshipping Nazi ideology, I don't see how we could possibly justify that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvalkin: you can suspect whatever you want, but making accusations is a whole different territory. 88 could also be their birth year. The human brain has a strong focus on seeing connections, even when they may not be there at all. For example, in Back to the Future, the DeLorean has to travel at 88mph, that can only mean one thing: some bucket head has thought of this before and made a stupid conspiracy around it! And they have! "The two main characters are Doc and Marty, and what do skinheads wear? Doc Martens boots." The rest of the video as well as this one goes even further off the rails. Is someone who uploads only Nazi stuff with 88 in their user name suspect? I honestly don't know. You'd have to ask a statistician and the answer will probably take at least half an hour to explain. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant request to change username. GMGtalk 19:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Colouring historical images is educationally useful if done reasonably well. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 06:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviour of User:Alexis Jazz

Well, this is blowing up. I explained above that my edits to the articles were good faith attempts to use authentic images in articles on historical subjects. In response, user Alexis Jazz left me a nasty message accusing me of "vandalism" [4] while describing my edits as "censorship" in an edit summary [5].

Does the community here support using such images in articles on historical subjects? A geniune question. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GreenMeansGo already called your actions "damn near vandalism", I'm just not as subtle as GMG. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After reading this thread, I removed one of these pictures too [6]. I agree it's better (aka more encyclopedic) an authentic image than one of these revisionist reinterpretations (his eyes were that green?). Said that, the uniformed guy being nazi or not is not relevant. If someone wants to invest their time colouring stuff -> pfft... up to them (when nazis completed, vegetables next, please). Selecting one image or another should be left to community's choice though. Not this community, but wikipedias' ones. Strakhov (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strakhov, it depends. If the colorization (or any other kind of restoration) is flawed, I agree (I made his eyes a bit less green btw). If it's done well (preferably using color information from photos/videos that often can't be uploaded here), I think it's valuable. Black and white is not representative either, people were not black and white 70 years ago. Everything that's described in the history books happened in color in reality, but color photography wasn't always around. If a particular image became famous as a black and white photo we also shouldn't replace it with a colored version in articles (but a color version on Commons would be fine). Colored versions of historic photos should never be removed (unless copyvio or extremely poorly done). - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above. Whether they're here is not propagandistic. How they are used elsewhere is an issue for those project in enforcing NPOV, and is a decision that needs to be made by those projects on a case-by-case basis. For example, I don't think Hitler is really the best photo to use on a generic article on colorization, and I would argue that if I were an active member of that project. But whether someone uses a colorized or B&W photo photo in the context of the main article for that subject, is not a decision for Commons to enforce through deletion. GMGtalk 10:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hans-Jürgen Neubert

In this edit, Hans-Jürgen Neubert is openly alleging me a criminal offence and threating with legal actions. The couple of categories he is refering to, were deleted in accordance with Commons policy, as they had no content such as parental categories (so-called orphaned categories). Srittau can confirm it very well. But this is absolutely not the point here. No matter what I did and if it was good or bad; the allegation of a real criminal offence as well as legal threats, especially using my complete real name, is a severe insult and deserves a long-term block. Hans-Jürgen Neubert had already been blocked 1 week for a xenophobic remark, he was several times requested on his talk page to respect COM:Categories when editing in existing categories or creating new ones, he had been short-time blocked for violating it again and again. I really see no willingness by this user to cooperate in any constructive way. Please do not forget that Commons is an international project based on cooperation between users from various countries and cultures, and a user with xenophobic views is obviously wrong here. All in all, an indef block seems more than appropriate. Thanks --A.Savin 13:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • What´s your matter with legal clearment? You can explain why You sniff my business IP and take it for non-sequitur, like named a nationality as xenophobic. I have talked with Srittau (for 2 weeks), there was never a empty Category, just another lie. He suggested that you displacement. You added by yourself the full name (I work since i´m her with clearname) and lawyers take post code for postal adress. Wikipedia is not a gangland area. You know it since many weeks. Mobbing as crime, digital, too - needs distance. I do it since 2017 - Again, stop hovering! Thanks, --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 17:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Real name isn't a problem, since it's already on your userpage; you need to delete that userpage (or remove the name and revdelete it) if you're concerned about people using that real name.
  • Criminal offense: Hans-Jürgen, are you suggesting that A. Savin is in Scotland? Judging by en:mobbing, this is a legal offense only in Scotland. This seems rather non-sequitur.
  • General perspective: you're making unsubstantiated accusations of illegal behavior (and per previous bullet, impossible accusations if I understand rightly), and here again making the same accusations, plus a completely unsubstantiated claim of en:packet sniffing. There's no way that this kind of accusation belongs here without any evidence: an admin reviewing this activity must clamp down hard.
  • Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Themightyquill

I'm not a fan of dragging people to this notice boards but could someone please slap Themightyquill with a trout over Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/04/Category:Photographs by Jeroen van Lelieveld. An admin shouldn't close their own DR's, even if they are open for a long time. Especially if there is no consensus for their decision. This is a clear abuse of admin tools. Natuur12 (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I restored the 3 categories, and reopened the discussion. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree admins should generally refrain from closing their own DRs. If an admin opens a DR and the file/page/category fairly clearly violates some policy and there is no opposition (or even some support) after a long time, I could possibly let it slide if the same admin closes that DR. However, that was not the case here. As for the actual issue, I'm not sure. I sometimes too create categories for a single photo. Usually because there is some structure like "photos from (source) - photos from (source) by (photographer)". To keep things consistent, I prefer to create a category with a single photo rather than move all those to "photos from (source)". Those categories aren't hurting anyone either. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Yann, I restored the images in the 3 categories and added a recent image to one of those. Elly (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed the DR as an uninvolved admin. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given this and this comment we might have to hold a de-admin procedure. Admins that close their own DR and stand by that action , even after being corrected by a fellow admin are problematic. Natuur12 (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be gobsmacked if that works. No de-admin was allowed to be started for Jcb and what has happened here is peanuts compared to that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Natuur12: As an administrator, perhaps you can help reduce the CfD backlog to help avoid situations like this. The current backlog is 58 months, meaning that an admin that starts a CfD can expect to wait as long as five years before it is closed - and doubly so for Themightyquill because they and I are the only two admins currently active in closing old CfDs. I also feel that Themightyquill asking Yann to participate in the discussion, pointing out that it had sat untouched for a year, was completely reasonable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have little motivation to participate as much as I used to in DR's as long as this kind of abuse is tolerated. Natuur12 (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's an underlying problem: The reason for the CfD backlog is in most cases not a lack of acting admins (though admins' action is not required there). In most cases it is a lack of consensus, which is required here, or even a lack of interest. Thus the CfD mechanism doesn't work as intended: A discussion is worth nothing as soon as anyone says "No". So we could bulk close most CfD requests regardless of the arguments of the discussions per "User x opposes, declined, lack of consensus". So the whole CfD procedure goes ad absurdum. Maybe some day we can celebrate this way the 20-year anniversary of an open CfD request. --Achim (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Achim55. I agree but it's not just quantity but quality of involvement. While the backlog of CfD cases is a problem, I'm not sure stalemate discussions are necessarily a problem. If there are two strong arguments on either side, I tend to leave the discussion open (hoping someone will come up with a better solution in the future) rather than closing as no consensus. If, however, someone puts foward a strong argument for one action, and others respond with, essentially, "But I like it the way it is!" or even worse, argument-less comments that amount to a vote in what's meant to be a discussion, I have trouble accepting that as some kind of veto over action. Finally, let's all remember that these are, at least in some ways, different than deletion nominations for an image or a wikipedia article -- If it becomes necessary/justified in the future, any user (admin or not) can easily recreate a deleted category in less time than it takes me to manually close a CfD, especially if there's only one image in the category. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=322081453"