User:Houmouvazine and User:Ms10vc

Massive creation of questionable categories

This regards categories created by Benzoyl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log).

I just stumbled on to this because I happened to see what I thought was a rather useless category on an image. Category:Man and two women. This struck me as a meaningless intersection that would not be helpful, so I went to look for more like this, thinking I would do a bundled discussion of them all. And I did find more, Category:Adult with two children, Category:Five men , Category:Two and one people, Category:Four women . You get the idea, every permutation of number and gender of people in an image.

Wondering how deep this rabbit hole goes, I opened up their contribs and filtered for just category edits, and found that this user is creating new categories, some of them rather questionable, at a rate of a dozen or more every single day. From today's list I see Category:People with briefcases and Category:People holding briefcases because that's an important distinction to make. This all reminds me very much of a situation that developed around this time last year on en.wp that I'm sure some here are aware of, when we had a user who created tens of thousands of questionable redirects and a year later we're still cleaning up that mess. I'm not sure how many total categories we're talking about here, but if at the rate he's creating new categories it got to be at least several hundred by now, probably more.

I'd like to be clear that I am not suggesting that this user is acting in bad faith, or that every single category they are creating is problematic. It would actually be much easier if that were the case because we could just delete them all, but that's not what I'm seeing. So, what this means is that, should a significant portion of the community share my view that there are unnecessary and unhelpful categories being created in large numbers by this user, a review of these creations will be in order, and probably a temporary restriction on them creating new categories until said review is complete. I would therefore ask that other users take a look at some of the categories created by this user and see if they share my assessment that there is a problem here.

For the record the reason I am starting this discussion here and not on their talk page is that I can see that this has been brought up there before and they were not very responsive to these concerns, so I'd like the community at large to weigh in on it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I tried just now to inform them of this discussion, but first something seemed to go wrong with the template and then they moved their entire talk page and left a redirect there, so... they may or may not realize what I was trying to tell them... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: You say you'd like the community at large to weigh in, but you posted this on the administrators' noticeboard (rather than at the village pump). Do you want just the administrator community to weigh in? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I would imagine ot would be admins who would have to do all the work, but whichever. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Comment I think "gender" is important. --Benzoyl (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

For example now, 248 in Category:Men and women, 452 in Category:Two women. They (categories) are now still less files. But, Subdivision is necessary. --Benzoyl (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

For example, Category:People with containers > Category:People with briefcases
= not holding (briefcases on ground etc). --Benzoyl (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Benzoyl seems to archive his talk page when it reaches the template transclusion limit by moving it, and then cut-pasting recent threads back. It's not a normal method (it obscures the history). I left him a note pointing at the directions at COM:ARCHIVE. Revent^talk 02:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Sorry, I did'nt know general archive way. Best way is not "move a page" Copy paste to User talk:Benzoyl/log2. --Benzoyl (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC) Incidentally, the archiving because of Category:Pages with too many expensive parser function calls --Benzoyl (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Benzoyl: Yes, just copy-paste the material to the archive page, then remove it from your talk page. (You can have this done automatically by a bot). That way the history of your talk page stays intact. Revent^talk 02:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Where does that end? Eight women, one man and two cats with a dog walking on two legs while having mustard on the muzzle? How deep do you want to go? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Four women - Category:Eight women are "not my creation".... how do I say this. This is a problem "Think everyone" --Benzoyl (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC) --Benzoyl (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

You say "subdivision is necessary". It is clear you believe this, but I would question why it is necesssary or helpful to subdivide to such an extent. It does nothing to enhance the user experience that I can see. My understanding of the purpose of categories is that they are for organizing content on related subjects, not for documenting every single aspect of every single image. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

By country, By color, By gender, and By number. I think all need. --Benzoyl (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

As the one of reason, Easy to understand with "visual" in Category. Females and males different clothing etc. --Benzoyl (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• This really should have been submitted as a nomination for deletion or, at the very least, on the Village pump as was suggested. As a veteran admin of the English Wikipedia and having edited here before, I would have expected they would know this.

• As someone who has occasionally added those categories I also think they are basically unneeded. I tried to imagine a time when we would want to know of images with X number of Men or Women and I just cannot think of one. The only problem removing these categories might cause is that some of these images may not have any categories at all if we delete these. Reguyla (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• For example, Category:Musical trios. FFF, FFM, MMF, MMM .There is 4 gender combination. --Benzoyl (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC) Category:Female musical trios is also Unnecessary? --Benzoyl (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Comment The merits or flaws of specific categories, or categorization policy in general, are off-topic here. The relevant issue for this venue, really, is if Benzoyl has himself been problematic by refusing to listen to such complaints in the past. It's beyond the remit of this noticeboard to make decisions about specific categories, or what level of intersection in category names is appropriate... those are debates for the community as a whole to address, especially since such issues have been quite controversial in the past. Revent^talk 02:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• It has become the theme of (only) "Gender category" by Beeblebrox. I don't refuse. I tried participate in past discussions. --Benzoyl (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• In Japan and China, There are words (itten mean "One"). 紅 一点 (Kō-itten = one female and males = Kō mean "Red") and 黒 一点 (Koku-itten = one male and females = Koku mean "Black") --Benzoyl (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC) --Benzoyl (talk) 08:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Just to re-iterate, I am not looking to have a discussion about the merits of each specific category, there are far too many for that. What I believe we should be discussing is whether the creation of large numbers of such categories is problematic and if a more thorough investigation is in order, possibly including a requirement that Benzoyl stop creating categories for the moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Not the only me, creating categories or should not creating, Do you think it is necessary "permission system"? There is not "Beforehand creating categories discussion page" in Commons (I thought it would be nice if there is). --Benzoyl (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you're correct that you are not the only person that is perhaps creating categories they shouldn't, and of course there is no pre-permisssion system for creating them. There is however Commons:Categories, the official policy on categories, and I would argue that until it can be determined whether your many creations are compliant with it you should refrain from making more. This is in the interest of keeping this issue as small as possible as it will take a considerable amount of time and energy to review all the ones you have already created. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

how long? till when ? @"you should refrain from making (categories) more. " --Benzoyl (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Now I changed, 0 files in Category:Adult with two children.
But, Category:Statues of mothers with two children < Category:Statues of mothers with children is no touching. (because of not my creation)
‎I'll leave you, {{CatDiffuse}} problem. --Benzoyl (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Also 0 in Category:Two men and woman, 0 in Category:Man and two women --Benzoyl (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Is this in was really good ? I am not convinced with that. But more than this, I don't want to quarrel with you. --Benzoyl (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC) --Benzoyl (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no desire to quarrel with you either, rather I am asking the community and the admin corps to have a look at your category creations and see if they agree that there is a problem that needs addresssed there. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox With all due respect, You don't realize yet?

"My category creations" were just follow, "other user's category creations". Why target only me continue?

I think it is rude "regarding my category creations as problem behavior" be asking here.

I think so too, "Wondering how deep this rabbit hole goes" is precise representation, sometimes.

deep, deep... (Not My Creation) Reading in art - People reading in art - Females reading in art - Girls reading in art - Girls reading indoors in art - Sitting girls reading indoors in art --Benzoyl (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC) --Benzoyl (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• I’m very surprised by this whole affair. Looks like Beeblebrox suddenly come across categorization and is in awe of the level of detail that other contributors have added to our tree of topics. Yet, instead of marvel in wonder and thank the community for the effort so far, Beeblebrox sees this as somehow objectionable and drags Benzoyl to the bench of AN/U for questioning. Yet nothing shown so far warrants Benzoyl more than a pat on the back and a cheerful carry-on — nothing «questionable», at all, in my view (and, yes, it’s possible to create bad categories and to categorize badly — I try to counter it all the time; but that’s not the case at hand at all). If Beeblebrox doesn’t want to work on categorization or even doesn’t want to use categories, well, be very welcome to do so, but please leave alone those others who focus on different forms of contributing to Commons: There’s room for everybody. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• If you create a ton of categories, some of them will be useful. But I can not agree to consider such activity as a contribution. Confucius said, "To go beyond is as wrong as to fall short."--禁樹なずな (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment — Beeblebrox brought two issues here, a review of the categories created by the user perceived to be problematic and the deletion of the problematic contribution if they are actually what they were perceived to be. They are actually not requesting an administrative action against the user. Thus, these categories should have been either nominated for deletion or a thread about its review at village pump. That being said, I have to agree that not all the categories created by this user are useful but they are not completely disruptive. I also believe that Beeblebrox request for review of these categories is a good idea. I advise Benzoyl not to create any category until the underlying issue is resolved. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 07:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I personally think, that even categories "Man and two women" and "Adult with two children" are useful, if we only have images for them. Taivo (talk) 11:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Shmanʹkivtsi - Chortkiv

User:Shmanʹkivtsi - Chortkiv was blocked (see: User talk:Shmanʹkivtsi - Chortkiv#Block November 2016 and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 61#Огородник Максим ) for many downloading files other authors. He continues. See: Special:Contributions/Shmanʹkivtsi_-_Chortkiv:

• File:Бариська школа.jpg
• File:Фігура Св. Миколая (Бариш).jpg
• File:Фігура Матері Божої (Бариш).jpg
• File:Пам’ятний знак «Тризуб» на честь 10-ї річниці незалежності України.jpg
• File:В'їзний знак у село Бариш.jpg
• File:Біля фігури Матері Божої (Бариш).jpg
• File:Перше причастя у с. Верб'ятин.jpg
• File:Біля фігури Матері Божої (Верб'ятин).jpg
• File:Перше причастя у селі Бариш.jpg
• File:Одна із вулиць села Бариш.jpg
• File:Фігура Архістратига Михаїла (Бариш).jpg
• File:Садочок "Сонечко" (Бариш).jpg
• File:Став у Бариші.jpg
• File:Фігура Святого Миколая (Бариш).jpg

. --Mykola Vasylechko 17:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ahonc: --Ymblanter (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

continues:

• File:Прощання із парафією о. Стецика.jpg
• File:Перше причастя із Іваном Гнідцем.jpg
• File:Паска 2016 у селі Шманьківці.jpg

--Mykola Vasylechko 19:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Files deleted, user blocked indef. I think he's just not willing, or able, to understand that we need free media. Looking through all his uploads now. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Mass renaming of categories

Red Winged Duck (talk · contribs) renamed today hundreds of categories from English names to non-English names. Since this is not the first time, and they were warned to find consensus before, I blocked them for a day. However, the categories are still renamed. Do we have an instrument which would roll back all contribution of this user say for today, including categories? I genuinely have no time now to rename them manually, I am too busy at my work until at least end of next week. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I looked at a few lately renamed categories and it seems that RWD changes English names of Belarusian localities to Belarusian names created according to the "Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script". IMO names of localities fall under "proper names" as mentioned in COM:CAT#Category names, so they are all right and there is no need to revert the changes. It is other question, whether these changes were really needed. --jdx ^Re: 09:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

There are multiple ways to romanize Belarusian names, as explained e.g. here (note that this romanization is explicitly different from the one you link). RWD were earlier pointed out to this difference, and alerted about a need to find consensus, but they preferred to continue renaming without discussion, which is clearly disruptive editing. If there is a simple way to revert everything back, I would prefer to do it. If there is no simple way and everything needs to be reverted manually, I just have no time to do it now.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Image from Internet ?

File:Agrarhandelsbetrieb.png I think taht image is taken from internet. I am not sure. what can i do ? --Blonder1984 (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I've done a Google reverse image search, and can't find any other instances of the image online. I think you should probably ask the uploader for some further information, and if you're not satisfied with the response, consider opening a Deletion Review. Nick (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

about User:Benzoyl

Benzoyl (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

User:Benzoyl uploads copyright violation files and out of scope files many times. Files uploaded by him/her have been frequently deleted. (Please see many deletion records in User talk:Benzoyl.) He/She seems not to understand copyright and aim of Wikimedia Commons. I think that warning by administrator is necessary to him/her.

In addition, he/she is an indefinitely blocked user in ja.wikipedia. (Please see ja:利用者:Benzoyl. ) --Ralth Galth (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

 Info Investigated also in AN/B; no reason for block found. Ankry (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I list up. These are files uploaded by Benzoil and deleted due to copyright violation (including COM:DW, COM:FOP#Japan, COM:PACKAGING) .

• File:Minimal underwear for men designed by porn actor Taka Kato.jpg
• File:Christian Riese Lassen advertising posters in the Japanese train.jpg
• File:Tokyo Pro Baseball on Television in 1967.jpg
• File:Burger King's KURO-NINJA black buns colored by Bamboo Charcoal in 2013.jpg
• File:Attendance Criterion of Doze.jpg
• File:TV Program AD Poster at Shinjuku Station Square.jpg
• File:A small present soshina by Video Research in 2007.jpg
• File:LUMINE EST in 25 March 2014.jpg
• File:Cool TA Q BIN (8503026296).jpg
• File:「注意！街灯周辺ではゆりかもめのフンにご注意ください。」(佃大橋) (3956552421).jpg
• File:ごはんですよ!入り納豆 (410382292).jpg
• File:The bronze monuments of Antarctic expedition 15 Sakhalin huskies at the base of Tokyo Tower 2006 (2243895217).jpg
• File:The bronze monuments of Antarctic expedition 15 Sakhalin huskies at the base of Tokyo Tower 2008.jpg
• File:The bronze monuments of Antarctic expedition 15 Sakhalin huskies at the base of Tokyo Tower 2006 (2243895217).jpg
• File:The bronze monuments of Antarctic expedition 15 Sakhalin huskies at the base of Tokyo Tower 2008.jpg
• File:FRESHNESS BURGER's Liberation Wrapper printed with female's ochobo mouth.jpg
• File:The Perfect Vending Machine in 2006.jpg
• File:カップ麺の棚 (6194953019).jpg
• File:献花台 (5071132931).jpg
• File:下痢止め (1205969566).jpg
• File:Takarakuji Asakusa 2006 (2243959669).jpg
• File:MORINAGA ICE CREAM (2244540884).jpg

(from User talk:Benzoyl/log1)

These are not all of them. I think that warning by administrator is necessary to him/her.--Ralth Galth (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Maybe User:Benzoyl can not distinguish between important and trivial.

He/she constantly creates useless categories. (e.g. Category:Black, gold, orange, white)

Even if other users point out to him/her, he/she does not reply seriously. (e.g. File talk:23.3.20 ＮＥＡＡ：給食支援（仙台市七郷小）① 東日本大震災における災害派遣活動 48.jpg)--禁樹なずな (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

 Comment See "Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Black, gold, orange, white" --Benzoyl (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that User:Benzoyl has uploaded the copyrighted works intentionally. I'd like everyone to read

• User_talk:Benzoyl#Please_don't_upload_copyrighted_works_while_you_know.
• User_talk:Benzoyl#Please do not upload photos of posters.
• User_talk:Benzoyl#Please don't upload photos of copyrighted advertisements.

--Ralth Galth (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Commons:De minimis#An example, File:GT2 - Flickr - CarSpotter.jpg - Someone add The Dark Knight. What about? --Benzoyl (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• 2. ref Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Benzoyl - posters
• 3. ref Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Benzoyl - advertisements

 Comment User:Benzoyl doesn't intend to violate copyrights.

However, as soon as he finds something astound, he compulsively upload or categorise it, and so, his deeds tend to confuse other users.--禁樹なずな (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --Benzoyl (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

To 禁樹なずな. Thank you for your comment. If so, I think Benzoyl should not join the Wikimedia Commons. Participation by people who don't understand what is the main subject of the photos, it brings confusion to the Wikimedia Commons. --Ralth Galth (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Picture refused

Hello, I want to upload this picture of a house. I made it myself, but it is refused. I want to upload it to Astraat 19 and to Huize Noordeinde. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Standorhoutmees (talk • contribs) 14:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not understand. You have no deleted contributions and your only upload (a dog) is OK. Did you get some error message when trying to upload a photo about house? Which one? (Bytheway, photographing of houses is really problematic in some countries.) Taivo (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Look at the filter log. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably small size jpeg. Indicates the file has probably been lifted from a website. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 07:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

898×1600. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: Wo klemmt die Datei? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 19:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Blocked by the filter who is blocking copyvios from x-wiki upload feature. This is a false positive, but that is unavoidable. The file can be uploaded via Special:UploadWizard. The user asked at Commons:Help_desk#Picture refused as well. The filter is showing a warning, so it should be possible to upload the file following a few steps whiteout asking. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Copyvios from User:Gurbar Akaal

All images uploaded (earlier this year) by Gurbar Akaal (talk · contribs) appear to be copyvios with false claims of either "own work"/cc-by-sa or "PD-India". Please mass-delete. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment - While I disagree that they are own work, I do want to agree that majority of the images are PD work. Wikicology (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Which ones? Most of the ones I've seen are paintings of undisclosed authorship, evidently modern (20th century). They all seem much too young to assume 60 years p.m.a. (and in any case, it would be up to the uploader to prove that). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
    • So, is anything going to happen here? Do I really have to nominate all of these files for deletion separately? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Illegitimate Barrister

• Illegitimate Barrister (talk · contribs)

Illegitimate Barrister repeatedly has uploaded images that have been eventually deleted. He did not participate in Commons:Deletion requests/File:'You Bet Your Life' title card (1955-1960).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sammy Lee in 'You Bet Your Life', 1956.png. He has been notified about this, but he constantly either removes or archives the notifications. Also, when tried to delete the local en wiki copy, I told him that I would nominate the Commons one for deletion. Then he swore me off. If two images are not enough, one of the images is discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/Infinite (Eminem album), though not yet closed. Hedwig in Washington can explain the user's conduct on one matter. If that is also not enough, look at all the logs at his user talk page. --George Ho (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

George Ho, What is the problem here? I am struggling to see why you dragged this user here. They swore me off on the English Wikipedia, so they should be blocked on Commons? No! They ignored the DR I initiated, they should be blocked, Oh... yes! They erase the DR notification on their talk page, so they should be blocked? George, it is not compulsory for users to participate in every discussion and policy allow users to remove DR notification from their user talk page, this does not magically mean they are rude or hate you. If you think they have uploaded copyvios, of course you are welcomed to tag them for deletion and warn them, if they continue to repeat the same behavior, you can draw the attention of any administrator to it. This noticeboard is for discussing serious problems. Thank you. Wikicology (talk) 07:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear, Wikicology. The user keeps uploading files that have copyright issues, and he puts notifications into User talk:Illegitimate Barrister/Archive 1 (latest version. Here are his archiving activities: , . I hate to admit that he does some good contributions, like File:Seal of Holmes Beach, Florida.png. However, the notifications keep coming. --George Ho (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any problems here. The user seems to upload images in good faith. Copyright is tricky (and often ridiculous). Archiving your talk page is completely fine. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

My apologies to Illegitimate Barrister for not showing good faith to him. Copyright has become annoying anymore. I don't know... maybe he can use COM:VPCOPY? --George Ho (talk) 08:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Wait... I found one proof that he also said that in Commons before archiving the notifications without the swearing. --George Ho (talk) 11:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Found another of his swearing (archived). More likely his swearing represents his disregard for warnings. --George Ho (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done That was indeed absolutely unacceptable. User warned. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Not just user talk page, here is another page. I don't know whether swearing is okay, but your thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems that he accepted the warning and then archived it. --George Ho (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

While he may have rights to archive, look at those samples. He sometimes, occasionally, or often archives messages at the instant of receiving them. --George Ho (talk) 11:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I regularly remove DR notifications on my talk page and do not archive them. If a user manually removes a DR notification instead of just hitting the "undo" button, I think that is a fairly good indication they have seen it and are aware of the DR in process. Whether they chose to participate is their own prerogative. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate behavior of Jcb

User:Daniel.souza.silva

Hi I just got a message from this user in a very rude language with several pernonal attacks - see here. I dont like to block or warn myself cause I'm involved here. So I'm asking for a second view of some admins collegues. Thx. --JuTa 10:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, for a start. Yann (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

A.Savin problem

Light show and copyvios

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon. User has been blocked indefinitely again due to repeated copyright violations and acting against the community's consensus, despite previous blocks and promises not to repeat previous behavior. Some of the comments by Light show still show a worrying amount of ignorance towards the copyright issues they were blocked for before and a lack of willingness to see their own mistakes. From the discussion below, it seems clear that the community appreciates the good faith work that Light show has done over the years, but also feels that having an editor that needs this close monitoring is too much of a burden to the project. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

---

Below is a copy of the reasoning I've included for deletion of two images uploaded by Light show in the last day or so. Because Light show has been banned previously from uploading images, and it seems she has now once again violated policy on copyrights -- even though she knows better because of the prior ban on uploading files -- I am bringing this here for administrator attention. Masem, en.wikipedia administrator, is now aware of this as well. She was unblocked previously here in Commons, promising to not make the same copyright violations as she did prior to her block. The two photos now up for deletion (File:Valley trailer 67-2.jpg, File:Valley trailer 67.jpg) seem to be evidence that she is back to doing the same thing once again, regardless of what she had promised she would no longer do. I leave it up to admins to take care of this further. Evidence for the above follows:

I've been able to determine that both of the screenshots from Valley of the Dolls movie trailers that Light show uploaded (one of which is now the infobox image for the Sharon Tate article) are copyrighted. The trailer can be seen here at Rotten Tomatoes: [1]. At 1:18 into the trailer, the copyright notice comes up as "Copyright ("c" in circle) MCMLXVII by Red Lion Productions, Inc". Then, at imdb [2], the trailer is longer, but the same copyright notice comes up at 3:22 into it as "Copyright ("c" in circle) MCMLXVII by Red Lion Productions, Inc." and 20th Century Fox Film Corporation." This is two trailers with copyright notices. This proves the screenshots Light show uploaded are copyright violations. Light show notated that these images are not copyrighted. This is untrue. Light show has previously been banned from uploading images at Commons because of extensive copyright vios. I'm pinging the following administrators who were involved in the Wikipedia ANI discussion re: her ban from uploading images: Calliopejen1, Diannaa, Laser brain, Moonriddengirl as well as Revent here at Commons. Since this is a major holiday weekend, I figured it would be best to notify several admins to get this dealt with ASAP. Winkelvi (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Deleted. We believe works are naturally copyrighted without explicit release against having copyright. COM:PCP and COM:EVID applies to those without copyright registrations. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I unblocked Light show on Commons, per the unblock request made here, and the requirement (as clarified and slightly amended later) that Lightshow would ask for community review on COM:VPC before uploading images that were not his own work. He was also specifically warned that "Upload problematic images without prior discussion, and a block will be permanent."

Throughout later discussions, it became quite clear (and I had repeatedly pointed out that it was unacceptable) that Lightshow seems to believe that, despite his previous and ongoing sanctions, that a purportedly 'invalid' copyright notice can be ignored, and that he feels confident in assessing when such a notice can be ignored. I have excused this in the past, as not a violation of his unblock conditions, as it occurred during discussions regarding 'if' a file was acceptable for upload.

I see no indication that Lightshow asked for community review of these uploads. As far as I am concerned, this was a violation of the conditions under which he was unblocked.

Light show, I am only leaving you unblocked so that you can participate in this discussion. If you upload ANY more images to Commons, unless the community agrees here to allow you to do so, I will indefinitely block you, and strongly oppose any future unblock request. If this discussion was not already open, I would already have blocked you. Revent^talk 09:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

(note to admins) File:Godspeed-john-glenn-tributes01.jpg was the last upload by Light show prior to my previous edit. Please indefinitely block him, with talk page access enabled, if he uploads any more files before this discussion is resolved. Thanks. Revent^talk 09:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

 Comment The issues surrounding the copyright status of such trailers were recently discussed at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/12#Do_pre_1977_movie_trailers_fall_under_Public_domain.3F. The imformation as yet provide is clearly insufficent, IMO, to establish the PD status of these images (even if the trailers were not renewed, they may be copyrighted material from the movie itself). Revent^talk 10:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

A trailer is a separate film. They obviously include scene clips, but the trailer itself, like compilations and derivative works, have separate registrations. The irony is that if WP offered to link film trailers to their articles, the studios would probably pay WP to get them displayed. A trailer, like a publicity photo, is of value to the studios when displayed. It's also why they are all readily available on IMDB and YouTube. Most of the film articles on IMDB have trailers attached if they were available. --Light show (talk) 10:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Light show: Frankly, the copyright status of the trailer images is not the real issue 'at this venue', it's that you uploaded them without asking the community to review them. However, to reiterate the point, the trailers (or the images you clipped) may easily have been derivative works of the copyrighted movie, and covered by it's copyright even if the trailers 'themselves' were not renewed (and they were blatantly published with notice). Revent^talk 10:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

To be explicit: If you are not blocked as a result of this discussion, you can make your case about the copyright status of the trailer images at COM:UDR, or any other editor can choose to do so. That specific point is off-topic 'here'. Revent^talk 10:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll get trailers reviewed. Just to add, since you used the term "blatantly," that the source files for the trailers that I used had no copyright notice. The ones the tagger found did. Understood. On the other point, I replied to the DR by giving proof that only the film was copyrighted. (And why would a studio would even want to copyright a trailer?)--Light show (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Reply from Light show: Both files were speedy deleted, yet I responded with proof of their validity on the DRs. They were deleted without any rationale or reply, and not per DR guidelines, and based solely on an automatic presumption that the tagger's rationale was correct. There was no time for any of the regular copyright editors to review and comment at the DR. It would be nice if a proper review of these images was made with some actual discussion or justification given, if there is one.

On some other aspects, neither of the source trailers had any copyright notices. There have been various discussions at the Copyright Village Pump that stated that older trailers without a notice were acceptable. I didn't assume linking to a trailer was needed, but if it is, I'll link them for review in the future. And as you know, I have no problem posting requests for image reviews; posting a trailer is just as simple. I was simply trying to replace the poor existing trailer capture in the lead with a better one.

As for the NASA photo, I've added NASA photos in the past without prior review, so the Glenn one seemed OK. However, if you want me to request a review of U.S. government photos, I have no problem with that either.

For the last year or so since I've been requesting reviews, I've done so and have had no arguments about anything. Some of the images weren't approved. I move on. I'm trying to improve WP with missing or needed photos and usually don't bother if an article has good ones. It's actually time consuming, especially if I have to clean them or adjust tone. In any case, I'm surprised that this trailer issue can become so inflated. I'm sure the fact that I have asked the tagger to stop edit warring on a few recent articles has nothing to do with any of this. But all anyone has to do is ask me to start having trailers or government images reviewed and I will.--Light show (talk) 10:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It makes sense for you to have reviews for all your uploads due to the past pattern of debatable images. Nobody is doubting that you have good intentions, but uploading likely copyright violations eats up significant amounts of time from other volunteers. If you can put the case for uploads of classes of images from a source, such as trailers for a specific production company within given years, then at least these decisions can be reused, cutting down the overall volunteer time needed.

Though an indefinite block would be a significant sanction, your impact on the time of others makes this justifiable, so it is good that your response here is conciliatory. Similarly I would not criticise past speedy deletions. At the end of the day you are free to put the evidence forward of copyright status (including after deletion), it would be much better to find ways of doing this for questionable images before their upload. --Fæ (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Fae: For context, Light show's prior ban here was indefinite, and he is (and has long been) banned from uploading 'any' images to the English Wikipedia due to an extensive history of copyright violations. He is well aware (I've said it explicitly, in discussion since) that he was not to upload any images that were not his own work (though it's quite fair to let the NASA stuff slide) without prior community review. He has (a couple of months ago) asked for the community to review images with a visible copyright notice, and since his unblock argued that we can ignore a clear copyright notice if it was supposedly 'defective' on the particular copy of the image we had.

Light show asked (I believe it was around September) if his restriction could be lifted, on the VPC, and after some discussion on a talk page it was agreed by everyone present that it should not be, due to his requests for 'approval' of multiple obviously unacceptable images. Revent^talk 10:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I vaguely recall some of the discussion. Light show can be presumed to be acting in good faith, so it's a great shame that they are struggling with how best to interpret copyright. My suggestion for Light show is to focus on obviously copyright free images, anything else leads to too many problems. My suggestion to Revent as the acting admin is to continue to be open to appeals from Light show and consider restrictions rather than blocks. They may well sufficiently improve their understanding of copyright at some point, and as they are acting in good faith, it's a shame for them to be unable to contribute to the project even in limited ways. Rather than an indefinite block, I would not be against a ban against all uploads for a year unless from pre-agreed sources, leaving Light show able to contribute to copyright discussion, categorization, etc. Pre-agreed sources might, for example, include the Library of Congress; there's lots to yet be mined from that source. --Fæ (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Fae: You've cogently stated why I unblocked Light show previously. My concern (and this was something raised at the time of his unblock) is that even monitoring his uploads over the long term is a significant burden on the community, and frankly I have yet to see evidence that he is getting the point... his requests at the VPC have struck me as 'throw shit at the wall, and see if anything sticks'. The assertion was made (again, at the time of his unblock, by someone who principally edits enwiki) that he was probably one of the worst copyright violators in the history of the English Wikipedia, and that I was insane to give him another chance here. It was explicitly intended as a 'last chance', and I struggle to see how these uploads were not a violation of an unblock condition that he himself suggested.

I believe that Light show is acting in good faith. I do not believe, at this point, that he can be trusted to not return to his previous behavior, and that expecting the community to monitor him forever is unreasonable.

Before 'voting' here, I strongly suggest that people read en:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive903#User:Light_show, and especially the 'essentially unanimous' ANI decision from 2014. At that point, he had been indefinitely banned here for around a year. Revent^talk

• Question from Light show: It just occurred to me that in this entire discussion, including the voting, there have been no questions directed to me. Meaning that no replies by me for anything were wanted. I think one person asked indirectly about "how can we be certain he won't make this mistake again?" Was I supposed to even comment at all, or just sit in the booth? Ironically, of the half-dozen or so questions posed so far, I'm the only one who's asked them. Just curious. --Light show (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Light show: If you were not allowed to participate, you would have undoubtedly been yelled at for doing so. The whole point of notifying people that they are being discussed here is so that they can participate. You can even feel free to vote on proposals regarding yourself, or create new ones. Revent^talk 18:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. But my incentives for proposing things in WP have been mostly eliminated. A few years ago, I asked at AN to simply tell a drive-by tag team to stop personal attacks on an article that I and another editor had spent six months working heavily on, and which we had edited for five years. The result was that I was permanently banned from editing it. But I'll always reply to a question when I see one.--Light show (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Light show: Linking that old AN discussion was probably not the wisest move, in this context. Revent^talk 20:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably not, but it can't make the pending result any worse. And since Kubrick's article got demolished after I was locked out, I recreated it as a website for safekeeping. --Light show (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Light show: Getting way off topic, but I really hope that you are not saying that website is a copyvio (by using the contributions of other prior editors) of an old revision of an enwiki article. Revent^talk 03:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm unclear about your question, if that was a question. I said it was recreated from the old bio, same text, different format, etc.--Light show (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I've been so used to seeing WP articles reproduced I didn't know there was a license involved. I just read Reusing content steps and have added a license to the bottom of all the pages on the site. Let me know if you have any other suggestions. But note that it's only a semi-personal non-commercial hobby site which doesn't actually get many views, and has no incoming links. In fact I've never even been able to find it on Google. But if the site is illegal for some reason, I can just take it down. I haven't even looked at it for the last year. --Light show (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Light show: The page says the text is CC-BY-SA, but you're not complying with the "BY" term... you need to attribute it with a link to the source article. Revent^talk 21:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Check here.--Light show (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for indefinite community ban of Light show

Light show was indefinitely blocked from Commons on 30 November 2013 for "Uploading unfree files after warnings: This is a recurring problem. User has been warned many times to stop uploading files of questionable copyright status. Blocked until they decide they're ready to respect COM:PCP". Light show was banned by the community on the English Wikipedia, on on 4 November 2014, with "overwhelming support", from uploading any images whatsoever. The enwki sanction still stands.

I unblocked Light show, on Commons, on 6 October 2015, with the explicit condition (suggested by him) that he request community review prior to any uploads. He has since requested review for numerous uploads that were clearly unacceptable.

After a discussion in September, it was agreed by De728631 that "relaxing Light Show's conditions would only produce problems, so we better keep his restrictions as they are."

Light show uploaded images excerpted from a movie trailer, without community review, which were subsequently speedily deleted as being published with a copyright notice.(1, 2) These uploads resulted in the above discussion.

Comment from Light show: I'll simply note again that the sources for my screen captures did not show any notice. So any implication that I saw and ignored it would be misleading and imply bad faith. I was only trying to improve on the existing trailer image, which some might consider good faith.

I recalled a recent discussion about U.S. trailers where at least one admin said, "the situation is obviously not blatant enough to tag them for speedy deletion," and Carl Lindberg added, "U.S. law is pretty clear, that if something was published without a copyright notice, it fell into the public domain. It should not matter if a movie was published later, which contained some of the (now public domain) scenes as the trailer." The pure fact that I actually read the CVP and am aware of issues should be considered.

And FWIW, which I now presume is little, the tagger himself has been blocked 14 times of the past few years, a minor detail I mentioned in the Tate talk page since he was (and still is) repeating the same editing warfare style. After his conciliatory comment to me, "Can we please just discuss peacefully? I'd really like that," he immediately proceeded on this highly successful search and destroy mission to do the opposite, namely get me blocked some more. But I realize this is all beside the point (cough-cough).

In summary, all Revent or any editor had to do was tell me on my talk page that trailers, despite their apparent OK, should henceforth be reviewed first. A few words were all that was necessary. Happy holidays. --Light show (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Light show: Your unblock condition was a requirement to ask for community review of all images before uploading. You have ignored this for 'own work' and NASA images, without asking, and been later told it was okay (technically, these were violations of the unblock condition, but allowed to slide). The issue, here, is not if the images 'were actually okay'. It's that you decided to ignore the terms of your unblock, to upload such material without asking for community review first. I do not think you are acting in bad faith. I simply do not trust your judgement, and think you have exhibited (over a period of years) a persistent unwillingness to respect the opinion of the community when it differs from yours, and to continually search for new loopholes. Revent^talk 12:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Since 99% of my recent uploads have been pre-approved before being added, some might see that as a persistent willingness to comply. Beside this single trailer clip event, I've uploaded some cropped commons photos, not just government photos, without issue. Light show (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC) (who's still a he, btw)

It is my opinion, as the administrator who unblocked Light show under conditions that he himself suggested, that these uploads clearly violated those conditions. I thus think it is appropriate to poll the community regarding a consensus to indefinitely ban Light show from editing Commons, to be enforced by an indefinite block, and with future unblock requests referred to the community itself.

It should also be noted that I have warned Light show (above) that I will indefinitely block him if he uploads any images until this discussion is resolved. Revent^talk 11:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Support, as proposer, though the closing admin might reasonably consider me too involved. Revent^talk 11:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support, --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Based on my own experiences I really hate banning someone but given the history I support not allowing them to upload any more images. I wonder if we could set an edit filter to prevent that though and still let them try contributing in other areas. Reguyla (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose I see other solutions rather than an indef block. Commons is home to a number of dedicated volunteers with firm beliefs when it comes to open knowledge and copyright, so I don't see Light show as part of an 'other'. As an alternative, a year ban against uploads, where Light show could still request some friendly person to take responsibility for any suggested upload, may help unlock this situation, and restore some good will. If Light show were during that time able to show a better understanding of copyright in line with policy, there could then be sufficient evidence for an appeal to be reasonable by referring to the requested uploads or related discussions. BTW, it's Christmas eve, go do something more festive. --Fæ (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Fæ. And what catch my first attention is this by Kaldari. Jee 02:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC) See below. Jee 06:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment The barnstar doesn't mean much, the 500+ uploads that are live as of today do. To be frank, over 50% of the edits the user made are photographs and crops of such (960 live edits, 1330 total incl. deleted). That means 370 edits have been deleted, how many of those are DRs started by LS or crops of deleted files I didn't research. I hate to block him for what could be a stupid mistake. On the other hand, it is an ongoing problem. I don't want to dig that old discussion out of the archives again, as far as I remember, LS was asked to provide links to VPCOPY before uploading. I'd like to ask Lightshow how he can avoid being dragged here again in case he won't be blocked? Service: User analysyis --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I've posted about 200 separate questions at the CVP about proposed image uploads just over the last 6 months. (Yeah, I know I assumed too much about a trailer clip, and went a bit too far. Accidents happen. Any better suggestions? --Light show (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: For the purpose of such an analysis, you should probably also include Light show's contributions under his previous account. See en:Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Wikiwatcher1 (the case has now been pending for over five years). Revent^talk 12:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I would rather see evidence from 4 years ago from another project, left in the archive. I would hope that the majority of the community understand the importance of rewarding improved behavior and giving everyone the opportunity to restart and move on from old mistakes or old arguments. --Fæ (talk) 13:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Fæ, I think Revent's point is that old account name, current account name, four years ago, a year ago, six months ago, today -- the behavior hasn't seemed to improve nor has the understanding. I would probably be in total agreement with you on this were it not for one thing: Light show agreed to a type of screening process before uploading certain images and didn't do that. To me, that says they have their own interpretation of the stipulations they agreed to or just ignored those stipulations. From the "support" comments above, that's the problem others are having and they seem to not want to spend time on fixing and cleaning up what Light show either ignores or interprets differently. This is also the gist of the complaints I read at AN/I over the same issue, same editor. I like that you don't want to hang LS but you're also asking she have a babysitter, and I don't see how effective that will be, given the fact that she's already (seemingly) ignored a similar restriction to do as she pleases. Winkelvi (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: My little statistic is not meant to sway votes. I just wanted to get my point across, being that I am torn between giving in to my greed of wanting more images and throwing the book at him for being a constant nuisance as a not learning copyvio uploader. And I forgot about the old account. I agree with Fæ, improved behavior should be rewarded. I can't see permanently improved behavior, but slipping back into the old, bad, behavior pattern. Having another peek at the whole mess, I have no choice but to say we better cut our losses and have the block stick this time. Therefore:

 Support what a mess... --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 21:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment I am a bit undecided. Obviously repeated uploads of copyright violations is not good, but IMHO, it is much less bad than agressive behaviours we see much too often on Commons. And those thugs insulting and harassing people often get through, so... I know I will be told OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but still. As Reguyla mentioned above, it would be good if we could restrict people like Light show to editing, no uploads. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Otherusersexist, Yann. You are absolutely right. I am awaiting a shi* storm for blocking DrKAy for too long since fuck off is normal language blablabla. I was undecided as well, but seeing the situation in context with enwiki and the other account (wikiwatcher1) there's not much wiggle room for AGF IMO. Since we don't have the tools to restrict the upload rights (yet), I feel that blocking indefinitely is the only viable option left. Otherwise we will have this discussion again in a few weeks. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 22:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

An upload ban needs no technical implementation, it works like a driving ban. If you are found at the wheel you risk a prison term. So if LS breaks an upload ban they know they risk a long block, with no community discussion needed. I still only see benefits for the community by taking this option. --Fæ (talk) 06:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Weak  Support. I still think it is a bit overkill, but I don't see a better solution. Yann (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment I randomly checked some deleted contents from the old accounts. They seems deleted after strong arguments based on PRP; so not an attempt to flood Commons with copyvios. Some people like Crisco is very strong in public domain reviews; that's why we encourage collaborative efforts. We can't expect same standard from everyone. I saw this too which is also seems a misunderstanding; but should be avoided. All i see as a current requirement is Light show should open a VPC discussion and wait for a conclusion prior to uploads and need to mention that discussion with a link in the file description too as an evidence. Jee 03:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Since some of the DR reasons are mentioned, anyone else is welcome to go back to my copyright case, wherever that is, and you'll see that about 250 of the images were deleted only because Corbis and Getty were selling them on a page that had a copyright notice at the bottom. Eventually, when en:copyfraud was pointed out, they stopped tagging images for that reason (although they were never restored.) Note this.

Another common DR rationale was despite a still having the film details on the front, with the studio, actor, film name, etc., and without a notice on the reverse, it was deleted if just the film had a copyright. The tagger didn't care when I explained the difference, and maybe 50 or so were deleted for that reason alone, although they also eventually stopped using that rationale. When I first began uploading, there were a number of mass speedy deletions, 20-40 at a time with the only rationale being that they couldn't see the back.

A lot of these issues are rooted in the fact that copyright law in the U.S. before 1976 was totally different from Europe's, where apparently to this day, there is no such thing as a copyright registration, copyright renewal, or even a copyright notice. So getting things uploaded as been a struggle. But as mentioned, I'll keep on getting images, trailers, or whatever, approved, as I have been. --Light show (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Because I stopped working here in 2015 due to issues unrelated to this user and have no plans to return, I feel I should not cast a vote. The user has involved me in this discussion, though not by name, and I think things should be set straight re: "the tagger" who stopped tagging his uploads re: not seeing the photo backs and his "copyfraud" information. I stand by all deletion requests I've made over the years for the user's uploads both here and at en:WP and remain unmoved by his "copyfraud" speeches. He badgered me at en:WP so much over a deletion here, I had to tell him he was unwelcome at my talk page there.

He was community banned from all en:WP uploads in late 2014. The issue of problematic uploads at en:WP goes back to at least 2009. Since that ban was imposed, he has requested the lifting of it four times; the most recent was June of 2016. Shortly thereafter, 2 files had to be deleted here due to copyright concerns. Since the en:WP upload ban was imposed, he has breached it twice. The problem, unfortunately, is of long-standing (at least from 2009) and over 7 years, has shown no signs of getting better when he is allowed to upload without supervision. There's currently a discussion about a Marilyn Monroe photo at en:WP initiated by the user. Other editors have indicated that they do not trust using any of his uploads, due to his history of copyright issues. We hope (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: "badgering" comment. IMO, that description for my comment you linked to is a microcosm for many of the issues. Even after you filed a CCI, deleted hundreds of my uploads, I never criticized you. In fact, that post on your talk page, if anything, implies my continued good faith attempt to communicate. There was nothing in that post, with all its supporting links, to indicate anything besides a willingness to collaborate. We at the time were the primary uploaders of actor images. In fact I rarely, if ever (can't recall,) had posted on your talk page before. I honestly expected you to thank me for clarifying an important but overlooked fact. You replied by simply deleting it, telling me to never again post on your talk, page, and now, three years later, note it as proof of my "badgering" you. Nuff said. --Light show (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it's more familiar to you when it's described as user space harassment. removed post user adds it again and it's removed. User returns and posts. Told he's not welcome at my WP talk page.

Referring to this became a kind of hobby for him. WP ANI is suggested to end the discussion. We hope (talk) 20:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I did not re-add that "inane" post; you did, supposedly by accident. --Light show (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Whatever may have happened, I suppose your comments at Files for Upload were made in the spirit of assuming good faith and collaboration. The issue here is regarding your uploads here at Commons-not issues at en:WP. We hope (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: I do not think Light show is attempting to flood Commons with copyvios. I think it's clear that Light show 'has' in the past flooded both Enwiki, and Commons, with files that are either copyvios, or lack sufficient evidence (or any evidence beyond an 'generic' argument that such images were 'never' copyrighted). Light show has continued to make such generic arguments since unblocked here when asking for review, despite being told by Legal about five years ago that it was not a valid argument (see his still-open CCI linked above), and being told so repeatedly since unblocked here. Light show has also, when asking for review, either simply failed to observe that there was a clearly visible copyright notice, or attempted to argue that the notice 'written on the negative' of the particular copy we have (which was not the published version) was invalid.

Light show was unblocked on the specific condition that he ask for pre-upload review. He has now violated that condition, which was the only rationale (other than AGF) for lifting his previous indefinite block. If you review the (many) requests for review he has made since unblocked, it is clear that he still either does not understand, or does not accept, the standard of evidence that we expect (and that Legal told him was needed). If Light show is allowed to upload 'whatever he wants', he will obviously return to uploading problematic files, and even reviewing them before upload is a burden on the community. If he can not be trusted to always ask for review, despite repeated instructions, then he needs to go away, because the community should not be required to babysit him forever. Revent^talk 05:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding generic arguments, note File:Monroe 1953 publicity.jpg, which he uploaded in July. Calling the VPC discussion a 'community approval' is, at best, a huge stretch. Unfortunately, that one snuck past me at the time.... this conversation should probably have been had then. Revent^talk 05:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

OK; I'm withdrawing my oppose. I'm not fully convinced though how it helps the community. Nobody is compelled to review the requests s/he posts in VPC, if allowed. Anyway leaving this to other's opinion. Jee 06:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Support. De728631 (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support though I could also agree with an upload-ban. Natuur12 (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Note this is not a vote but a comment. I always tend to be uncomfortable to ban users who seem to spend their time for things for which they seem convinced (here apparently to search and upload PD images), even if it is not done in the best way or in the good way. Therefore I am rather favorable to an upload-ban, which if broken without consensus will lead to banishment. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - As they show so much disegard for policies here I fail to see why we should let them edit here ? ...., Quite frankly we all have better things to do with our lives than to babysit this editor for the next 5 years!, Ignore guidelines & policies = Get blocked, Simples really. –Davey2010^Talk 22:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment And now there's this as a result of this. Note Kaldari's comment, "The license you put on the image said it was published "without a copyright notice", which was clearly not true". Have no idea if Kaldari was/is aware of this discussion. Winkelvi (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Blocked That actually does it, falsifying information by cropping ©-notices out and then tagging published without © notice is fraud. Plain and simple. Upload 18:01, 3. Dez. 2016, removing (cropping) © information one minute later at 18:02, 3. Dez. 2016. This wasn't an accident but deliberate fraud. I blocked LS for misleading us and using Commons for fraudulent uploads. We can continue this discussion or not, it won't change the fact that this user used fraudulent methods to justify his uploads. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hedwig in Washington, it seems you're edit-warring with other admin here. Everything is well discussed here and here. Kaldari recently corrected the license and added a link to the VPC discussion too. Jee 03:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Incredible as it seems, Light show is asking for someone to proxy upload for her here at Commons. See the request from her here. PInging Hedwig in Washington. Winkelvi (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: You misunderstood: There's no edit war, the © is clearly visible, the photograph is protected until end of 2030 (at least). I guess nobody noticed the © in the first upload. As I stated above, the copyright notice has been removed a minute after the upload occurred by the uploader. That warrants a) deletion and b) block. Or what did I miss? @Winkelvi: Nothing wrong with giving someone else a hint where to find suitable uploads. The problem seems to be to identify suitable. If someone want's to upload photos suggested by LS that's fine with me, I don't see a violation of rules there. I really don't think LS will start using socks on Commons. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I guess it's different over here than at Wikipedia, then. In Wikipedia, when blocked, it's against policy to ask someone to perform any kind of edit or upload that you cannot do yourself because of the block. Because LS can't upload here, she is asking someone to do it for here. I would think that's against policy considering her block, but like I said, based on your comments above, I guess it's different here than there. Winkelvi (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hedwig in Washington, I've no idea what you're talking about. The VPC discussion was before anything uploaded here and with a link to the page where it is published. Do you arguing something missed by Carl Lindberg, Kaldari and Revent (if true) is Light show's fault? Jee 04:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems the © notice has been missed. If you magnify the lower right you'll see the copyright notice. This notice has been cropped one minute after initial upload. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The copyright is not renewed in 1960 as commented by them in VPC. Jee 04:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

If that was the Carl Reiner photo copyrighted by Loews, the license tag should have been {{PD-US-not renewed}}. It obviously had a copyright notice, but was uploaded after a renewal could not be found (I did do a search; any renewal would be online at www.copyright.gov). LS was not claiming lack of notice during the VP discussion; that was a simple mistake if uploaded with a no-notice tag. (If LS was trying to hide the notice, he or she would have uploaded the cropped version from the get-go -- but rather the full version was uploaded, then cropped for better use on articles I assume.) That one was discussed ahead of time. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Restored, unblocked, disc reopend. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Support For every reason historically mentioned by the Commons long-timers above. For myself, what I've witnessed is a person who has thumbed their nose at sanctions and talk of sanctions against them with zero honest remorse. That tells me they don't give a shit and will do what they want, when they want, regardless of how it affects anyone else. Until it means they are on their way to being indeffed -- then a half-hearted "mistakes happen" is offered. I, for one, don't believe any of this was a mistake or learning curve. Anyone who honestly makes a mistake is much more humble and usually realizes they've put others out. I don't see any of that here. More succinctly, my feelings are the same as Davey's above. Winkelvi (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

User:DrKay

Locking discussion page and deletion request

Please lock my user talk page and fulfill a deletion request that I have submitted here. Thanks and happy new year. --Γλαύκος ^{shoot it} 08:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Γλαύκος,

We don't delete talk pages. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Yann, I asked the talk page to be locked. What I am asking to be deleted is the the category page. Thanks!!! --Γλαύκος ^{shoot it} 11:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The category is not empty. Yann (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I replied on the deletion request page about the category. What about the discussion page? I do not wish to receive messages. --Γλαύκος ^{shoot it} 13:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Tostman (talk · contribs)

This is an obvious sock account (so I'm skipping notification), globally active on 4 different Wikimedia projects within a couple of hours of creation. I am especially concerned at the use of the associated user page and noticeboard comments, which appear likely to be the continuation of old arguments from prior accounts. The user page lists 5 batch upload projects, these are directly associated with me. To my eyes this looks like a deliberate targeted attack page with no justification, rather than an analysis of Commons projects.

Obviously it can be said that I am involved as I am the apparent target, even though I am not in any dispute, so raising the sock account here for independent comment. Is this sufficient for an SPI? --Fæ (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

What's the worst thing that can happen, Fæ? Getting yelled at for posting a SPI/CU? Could be coincidence, could be not. Better to have a peek now instead of cleaning up months of activity later. Just my 2¢. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 19:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fæ: I'm not targeting you, I've just wanted to add other peoples projects to my list. Have I done anything to you? I'm even not generally opposed to mass uploads, just hoping for more people cleaning up the files.--Tostman (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Because Fae does most of the batch uploads, I have to list mainly his projects in my overview, but I'm open for every other mass upload I don't know yet to "dilute" my list.--Tostman (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Noelinraj

Noelinraj (talk · contribs) continues copyvios. --AntanO 01:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, next block should be final. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Double identité de connexion

Bonjour, Je ne contribue que rarement à Wikimedia. Et j'ai créé 2 comptes, sous 2 identités différentes (Gounot Jean, Jean43). Elles sont toutes 2 liées à la même adresse mail(jeang@free.fr) ! Y aurait-il un moyen de fusionner ces comptes ? D'avance merci de votre réponse Cordialement

Hi! I contribute only rarely to Wikimedia. And I have created 2 accounts, under 2 different identities (Gounot Jean, Jean43). They are both link to the same e-mail address (jeang@free.fr)! Would there be a way to merge these accounts? SY

Jean Gounot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gounot Jean (talk • contribs) 10:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The location for this is https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/SRUC , but formal requests have to be made in a very specific format... AnonMoos (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Solomon203

Just wondering, but how much longer are filemovers going to have to turn down this user's atrocious rename requests? Requesting name changes from one language to another; requesting minor changes that add nothing but switch a few words around; requesting renames on files like File:Nantou Church.JPG where the file is already in the category Category:Presbyterian churches in Taiwan, so there's no need to add that to the filename; even making requests that make the name worse and less descriptive!. There's a good reason why he has 56,000 edits and still doesn't hold the filemover right. His move requests are mostly a waste of other people's time. I think it's getting to the point where his requests are getting disruptive. People like should leave rename requests to people who know what they're doing. This has been going on for ages. I don't have the time to talk to him about it because I'm too busy turning down his requests by the dozen. This guy should be banned from making rename requests. Otherwise he just waits a bit to see if he can get someone who will do the move that does nothing but remove Panaramio and replace it with the EXIF date, or add info that's already in the description or cats. We're talking hundreds and probably thousands of requests... As I said, 56k edits and no filemover right, even though he does hundreds of requests, tells the story on its own. Filemovers shouldn't have to deal with this never-improving time-sink. I doubt anything will come of this, especially from Solomon203 who's either daft or just doesn't give a shit, but what the hell... lNeverCry 10:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Since the user in question has specified en-1 in their babel templates, we'd best let a Chinese speaker explain the issues with their rename requests. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

User:DrKay II

Sorry, but I have to brig this to this place. On December 24 I had to report User DrKay because he insulted me. Due to this DrKay was blocked by Admin Hedwig in Wahington. I never insulted this person, I only gave a critical but helpfull response to him. Following this, DrKay wrote me on December 26 an Email, where he persuaded me to pursue continued harassment against him and where he lold me, because of me he left Commons. All in all, the text was very confused in my eyes. So I only gave a very short reply. Then cama a second reply, that I did not answer. For me this was done with this. But today I got this on my Commons discussion page. I see this as a personal attack. Neither did I start mailing, on the contrary, I ended it very quickly. Nor have I ever expressed triumph over the block. This user seems to have a problem with the reality. I do not want that he can make false statements about me in this form. In the end, someone maybe believes this nonsense. However, I am beginning to doubt that this user is really suitable for a collaborative project. He always promotes recognition and joyousness from all others, but does not appear to be able to do so by himself. Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

No admin action required. We are not privy to private e-mail conversations and nothing in the comment on your talk page is sanctionable. Please reply or remove/archive that comment when you feel that it is wrong. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

One note to DrKay though: Hinting at private mail in a public forum is bad form at best and leaves a bitter aftertaste. Keep it to private mail. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I tried keeping it to private mail. That didn't work. In fact, administrators sending sarcastic messages by email is more bad form and leaves more of a bitter aftertaste than commenting on-commons. DrKay (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Nl5836

In December, this editor was blocked twice for uploading nonfree files. At about the same time, they were blocked on en-wiki for related misuse of nonfree images. All of their past image uploads have been removed as copyright violations. Their previous blocks have expired. Over the last 24 hours, they uploaded about a dozen more nonfree images, with palpably false claims that the images were the editor's own work. When editors, including myself, placed deletion notices on their talk page, they responded by virtually blanking the talk page rather than supporting corrective action. It is time for an indefinite block. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blanking talk pages is permitted, it shows the editor has read the notices; however, repeated uploads of copyright material, after two previous recent blocks, can only be met with an indef block, which I have applied. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Do the remainder of this editor's uploads need to be individually tagged for deletion, or will a blanket request be sufficient? (They're all transparently invalid "own work" uploads). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I speedy deleted them as obvious copyright violations. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I was going to look at that but I had to do something else. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Kailash29792

Kailash29792 (talk · contribs) needs some advice as he continues copyvios image. --AntanO 11:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

If this is regarding that image of MGR, Sivaji and Gemini, I already said I'd try obtaining permission from the owner (not that easy as it sounds). And I don't think I've uploaded any other copyvio image of late. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Drum brake anon IP causing trouble

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Drum brake.jpg

GF only goes so far. Now it's vandalism from 139.78.10.8 (talk · contribs). en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The People's Cube is maybe related.

Block them and save us all some trouble. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense DR closed with keep. Seems there's not much to do at Oklahoma State University right now. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

IP playing around with deletions.

It appears 124.72.154.250 (talk · contribs) has made quite a few deletion nominations without any proper explanation. Can an admin clean this up please? Fry1989 ^eh? 01:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done.-- Geagea (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Info This is well known Szm, the flag vandal. If you spot an IP from Quanzhou in Chinese Fujian province playing with flags – this is him. Anyway, I have just blocked the whole 124.72.154.0/23 for a month. The blockade virtually doesn't harm anybody except him. --jdx ^Re: 02:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Flaxman 1821 Shield of Achilles in Huntington Collection.png

I have received a note that my file, File:Flaxman 1821 Shield of Achilles in Huntington Collection.png was deleted due to an unacceptable license on the original flickr page. As I indicated at the time of upload, this file is Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) and I'm sure I indicated the source correctly at https://www.flickr.com/photos/terryy71/9738440139/in/album-72157635512478020/. Could someone please check this out and tell me what I did wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎AishaAbdel (talk • contribs) 01:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@AishaAbdel: I expect the problem was the Non-Commercial condition, which is not acceptable here. Please see COM:LIC regarding what is considered “free“ for Commons’ purposes.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Ragilnih

So I am having a bit of a problem with this user. They seem to be interested in increasing the intrinsic display size of various SVG logos, sometimes greatly bloating their original file size without any apparent improvement. As these are SVGs, this is not necessary since SVGs are scalable. I have reverted these files on occasion where the bloat was very large, but this user just keeps reverting. I freely admit my response on their talk page was not the most helpful, but they never responded until now with a quasi-threatening comment on my talk page. Since I don't think they will be likely to listen to me, can an admin discuss the SVG scalability with them? Fry1989 ^eh? 16:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Ragilnih: I agree with Fry1989 here. Bloating an SVG file from 2 KB to 50 KB just to change is size is not acceptable. In fact, re-uploading an SVG file just to change the size is usually unhelpful, since SVG files can be freely changed. Please cease those kinds of uploads. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Fry1989, see the both SVGs closer. The smaller version is over-optimised and has some but visible defects (therefore is not the same thing), unlike the bigger version. Should be better to use the bigger version and optimise it. --Amitie 10g (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, the file contained embedded raster; removing it should be better than coming to the AN. Assumming good faith is an official policy in Commons, and I already told you about fixing SVGs instead of claiming that the users are assumming bad faith when uploading non-optimised SVGs. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Er, AGF is a guideline, not a policy. That's why its introduction says If at all possible, assume good faith for the intentions of others ..., which means you may assume bad faith if appropriate (for example, long-term vandals). ★ Poké⁹⁵ 03:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't even believe taking action against long-term vandal is assuming bad faith if the action aim to stop them. Wikicology (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Anyway, the version who Fry1989 deffended so hard is badly vectorised (over optimised, the lines and curves are not straight anbd these deffedcts are visible even at lower scaling). The right way is correcting it silently by removing the embedded-raster element instead of claiming that the user is assumming bad faith when uploading that bigger, but well-vectorised SVG. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me? I don't appreciate the way you're portraying this. I wasn't defending anything, all I saw was this user making the native resolution of the file bigger (unnecessary as it is a scalable SVG) and bloating the file size at the same time. The image themselves didn't appear to change at all, at least not that I noticed. And I already have humbled myself in saying the way I went about this wasn't helpful, which is why I am asking neutral admins to work on this issue with the user. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I need to repeat it? Just correct the SVG silently and tell kindly the user why the version that he uploaded is bad (this is the essence of Assuming good faith). If you didn't noticied the defects of the smaller SVG, please see the SVGs closer before claiming anything next time. By your behaviour, the only who need an administrative action is you. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

User:L'honorable

In spite of having been warned many times, L'honorable keeps on removing deletion request templates from some of his uploads (lately File:OStJ.jpg), even if he's perfectly aware of where the discussion takes place: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by L'honorable. Could an admin ask him to refrain from doint it again? Best regards --Discasto _talk 23:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done I have given the user a last warning, since the previous warnings came from you, and the user was clearly upset about you. Please let us know if there are any more DR removals. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Yann, Jcb, Clindberg, and Jameslwoodward: I thought this might be your game Discasto. It begs the question, though, why on each and every occasion when you have unilaterally reverted my upload of OStJ you have failed to respond to my messages to you. I even ventured to suggest that you were angling to get me in trouble. This is an utterly poor show. This image has every right to be uploaded by me & I shall have no difficulty in proving so if it comes to that. BUT more to the point, why do you want to drag me into an Admin situation - I already made clear that I have just been released from a block on English Wiki, so it would appear to me that you, for reasons totally unknown, wish to cause trouble for me. The problem here though is that the image you persistently delete is my Decoration, my Photo & my Upload. So, if you have your way, you can bully me out of town just because you have taken exception to me. But why, you haven't even corresponded with me - until just now wherein you stated : "You actually asked for it --Discasto talk 23:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)" - NO, I didn't ask for IT (whatever that may mean) - but this for sure looks like victimisation.

I shall co-operate fully with the Admins & trust that sense can prevail. Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@L'honorable: Please be careful in the case of edit conflicts. You removed my resolution above, which should not have happened. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Honestly I am getting it from all angles here & I sincerely did not mean to do that - didn't even know that I had done so - this is a cooked up attempt to get me blocked & it is working well. But why? L'honorable (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

What I did was upload an image of a decoration which was bestowed upon me by HRH. L'honorable (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

 Blocked 3 days for blanking the entire DR. I didn't want to throw the book at him, hoping a few chapters will do. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 06:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I think there is a real question of whether or not L'honorable's modest contributions are worth the vast amounts of Admin time he has consumed with his long rants on several talk pages at once (see my archives, as well as those of Discasto and Jcb) and at the DRs. Perhaps the block should be indefinite?

However, in fairness I point out that for File:OStJ.jpg he claims "own work". As Yann has pointed out at the DR, the image is very small and has no EXIF, but it doesn't show up in a Google search, so maybe it is in fact "own work". As Yann suggests, he could answer the question by uploading a larger version of the file with the EXIF. However, the question is moot because we have a variety of much better images of the medal at Category:Insignia of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem, so File:OStJ.jpg should be deleted as "not useful"..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

James is correct in any case but let's give the user a benefit of doubt. I hope they won't return to the same behavior next week. Happy editing. Wikicology (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Wikicology. Give them the benefit of the doubt for now, but my next block would be indefinite. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Continues his disruptive editing, indef worthy insult @ https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AL%27honorable&type=revision&diff=230435711&oldid=230434151 - I'd like this version to be supressed, better the whole talk page. I ask for an indef block with removal of email and talk page access. Copying his Commons-talk to enwiki. Asking for block there as well. Nothing good will ever come out of this, he's just a giant time waster. Is emailing Wiki UK to teach them about copyright. Probably a global lock would be better. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Jcb (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jcb: Thanks for your fast reply. Could you clean the talk page from his insulting rant (starting at rev230434151)? Thx, --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@JuTa and Jianhui67: Removal still needed, starting at rev230434151. Shall I do that myself? Any Objections? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 05:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hedwig, why you wanna hide those versions? I dont see a hard PA nor other reasons for it. Might be cause I'm coming from de: where there are realy strict rules about hiding versions or I, as a non-natve speaker, do not understand enough of it? --JuTa 05:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Implying a medical condition is a hard PA in my book. Got him blocked in the first place. Schmeiss den Satz mal in den Google Translator. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 05:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, auch in der google Übersetzung seh ich nich wirklich was. Er nennt Dich Internet-Troll. Aber das rechfertigt IMHO keine Versionslöschung. (Which medical condition?) --JuTa 06:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

are u of sound mind = impliziert Geisteskrankheiten. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 06:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

... kommt aber in Text nicht vor. --JuTa 06:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Ehrlich, ich denk das sollte ein native speaker beurteilen. Bin also hier raus. --JuTa 06:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Give me a call as soon as troll shit can be reverted. Until then Commons is not my project anymore. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 06:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I blanked the userpage - no need to have this kind of attacks on the talkpage. Good block Jcb! --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I blocked Mabelina because it is his old account/sock (blocked on multiple wiki). --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Sahib28

Sahib28 (talk · contribs) The user goes on to upload a file with no evidence of free license after warnings. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for three days for now. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Some Trump Category tags are blocked.

The following wikimedia tags are are blocked from use:

• Demonstrations and protests against the presidency of Donald Trump
• Demonstrations and protests against the presidency of Donald Trump in Wisconsin
• Banners and signs opposing Donald Trump at demonstrations and protests
• Demonstrations and protests against presidents of the united states: Donald Trump
• Donald Trump and Wikimedia

These are your approved tags. I was not able to use these tags to describe a Women's march photo from January 21. This should be fixed. And begs the question why this is occurring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaraDe (talk • contribs) 22:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

You can add categories manually to a file page by editing the page and appending the code [[Category:Category name]]. See Commons:Categories. clpo13_(talk) 22:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Art javier

A few hours ago, I posted a speedy deletion request on File:RT SF9A0489-cropped-small.jpg. That is fairly straightforward: It's a picture taken for a record cover, and the copyright generally belongs to the artist, her record company, (occasionally the photographer), depending on their particular agreements. The uploader cropped the image and claimed it as his own work. That's a patently invalid claim, and such items are routinely deleted. The uploader, however, responded with great hostility and very little understanding of the issues involved , and uploading a photo of the subject of the original picture holding a sign insulting me. File:Nikki Phoenix settles copyright issue.jpg. (I thought I'd been insulted in virtually every possible way here, but even after a decade this is a new one.)

It seems clear from Art javier's previous uploads that he's familiar with the OTRS process; why he didn't follow it for this image I don't understand. He goes on a some length about my confusing the photo used for the record cover with the record cover itself, which makes no difference in terms of the required license. (The subject of the photo has used different versions of the image in her own publicity). He also posted (directly on the file page, not the talk page) that "It's also clear that, since I retouched the picture, it is my own work" which gets things exactly wrong.

Could someone please review Art javier's various postings on this mess, decide whether we yet have a valid license, advise the uploader, and delete File:Nikki Phoenix settles copyright issue.jpg (which has no value in terms of resolving the license problem but falls under general speedy criterion 3 as intended to harass/insult me). Thank you. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I, Art Javier am the photographer, and retoucher of the photo, own the rights, which I posted and also have permission from the artist which she sent, since The Big Bad Wolfowitz claim it appeared to be taken from a record cover, which it is not, since I posted a link to the record cover which looks totally different.

Also, whoever wants to peruse this can see the polite message I left here and on his The Big Bad Wolfowitz talk page, asking him to simply ask me whenever he wished a better link to be posted instead of posting comments like:

Derivative work. Uploader may have cropped this image from a record cover, but since they don't hold copyright to the original, which is presumptively under copyright, their work is self-evidently nonfree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Art javier (talk • contribs) 23:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment - I boldly converted the speedy deletion request for File:RT SF9A0489-cropped-small.jpg to DR here. Evidence of ownership or permission should be sent to our support team. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Nikki Phoenix settles copyright issue.jpg is an image directly attacking The Big Bad Wolfowitz with the false claim that The Big Bad Wolfowitz is vandalizing. I've speedily deleted this as an attack image. And the text held by Nikki Phoenix in the photo does not provide a release under a free license as required by COM:L nor does it clarify its copyright status. It simply tells “I authorized this picture to be placed up on my page and for general use on Wikipedia.” which is not sufficient as every member of the support team would be happy to clarify. So, Art javier do you have any interest to process this with the help of our support team or do you want to continue this warefare against justified and constructive objections that were legitimately raised by a concerned user? --AFBorchert (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Today, [Ticket#: 2017012510017269] was opened which refers to this image. And includes the Signed Model Release, and Sanitized ID shots of Ms. Phoenix ending any speculation on who owns this photo. I have also seen the Follow up email CCed to me by Ms. Phoenix referring to this ticket as well.--Art javier (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Further, the statement that this photo was taken from an album cover is False, as is the assertion that I don't own the photo I own, took, retouched and have rights to. The Fact the Ms. Phoenix chose to respond that way, is her issue not mine. Additionally My statements have been kind polite and are referenced here for all to see. I am not embarrassed by anything I have said, nor have I made statements like: "I have been attacked here for 10 years" the Prime concepts here at Wikipedia that were not adhered to by Wolfowitz are:

Assume good faith, (clearly not done)

Disruptive editing (deleted statements on page citing poor reference although they satisfied other editors notability per WP:PORNBIO, better references were linked and he reverted them again anyways. I believe this is also called edit warring, something he has repeatedly been accused of.)

Don't bite the newbies, (while I have been here for many years, I hardly work on anything and took a multi year break because of the issues I list here, so I by no means consider myself anything but a newbie.)

Etiquette, (note the polite note I posted on his talk page which he decided to ignore, while writing a "poor me" statement because the Artist in the photo disagreed with his factually incorrect statements.)

I leave you with this: I left Wikipedia many years ago precisely because of the behavior I am seeing that is unsupportive, rude, confrontational, and not in the spirit of working together, especially when I asked repeatedly for help. This makes me realize that in fact, my decision was well founded, and I will, after ensuring there is NO DOUBT REGARDING THE OWNERSHIP OF THIS PHOTO, leave again with the same bitter taste in my mouth.

--Art javier (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Austriantraveler

User Austriantraveler say to me "Abzockerbande". This is a strong personality atac! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

He say it to users of FAL. Also to me also. --Ralf Roleček 00:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

An eglish translation via Linguee: "Abzockerbande" similar to "rip-off gang". --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done User has been warned not to repeat this behavior. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Suvaninarirat

User:Suvaninarirat is repeatedly uploading copyvios and inserting blatantly false copyright tags on image pages after being warned and explained to. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done User given a final warning. Please let us know if this continues. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit war by user to enforce a file renaming

User:Luis camilo álvarez vega requested several file renamings for logos of several football clubs, all with renaming reason “error in filename”. Some of them I followed, though not because of this reason, but for another one I found reasonable. I denied renaming of File:Escudo del Club Banfield.svg, though, because I found out, that there is a redirect in Spanish Wikipedia, cf. es:Club Banfield, so the name cannot be an error. Alas, I did not mention this in my edit comment. After I was informed today the my edit had been reverted I declined again, this time with information, and I left a message on his user page only to see, that there was already another user‘s complain, see User talk:Luis camilo álvarez vega#File renaming requests. In the meantime Luis Camilo reverted a second time despite my edit comment. It seems to me, that he intends to request the renaming until he fiends someone, who does not do research before renaming. — Speravir – 17:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Protected for two days, if the user continues on other files or if the users is re-adding the rename template after the protection expires (whiteout prior discussion), then a block seems to be appropriate. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

And user warned. Ankry (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• This user continued inapropriate rename requests on the file mentioned above after the protection expired, making 2 more requests in short time on the same file He also continues to request renaming of other files against Commons renaming guidelines, ignoring warnings and complaints addressed to him. It's a recently created account, which looks to me like SPA for non-good faith activity. Even on Spanish wikipedia (his home project) most of his edits were reverted and he received a last warning. --XXN, 14:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Blocked him for three days. Natuur12 (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

...and he is back again with the same behaviour. --XXN, 16:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Blocked again. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Uploads by FastilyClone

It seems as if FastilyClone is massively uploading files from the English Wikipedia. I've found a number of dubious file (I can be wrong, of course) and I'm wondering what will happen if some of them are deleted. I assume it will be deleted but won't be restored in the English Wikipedia. Maybe some of them are valid there on fair use grounds. What does usually happen in this case? Thanks --Discasto _talk 18:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide one or more dubious files moved here from en:wiki by FastilyClone? Thank you. Wikicology (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

You can have a look at the new creations in my contributions. --Discasto _talk 19:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Fastily, could you please comment? --AFBorchert (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Other problems found: no categories at all. That's not the worse. IMHO, the lack of {{FlickrReview}} templates for images originally coming from Flickr and, in general, {{LicenseReview}} for ANY image coming from a web site is definitely an important flaw in the bot design. --Discasto _talk 21:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not a bot, and FlickrReview/LicenseReview does not exist on the English Wikipedia. I don't agree with many of these nominations, and I'll be going through to leave comments/!votes over the next couple of days. Thanks, FASTILY 05:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but they exist in commons. If you're manually uploading files, you should be able to insert the template in the file description or do it afterwards. Regarding your willingness to leave comments/!votes in the deletion requests, it'd be good if you categorize your uploads. That's definitely helps. --Discasto _talk 10:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_58#FastilyClone for what happened last time when someone confronted Fastily about his bot. Natuur12 (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Is Fastily still an admin? Because his comments in some of the deletion requests seem to very really weird. --Discasto _talk 09:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC) PS: see here. I can't see how this can qualify as an official document or derived of any official document.

He isn't. He got desysopped over several incidents. Natuur12 (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Btw, the comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chaudhry Sarwar.jpg is pretty troublesome and I would urge Fastily to stop using this tool/script/bot or whatever it is to transfer files from en-wiki. Natuur12 (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Lana Del Rey at Planeta Terra in 2013.png. No categories, no {{FlickrReview}}. Are you kidding us, Fastily? --Discasto _talk 13:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I saw that Fastily works somehow selectively, and on small batches, what is good. Working much time on this task he also nominates for deletion on en.wp regularly some problematic files which were (mis)tagged as eligible for a tranfer to Commons, thus avoiding and preventing their transfer to Commons. Probably he misses unintentionally some other potentially problematic files, and they are transferred here, but not sure if he should stop working on this task due to some small percent of bad transfers?
Querried the en.wp database - there are some 1800 free files with flickr links in the description page. How to deal with these files?
a) transferring them on Commons, inserting {{Flickrreview}}, and let FlickreviewR 2 do his job; or
b) to find a bot and to put him work on en.wiki reviewing all these files before someone tries to transfer them?
On enwiki are several hundreds of thousands of free files eligible for transfer to Commons. Other major Wikipedias also have a lot of free files eligible for Commons. We should care of them. --XXN, 01:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I've reviewed all the uploads in January, for instance. Almost none of them have a category. I can't see the small batches approach. On the other hand, not being a native speaker I possibly miss the meaning of 'care', but such care involves proper upload to commons (that is, categorizing, and requesting Flickr files to be properly assessed, as any other regular upload from Flickr). I can't see how Fastily is being "careful" here. --Discasto _talk 09:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought we had a discussion already a month or two ago where we decided we were going to stop importing images from EnWP due to all the problems. Has that changed? I recommend we start by implementing a complete moratorium on importing images from EnWP. Then we need to do a review (for those with access to do so) of the images currently pending import. Many have issues that are easy to indentify and should be removed from the Tagged for import category. At the same time we need to look at how we can better import images from EnWP without all these problems. A lot of these bots and scripts have been in place for a long time and things have changed without those bots and scripts being updated. For example, we should not be importing things with bad info so that Magogbot can then go and change and replace all the information, that's just a waste of time, it should do that on initial import. Reguyla (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Reguyla: Fastily keeps on uploading uncategorized files. It definitely seems he's mocking us. --Discasto _talk 09:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Well to be honest he isn't the only one and as far as I know that is allowed. There are currently almost 2 million uncategorized files, many of which frankly could be populated with a bot for at least some generic category (Men, Women, Animals, Flowers, Buildings, etc.). IMO, as long as the image is allowed, is freely distributable and isn't just a duplicate of another file having no categories is less of an issue. Categorizing files is important, but it's more of a management tool we use on the site to manage and group files into logical groups so they are easier to find. With that said I do think they could make more of an effort to at least have some kind of category. Reguyla (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

IMHO, adding such generic categories with a bot would be a very bad idea. At least these are tagged as uncategorized, and we can start working from there. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally, while I of course would prefer to see well-categorized files to be uploaded, am fine with uncategorized uploads, especially if they are mass uploads. Better to have files transferred and uncategorized than not having them transferred. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Yann

User Yann has the habit to keep-close DRs without any explanation and to ignore questions about that at his user talk page. If somebody then starts a new DR to have another admin look at it, Yann speedy keep closes the DR again. Newest example: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shamrock III.jpg, where it was actually Yann himself who has added the invalid license. Pinging @Jameslwoodward: , who has intervened several times recently why Yann showed this behaviour. Yann is somehow feeling himself superior to colleagues and is leaving a trace of files with questionable copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 09:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I have tried to assume good faith for a long time, because I used to know Yann as a good colleague for a long time, but the behaviour is becoming worse rather than better and the frequency increases. Jcb (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Jcb, the issue is not me, but your insistance to request abnormal information for old images, and your refusal to accept different opinions. Most (all?) of such DRs you opened and I closed were reclosed as kept. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

In the cases where the re-opened DRs were closed as kept, this was because somebody provided additional information, like here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Admiral Joseph Strauss.JPG. I am not against keeping a file if based on good grounds, that's why I started to ask you to add the mandatory information needed to be able to use {{PD-UK-unknown}} after you added that license. The problem is rather your refusal to accept different opinions, not mine. Could you finally explain why you cannot accept a second opinion by a different admin? If I keep-close a DR and someone reopens it, I will probably voice an opinion in the new DR, but I will not keep-close it again, I will leave that to a colleague. And this is also the only thing I am asking of you. If you can agree that you will not do such speedy reclosures again, but leave the closure of the second DR to another admin instead, then we can close this discussion and both of us can get back to more constructive work. Jcb (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

"A plague on both of your houses". Johan, I'm getting tired of this. I agree with Yann that you push the limits of patience in cases like this one. We have a 114 year old image. The photographer is not known to us -- I have looked at the many Web uses of the image and see no credits. I think we can safely keep it. Yann, I agree with Jcb that, however frustrating he can be, you should not summarily close the second DR yourself. Let someone else -- not Jcb -- do it, so that another set of eyes looks at the situation. Sometimes Jcb is right. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The occasions on which Jcb is right do not justify us continuing to accept his woefully sub-optimal behaviour. Jcb really need to start showing behavioural improvements pretty damn quickly. Nick (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

FWIW - National Library of Scotland has video footage which is absent any credits, and the Scottish Maritime Museum has a single photo of the Shamrock III , which is also without credit. There's a different photo of the launch which is resident in the Mary Evans Picture Library, but again is without credit. It's also noteworthy that the Denny Brothers Archives at the University of Glasgow don't have a print or negative of Shamrock III. I'd also add, given the image was taken in 1903, even a relatively young photographer aged 30 would be 73 in 1946, which was above the average age of death, and this all ignores the intervening two World Wars. The likelihood of the photographer being alive in 1947 is fairly low (but obviously, it would be nicer to be able to confirm the precise copyright status). I'd say Yann is likely to be correct with the licensing added, that the photographer cannot be determined through reasonable effort (particularly given that the National Library of Scotland and the Scottish Maritime Museum don't know the film-maker and photographer for their media - they would be the first port of call, and that the Denny Brothers Archives don't have any records for media relating to Shamrock III). Nick (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nick: See http://www.naturepl.fr/photocaptions32.html and search for '08101186'. The image was apparently published in 'the souvenir book published in 1908 about the Denny & Company shipyard history'. It seems likely the library would have a copy of the book. - Revent^talk 14:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they do. It's shelfmark HB4.215.12.97 in the National Library of Scotland catalog. - Revent^talk 14:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Apparently the user felt justified for edit warring and reopening on the basis of "The new valid reason was YOU adding an invalid license!". This is clearly bogus, since the copyright status clarification was an integral part of the closure: . --Nemo 14:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Info The photograph was published by photographers Agnew & Son (Glasgow) in 1903. The last known trading year for Agnew is 1904. The photograph was published in The Navy And Army Illustrated, 28 March 1903 where it is copyrighted to Agnew & Son. --Fæ (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Nemo, let another admin close this DR, you are not an admin. Voice your opinion in the DR if you like. (And don't delete mine like you did). Jcb (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I have revoked the nomination based on all the information added in the meantime by Revent and Fæ. So the only remaining issue is that we don't know whether Yann is willing to refrain from his speedy reclosings when a nomination is reopened after he keep-closed it. It must always be possible to request that another admin has a look. In case of a delete-closure we have COM:UDR and in case of a keep-closure we can renominate. Yann should refrain from frustrating that possibility. Jcb (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

See a similar case at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sharpe Richard Browdler 1847-1909.jpg, with a complete explanation by Billinghurst why these nominations are wrong. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yet another example of you keep-closing a DR without explanation. But please answer the question: Are you willing to refrain from the aforementioned behaviour? Jcb (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The 'explanation' of Billinghurst is inconsistent with our current practice and templates. I have started Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Copyright_expiration_in_the_UK to see if we can come to a (new?) consensus about this. Jcb (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• First of why is this a user problem? There is clearly a disagreement between to parties (Jcb and Yann) over a nomination or several nominations. The correct procedure to discuss this is clearly the Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
• As for the specific file... File:Shamrock III.jpg is screaming ancient to me. We need to m:Avoid copyright paranoia here with {{PD-1923}} files. This is not how you resolve a license issue.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 18:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

What we are still missing is a clear statement from Yann, in which he recognizes that he should not keep-close a reopened DR if he also closed the original one. Till now has not responded with a single word to this issue, so I do not have much confidence that the behaviour will not repeat in future cases. Jcb (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Yann has responded twice to this thread. What I am missing is a statement by you to take more care when nominating files for deletion. This is the consensus I read from this thread. I can only see a worrying lack of self-reflection on your side. For example, when a file you nominated for deletion is kept, you often passive-aggresively add a note about "unclear copyrights" to the file page, instead of letting go and accepting that your opinion might not have been right. This is exactly the "superior to colleagues" thing that you accused Yann of and not the behavior I expect from an administrator on Commons. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I spend time enough on deciding when to start a DR. In the past months I have added proper source information to several thousands of files. The Category:Images without source backlog is a difficult backlog and not many people are taking care of it. About 10% of the files I removed from that backlog has been nominated for deletion and maybe 5% of those nominations resulted in 'keep'. I have asked a second opinion on a small part of those keep-closes and in about half of thoses cases the file was finally deleted. So I think in general I spend sufficient time on each nomination. And looking at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Copyright_expiration_in_the_UK, it becomes clear that several users disagree with the assessment of Yann of UK copyright expiration, so I may not be wrong after all in these cases. By the way, in the (less than 10 I think) DRs I have reopened for the past years, some of them have been reclosed again by a different administrator. Have you seen even one DR in which I still took action after such a second opinion? In some cases it is good to have a second opinion. Sometimes people have reopened a DR that I keep-closed. Have you ever seen me keep-closing myself such a DR again? Yann has been the only admin I have encountered who does not accept such a request for a second opinion. Jcb (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jcb, You only see what suits your opinion, and you are blind when there are disagreeing opinions. So far on VPC, only RP88 seems to agree with you, with a far-fetched example. The point is that most photographs from that time are anonymous, and the case when the photographer is known is the exception. In addition, old UK anonymous photographs are in the public domain counted from the date of creation, not the date of publication. So even if there were only published recently, they are still in the public domain. Finally, I disagree with the extreme and unnecessary requirements you try to impose unilaterally. These do not bring anything useful to the project. You need to see that you are in a minority. Even Jim, which is very strict on this matter, doesn't agree with you. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you willing to refrain from reclosing a reopened DR if you are the one who closed the initial DR? That's the question you still didn't answer. And as you can read above, Jim agrees that you should refrain from that. Jcb (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, if you are willing to refrain from opening such DRs. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

So actually that's a no :-(. What is your 30 december comment supposed to mean in the light of this? Tell me, how am I supposed to request a second opinion on a closure of yours if your 30 december comment is apparently a farçe? Jcb (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if you are aware, but you are on a downward slope with this issue. You would be blocked for edit-warring over this DR if you were not an admin. I have nothing against you, but I think you are going to loose your admin bit if you continue in this direction. And I will be the first to be saddened... So please take my 2 Rs. advice: take it easy, look for a reason to keep a file rather than to delete it. I won't answer any more. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm affraid we will meet eachother again at this noticeboard. What a waste of time :-( - Jcb (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps at Commons: Arbitration Committee in 2050? Is this not a classical case of "The pot calling the kettle black"? Wikicology (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Jcb I do agree that this is a waste of our time. Please do not use AN/U as a venue for COM:DEL appeal. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 14:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Please read the whole topic before you respond. Jcb (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Jcb, it might be a good idea to walk away at this point. With kind regards. Wikicology (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Yann: It doesn't matter whether if you are an admin or not. If you are edit warring persistently, you would be blocked, regardless of your status. True, admins are able to influence, but admins are considered the same as "normal users" in wars and discussions. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)