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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:26, 10 December 2017

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism ^{[new section]}	User problems ^{[new section]}	Blocks and protections ^{[new section]}	Other ^{[new section]}
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

Note

Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
It is usually appropriate to notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

There is consensus that User:Livioandronico2013 be blocked indefinitely for his continuous incivilities and rude responses during disputes while having been blocked numerous times before. The recent six-months block handed out by Steinsplitter will therefore be extended accordingly. As Livio has shown no sign of understanding and did not tone down his rhetorics even after this new block, appeals made by Livioandronico2013 to the indefinite block shall only be considered after a period of six months from today. Livio's talkpage access will then be restored so he can make a regular request for unblock. De728631 (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Livioandronico2013

Livio has been blocked a couple of times before for being blatantly rude and hostile and operating in bad faith. He has never really shaped up and it appears that his online conduct is currently worsening. See, for example, this discussion on Consensual Review on COM:QIC [excerpted; particularly offensive remarks are bolded below - my bolding]:

Oppose Ugly flare at the top and rather unsharp at the right side. A photograph of a painting can't be QI unless the lighting is perfectly even which is not the case here. Additionally there is no information about the painting given in the file description. --Code 10:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment This is your revenge? This is QI not FP what does composition and light mean? Anyway, it's in a museum, and if you do not know, can not you choose light. --Livioandronico2013

@Blackcat: Indeed you may be right that it's not possible to take a QI under such conditions at all. I learned a lot about reproductive photography of artworks in the last years as a lawyer I had to defend a Commons user in court who was sued by a museum for taking such photographs and I came to the opinion that creating a true reproduction of a two-dimensional artwork requires perfect conditions that usually don't exist when you just walk around inside a museum taking snapshots of artworks. tl;dr: Sometimes you just can't create a QI. That's it. --Code 06:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Code all you boringly say is meaningless (as always). This is QI not a court or something else. The photo is well done for the conditions it is but you are infant and you do not want it to be QI.--Livioandronico2013 08:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment That crosses the rudeness line, IMO. If you want people to look at your images, the least you can do is treat them with a certain amount of respect. You can disagree with people's opinions, but there is a voting system in place here that will make your case for you; if there are more people voting in your favour than there are opposing, you win the argument.--Peulle 17:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice that he calls Code "infant"?

Now, look at the discussion here. I excerpt below:

Oppose Uneven lighting and uneven sharpness. The top left is dark and blue and the bottom is over-exposed. An HDR technique plus some local adjustment could have compensated for the uneven lighting situation. The image is strangly sharp and unsharp in areas that do not seem related to depth-of-field and look more like camera shake. Is this a stitched image? If so, some of your frames are bad. -- Colin (talk) 11:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Is a single photo and perfectly and of course perfectly clear but as I have already said I (naturally) calculated your false negative vote. --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Per Colin. The unsharp areas indeed look strange. Maybe the lens is seriously broken. The bottom part seems overexposed as well. --Code (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Surprise,surprise File:U-gubben.jpg--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It looks to me like sharpness is wanting, but I don't know what condition the ceiling is in. You're sure it's quite sharp? Then why do at least two viewers think otherwise? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Simply Ikan Kekek because, as I have already written but you do not follow, they are in bad faith. But then what do you care about the vote of others? Think about your ...--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Yann, I've added some notes where the unsharp bits are. It isn't a focus issue. It is a long exposure, so perhaps the camera or ceiling shook a little due to tourist traffic? Can't really explain why some bits are sharp other than if created from more than one exposure or serious lens trouble. In addition to these sharpness issues, the light handling is far below the standard we expect from others at FP. I really don't think you'd expect a dark blue corner or a blown bottom from a Diliff, of Code, or myself, or numerous others.... -- Colin (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Colin always the same things, always buying photos with Diliff ... are you in love? You should tell him --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Livio's consistent pattern is that even the slightest critical remark about his photographs prompts a rude response that is either name-calling, an accusation of bad faith or an accusation of revenge voting. I'll leave it to your wisdom whether this is projection on his part, but it is certainly not on-topic to routinely resort to personal attacks and commonly avoid directly addressing specific remarks, other than perhaps by general negation.

(P.S. I'll admit up front that I have on one occasion that I recall directly accused Livio of voting based on the person, rather than the photo. But (a) I was wrong in that case and admitted that; (b) this thread isn't about me, though I'm sure Livio will try to make it about me; and (c) in no way could anyone make a founded claim that I am always rude to people who question the photos I nominate or always impugn their motives.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan you might want to collapse some of your quoted text and just highlight the relevant offensive remarks -- this is a bit too much text to expect folk to wade through.. I agree Livio has a pattern of giving hell to anyone who dares oppose his photos, to then revenge vote (see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Musentempel im Herbst, 1710150958, ako.jpg for a recent blatantly obvious example). Obviously that revenge example isn't going to change result, but there are other cases where his vote has damaged a nomination, and just makes the whole thing unpleasant. I oppose a lot of images at FPC and naturally not all nominators appreciate that, but Livio is by far the worst. He never accepts suggestions for improvement, frequently lies about the processing he has done, and basically claims anyone opposing his images is blind or bad faith. Livio was blocked long term and only got back here because INC unblocked him against community wish -- for which INC lost his admin bit. As a result of Livio's campaigns against anyone who opposes him, his images generally get a free ride at FPC, as most of the reviewers to dare to oppose images at all have given up reviewing his photos. His subjects are wonderful -- he lives in a great city -- but technically his photos are far far far below the standard set at FPC for religious and historic buildings or artworks. He's the photographer at FPC that nobody wants to oppose. -- Colin (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took out some exchanges that weren't essential. Did I remove enough? I want to keep the context clear enough. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there misconduct or hostility from Livio outside of QIC/FPC/VIC? I would instead propose a one-year topic ban from these boards. Guanaco (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Guanaco, Livio has no interaction with other users other than at QIC/FPC or to complain to User:Blackcat about others at QIC/FPC. So your proposed "topic ban" amounts to "User can upload own files". The suggestion might be appropriate if there was evidence of Livio interacting with others in a positive way. The restriction smells a little of "Can we have your pictures please, but we don't want to see or hear from you", which I think is unfair. Either he's accepted as part of the community or not, and there are other places he can upload free pictures. -- Colin (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked Livioandronico2013 for 6 months because of repeated uncivil behavior/personal attacks after numerous warnings and previous blocks. This kind of rudeness and unmellowness is unacceptable on commons. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Why are we not talking about indef here? Perhaps we should extend the block to a year or something like that. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support COM:FPC is definitely a more pleasant place without Livioandronico2013. --A.Savin 16:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nominating at FPC/QIC requires taking criticism. Livio has shown time and time again that he can't and resorts to insults and revenge votes. We don't need that. Livio doesn't participate outside of FPC/QIC to any extent, so a topic ban doesn't seem appropriate. Multiple users have been insulted by Livio: those who have ever opposed his images, so this isn't just a personality clash. -- Colin (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do not understand why some photographers feel offended by negative votes, some react with revenge negative votes or simply insulting/ridiculing others. IMHO, Negative votes are the best part of FPC. --The Photographer 19:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMHO, I think this user should be blocked indefinitely. Their behavior is toxic to our community and capable of causing severe damage to QIC/FPC/VIC process. Behaviors like this is against the core values of this project and should not be tolerated in anyway. I'm afraid, Livio's behavior may drive away potential contributors and force long time valuable users to quit the project. This user have been warned to desist from this behavior multiple times and they had been the subject of this board multiple times as well. See here, see User:Livioandronico2013 revenge voting and insulting the very people who are helping him, again User:Livioandronico2013, again User:Livioandronico2013, and see Livioandronico2013 once more and this ongoing one again. So, this appears to be a pattern of behavior that won't stop if we don't stop it. Wikicology (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had to revoke Livioandronico2013 talkpage access because he continued with rudeness there and pinging x-users while beng blocked on a talkpage may be considered abuse. After that i agree with Wikicology regarding the indef. block. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sadly. Good content is not an excuse for a bad behaviour. --Yann (talk) 10:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Wikicology et al. The user should be blocked undef . Consider the attacks/insults he made in his talk page recently: calling all the project a "nest of snakes" and directly insulting Steinsplitter indicates a total incompatibility with a social environment, besides indicating a blatant rudeness. This behaviour is not tolerable in a project where all the users are volunteers, and are here to have a good time (and promote free access to culture). --Ruthven (msg) 07:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support We've tried many times to point Livio in the correct direction, they have had numerous chances to improve their behaviour, we have been scrupulously fair with them and still the problematic behaviour continues. I would support an indefinite block and would also endorse Steinsplitter's six month block, with the expectation that if the indefinite block is appealed, it is only done after six months. Nick (talk) 08:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This individual sticks out in my mind for rudeness to me and many other people who wished to participate in discussions on Commons. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Priestdaddy.jpg

Resolved

blantant copyright. Artix Kreiger (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nuked. In future, adding the {{Copyvio}} tag will achieve the same effect. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Inmobiliaria Carvajal

Looks like an account simply as an COM:ADVERT -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked for promotional username, file tagged for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sussexwebdesigns

Another seemingly useless ADVERT account -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Promotional userpage deleted, account blocked. Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rahat xaman (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log)

advertising/spam and most likely copyrighted from somewhere. Artix Kreiger (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. User is warned and all advertising is deleted. No other action is needed now. Taivo (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jcb (once more)

Could someone please take a look at Jcb’s latest actions? I’m sad that I have to write a thread about one who I consider a friend but the latest actions are once again harmfull. Jcb deleted dozens uploads done by Mr.Nostalgic (deleted edits, example, another example, another example. Those files are released by the Dutch National Archive - one of our most important GLAM partners – under a cc-zero license. The explanation for deletion is severely lacking (nothing about why Jcb believes that the National Archive is wrong for example) and the editor who uploaded the files was even blocked for the duration of two hours.

Regarding the deletions: speedy deleting them is in no way supported by our deletion policy. At the verry least a DR was required. When an interested third party gives a angry but understandable reaction all he responses with is "Please only contact me if you can refrain from accusing language like 'crusade'." When the uploader complains about the deletions he comes with an argument not addressing the situation. (Talking about PD-old while him doubting the copyright claim made by the National Archive]. Even when Timmietovenaar – who works for the National Archive – joins the discussion, citing how Vysotsky explains how the National Archive became the copyright holder he ignores the argument and merely repeats that he is right and everyone else is wrong. (The phoprahps were made by employees working for the Dienst Legercontacten Indonesië which is part of the Dutch department of defence which donated the entire collection, and this includes the copyright.)

Not only misused Jcb his tools by speedy deleting material that doesn’t fit the criteria for speedy deletion, someone got blocked in the meantime but he is also ignoring the arguments provided. This has to end. Natuur12 (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look at all deleted files, but from what I see each file has a link to Nationaal Archief where it is clearly marked as Public Domain. Given that, the deletions can only be seen as administrative vandalism by Jcb. Jcb seems to hate Commons so much that they use now their sysop flag to delete valid freely licensed content. I really fail to understand, how long the administrative vandalism by Jcb should be tolerated here. --A.Savin 00:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Public Domain claims by archives are a common problem. While nobody makes a problem of deleting flickr-washed files, apparently some people think we shouldn't delete archive-washed files. In the previous case involving a Dutch archive, I called that archive by phone. In that phone call, they admitted that if they receive a box of pictures without mention of the photographer, that they would just put it on their website as an 'anonymous' work in the Public Domain. In case of the batch involved now, the files where mainly from 1947, 1948 and 1949, so that it's impossible that copyright would have expired. So if Nationaal Archief puts them on their website as 'photographer unknown' and 'Public Domain', there is no way this statement can be legally true. I requested uploader at their user talk page to stop their batch, but they did not respond and continued to upload instead. In such cases a short block (two hours) to stop the ongoing action is normal practice. Apart from the fact that, based on Dutch copyright regulations, there is no other possibility than that these files are copyright violations, this also tells us that unfortunately we have to be very careful with anything from the NA. Jcb (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If an UDR leads to new insights (e.g. new information provided by the NA) so that this batch can safely be restored, I am prepared to process the restoring. (As far as I am aware there are no other deleted batches from NA involved deleted for this reason, at least not by me. It's just this single batch). Jcb (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether archives and museums can freely release collections in their domain is a topic of debates for several years and the result has not changed. Copyrights of works almost entirely remain with its creator an in a case where the works are not created by the archive and or museum they cannot release it under a free license without a written permission from the copyright holder. That being said, it would be stupid to insists that archives like the Dutch National Archive must provide documents stating a transfer as taken place for every single image in their domain. We could trust their claims and if any legal issue arises in the future, we can hold the archive or museum responsible. So, this is not an issue. The images should not have been speedily deleted but such deletion is not uncommon and it's not vandalism. IMHO, an undeletion request for the deleted images is more productive than administrative action against the deleting admin. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for sure that in the case of the Nationaal Archief we wouldn't respond on the phone like a Dutch archive did with Jcb . We don't just accept boxes with photographs and add them digitized to our website.

The Nationaal Archief has a formal position in the Dutch archival field,described in the Dutch archival law (1995) we - inprincipal - only acquire archival material related to the national government and its institutions. Therefor we have a longlasting relationship with these so called "zorgdragers" which is institionalized in en elaborate process of selection and appraisel supported by extensive agreements about the care and its usage in the future. Transferred material like (for example) the Dienst Legercontacten (related to the Ministry of Defense) or the ANEFO Pressphotos (related to the Rijksvoorlichtingsdienst) are thoroughly investigated and agreed also on legal issues. I'm sorry to notice that the integrity of this images is disputed. --Timmietovenaar (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that my phone call was not with NA. (I am open for contact by phone if you would consider that helpful.)

Do you have more information on pictures in your collection than we can see online? For example this picture. Do you have more information on how the DLC became copyright holder in the first place? If they don't know who the photographer was, how do they know that this photographer was an employee who had the official duty to take pictures? The information currently online does not explain this. Jcb (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcb: see Inventaris van het archief van de Dienst voor Legercontacten (DLC) Indonesië, 1946-1950. They have such a document for most collections as far as I'm aware. If you want to know about the history of the archive (this collection) I would recomend that you read the pages 7 and 8. Natuur12 (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I wish I would have seen this document 48 hours earlier. Ok, this seems sufficiently convincing to me. I will restore the files. Jcb (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My comment on Jcb's Userpage, yesterday 15:55 hr., contained a link to the same description of that particular archive: If you would have taken two minutes to dive into the archival description of this particular archive, you would have seen that all files are in the Public Domain. In Dutch: "Er zijn geen beperkingen krachtens het auteursrecht." (My translation: "No limitations re copyright") Vysotsky (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The deletions are a secondary issue - we can restore them (although it's incredibly disruptive to our re-users across Wikimedia and elsewhere) but the primary issue, once again, is Jcb refusing to conform to community norms expected of administrators. The deletion of these files is a complex issue which needs to be discussed and a sensible approach with broad community consensus reached (whether that is deletion or not is not important) so that individual community members knows what is expected of them. I'm sympathetic to Jcb's position and I'd most likely support a restriction which prevents content from Nationaal Archief which has potential copyright issues being uploaded, but ultimately, the Nationaal Archief was a source that uploaders believed they could trust, they uploaded content believing it to be suitable for Wikimedia Commons, so we can't have administrators like Jcb running around making decisions to the contrary as they go, it really needs to be a community decision to restrict some content from Nationaal Archief. Nick (talk) 08:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a sample from the archives of similar issues where Jcb's non-collegiate behaviour was raised. If anyone wants to spend time mining the archives to create a more accurate picture, this would be helpful.

Jcb unproductively tagging up official United States military emblem image files 2016/9 Quote: Mechanically and robotically applying no-source tagging to all files indiscriminately really accomplishes absolutely nothing in improving Wikipedia Commons in any possible way.
Proposal to ban Jcb from using the 'no source' template for six months 2016/10
Jcb's use of "..." on image pages 2016/10 Jcb's behaviour considered pointy by the community
Inappropriate behavior of Jcb 2016/12 Quote: Jcb shouldn't have ignored and blame back the fault [...] If he had just done the undeletion instead, we won't have this ~~drama~~ discussion.
Jcb 2017/3 Quote: Jcb deletes a file uploaded by a respected experienced user, treats them as shit, and the user says "Fuck you Commons"
User:Jcb 2017/9 Similar incident

--Fæ (talk) 09:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear admins. Do i get some kind of notification of what is going to happen? Are the files i uploaded going to be restored? Can i continue with my uploads of the Nationaal Archief? I must say that i realy feel very frustrated about all this and am thinking seriously of stopping on commons for both my accounts as Mr.Nostalgic and as Alfvanbeem just like the other user described above. Regards Mr.Nostalgic (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC) alias Alf van Beem[reply]

I told what was going to happen and as far as I am aware the whole batch was restored about 24 hours ago. Nationaal Archief is fine. They are a positive exception to all the archives with who we have so many bad experiences. So please feel free to transfer files from Nationaal Archief, they won't be deleted again. I am sorry for my mistake. Regarding any other archive, please be very careful with them. Unfortunately over 90% of them puts pictures online with false PD claims. It's not without a reason that most admins (not just me) are very cynical about PD claims from archives in general. Jcb (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, not again. Most admins in Commons know perfectly well that it is exactly the other way around: many archives are knowledgeable in copyright cases. I can't take an admin seriously (regarding copyright) who proclaims PD claims from the [Dutch National Archives] NA are not reliable, and -when proven wrong in just one case (to the evidence of which he was pointed two times earlier)- tells us (only two days later) Nationaal Archief is fine. They are a positive exception to all the archives with who [sic] we have so many bad experiences, and who clearly misinterprets Copyright Acts, even when they are spelled out. Active users know when to distrust an archive or website. Don't be cynical. Be knowledgeable. Vysotsky (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you defended the files from the Stadsarchief Amsterdam with the same offensive language, while that archive admitted that their claims of 'anonymous work' where made up. Jcb (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jcb, please list the archives with who we have so many bad experiences so that uploaders may know which archives are not reliable, so that content from these archives can be discussed with an administrator or an experienced user before uploading. I think if we are clear and upfront with users that some archives have some issues, we can defuse some of these situations or stop them becoming so explosive. Nick (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a list, but I think it would be a good idea to build a list of safe and unsafe archives. For now at least we know that Stadsarchief Amsterdam is unsafe, they admitted (by phone) that when they receive a box of old looking pictures that they would put them on there website as 'anonymous work'. I remember several bad experiences with Spaarnestad including false PD claims and the assumption that they would automatically be the copyright holder of any picture they have a physical copy of. Spaarnestad might have changed things in the meantime, based on this comment. For all the other archives and musea I had conversations with over the past ten years, I really don't remember. Must be over 100 different organisations. Jcb (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some useful links to prove the contrary: (1) Stadsarchief Amsterdam, website Q & A, general remarks on usage (in Dutch), incl. the remark "Bij materiaal waarvan de rechten niet bij het Stadsarchief Amsterdam berusten gelden afwijkende voorwaarden [...]" (My translation: "Different conditions apply when the Stadsarchief Amsterdam doesn't own copyright" and an example of one item, with clear metadata. (2) Spaarnestad Photo is a commercial photo press agency. Spaarnestad and Dutch Nationaal Archief made a deal in 2008-2011 comprising the old ANEFO photo collection (350,000 photographs). The ANEFO collection would be taken care of by Nationaal Archief (with physical transfer and transfer of copyright). In that process, some photographs were made public via Flickr -and a few were wrongly labeled re copyright. As a commercial firm Spaarnestad needs to make profit, but Spaarnestad cares about the rights of photographers and has in the past also granted CC-BY-SA-rights for photographs upon special request. Pre-1947 photographs made by unknown photographers from their collection are in the public domain in the Netherlands, according to the Dutch Copyright Act, Art. 38. Main statement: if Spaarnestad wouldn't have existed and wouldn't have struck a deal with Nationaal Archief, all Wikipedia's together would have had 90.000 very useful images less. In my view, both Stadsarchief Amsterdam and Spaarnestad Photo are reliable organisations. I dislike accusations on a shaky basis. Vysotsky (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Pre-1947 photographs made by unknown photographers from their collection are in the public domain in the Netherlands" - you have to read the whole sentence, not just the first half. It's 70 years from publication, not creation, so if there is no information about publication, article cannot be applied in such a way. The community consensus is to use 120 years from creation for works with unknown author from PMA+70 countries, not 70 years. Jcb (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to quash the "120 years" consensus as myth. Please provide a link to the consensus you are using to support your exact assertion that "PMA+70 countries" must use 120 years post-creation for unknown authors, otherwise it should be read as your opinion.

Secondly, in many countries, a proper and precise scrutiny of copyright act definitions and associated existing case law shows that where the word "publication" is used and the date of publication remains unknown or unprovable, it is sufficient to calculate from the date of creation unless within the 70 year period there has been a claim of publication rights. The second point is not one for this noticeboard, as a post-hoc issue it should be correctly discussed and set out in a specific deletion request or copyright review as it is a tangent that did not apply to your actions in this case. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fae, you voted in what you now call a myth. Jcb (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, please do not quote partial evidence by linking to old versions of discussions. If you made the effort to look at the full discussion, it was closed by a Bureaucrat with "For the above reasons, this discussion should be taken as indicative of a preference for a 120 year period amongst those editors who favour the idea of a cut-off. The next stage, now, should be to open a wide-ranging discussion and RFC of a more detailed policy, based on the preferred 120 year default. Once that discussion has concluded, and rules or guidelines have been agreed for the various specific situations that might arise, there should be a final binding discussion and !vote to bring the new policy into force." A yet to be properly agreed "indicative preference" is not consensus, it is not policy, it is not a guideline and cannot be used by any administrator to justify their use of sysop rights to force their personal opinions on the community. --Fæ (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcb and Fæ: That next discussion should be at Commons talk:Cut-off date for PD-old files, but no one aside from the closing Bureaucrat has contributed. — Jeff G. ツ 14:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user Jcb is stalking me and deleting files that have no copyright violations. file:Fchipganassiracing.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonDance (talk • contribs) 17:40, 7 December 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

With regard to making a list of good/bad GLAM archives, this would be potentially misleading oversimplification and is a tangent to the root cause of dispute in this case. For my projects where copyright has been a reason for deletions, it is the specific deletion requests that provide better understanding of both copyright for those collections and how other problem cases can be identified for future uploads. Large batch uploads should have on-Commons project pages where this can be collated. For example, the Imperial War Museum wrongly claims copyright over its public domain files, yet uploading from that source is fine, while the London School of Economics archives releases a huge number of photographs as "no copyright known" without a fully reliable copyright review, yet again it is fine to mass upload from that source with some caution. I certainly do not expect to have warnings or threats of blocks from administrators that are unlikely to know as much as about these collections as myself.

If an administrator wishes to mass delete problem files, having reference deletion requests is essential. The fundamental issue causing disruption here is administrators who use their personal tastes and judgement to speedy delete, rather than encouraging open discussion and feedback using the DR process. With a precedent of past DR cases, a mass deletion would be hardly any effort to create compared to use of speedies. So just stick to policy and process please, or walk away from contentious deletions altogether rather than poking at it because you have nothing more urgent to handle.

Blocking a good faith uploader like Mr.Nostalgic should never, ever, happen, and any administrator that acts this way should expect to be publicly called out for misuse of trusted rights. For the record on 4th December Jcb warned Mr.Nostalgic at 21:32 about uploading files dated 1947 onwards (diff), two minutes later at 21:34 Jcb blocked Mr.Nostalgic (log). Jcb failed to comply with Commons:Blocking_policy#Instructions_for_administrators as they never attempted warnings before a block, they never added a block notice, and though this was a controversial block Jcb failed to raise the case at AN. Even now Jcb appears to have not properly understood why their use of sysop rights was wrong in this case, or precisely how they failed to comply with policy. --Fæ (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "mining the archives" for complaints about Jcb is at all a balanced way to judge issues with Jcb. Jcb does a lot of deletions. People get upset when their files are deleted. Hence, Jcb gets a lot of complaints. That doesn't mean there aren't some genuine problems and long-term behaviour issues, just that it isn't a simple job of listing links. In many of the links above, it is clear there is a problem with process and with information being lost. I'm not aware that anyone has bothered to update our processes to fix those issues. There does seem to be a specific problem here with speedy deletions where the issue was contentious or at least not well documented or discussed. It appears Jcb wrongly identified the files as copyvios and wanted to delete recent uploads and prevent new ones. The process of determining this was not followed. So I think User:Jcb should address the community to explain how this mistake will not happen again.

While I would agree that in general blocking a good faith uploader should be a last-resort and done by community agreement (way too many admins swinging the block stick at vandals then seem to take the same trigger-happy attitude to others). However, I have a question: if a user is batch-uploading images (don't know what tool was being used here), is there any way to stop that batch upload other than with a block should the user not respond to a talk-page request. It is possible to set of a batch and go to bed. If one wants to stop that, there doesn't seem to be a way other than a block. I see from the timeline that only 2 minutes elapsed between the request and the block, which seems very short. If there isn't some ability to just block uploads or block a certain tool, then at least I think Jcb should have considered "Just what is the immediate harm to Commons from letting this batch upload" We have here some old b&w photos which won't kill anyone if we host them for a few hours. If they were uploading commercially valuable and current images, then there's more risk. But always always it really isn't our job to worry about that: the legal responsibility is on the uploader, the re-user and ultimately on WMF if they get a take-down. So perhaps consider just how vital "fixing the problem" RIGHT NOW THIS SECOND is, Jcb. A little more cautious and careful and with an eye to community happiness being more important than some dusty JPGs? -- Colin (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the workflow of speedy deleting a file must include checking the file history and looking up who uploaded the file. The workflow of blocking a user must include checking whether anybody talked to a user about seemingly problematic uploads, and if not, starting a talk page discussion. Jcb consistently fails to do either.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Natuur12, A.Savin, Wikicology, Vysotsky, Nick, Fæ, Colin, and Ymblanter. Speedy deletions out of process are abuses of power, and violations of the trust we placed during an RFA. How long must such abuses continue before something is done about them? I think it is high time for Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 4). — Jeff G. ツ 20:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1 I also think the measure is now getting slowly really full (just a bit pity, he is a very diligent admin). He knows he is under critical observation, but he allows himself one big mistake after another (too much for be godly). I would agree for a temporary break for thought. -- User: Perhelion 12:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that people are not happy that the Jcb's call and the response was not documented. Perhaps a statement from them would work? Artix Kreiger (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Way forward

What is the way forward? Desysop request? Wikicology (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I have reverted my action when it prooved erroneous, I have apologized to the uploader and I will be more careful with this kind of uploads. What more do you expect from me? This community is so good in applying different standards to different admins. E.g. when I posted a topic on Yann recently, it was clearly determined that their action was inappropriate, but nobody reverted their action and Yann got away with promising that they would repeat the abuse in the future. I am doing my best to learn from mistakes and I am always prepared to reconsider any action. That should be good enough. Please first apply this standard to all admins, before asking more from me. Jcb (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have worn out the community's patience with repeated poor replies and treatment of good faith contributors, and that's not just the number of times complaints have been raised on this noticeboard. As you are confident in your track record and competence, please voluntarily run a reconfirmation RFA. Holding the mop should be "no big deal" and if administrators were more prepared to run "no-fault" reconfirmation RFAs, there would be less of a feeling that this was a collectable hat that had to be gripped with both hands, even when admins are inactive or uninterested in contributing to the improvement of this project. I'm sure if you take the lead, then Yann would also offer to do the same.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jcb, your comment sounds like you are accusing the community of been biased towards you. Please, stop it! One of the problem with you is that you don't listen to people until they report you on noticeboards. If you had listen when you were approached to review your action, we won't be wasting our time here. You disagree?. Wikicology (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am very uncomfortable with how the block is being described above. Our blocking policy is clear that it is "preventative" not "punitive" and while we may disagree about aspects, Jcb in good faith believed a user was uploading copyright violations and was using a batch upload to do so. I asked above, and got no reply, what mechanism admins have to end a batch upload without blocking a user account. There appears to be none. So this seems to be yet another undocumented area where Commons procedures are lacking. The block log says " blocked Mr.Nostalgic (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 2 hours (account creation blocked) (To stop ongoing copyvio batch upload)". I think Jcb could have waited longer before blocking, and I think he should even have considered whether the upload of these copyvios (as he saw them) was an urgent problem, but the fact remains that this was a very short preventative block for what appeared to be automated batch uploading. One cannot negotiate with a computer program, and if Mr.Nostalgic had gone off to have his dinner, say, and left the batch upload running, there really isn't any way for the supposed procedural steps to be followed. It wasn't really a "user block" even though that was the mechanism, it was simply blocking a software tool for a short period.

User:Jcb, there are several people here who would love to see you lose your admin bit. It seems to me the main area where you actions are controversial is with old photos and with speedy deletes (or closing your own DR). Is it possible for you to refrain from those areas until such time as you have worked with others to better document (or establish) community consensus on these issues. You claim above there is a consensus for dates, but this is contested by others. I think the idea of on-Commons project pages for large batch uploads is a very good one and could be a place where potential copyright and other issues are discussed perhaps even prior to any uploads. They could be announced and watchlisted by those who are knowledgeable in the area. Also, the action you took to block the batch upload is not documented in our blocking policy. That does not, in itself, mean it is illegal (as that page is not exhaustive), but it suggests that a procedure should be documented and agreed on by the community. What sort of notice, what period of waiting, what kind of urgency assessment, etc, is done before applying such a block. I strongly suggest you take the initiative to get consensus for this sort of action and document the result. If you aren't interested in working with others to agree these steps, but just repeatedly make up your own rules on the hoof, then this sort of outcome is inevitable.

Jcb, I don't think complaining about others "getting away with it" helps your case. You are a highly active admin, and seem to get involved in areas that are contentious at times, so the onus is on you to take some initiative to improve your relationship with fellow users. You claim you are learning from mistakes but many times the issue seems to be that you are operating on your own interpretation of policy/rules which aren't documented, and aren't communicating well. You need to change your style of approach or else radically constrain your admin scope to non-contentious areas. -- Colin (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For reverting bad batch uploads we have a mass delete button. In 99% of cases all files uploaded by a certain user need to be deleted, and it can be done within seconds. In rare cases, the files need to be checked one by one, and mass delete has an option of only deleting selected files. This may become a serious problem when an established user uploads a batch of bad files, but in this case we expect them to help with the cleanup (for example, compiling a list of bad uploads).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that in this comment I do not express an opinion on the subject above. But I have always thought that maybe administrators should have time-limited and renewable mandates (example 3 or 5 years) renewable through Rfa (or through a confirmation with different modalities). But this would have to apply to all administrators, it would cause administrators, whoever they are, to make constant efforts regarding their behavior and their interaction with the rest of the community. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This seems very reasonable. Sort of like the confirmation for stewards. Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion makes an instructive read. Vysotsky (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it shows how some users will criticize you, even if you follow established practice. Jcb (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shows that some people call uploads copyright violations before this is proven to be so, and that some admins don't treat people in a very polite way -nor in a way that is benificial to Wikimedia Commons. Vysotsky (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Uploading copyvios, one after my warning (since deleted), seven out of the last eight uploads, and antisocial removal of warnings from user talk page. — Jeff G. ツ 09:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ellin Beltz nominated his/her uploads for deletion and I blocked him/her for a month. Taivo (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 {{clear}}
+<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">{{quote box2
+  | title =
+  | title_bg = #999
+  | title_fnt = white
+  | quote = There is consensus that [[User:Livioandronico2013]] be blocked indefinitely for his continuous incivilities and rude responses during disputes while having been blocked numerous times before. The recent six-months block handed out by Steinsplitter will therefore be extended accordingly. As Livio has shown no sign of understanding and did not tone down his rhetorics even after this new block, appeals made by Livioandronico2013 to the indefinite block shall only be considered after a period of six months from today. Livio's talkpage access will then be restored so he can make a regular request for unblock. [[User:De728631|De728631]] ([[User talk:De728631|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
+  | width = 30%|halign=left}}
+:''The following discussion is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> {{#switch: {{PAGENAME}} | Administrators&#39; noticeboard/Incidents = | Administrators&#39; noticeboard = | Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.}} No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive top-->
+----
 == [[User:Livioandronico2013]] ==
@@ Line 65: / Line 73: @@
 *{{s}} We've tried many times to point Livio in the correct direction, they have had numerous chances to improve their behaviour, we have been scrupulously fair with them and still the problematic behaviour continues. I would support an indefinite block and would also endorse Steinsplitter's six month block, with the expectation that if the indefinite block is appealed, it is only done after six months. [[User:Nick|Nick]] ([[User talk:Nick|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 *{{s}} This individual sticks out in my mind for rudeness to me and many other people who wished to participate in discussions on Commons.  [[User:Ellin Beltz|Ellin Beltz]] ([[User talk:Ellin Beltz|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
+{{archive bottom}}
 == [[:File:Priestdaddy.jpg]] ==