Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

CommonsShortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

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 []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
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
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	123, 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	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

^{Translate this page}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~71
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~2
• No license since 10 July 2025: ~14
• No permission since 10 July 2025: ~4
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2025-07: ~103

Other:

• Duplicates: ~4,864
• Advertisements/spam: ~7
• Personal photos/selfies: ~58
• Other speedy deletions: ~53
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~2
• Undeletion requests: ~14

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~3
• Interface admin: ~12
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~4
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

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.

User:Jan Arkesteijn

This user keeps uploading problematic green-tinted images, claiming they are from the mentioned source, but not explaining the differences, despite being asked told not to. His overwrites in this vein violate COM:OVERWRITE. Please see COM:VPP#Policy proposal concerning edited images.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: as prior closing admin. This action may violate the consensus of Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_57#Jan_Arkesteijn_(talk_·_contribs)_overwriting_files per "It is de-facto a edit restriction, which means that in case of violation a block is appropriate.". It is for very similar disruptive issues, though to be fair, these are their own uploads. Your opinion? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Please provide links to files with recent bad file overwrites. Uploading new files without saying you've edited them is not the same unwanted activity. Otherwise any block would be inappropriate.--BevinKacon (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@BevinKacon: He "adjusted exposure" of File:Jacob Kistemaker 2008.jpg without using {{Retouched picture}} or similar and a new filename.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• The user has been blocked two times yet (one time by me and the second time by Natuur12) for violating the edit restriction (for which we have community consensus). Therefore i request a indefinite block. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I second the request.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with indef block. Jan Arkesteijn uploads without declaring that the source image is not the same as the uploaded image, and has a long-running problem with using the "upload a new version of this file" to do exactly not that -- just upload a new photograph of this artwork from some entirely different source. This gets their edited versions onto Wikipedia without anyone noticing that the image has changed, or being able easily see that this is in fact an amateur-edited artwork, not the original from "Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien" etc. While some archives with photos of artworks are not reproduced very well, others take care to photograph neutrally and with good equipment. We need to respect that, especially if declaring that the image comes from such-and-such a museum. Compare this blue version with the original. Jan's version of the painting looks like one of those 1960's cheap films where they stuck a blue filter on the camera to make it look like night time. A painting on canvas from 1634 will not have white so blue it looks like it was created on some Xerox photocopy paper in 2018. Trying to fix Anthony van Dyck's white balance four hundred years later is not on. The professionals use colour-checker cards and expensive calibrated displays. Such dishonest mucking about with historical works has no place on this site and ruins their educational value. -- Colin (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• I support an indef block per the reasons stated by Colin. IT's a pitty that this user keeps damaging all the projects. Natuur12 (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Support, especially since the subject, Jan Arkesteijn, (again) refuses to interact with the community on the matter under review. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC).

Since the block I uploaded some 2.500 images. To my own surprise it included an overwrite. To say that I need to be banned for that is a bit harsh, I think. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The issue is not just overwriting, but then disruptively using the frankly weirdly blue-casted images to illustrate Wikipedia articles when colour-correct versions from official sources are available. I see you did this on the Italian Wikipedia for van Dyck's Filippo Francesco d'Este. With a bit of research we could probably find other unhelpful usage, perhaps you could suggest some that ought to be swapped out globally for "encyclopaedic correct" versions?

As has been alluded to before, your colour changes are misleadingly blue-casted. Doing this for your own amusement is fine, but nobody else should be using them instead of official versions as they are effectively damaged derivatives. I would rather see all fake colour images of old paintings, where not obviously helpful restorations, deleted from Commons. --Fæ (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

All those 2.500 uplaods (mostly artworks) are photoshopped? Some are in use at wikipedia, really concerning having retouched artworks there. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I looked up a few, and the original ones are looking different. Highly concerning. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The pattern of promoting inter-wiki usage is consistent, and all uploaded photographs of old paintings have to be doubted unless independently checked. As we did last time, this may mean putting all the uploads in a "to be reviewed" category. In all challenged cases, either we revert images hosted on Commons to the source versions, or we swap global usage to authentic versions which are also hosted here. I would support deleting or reverting all derivatives, as their existence on Commons will remain a risk of disruption for sister projects. --Fæ (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: for another example, look at File:Jacobus Gerhardus van Niftrik (1833 - 1910).jpg. Yup, Barbie found her Ken. The initial upload was also not the original file from the source (this is), but the overwrite made the image utterly unusable. And yes, that was used on nlwiki. It's true this was Arkesteijns own upload, but this is not helpful. Arkesteijn would be a great contributor, if only he could uninstall Photoshop. Finding images, uploading them, inserting them into appropriate articles - that's all absolutely great. But because of the Photoshop, everything is worthless. And for some images, the source has died since. So we may never know the original colors for those works. Somehow current policy, taken literally, doesn't prohibit this crap. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

 Support an indef block after tripping over other disruptive misuse. The block should not be lifted unless far more extreme topic bans are agreed, or Jan voluntarily commits to all further colour tampering with images of paintings; after years of this nonsense it looks like addictive behaviour rather than one that could be explained rationally.

Looking at the history and usage of File:Anne-Arsene Charton (1827-1892), by Édouard-Louis Dubufe.jpg, the colours were changed to make the painting have unnaturally glowing pink skin (painted in 1849). Jan Arkesteijn is effectively using Wikidata to covertly add this fake colour image to Wikimedia projects by adding the image to wikidata:Q38911447 so that this has been automatically included in the Catalan article and has been picked up as the "official" image listed as a needed English article as part of the Women in Red project. This change cannot be seen on those sister projects, as they rely on Wikidata's encyclopaedic accuracy. This appears to be deliberate vandalism and should be challenged and handled as such.

Stats: Checking Wikidata contributions shows 364 added or changed P18 image claims this year so far. These include changes like wikidata:Q271950 which introduced File:Albertine Agnes, Princess of Orange, by studio of Johannes Mijtens.jpg, the original of which has completely different colours, yet misleadingly this fact is not mentioned on the Commons file page, and the original at http://oranje-nassau.org has not been uploaded to Commons. Perhaps a worse example is wikidata:Q19861889 where an original authentic copy of the painting has been swapped to a false colour version, but again you would not know these were false colours as only by visiting the source site can you see the difference and would presume that the change was simply to add a higher resolution copy.

--Fæ (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

 Support Normally I would advise to do everything possible to not block any contributor. Unfortunately I must agree that in this particular case we have an issue of a very time consuming vandalism. Sad really, because in all that time I have come across a couple of images that this individual actually improved in my opinion, but I think even that was mostly a fluke. I am against indefinite block, however. A long block or about a year or even three years, perhaps, but not indefinite. I hope that this individual cools down and gets a chance to contribute constructively. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 14:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Gone_Postal an "indefinite block" is not a permanent ban. It simply says that you are blocked until such time you recognise why you were blocked, agree with the block, and agree to not again to make those faults. I can't see any reason why this years and years of vandalism of artworks should be permitted to automatically recur after x months. -- Colin (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This topic would benefite from a seperation where I broke a commons rule, and the rest. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You have been causing disruption with false colour tampering since at least 2008. The consensus reached after lengthy and time-wasting debate two years ago was clear, to argue that disruption caused by misleadingly using false colouring is somehow not vandalism because a file was not overwritten on Commons is wikilawyering. You knowingly have worked around the restriction and you are deliberately misusing wikidata to get your fake colour images promoted across other projects. You are unable to admit or explain the problem, nor do you seem to be prepared to help fix the damage you have caused to this project and several others.

A lengthy block seems to be the only way to stop the disruption you are causing, nor would it be especially helpful to wikilawyer our policies to make them fully "Jan Arkesteijn proof" when you are unique in the extent and type of damage and disruption you have caused this project for a decade. --Fæ (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I want to see good in people, and I am willing to admit that I voted wrongly, so @Jan Arkesteijn: can you please explain why would you overwrite other people's images with your alterations? ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 15:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Execpt for the mentioned slip, I didn't. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

1. How about Commons:Forum/Archiv/2018/March#Bilder_überschreiben,_da_entgegen_Quelle_verändertes_Original,_User:Jan_Arkesteijn where there was a consensus for the original colour-correct source image for this painting in use on several projects, and you twice overwrote @Oursana: this year? That's not "I didn't", that's called having a revert war and avoiding a grown-up discussion about the alternatives.
2. Or how about this 17th C. work, where a correct-colour and higher resolution image was uploaded by @Druifkes: in 2012, but this year, you overwrote it with a freakishly pink-skinned version? That's not "I didn't".
3. Perhaps a third example clinches the case, this 19th C. painting where @KenjiMizoguchi: uploaded a higher resolution original in 2015, and you overwrote it this year with another weird blue-cast Jan Arkesteijn version? That's not "I didn't".

Some of us have skills for searching down evidence, I suggest you think twice before creating further tangents or obfuscation. --Fæ (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

These were my own uploads. This is not a violation of the edit restriction Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The evidence above shows that they are more precisely you revert warring with other contributors. They are you promoting fictional and damaged images to be transcluded on other projects. They are you pretending that your uploads are from given official sources when they are actually damaged works, in the above case of the 19th C. landscape the trees are barely green any more because the blue overcast is so extreme, yet the original is fine. They are you overwriting where others are uploading the colour correct versions of the files, correctly representing the source that you quoted on your own uploads.

You are wikilawyering as a defence for your deliberate sustained disruption of this project, of wikidata and of wikipedia in several languages. You are an obsessive vandal and you are unable to admit that what you are doing is wrong. --Fæ (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I have checked all the users uploads of the past 3 months and none of them were COM:OVERWRITE violations. If the problem is not bigger than an apparent mistake at File:Jacob Kistemaker 2008.jpg almost six months ago, then I have to  Oppose sanctions. Jcb (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jcb: Do you think it is okay to change colors of hundreds of years old files? There is a edit restriction which was established upon community consensus, the third time the user violated it (he got blocked two times yet). I think a indef. block is clearly needed here. There are tons of old paintings which have been edited by him used in Wikipedia. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course the user has to respect the edit restriction, but the only violation of that restriction that has been presented here dates from May, one edit. I am willing to believe them when they state that they did not intend to violate the edit restriction. All people make mistakes. I think if this old edit is the only violation, that should not be base for a block. Blocks are not meant for punishment. Jcb (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Therefore i ask for a indef. block, then the block is preventive and additionally he wouldn't be able to upload retouched (faked) old paintings. Changing colors of really old paintings is disruptive, they are looking different from the files in the museum, he uploaded those files (sometimes under new filenames) and added them to Wikipedia. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

It is difficult to understand why the evidence above of manipulation of Commons images linked on Wikidata entries, which automatically are used on Wikipedia infoboxes is being ignored as evidence. These changes are happening now, not six months ago, and make a nonsense of COM:EDUSE which states this project's purpose as "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". These misleadingly bright pink-skinned and weird blue cast derivatives for paintings that are centuries old, are neither knowledge nor informative as they actively mislead, misinform and are works of fiction not knowledge. If we have to change OVERWRITE to stop this destructive vandalism, then let's change it, but we do not have to wait for a wikilawyering court case to conclude that Jan Arkesteijn's actions are careful and deliberate cross-project disruption, ignoring all past consensus for what counts as an educational image.

Addendum I have created Commons:Deletion requests/File:Richard Wilson (1714-1782), by Anton Raphael Mengs.jpg as a test case for one of Jan Arkesteijn's fake colour versions where the original is avalable and Jan Arkesteijn deliberately replaced the authentic original on other projects with the fake one. It is hard to describe that damaging action as anything other than using a Commons image in an act of vandalism. --Fæ (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Example: source original & result of manipulation. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Fæ: one could also call it fraud.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 18:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Second addendum I have created a thread at ANI on the English Wikipedia to raise the damage done on articles there by Jan Arkesteijn. Different policies apply, and damage to the English Wikipedia is neither going to be fully researched or corrected by discussion on Commons. --Fæ (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I have uploaded a new version of File:Constantijn Huygens (1596-1687) by Caspar Netscher.jpg (Fæ's #2 above) which is now identical to the source I downloaded form Rijksmuseum but with the insertion of an sRGB colour profile which was missing (which is the default Web standard, but including it guarantees everyone sees the same image regardless of browser or display tech). It is actually less red than @Druifkes: version, which incorrectly had an "eciRGB v2" colour profile assigned. I disagree with User:Jcb that the edit restriction is the only thing Jan can be blocked on. The community has complained for years that he corrupts artworks, particularly his tendency to shift the colour to blue, presumably because he doesn't like the fact the canvass has yellowed with age. This is simply educational and artistic vandalism borne from vanity. It is one thing to make mistakes (like the colour profile) but another to consistently upload obviously colour-distorted artworks and dishonestly claiming they came from an official source. -- Colin (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Another example, demonstrating a decade of false colours. File:Guerin Pierre Narcisse - Morpheus and Iris 1811.jpg was uploaded by Jan in 2009 and the hue adjusted in 2018 a few days ago. The "source" link does not work. But the current JPG at the Hermatage looks like this (if that doesn't work then go to this page and select the download icon). Jan's version is blue/pink rather than a warm sunlit skin. Jan's fake has then been used in a detail clip and someone even stated that this variant had been superseded by Jan's fake. So Jan is causing a cascade of problems with his deliberately altered artworks. -- Colin (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Restoring or fixing colours due to ageing of the painting should definitely be allowed. After re-reading the arguments, and specially the clear misrepresentation of what I have said by Colin (where apparently I was quoted as saying that vandalism should be allowed to continue), I understand that this is not an issue for a ban, but regards disagreement over what it means to have "original colours". Jan Arkesteijn has made some pretty poor judgements when it comes to the hue, but some of the other "originals" do appear to be weathered with time. As such I now vote to  Oppose any ban, and urge people to create a clear policy regarding uploading an edited image and not stating that it has been edited, the discussion is right now on COM:Village pump/Proposals. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 21:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Gone_Postal please provide evidence for this "apparently I was quoted as saying that vandalism should be allowed to continue" or strike your comments about me misrepresenting your position. AFAIK the only comment I've made to you is about what an indef block means. If Jan wants to make an amateur "restoration" of what he (incorrectly) thinks were the original colours 400 years ago, then he can upload that with a suitable title and description clearly stating that this is his own interpretation of the work. We can all then judge, at DR, whether Jan's blue variants have any educational value. What he can't do, and should be blocked indef for, is consistently claim he has uploaded a JPG from an official source, coming from a notable museum or gallery, a photo or scan taken by professionals, and then actually upload his own perverted fake colours. That is simple and straightforward dishonesty, and has no place on this project whatsoever. -- Colin (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Third addendum Commons:Deletion requests/File:John La Farge, by Robert Wilton Lockwood.jpg has been created as another recent false colour upload with damaging saturation of blue and pink, deliberately avoiding uploading the original colour correct file from the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. --Fæ (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Fourth addendum Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nymphs and Satyr, by William-Adolphe Bouguereau.jpg has been created as it is a false/bizarrely blue colour version of a painting that is being actively promoted to Wikipedias due to the phenomenal power of reusers belief that Wikidata facts must be reliable, and verified by somebody. --Fæ (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Fifth addendum Commons:Deletion requests/File:Elizabeth Murray (1626–1698), by Peter Lely.jpg has been created for an upload 3 weeks ago by Jan Arkesteijn which cannot be correctly sourced or verified. Even though these are the highest resolution images of this painting we have, I have created the DR as both the sourcing and digital manipulation needs clear explanation before we can judge whether the photograph is usefully in scope as educational rather than misleading and should be removed as disinformation. There are two versions of the image (original and overwrite) and neither appears to match the source. The EXIF data is also suspect, it would be good for Jan Arkesteijn to explain exactly how they manipulate EXIF data as other accounts have been blocked for misrepresenting the attribution of photographs, or misrepresenting the validity of basic data, by manipulating or oddly copying EXIF data with the intent to misrepresent. --Fæ (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

6. Commons:Deletion requests/File:After the bath, by Jean-Léon Gérôme.jpg
7. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Allegory of Fortune, by Agnolo Bronzino.jpg, this image includes deliberately misleading EXIF data, making it look like the Landesmuseum have released their photograph as public domain or on a PDM license, the source website tells a different story.
8. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mata Hari (1905-1917).jpg The PDM license is fraudulent, there is no such release by the Fries Museum quoted in the EXIF data. The upload of an inaccurate fake-colour image which misrepresents the source, and evidence-free claim of {{Anonymous-EU}} is as bad as blatant Flickrwashing, made worse by the deliberate use of fake EXIF data.
9. Deletion Request for 258 YouTube frame grabs. Necessary as the embedded EXIF statement states CC-BY-4.0 while the actual license required is CC-BY-3.0.
10. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bernhardus Clesius, by Bartholomäus Bruyn the Elder.jpg

--Fæ (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Topic ban from any “adjustment” of colours or retouching, for paintings and similar images, indefinitely. Cropping can be permitted, as well as overwriting with better (by a large margin) image in the cases where colours are not important, such as File:02 The Ravisher.jpg. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Incnis Mrsi what makes you think that the colour is "not important" on photo of an engraving from 1495? The museum/gallery clearly thinks it is worth photographing in colour and presenting the yellowed paper to its audience? Additionally, the b&w version has had the contrast increased, removing fine detail. You can see here the care the BM take to get their archive works colour-accurate, even engravings. This b&w image has all the subtly of a fax. Fundamentally, this b&w image is not the JPG from the British Museum, so the sourcing is dishonest, and the image we see here a derived work that must be indicated as such. A topic ban would not require Jan to acknowledge his faults, meaning we'd have to continue to monitor and discuss whether his contributions were honestly sourced and free of Photoshopping. Much better to outright indef block until such time as he agrees to desist secretly Photoshopping artworks and making false claims. Further, there is the issue noted above about the huge amount of work required to identify and fix all the mess created so far, possibly thousands of images. So I don't think it is reasonable to just ignore that. If someone is a mass vandal, then we don't just say "Naughty boy, here's a topic ban on vandalism". -- Colin (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

    Certainly, in comparison to importance in painting. Imagine a villager who dumped toxic waste on a public road; he sometimes also burns rubber tyres on the open air. I proposed to forbid him to dump toxic waste under threat of execution. Should we discuss secondary grievances now? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

    • I hear what you're saying, but over here it is not allowed to burn rubber tyres as well. Anyway, I hope moderators can and will take a decision soon, I think the general point is quite clear. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC).

Restoration of official photographs of artworks

What is the best way to identify and fix these artworks? Some could be deleted if the official gallery photo has already been uploaded, though that might require patching up sister projects. Others could be overwritten? Do we have community consensus to overwrite these when the source image does not match the image hosted here? What about all the images where Jan overwrote artworks but didn't fix up the source, leaving the source link incorrect and the source of the new image undocumented. Perhaps we should develop a template stating that this photo/scan of an artwork came from XYZ Gallery or Museum and must not be overwritten unless by an improved JPG directly sourced from that site. -- Colin (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Somehow or other, it would be nice to not have files on Commons that have been edited like these without an obvious "this has been retouched" note. I've noticed on occasion that some of the paintings in Commons have weird color balance, without looking into it more; I'm glad they're being fixed. (I'd kind of assumed they were just bad photos or whatever.) Goldenshimmer (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Reverting false colour image vandalism on Wikidata

For 3 years, Jan Arkesteijn has been damaging Wikidata by replacing or inserting false colour images of paintings and old photographs on Wikidata, deliberately making it appear that these faked images are official, and the best versions hosted by Wikimedia Commons. The earliest example is diff where Arnoldus Geesteranus has been inserted, this photograph is given a source in the EXIF data of Mauritshuis, but the image displayed at that source is radically different in colour. Our overwrite policy was written and agreed for good faith uploads, not to protect or justify obsessive vandalism which the evidence clearly shows is actively being used to damage the educational value of sister Wikimedia projects.

[1] provides a list of 1,588 images which have been overwritten by Jan Arkesteijn and are linked in Wikidata. This is not complete, there may be images like the Mauritshuis photograph which have never been overwritten but are not appropriate for Wikidata, and the list includes photographic portraits which have been "touched up", and we have yet to establish a precedent as to whether this is vandalism. With more patience, someone could probably put together a SPARQL that provides a specific list of Arkesteijn manipulated photographs of paintings on Wikidata.

I propose that all these image insertions are removed from Wikidata, as we would treat any mass interwiki vandalism. Where possible they are replaced with authentically coloured versions that correctly match their quoted official sources, and can be verified as such. Further where a Jan Arkesteijn uploaded image can be replaced with the official sourced image, that any contributor is free to do this, rather than having to go to the extra work of creating a separate file. --Fæ (talk) 11:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

"the list includes photographic portraits which have been "touched up", and we have yet to establish a precedent as to whether this is vandalism"

Imho Ken and Barbie are vandalism. The only reason those images must be kept is as a warning from history, to make sure we will never let this happen again. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 13:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The Olivia_Colman_(2014).jpg stuff is a blatant forgery which has to meet with a lengthy block if not ceased. @Alexis Jazz: what do I miss with “Ken”? Can you please use image notes to explain better? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The examples are almost endless. Compare this original image of a girl with Jan Arkesteijn's scarlet fever patient. It's atrocious. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC).

@Incnis Mrsi: compare his skin with the image that superseded it. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 15:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Better quality, but without reference to source

Map with orange cape

Map with blue cape

Look at File:1606 -26 Nova Blaeu mr.jpg #filehistory. Jan uploaded a better image over an existing page (that is good) but supplied a dumb summary – is “higher resolution” wise? Certainly, an average Commoner is not that stupid to miss that pixel dimensions became larger, without any summary at all. Wouldn’t be better to explain where this better file is from? Jan also did nothing to rewrite the {{Information}} record, removing link to an overwritten image (which BTW is now 404) and citing his better source. Hence Jan Arkesteijn made some good job for Commons, but he also left a lot of mess behind, such as misleading source= arguments and untraceable data sources. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It is true that, say, one out of every twenty five might appear to be an accidental improval (I haven't checked your example), but that doesn't justify the giant mess, not even slightly. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC).

This was not an improvement, it is highly misleading. These particular maps are hand coloured, with each version being uniquely different in final colours - try searching the internet, you will be able to compare colours. The original from the now dead page at Helmink has the figure of Ignis (fire) with a very orange coloured cape (which makes perfect sense for fire). Compare with the different copy at oldworldauctions which shows the same cape in a red colouring. The unsourced Arkesteijn version shows the cape in blue, but they were too lazy to load the different map as a different image, or explain the source. Note that the image was already waiting in Category:Image overwrites by Jan Arkesteijn for independent review, a backlog created in 2016 due to Arkesteijn's previously identified vandalism.

I have reverted to the original which may be lower resolution but is encyclopaedically accurate for that unique hand-coloured specific map.

This is a terrible waste of my volunteer time, Arkesteijn should be fixing their own damage, however I have forensically tracked down the source for the original with the blue caped Ignis. The source was the Nederlands Scheepvaartmuseum, discovering the source made difficult because the exhibition is now closed and the image is not directly displayed on their website. This is now uploaded at Nova totius terrarum orbis geographica ac hydrographica tabula. The original I have uploaded has a smaller filesize to the one uploaded by Arkesteijn, but is a higher resolution. The Arkesteijn version appears to have been tampered with in colouring, making the oranges more saturated, thereby damaging the encyclopaedic value of the file for a map where the specific hand colours are highly important for identifying different prints. Pity others will have to fix Arkesteijn's selfish vandalism, and most will probably never get fixed. --Fæ (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• In line with the above example, I have also reverted File:Witches going to their Sabbath (1878), by Luis Ricardo Falero.jpg. This image was uploaded by Staszek99 in 2008, is used on 12 different Wikipedias, and Arkesteijn overwrote the file in 2011 with a totally bizarrely false colour image, frankly so different from the original painting that you could believe there is something seriously wrong with their computer monitor. I have checked the source, and the original file still matches that source. Again this type of vandalism deliberately breaches Project scope as it makes Wikimedia Commons a completely unreliable way of hosting encyclopaedic and educational photographs of artworks. --Fæ (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• In line with the above examples, I have reverted File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 007.jpg back to its original version uploaded by Eloquence in 2005. There are multiple versions of official photographs of this painting, this particular one was correctly sourced to The Yorck Project (2002), a significant early GLAM upload project. In their usual destructive fashion, Arkesteijn overwrote the file in 2013 and again in 2014, making zero effort to update the file description or source. A detailed look at the EXIF data of Arkesteijn's upload shows it came from the Mauritshuis online catalogue and as usual it has been badly tampered with before upload. We have lost nothing in quality, though the global usage may need redirecting to Rembrandt - The Anatomy Lesson of Dr Nicolaes Tulp.jpg which is an authentic copy of the Mauritshuis original and as required by that source has a correct attribution. As the file is globally transcluded over 300 times, and the Mauritshuis version is identical to the previous transcluded version apart from the fake colouring, I am doing an automated global replace, skipping projects where SUL is not working. I rarely automate this as I am not a global steward, and to avoid upsetting locals with unexpected automation. However as there are probably few people around that can technically do a custom replace that would be interested in unpicking this vandalism, and this seems necessary to avoid wasting a lot more volunteer time on a single fix out of hundreds that may be needed. --Fæ (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• A further case with over 400 global reuses is now under a deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rembrandt van rijn-self portrait.jpg. There is no verifiably sourced early version to revert to, and all earlier versions are effectively thumbnail sizes with no value compared to the multiple official alternatives available at Category:Self-Portrait with Two Circles (Rembrandt). This file is a colour vandalized version of File:Rembrandt Self-portrait (Kenwood).jpg, and a redirect should remain in place if the file is deleted. --Fæ (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

If anyone else wants to help restore the original colour files from source, there is a specific backlog at Category:Image overwrites by Jan Arkesteijn for independent review. It would be helpful to add the repaired images to User:Faebot/SandboxJA to help keep track of example case studies of this type of hard to detect vandalism. One thing we can be certain of, based on the last few years of discussion, Jan Arkesteijn is not going to lift a finger to help the community repair this vandalism. The gallery is transcluded here for convenience, rather than creating a paragraph for each case in this thread:

• Case studies of images reverted or overwritten to repair colour damage by Jan Arkesteijn
• 
  Frick Collection
  2018-10-31
• 
  Bonhams
  2018-10-29
• 
  Sotheby's
  2018-10-29
• 
  Bonhams
  2018-10-29
• 
  Christie's
  2018-10-10
• 
  RKD
  2018-10-10

• 
  Bonhams
• 
  geheugenvannederland.nl
• 
  Liechtenstein
• 
  Liechtenstein
• 
  DAMS Antwerpen
• 
  Virginia Museum of Fine Arts
• 
  Yorck
• 
  Yorck
• 
  Yorck
• 
  Liechtenstein
• 
  Liechtenstein
• 
  NRC
• 
  Christie's
• 
  Sotheby's
• 
  Rijksmuseum
  FP on Wikipedia and Commons
• 
  Sotheby's
• 
  Musée d'Orsay
• 
  WGA
• 
  Sotheby's
• 
  Sotheby's
• 
  Hermitage Museum
• 
  Rijksmuseum
• 
  Royal Museums Greenwich
• 
  Hermitage Museum
• 
  Royal Museums Greenwich
• 
  Philadelphia Museum of Art
• 
  Yale
• 
  Sotheby's
• 
  Artrenewal
• 
  Yorck project
• 
  Sotheby's
• 
  Helmink

Use of official looking EXIF data, which is not from the source quoted against it

Some of the previous cases I examined had unexpected EXIF data. I raised this on IRC earlier today, but thought this may have been an issue with old uploads only, like the 2012 upload of this Rijksmuseum derivative where the rights owner of the photograph quoted inside the EXIF data was a contradiction of being both the Rijksmuseum and the Christie's auctioneers.

However I am seeing a pattern of faked EXIF data for new uploads by Jan Arkesteijn, where the EXIF data matches up with the source statements on the Commons text but when the true image source is checked, the EXIF data may be significantly different, including statements about copyright. This is a highly misleading practice as both Commons users and reusers on sister projects, rely on the EXIF data being no more and no less than what the quoted source of a photograph put there.

Here are a couple of recent cases:

1. Jean Charles Sapey (1775-1857), by Élisabeth-Louise Vigée Le Brun, uploaded by JA on 2018-10-09 and overwritten by a fake-colour version two minutes later.
   1. The initial upload states includes the EXIF

      Date: September 19, 2018

      Copyright: DALiM

      (XMP) Rights: DALiM

   2. In addition, the second upload includes several extra fields:

      (EXIF) Credit: Christie's

      Copyright: DALiM

      Terms of Use: Public domain

      URL: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/

      (XMP) Credit: Christie's

      Source: http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=6165200

      Date Created: 2018:09:19

      Create Date: 2018:10:09

      Web Statement: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/

      Usage Terms: Public domain

   3. The third upload is my upload direct from the quoted original source of Christie's auctioneers and appears to match the initial upload

      (EXIF) Copyright holder: DALiM

      Copyright status: Copyright status not set

      Date metadata was last modified: 21:15, 28 September 2018

2. George Gage with two men, by Anthony van Dyck, uploaded by JA a week ago on 2018-10-31, and overwritten by me with the colour-correct original version from the quoted source.
   1. The initial upload:

      (EXIF) Credit: The National Gallery, London

      Terms of Use: Public domain

      URL: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/

      Date: October 31, 2018

      (XMP) Create Date: 2018:10:31

      Web Statement: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/

      Usage Terms: Public domain

   2. The second upload is my overwrite with the colour correct quoted NPG source, the EXIF data is virtually non-existent, limited to:

      File Comment: CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v80), quality = 75

3. Ildefonso-Altar - The Holy Family under the appletree, by Peter Paul Rubens, uploaded by JA on 2018-09-18 (7 weeks ago)
   1. There is only the initial version at the time of writing. The EXIF on Commons includes:

      Credit: Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien

      Terms of Use: Public domain

      URL: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/

      Date: September 3, 2018 2:32:30PM

      XMP repeats the same EXIF data of an official source, credit and license

      (XMP) Metadata Date: 2018:09:03

      The IPTC repeats the creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark link and includes Source: www.khm.at/de/object/f2e43fa340/

   2. The online original, with strikingly different correct original colours, at the quoted source of http://www.khm.at/de/object/f2e43fa340/ shows almost no EXIF data, literally just basic file information and specifically nothing about copyright. Of relevance to us is the dates:

      (EXIF) Date: 2006:05:10 17:22:33+02:00

      (XMP) Metadata Date: 2010:01:21

The conclusion must be that Jan Arkesteijn is misleadingly adding their own EXIF data, even on the initial upload, and has been doing the same type of EXIF manipulation since at least 2012. The primary reason this is alarming is that this potentially affects hundreds of Commons hosted files and potentially tens of thousands of Wikipedia pages in multiple languages, especially those that rely on auto-transclusion based on Wikidata assertions about representative images of paintings. Users who might otherwise question the colour or other accuracy of a photograph, will be assured that the EXIF data looks like an official verification that the image they see is the one that the source provided.

This appears serious manipulation of basic data which underpins the reliability of our GLAM collections. Attempting to repair or even track down this manipulative complex form of vandalism, will waste a huge amount of collegiate volunteer time. --Fæ (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

User's esthetic corruption has shocked me to the core, but I could not have imagined such bold evil as seems to perspire from the above. Thank you so much for your investigations, Fæ. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC).

Hmm, I don't agree with the statement "both Commons users and reusers on sister projects, rely on the EXIF data being no more and no less than what the quoted source of a photograph put there." For example on File:Constantijn Huygens (1596-1687) by Caspar Netscher.jpg, the JPG downloaded from Rijksmuseum contained no EXIF data, not even a valid colour profile (which is inexcusable IMO). Rijksmuseum do offer colour-correct TIFF files for professional use, for a fee presumably, so I guess Joe Public just gets these crude truncated JPGs. The revision uploaded by Jan contained a fair amount of the usual fields that Photoshop adds, which are hard to avoid it adding if one uses the tool at all. Indeed any photo editor will dump extra EXIF fields into a file. When I uploaded the latest version from source, I added the sRGB profile using EXIFTOOL rather than with Photoshop so that I wouldn't incur any lossy decompress/compress cycle, but other users may not be so familiar with the command line.

There are various fields in EXIF to do with the camera (aperture, shutter, make/model, lens, etc), the processing (adjustments made in Lightroom, say), and a bunch of fields concerning authorshop and copyright. Being extendible, there is not really any limit to what organisations/companies might add. Wrt artworks there are many useful fields one could supply, just as we supply on the file information page. For example, the title of the work, description, catalogue ID, artist, date painted, date photographed, location, source URL, copyright, etc. If these are missing, I see no problem with someone adding them. Having them in EXIF means the information is retained even when downloaded from Commons. If I was uploading lots of files from Rijksmuseum, and I found they typically contained no EXIF, then I'd probably write a tool that extracting pertinent details from the web page and inserted them into the EXIF before uploading here.

So I don't think fiddling with EXIF is a crime. I see beginner users trash (lose) the EXIF when the use dumb tools like MS Paint or PhotoViewer on JPGs, though I'd expect an experienced user to have learned the importance of retaining this info. What would be bad would be altering the source to be fake or removing credit and licence details on purpose. I think augmenting the EXIF with data from the source website should be encouraged. Embedding things like source name and url and the licence/PD situation is IMO excellent practice. Ideally this should be done using a tool like EXIFTOOL that only touches the metadata, and keeps the image data intact. -- Colin (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that adding the right EXIF data would be acceptable. OTOH, willfully adding wrong EXIF MUST NOT be accepted. Platonides (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I would like to know whether 〠 (Gone Postal) and jcb still oppose sanctions, given the examples that Fæ has given. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC).

I have not followed the further discussion. As you can still read above, I wrote that this user cannot be blocked for breaking their edit restriction or for violating COM:OVERWRITE. If this user would be blocked, a valid reason will have to be formulated and the accidental edit 6 months ago is not a valid reason. Jcb (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The reason opening this section reads: "user keeps uploading problematic green-tinted images, claiming they are from the mentioned source, but not explaining the differences", the overwrite problem is secondary. I think you know very well what the problem is, but don't dear to act or even react proper, if I may be as bold as to say so. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC).

I don't think that I have the reputation that I would not dare to act if I think I should. Jcb (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a case of a user that over a decade has:

1. uploaded thousands of professional GLAM photographs of paintings
2. obscured the sources so that frequently the wrong source was given in the image page text or the image was impossible to download to verify
3. damaged the value of the photographs by bizarrely distorting colours, but leaving this undeclared so that it appears that the now over enhanced photographs are still a genuine copy of the GLAM institution or their photographers' work and creative choices
4. manipulated EXIF data before uploading, falsely inserting a Public Domain Mark license against the GLAM institution's name and website address and making it appear that the institution released all rights to their photograph as "public domain"
5. has refused to assist with the correct recovery or restoration of the original photographs when repeatedly challenged over a period of years

Under COM:BP, this behaviour is explicitly defined as "Vandalism", including "Insertion of deliberately false information (e.g. fake image sources)"

Secondly under COM:BP, the evidence shows "Copyright violations", as in "Repeated uploading of inappropriately licensed media".

To make the evidence easy to read, it should be sufficient to

(a) examine the 8 deletion requests raised in the parent thread above which provide a compelling case of disruption and the misleading promotion of fake colour photographs as professional work,

(b) consider the 3 recent sample cases of manipulated EXIF data above, clearly asserting that Christie's auctioneers, The National Gallery and the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, have released their professional photographs as Public Domain Mark, thereby making it appear that rather than the uploader, it is their curators that have confirmed that the photographs are public domain and waive all potential rights, regardless of the IP law in any country of publication.

The fact is that this tiny sample is tip of an iceberg that will never be fully repaired due to the detail forensic investigation it takes each time to discover the original sources that Jan Arkesteijn has obscured and, probably worse, the likelihood that many sources will no longer exist, or even be discoverable, over an uploading period of a decade. --Fæ (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The category Uploads by Jan Arkesteijn with EXIF claim of Public Domain Mark has now been created so that any volunteer can easily find images which have been falsely marked with PDM. Where other versions exist, there seems good reason to delete files with this problem rather than attempting to download from the quoted source, which where it exists may still be wrong or a dead link.

This is a backlog of 1,378 files that need review. --Fæ (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of EXIF here. Fae is claiming that JPG metadata can be "official looking" which leads to the accusation that any information in the EXIF that does not come from the official source is therefore a misrepresentation of the source organsiation. The most egregious of this is apparently the "Public Domain Mark" added by Jan but not the source.

1. EXIF is just metadata. There is no standard and no practice or precedent that claims such data is holy and must be preserved untouched. Indeed, the Wikimedia thumbnailer alters the EXIF data. It strips out most of the EXIF data, leaving only a handful of fields and the colour profile. And if the image has an sRGB colour profile, it substitutes the tinyRGB profile (from Facebook) to save a bit of download bytes. There's nothing stopping some future API embedding into the EXIF data using machine-readable fields supplied by Commons on the fly. Also nothing stopping Commons API providing online tools in future to allow editors to amend and augment the EXIF data in a JPG. The data itself is just data. It isn't signed and doesn't claim to be from any author or organsiation.
2. The "Public Domain Mark" is not a licence so claiming "inserting a Public Domain Mark license" is just wrong. If the CC0 Public Domain Dedication had been inserted, then that would be an entirely different matter, as only the copyright-owner can make such a dedication or offer their work with a copyright licence. The Public Domain Mark is simply a statement about work that is made by someone presumably in good faith and with some competence. It is no different to our own PD templates on Commons. And just like the Commons Disclaimer, it doesn't promise to be legally correct: "Unless expressly stated otherwise, the person who identified the work makes no warranties about the work, and disclaims liability for all uses of the work, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law".

JPG does not support the ability to embed a history of changes to metadata, or to mark what data was added by who, or to sign the data to guarantee authorship and authority. We should not read into it that there is any claim of authorship or authority. -- Colin (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Jan Arkesteijn is blocked

Based on this disturbing pattern of falsifying images and falsifying the EXIF data - actions that violate the most basic principles of Commons - and refusing to engage with the community, I have indefinitely blocked Jan Arkesteijn. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: As the block has been immediately appealed, it would be worth considering the necessary future editing restrictions for a successful unblock.

The simplest solution would be to restrict all uploads to files which are digitally identical to the source of the image, and have a verifiable source. This one condition is no more than nearly 100% of everybody else's GLAM related uploads to Commons already are (i.e. "upload" = "upload from the quoted source"), at a stroke illuminates future disruption, and truthfully is of zero extra burden on Jan Arkesteijn. "Digitally identical" technically means that the SHA1 checksum is identical on Commons to the verifiable and quoted source image. --Fæ (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that this is quite restrictive. I often do lossless optimisation before uploading to Commons. However, I do recognise that this is a special case. So I would say that demanding that the initial upload is byte-by-byte identical can be a good idea. After the initial upload checks out and the user wants to edit the file, they can upload other versions, and the community can decide if the changes are an improvement or destructive. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 17:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem is the deliberate obfuscation of sources, and misleading attribution which is hard to describe as anything else than lies. There has been 10 years of this and several years of disruption and debate, for a problem that has only ever been an issue for Jan Arkesteijn. I don't see anything less restrictive being helpful.

As yet another shocking example, I have just spent 15 minutes tracking down the real source at the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts for File:A gentleman, by Bartholomeus Van Der Helst.jpg which was sourced to a dead link. The image uploaded by JA was far too over brightened compared to the professional photograph taken by the Museum, yet this was the only copy of this painting on Commons and so has been the reference image on Wikidata, without any qualification for its encyclopaedic inaccuracy. The shocking part is that JA added EXIF with "© Virginia Museum of Fine Arts" and "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/" when the truth is that the VMFA released the photograph as CC-BY-NC. This is deliberate misrepresentation of the institution and the legal status for reusers. If the USA or Virginia changes copyright law to establish an equivalent of "sweat of the brow", this could have damaging repercussions for reusers who may be relying on accurate EXIF data. --Fæ (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Which is why I have said that in this case I agree that a significantly more restrictive approach than I would accept for anybody else is still reasonable. My thoughts are actually more about how to figure out that this is happening for the future cases. Let's say we have a user who did that only on 5 or 6 images. Chances are it would never have been discovered. And it is reasonably trivial to go to an internet cafe, register for a new account, upload several fake-exif images. Find another cafe, do that again. Rinse and repeat. I think that you have found a huge problem here, and unfortunately I cannot even visualise any solution at this moment. Banning one user even completely isn't going to fix this. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 19:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree, Jan should be topic banned explicitly, notwithstanding the indefinite block. This will force him to sue for peace with the painting community in Wikimedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think it is necessary or wise to discuss "the necessary future editing restrictions for a successful unblock". Nor to discuss topic bans at this stage. The indef block must work the same way as they all do. Understand and accept the reason for the block, agree past actions were wrong, promise not to repeat them. Any "topic ban" of sorts must come from Jan agreeing what future actions he will and will not perform, and then it is up to us as a community to decide if that is sufficient. Take vandalism as an example. If you are indefed for vandalism, you don't get unblocked the next day, and an "topic ban on vandalism" imposed. The next step needs to come from Jan.

As a side note, it is possible in Photoshop to tell if two JPGs are visually equivalent. Import them as two layers and apply a "difference" blend. The result should be black. Compression would result in small differences, but a colour shift like Jan is fond of, would show up clearly. But there is also the issue of overwriting, and EXIF, and just plain dishonestly about sources. -- Colin (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Speaking as an avid Photoshop user who resorts to it to fix for all kinds of problems it can remotely be of use fo, I say that what you suggest, when it comes to evaluate more than two or three suspect cases, is cumbersome, slow, and error-prone — compared to SHA1 comparison. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Tuválkin, it would be slow indeed if done by hand, though not error prone when you care about "visually identical". Even opening a JPG in photoshop and then saving it again may change the bytes in the JPG blocks without any apparent visual change -- only lossless tools guarantee to modify JPGs in a way that has 0 effect on the image (bar crop, rotate). One could conceivably create a automation script for PhotoShop that takes two images and produces a "black" difference file and then just look at the large thumbnails in Windows to spot the ones that aren't fully black. The problem with tools that are designed to spot similar images is that they very much don't care about subtle changes to colour temperature. But many of Jan's images were uploaded with no source (or kept the source of the previous upload, which is now wrong) so it is hard to get hold of the original for comparison. And he may have cropped/resized too. Anyway, the difference technique might be useful for some other cases, where we suspect someone has altered the colours but aren't quite sure. -- Colin (talk) 08:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• So, a difference layer would not be fully black if there’s subtle RGB diffs in at least a few pixels, due to lossy compression artifacts and/or deliberate tweaking. Why bring the matter up, then? If we want to quickly compare two files SHA1 is fast and efective. A 100% black difference layer indicates two identical images, pixelwise, which may be stored in different files (varying metadata and/or file type), but, for the case at hand, at least, SHA1 comparing is still more effective. After the blackboard number stunt it would surely be a relief to know there's no pixels tinkering in the files Jan ulploaded, but metadata variations are also undesirable, at least, if not outright harmful, especially when they are supposdely coming from a GLAM (to echo Fæ above). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 05:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Tuválkin, well I disagree about there being any issue with EXIF additions. In practice, Jan is far from the only person who ever uploaded a JPG they got from the internet that was altered in some way. The reason the community agreed to block Jan was that his crude and ignorant alterations to the image damaged their educational value and replaced correctly coloured images on Wikipedia with his own abominations. We don't have any policy or guideline that requires people to upload JPGs binary verbatim from external sources. If you want such, then we have another forum for such a proposal, but it would need evidence that this is a widespread problem, and not just a "prevent Jan" policy. I think if we examined JPGs that were uploaded by hand rather than by bot, we'd find quite a lot of evidence of alterations. -- Colin (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• I've made an offer an Jan's talk page to write a set of rules, a contract if you will, to end the blue period. Most of it is already in my head now, so I may write it anyway. Arkesteijn is no stranger to wikilawyering, so we probably shouldn't let him set the conditions. And the conditions should be written by a wikilawyer. (like.. me, other candidates may apply) For example, I read about SHA1 checksums here. Not such a great idea, Google already made two different PDF files with the same checksum. Arkesteijn can't exploit such a thing now, but you wouldn't want to use this as a definition of "identical". - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 05:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• «Not such a great idea», you say about trusting SHA1 to clear up doubts about images identical to the naked eye, and you come up with the factoid that «Google already made two different PDF files with the same checksum». Either you’re very ignorant about basic stuff and shameless about it, or you think we all are. Which is it? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Tuvalkin: or you misunderstood. If in the not-too-distant-future it would become possible to adjust the SHA1 checksum with the tap of a button, it would be bad if Arkesteijn were forced to upload original images and that was defined like (quoting Fæ here) «"Digitally identical" technically means that the SHA1 checksum is identical on Commons to the verifiable and quoted source image.» - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 04:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• No way: If ever there’s a way to alter the digital data of a file (by changing the RGB of given pixels or changing metadata contents or whatever) to preemptively achieve a predicted/sought SHA1 value (which is a very big “if”, if I’m seeing the matter right), then SHA1 and other such checksum-dependent tests are compromised and we’ll need to move to a better file-comparing paradigm (maybe full-on byte-by-byte matching?), and in that scenario Fæ’s statement is trivially outdated. But it is as far fetched as advising Cæser not to cross the Rubicon because the Senate might have nukes. In short: Fæ is right and SHA1 is the way to go. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 05:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Tuvalkin: SHA1 needs to be replaced/upgraded, you got that much right. SHA1 is indeed compromised (and so is MD5). At this moment it requires quite some resources, but the question is not if but when everyone will be able to do it. The fact that you seem to lump all checksum-dependent tests together and would even think of "full-on byte-by-byte matching".. let's just say such suggestions don't put you in a position to say I'm "ignorant about basic stuff". - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 06:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Just curious but if these problems were known since 2016 then wasn't he listed at Commons:Editing restrictions before? I don't think that uploading a different colour scheme image of a public domain painting is bad, but overwriting a realistic image with a retouched image is problematic, if he simply uploaded the retouched files as separate files and didn't go out of his way to replace the real ones this wouldn't have been an issue, but this simply doesn't make any sense to me, who benefits from making the images bluer? I'm usually against any long-term blocks and restrictions but I really can't seem to figure out why this user wants to push his on personal preferences on so many art works. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: Arkesteijn was on (de-facto?) edit restriction.. Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 57#Proposal I guess uploads aren't considered edits and that's why Arkesteijn wasn't listed there? That's just silly if that's the case.. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 08:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why you are so eager to get him back this quick. He should know himself how to get back, if he wants to and shows himself eligible for such. I think he has quite some thinking to do, before applying for an unblock. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC).

Exactly. -- Colin (talk) 12:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jürgen Eissink: Because Arkesteijn, without the Photoshop, could be a valueable contributor. He was given a set of rules in 2016 which strictly he didn't break (only one exception, File:Jacob Kistemaker 2008.jpg, which given how much he uploads I also believe was an honest mistake). Arkesteijn is a wikilawyer and you need another wikilawyer to write the rules to keep him in check. And that's where 2016 failed. Blocks are not punitive. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 12:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

If this is what you mean by a 'wikilawyer', then I don't think we need a wikilawyer at all. Jan Arkesteijn doesn't need you. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC).

That's the kind of wikilawyering Arkesteijn does. I use my power for good. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 23:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• If anyone has any doubt that this editor is a deliberate troll, then open up the following two links in different browser windows and switch back and forth between them. Pay attention to the blackboard behind the subject, specifically the numbers above "3 Feb. 04". [2] [3]. The first is the original, the second is an edit by this editor claiming "levels and hue". The next edit included a minor crop, rotate & re-scaling to the original size which was obviously intended to obfuscate the change of numbers on the board, as most editors would compare the latest revision by that user to the original (this is a common trick among forgers: minor differences in the entirety of a work will do a lot to obscure major differences in a portion of a work. Forgers will frequently frame a work differently than it appears in available photographs, or if no frame is visible in available photographs of the work, they will add a half inch or so of extra background to one or more sides). That's on top of the utterly incompetent brightness adjustment that blew out and desaturated the image. MjolnirPants (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  OMG, This means we have to check all of his uploads for possible fakes. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Very well found, but to Jan's defence: the number 06 etc. is most likely a telephone number, since in the Netherlands all mobile numbers start with 06 and are then followed by 8 digits. Dutch viewers will recognize it as a phone number, so Jan probably tried to obscure the number for that reason. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC).

The apparent name above it does far more to make it look like a phone number than the first digit being a 0. Also, changing a single digit like that is an especially poor way of obfuscating a phone number because it doesn't actually do anything to obfuscate the phone number: It's still right there, still looks like a phone number, and anyone familiar with Dutch phone numbers will recognize that the 2 doesn't belong and should be a zero (which is not dialed, according to everything I know about phone systems and our en.wiki article on the subject). Finally; that doesn't explain the cropping & resizing in the next edit, while the "vandalism" hypothesis does. MjolnirPants (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I have to disagree, with the 2 it does no longer look like a phone number. (And you are wrong in your assumption that the zero would not be dialed). Jcb (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I can do with the phone number whatever I want. Like this. If you are crazy enough to try and contact phone numbers from pictures, it would be only right to put you through to the WhatsApp of a mental health organization. They may actually be able to help. (obviously I'm not overwriting this image) - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 02:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

"The next edit included a minor crop, rotate & re-scaling to the original size which was obviously intended to obfuscate the change of numbers on the board,"

@MPants at work: there is one minor problem with your theory: the passing of one decade between the second and third version. Interestingly, in 2008 Arkesteijn made the photo blue. In 2018, he made it more "zombie", similar to File:Iris Hond (2018).jpg. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 07:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

You're right: I didn't notice the dates. That doesn't mesh with the notion that he did it to obfuscate the edit. Still, it doesn't do shit to obfuscate the number, so maybe it's just incompetence. MjolnirPants (talk) 13:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I share your overall conclusion in this, but still you talk pretty tough for someone who thinks that your edited version of this original is an improvement, which it is clearly not. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC).

lol Butthurt much? MjolnirPants (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, why not deny criticism by laughing it away. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 09:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC).

@Jürgen Eissink: you gave the wrong link for File:OJGude.jpg. You should compare /media/wikipedia/commons/archive/f/fa/20181029002236%21OJGude.jpg to /media/wikipedia/commons/archive/f/fa/20181029031534%21OJGude.jpg and the latter is clearly an improvement. Whether MjolnirPants should have uploaded it as a new file per COM:OVERWRITE is debatable, but the original uploader also photoshopped the same file and is the one who requested changes in the first place. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 05:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I gave the right link, namely to the original file. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC).

How bizarre. I was showing this case to someone with more painting, art history, preservation, etc. experience than I. They found it fascinating and asked me to ask whether Jan ever provided a clear/detailed rationale for the color changes? There are assumptions we can make, but in looking through this and a couple related threads, I'm not seeing one. Just curious. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  00:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I started this discussion because I found it bizar as well. When I asked Jan, September 1st 2018, he answered he adjusted images for purposes of illustration (aangepast voor illustratiedoeleinden). Later, answering somebody else, he stated: many images "need to be edited, because many images in raw form are unsuitable for publication" ("[moeten] bewerkt worden, omdat veel afbeeldingen in ruwe vorm ongeschikt zijn voor publicatie". Statements that defy all common sense. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC).

@Rhododendrites: also note that his views of what is "suitable for publication" changed over time. In 2008, he thought File:Jacob Kistemaker 2008.jpg had to be blue. In 2018, he thought it had to be "zombie" (a color scheme he also applied to other photos). The same photo. File:Filippo Francesco d'Este, Marchese di Lanzo (1621-1653), by Anthonis van Dyck.jpg was made blue in 2018, but that's a painting. I think he handles paintings different from photos. On Commons:Deletion requests/File:Richard Wilson (1714-1782), by Anton Raphael Mengs.jpg I found he most likely applied automatic white balance correction. We could possibly find patterns if we were to dig into it. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 06:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I suppose if "suitable for publication" meant publication in a black and white magazine, then it might be sensible. It's strange that the "bluening" seems to be an effort to lighten parts of the image? I would also like to point out something else that's strange, that I don't see mentioned elsewhere: in the difference between the versions of the first file you linked, Alexis Jazz (before, after), there is also a number changed on the blackboard!! Clearly a cloned version of the next 2 in the sequence... but why?? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  06:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This was already mentioned here, right above this in fact. Search the page for "deliberate troll". Arkesteijn wanted to obscure the phone number. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 06:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah so it was. Ah well. May dive into this deeper later out of personal curiosity. Thanks for humoring. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk |  06:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

the larger issue is users photo shopping colour balance, different from institutional sources. i.e. File:John William Waterhouse - Thisbe, 1909.jpg and overwriting old smaller versions, without a clear source. we need a colour balance version workflow to check institutional sources, elevate those versions, and push those to wikidata. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixing things

If you need people to help set things right:

1. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge did a couple for Breugel, i am going through reverse order, and overwriting. will remove EXIF category,
3. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 14:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC), but only with admin permission.

How different genders/sexes are portrayed in page content, inequities in page information

nothing to do here, please discuss your concerns regarding article content ...in Wikipedia. Strakhov (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

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.

---

Dear Wikipedia, It is a concern to me the implicit bias with which certain pages are edited, and the content on them, especially regarding sexism. As a simple comparison, the page entries for labia and penis. The page on labia shows multiple gratuitous pictures of women's genitalia, including with and without stimulation. Whereas the page on penis shows predominantly images of animal penises, only one picture of a human penis. On the penis page, the human form is a sub section, whereas on the labia page, it only shows information about women. The human penis section also does not include any statements on culture or society, or differences among men, or pornography (all sections included on the labia page). There is a huge discrepancy in how women's and men's genitalia are explained.

I edited the labia page to remove these inequities, however, there should be an entire category for flagging and discussing content based on equity and accurate representation (not just for sexism, but also for racism).

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjams (talk • contribs) 21:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

You are here at Wikimedia Commons, the central image repository of all Wikimedia projects. We don't have articles here. Your concern seems to be about Wikipedia, one of our sister projects. Anyway, we can help you at least with your specific interest in human penises, we have plenty of them. Please see Category:Human penis. Jcb (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Minor correction: The Wikipedia projects are actually 293 different sister projects. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

Aakansha Trivedi

Premature request. Nothing to be done here. Last upload of this user was 16 November and after that there was User_talk:Aakansha_Trivedi#Request. There is no ongoing problem here, please don't try to make up one. Jcb (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

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.

---

Aakansha Trivedi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I don't understand what evidence I'm supposed to provide to say that it is my own work. Normally, people don't prepare receipts and licenses as and when they take photos. How can I possibly provide an evidence for this? My consent apparently isn't enough, so, do let me know what else I need to do to help retain the file on Wikimedia Commons.

— Aakansha Trivedi response to a DR

The photo is a cropped version of https://scontent-ort2-2.cdninstagram.com/vp/29155fbf02b700d3a3aa82700419e825/5CAAE639/t51.2885-15/e35/43681778_513344632472821_4738008137263490957_n.jpg (which is also older than the upload here).

If this actually is own work, I urge Aakansha Trivedi to contact OTRS. But if not (and it doesn't look good at this point), Aakansha lied to us. Which is really not done. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 00:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

Marisa Glez Glez Glez

Marisa Glez Glez Glez (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Except public domain historical p^hotos every single photo has been shot with a different camera. Already warned. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Blocked, remaining files deleted. Sealle (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Nino Marakot

closing this, per discussion. Despite the disruptive threat, at this point no action is needed (the image was kept BTW). Strakhov (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

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.

---

At COM:DEL, this user asks for undeletion and ”If rejected, I will force upload the deleted image, despite the consequences.)”. Any thoughts about this from other users? Thuresson (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Pointless threat. It is better to ignore it this time, but if they started to disrupt Commons in deed (not just words), then it would and should be dealt with. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

Jcb

This discussion is not going anywhere. The UDR thread will remain open for at least a week, especially considering the request for comment at VP Special:Diff/330321946. An uninvolved admin, maybe myself, will carefully read all discussions at DR, UDR, and VP in the last few months regarding these files and decide about them as well as the files speedied by User:Yann. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

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.

---

Jcb is not a good admin because he always deleted image against the community consensus like Commons:Deletion requests/File:In Miami beach.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream. After those images were posted at COM:UDR, Jcb keep saying his deletion is appropriate. I hope he can respond here, or maybe we should consider a de-admin for Jcb. P.S. this is not the first time that Jcb was put in ANU, please see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 71#User:Jcb. --219.78.191.155 02:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Rather weak reason for an AN/U complaint and your not going to get a de-admin. Bidgee (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment To the IP, i was one of those, in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream, that saw JCB delete files against consensus and proofs, but, still, an de-admin request, at this point, is to much. Anyone can make mistakes, from time to time. The problem is not admit that committed them. Tm (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose, the reason given by IP was not convincing enough to have a de-admin. --B dash (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose - IP is clearly a sock of someone ...., Discussions should be help on talkpages not DRs. (If discussion has stalled on his talkpage then come here and seek a second opinion - Don't create threads such as these). –Davey2010^Talk 21:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Come with something next time. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

User:Wargaz and User:Micheletb

• Wargaz (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Micheletb (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

A confused and ongoing problem, request an immediate intervention by any user having knowledge of ancient Chinese scripts.

Wargaz overwrites uploads by Micheletb with other images and then requests renaming; first look at User:Wargaz proper. In some cases other users subsequently delete redirects which remain after file moves. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

As found on his user page, Wargaz (talk · contribs) is : "Replacing and undoing every misleading, low-quality and false content which @Micheletb: has done" As far as I know, the replacement is justified : files were sometimes uploaded with a -bronze suffix, for instance, that were actually -seal, and so on ; and the source has not always been a reliable one, so some files are misnamed also as far as the character is concerned (those were heroic days...). This can be corrected now that better sources are available (those are modern days). So basically, if he says that such or such file should have such or such name, or be suppressed, he has verified it at a correct source (that he documents), and in that case I don't object. But then, of course, the correction can be confusing and is not error-prone, so I guess Wargaz can get mixed up from time to time, and/or not be aware of the correct procedure, and/or the correct "procedure" may be inadapted to those very special cases.

Anyway, he can't do more harm than that he is correcting. I'd say, in that case, ignore the anomalies as false alarms. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC) (sorry for the partial message)

Does anybody know this user? A commons administrator who don’t sign postings? Isn’t this account taken over? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Wargaz has asked for quite a number of deletion on my userpage, and I sometimes handled myself such deletion requests. Usually the correct thing to do is to rename the file to a proper place, and delete the redirection (which would cause problems in the models used in various wiktionaries). Just calm down, there is no conspiration here Michelet-密是力 (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The explanation above is only partially satisfactory. Look at File:主-bronze.svg (hist • logs • abuse log) and File:示-oracle-3.svg #filehistory. Overwriting a poor-quality image with a better one would be OK. But the file was overwritten with a completely different image and then renamed (under a false pretext). Later yet another user deleted the remaining redirect. Why doesn’t Wargaz explain what does is mean? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that one is a mistake, but the initial 主-bronze picture was incorrect in the first place. I uploaded a 主 oracle picture and make it a placeholder for a bronze period representation (which iss not the policy anymore). He then uploaded a 示-bronze because 主 and 示 had similar forms at that period ; and then asked for it to be renamed 示-oracle-3.svg because it is clearer uder that 示 categorisation. For those series automatically loaded and used in templates, names act as categories, so the relevant rules are rather those of category change. And the image quality is irrelevant in that case (they are all smoothened with inkscape). Michelet-密是力 (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

"intervention by any user having knowledge of ancient Chinese scripts" - well, that's me (taraa). I'm a historical member of that project, and perhaps the only remaining one, at that. And an admin, btw, so perfectly entitled to give my point of view on such questions in this arena.

I haven't looked in details just what User:Wargaz is doing every time, but the end result is OK, so you should look at it from a very relaxed point of view. Maybe some rules made for ancient paintings or photographs are overlooked, but the main reason probably is, this is a project about old Chinese scripts and their evolution, and some replacements that would be heretical in the commons general background ar just fine and OK in this specific background.

I'd be glad to answer any further question (though I don't often roam around here, sorry). Michelet-密是力 (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know about ancient Chinese scripts, but @Zhuyifei1999: maybe you know something? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 04:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

  Their existence is all I know. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• I see the original uploader is OK with the overwrites and the subsequent renames. So, that's what Incnis Mrsi took to my RFA, while I was trying to address it on one of the above file's talk page. @Wargaz: Are you willing to comment on this topic? Specially, I'd like to know what makes your sources "modern" and more reliable. Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I am here to explain. FIrst of all, sorry for my absence of the whole discussion. I was busy dealing with some real life in recent days. Thank you, Micheletb, for responding the discussion and understanding what I were doing. Honestly, some of your works really pissed me off, because there were some rookie mistakes but hard to fix for a autoconfirmed user. I definitely willing to show anyone my sources are modern and more reliable. The main source of User:Micheletb is Hanziyuan where based on outdated Chinese studies on ancient scripts. In the new website of Hanziyuan, citations and references are hard to find, and the old website would only redirect you to its new version. For example, the character 車 is the default displayed placement, and you can only see codes like "J29285" provided by Hanziyuan for many ancient scripts of 車. You would not know which book and section it from, which group it was found for an orcle script character, or which bronzeware and time period it belongs for a bronze script character. No, nothing. There are literally zero information about each script character provided by Hanziyuan. In contrast, Sinica database provides all the inormation above. It cited every character by the code from the referenced books, and anyone can check the character in the books by its code. For example, when we look for 車 in the Sinica's oracle script database, we can see that the first character is cited as "拾12.16 合11451". The "合11451" means it from the no.11451 oracle bone from the The Oracle Bone Collection (甲骨文合集), and you can check it based on the number.

Futhermore, let me explain some of my actions. 示 and 主 are developed from the same ancient character, and it's the differentiation that makes we have two characters now. Therefore, it I believe it's better to unified as File:示-oracle.svg, File:示-oracle-2.svg, File:示-oracle-3.svg and etc. For the File:主-bronze.svg, I still will request to delete it, because it is inappropriate to use a sourceless ORACLE image to represent a BRONZE image. Some of Micheletb's uploads should be deleted, because I cannot wait for the deletion precess and administrators did reject me for several time, so I have to use this shortcut to achieve the same goal. I know it may break the community's rule, but my intention is to improve the ACC project. --Wargaz (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Spelling problem in french

Administrators,can you change the name of a file ?

• File:Ouchebetis - Servir les dieux d'Égypte - Musée de Grenoble.jpg

in

• File:Ouchebtis - Servir les dieux d'Égypte - Musée de Grenoble.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Milky (talk • contribs) 14:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done Please use {{Rename}} next time. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Close account.

Please close my Wikimedia commons account. I am no longer using the account. If you cannot delete it, please DELETE all images associated with it. Thanks Tornadosurvivor2011 (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we cannot delete user accounts. If you wish to stop contributing to Wikimedia Commons, all you have to do is stop logging into your account. Regarding deletion of images, I deleted File:Mdt Risk 180515.gif per COM:CSD#G7. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tornadosurvivor2011: You may be interested in en:WP:RTV. I started the deletion process for you at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tornadosurvivor2011, please feel free to comment there.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 23:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• Winning at COM:NOTHOST. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Mkyo2012

Every photos posted by User:Mkyo2012 violate copyright. This user copies photos from facebook/instagram/pinterest and other media sources without any permission. Please check and delete these photos. DangTungDuong (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done User was given a final warning. Any more copyvios will result in a block. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Oliver Castaño Mallorca

Mess User:Oliver Castaño Mallorca has created (ex 1 2 3...)

Sock User:Skapheandros blocked in 2012. 115.84.95.178 12:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done

• Fake assessment templates were removed: Special:Diff/330564513. User:Oliver Castaño Mallorca should explain why they have added these templates to the file.
• Category:Spain was removed from the user talk page: Special:Diff/330560525. The user can add Category:Users in Spain to their talk page. I added this category to their user page: Special:Diff/330562549.
• {{User category|Oliver Castaño Mallorca}} was added to Category:Oliver Castaño Mallorca according to Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories#Categories: Special:Diff/330561020.
• User:Skapheandros has not edited since 2012, so I do not see any disruption or violation.
• Next time that you want to report a user to COM:AN/U, please inform them at their talk page.

4nn1l2 (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment Need at least a strong warning, and the socks blocked. Yann (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment He also has the account User:Olivercastaño and he added fake assessments to File:Stair car park.jpg, File:Luminaria.tif, File:Entelechy in lathhouse (inner acuatic landscape).tif and File:Death blue spirit (Ghost).jpg too, now removed. See discussion on Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Strange assessments. --Cart (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• So I blocked the socks indef., and Olivercastaño (the oldest account) for one month for disruptive editing. Yann (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Solomon203 and redirects

• Solomon203 (talk · contribs)

The user makes scores of renaming requests, and then blanks redirects—such as in File:Ocean Plaza 海洋廣場 - panoramio.jpg (hist • logs • abuse log). The rationale provided is “The original file name is wrong and should be deleted”, that is, VoyenTech’s syndrome. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Permissions

As Semmes868 I am editing the George Halley (Couturier) page and attempting to add photographs as illustration.

The photographs in question were made by my father John Albert and my brother Jeff Albert, both of whom are dead and I am the sole living relative and inheritor of their respective estates.

From what I was able to decipher from the notices sent, Wikipedia is asking for some sort of proof of my ability to assert ownership to release these photographs into the Commons for use in Wikipedia. What I don't understand is the nature of that authority. Please advise.

Thank you.

Semmes868 (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz

Over the past few months, Alexis Jazz has engaged in personal attacks, subtle and less subtle, almost on a daily base. Since their failed attempt in August to get me desysoped over the outcome of one DR (an outcome that not has been overruled since), it has become an obsession for them to seed negative sentiment on me. Some examples:

• Continuously following my talkpage and involving themself in a non-constructive way in many cases, see e.g. here - Alexis Jazz telling a newby: "Sorry about Jcb's snarky response.", were the "snarky" response was "Was your father the photographer of this picture?". Not sure what would have been snarky in my question. If Alexis Jazz would not have involved themself in such a way, the user would probably have answered my question, so that the case may have been resolved.
• Trying to convince an admin to start a new attempt to get me desysoped, see here (I must admit that Guanaco is blatantly at fault here as well, scheduling an ANU topic 4 months in advance is unheard of and really unbecoming for an admin)
• Creating attack pages that have to be deleted (and then attacking deleting admin), see here
• Encouraging users to circumvent OTRS, see here and here
• Abusing COM:UDR for personal attacks almost daily, see e.g. here and especially this edit, which they even repeated when undone. Jcb (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

This never ending stream of personal attacks is damaging to this project and needs to stop here and now. And one thing has become very clear in the past 4 months: Alexis Jazz is not going to stop this behaviour voluntarily. Jcb (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Andy_Dingley

• Andy Dingley (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

1. Attacks Jcb vocally;
2. Censors his user_talk, and yet
3. edit-wars against me over {{Retired}}
4. Censors his user_talk again

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Clearing one's own talk page is hardly edit-warring. I stand behind every criticism of Jcb, as I've posted for months.

However, stalking other users is a problem, and your behavious is approaching block-worthy. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)