Jump to content

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard
Revision as of 22:17, 28 January 2023 by Adamant1 (talk | contribs) (Added comment)

Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU • COM:ANI

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

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

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


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


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


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

Archives
24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

Note

  • Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)
  • 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.
  • Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{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:VoidseekerNZ

VoidseekerNZ has been blocked indef. as per discussion here, and on their talk page. Yann (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

VoidseekerNZ (talk · contribs) uploaded File:Powelliphantapatrickensis2.jpg under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license on December 26, 2022, (log: [1]).
On January 19, 2023 he overwrote it with a completely different image, stating "taking back my copyright, only photos of Powelliphanta patrickensis belong to me". When I reverted to original version, he requested speedy deletion "because this is my photo and i own the copyright for it and i am informing you that i retract all creative commons attributions and assert full legal ownership over this photo. wikipedia is illegally hosting my IP right now as this photo is against my permission, hence why i requested deletion".[2].
I finally converted the speedy to regular DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Powelliphantapatrickensis2.jpg to allow for discussion. He then denied having uploaded the image under a CC-license by himself and claimed "anyone could have done that." ... "perhaps someone else with access to my network uploaded it".

If we take his latter claim seriously, we consequently have to block the user account as possibly comprimised. However, I would prefer another admin to look over the DR/close it. --Túrelio (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi there, apologies for any troubles or misplaced things, i don't know wikipedia that well. hello again Turelio.
this is pretty sudden, i dont use this website very often now i have had two people request a block against me. obviously i've trodden on some toes, and that wasn't my intention. but please try see it from my side, this photo (perhaps more? i dont even know how to check) are up here without my knowledge and are extremely sensitive key landmark parts of my portfolio that i put a lot of work into achieving. i dont know how they got here, but i do know that these are *my* work and i worked very very hard to get them, and it is extremely frustrating to find out that anyone could have been downloading it free of charge the whole time, and then when i try a simple thing like deleting a photo of my profile i am met with wall upon wall!
i apologise for not knowing the wikipedia etiquette but please, try remember photographer etiquette! for whatever reason, it does not even really matter materially, my commercially sensitive photos are on here and everyone is too busy focusing on how to get me banned than how to fix my problem. :( VoidseekerNZ (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Someone under that account vandalized a popular page on enwiki -- twice -- and argued about how horrible Wikipedia is after having donated "hundreds of dollars over the years" to the WMF. And these defacements were more or less simultaneous with the upload (not the dispute) dispute of the photo in question. So I'm not sure this is being done in good faith. Elizium23 (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i only discovered said photos when logging into my account due to wanting to change from the skin finally. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Said photos"? How many photos are we talking about here? Elizium23 (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
like i said i dont know for all i know my whole gallery is up, i dont know how to use this website VoidseekerNZ (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Powelliphantapatrickensis2.jpg is the only image uploaded from your user account Trade (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and indef block.
I don't have time for this. Yes, licences are irrevocable. We're within our rights as Commons to keep these. After all, photographer's wishes count for nothing with WMF (a bad decision, but that's how it went). But the value of these image(s) to the project is small, the hassle factor is excessive for them. So if this photographer wants them to go, I think we are most easily served by allowing that. Although the cost would then have to be that we do it to all their images (in case they do it again) and they're indef blocked to stop it happening again.
Commons also (still!) needs to improve its communication to photographers and new editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. i humbly disagree that a block is warranted and it seems punitive rather than prohibitive to my eyes, and i pointed out multiple times to other users that this was a small issue that could be quickly solved with little hassle. my apologies, it's your prerogative to ban me if you choose, another good way to end a horrible day on wiki i guess. thanks for your help, seriously. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The same image is here: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/71064879 although under a CC-nc licence
Over at en:WP [3] the uploader and licensor is now unsure of the species identification.
The veracity of the many claims being made here is unconvincing to say the least. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this is truly the same image then we should probably delete it just for the copyright violation regardless of any claims about compromised accounts Trade (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Andy, thanks for that external link and that's a good find. I wouldn't want to out anyone, especially someone with a putatively compromised account, but links can be followed on inaturalist.org that indicate an interesting profile, with a self-description of this person's occupation and qualifications, with "65 observations" and CC-BY-NC images attached to each one. Elizium23 (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i don't make a habit of publishing my life and qualifications online. Voidseeker is not a person, it is a brand. if you want to believe random inaturalist bios, that's your choice. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@VoidseekerNZ Not to sidetrack things, but an account name should represent a person, not a company or a brand. David10244 (talk) 09:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
more evidence of the commercial nature of this operaation regarding these photos that shouldn't be on wikipedia, i guess. my apologies, i didnt know that. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" Voidseeker is not a person, it is a brand. "
Throughout this you've argued that "I didn't upload or license this" and also "My account is now secure, only I have access to it" (which we anyway can't trust, given the first). Now you're saying that your account is a "brand", presumably implying that multiple people could be using it (which might also explain how it came to be licensed by someone else).
Can we just get the inevitable indef block enacted here and move on, without wasting any further time. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i am the only person who has my permission to be using this account. when i say brand i dont mean group. i just mean my name is not actually voidseeker, this is a fictional alias. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i would appreciate saving any blocks until after the commencement of the deletion post, at which point i will happily concede. but in the meantime i wish to have the right to defend my copyright if that is agreeable. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
alternatively, i would appreciate no block at all, as this is a simple matter that can be resolved by a quick removal of the copyrighted content from the Commons host. in that scenario, a block would not be needed at all, as there would be no preventative need for it. i would happily depart the website of my own volition in that scenario. that would be the ideal outcome i think. but that's just my view, sorry for spamming a bit VoidseekerNZ (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
‘Commons also (still!) needs to improve its communication to photographers and new editors.’ Clearly. That’s the key message from this discussion (and so many others). Brianjd (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it’s not. If anything, Commons already carries photographers around like royalty: We need less of that, and this kind of diva behaviour must be nipped in the bud. (Also, it’s probably an insult to professional photographers, even acknowledging the clashes they often have with Commons, to take this user as a typical representative: Regardless of the great snail photography, this is someone who says «for all i know my whole gallery is up» — which is not at all how professionals work.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you two are working with different definitions of "photographer": Brianjd means "anyone who takes a photo", while Tuválkin means "someone who might show up at FPC". I have too much of a COI to comment on the latter, but I definitely agree with Brian that a new user trying to upload their own work has to jump through a lot of hoops to ensure it doesn't get deleted. (For example, there is an unwritten requirement that a photo can't be low-res without EXIF, except it isn't really a strict requirement, but a patroller might tag as "no permission" anyways and so it turns into an implicit requirement that they must check their account at least once a week to defend their uploads.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvalkin and King of Hearts: Indeed, I am referring to ordinary photographers unfamiliar with Commons. The kind who upload what they probably think is a good photo, only to find it tagged as ‘no permission’ or ‘no FOP in <country>’ or even ‘OOS’ and have on idea what is going on.
(Note: Unfamiliar with Commons. Not unfamiliar with Wikimedia. I saw something like this happen to an admin on another project, and helped to save their upload by assuming good faith. The entire rationale for deletion was ‘Copyright infringement’.) Brianjd (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts: I see an "IA/A" after your name — I suggest you make use of it to get fixed what you find wrong about Commons. Those people whom you call patrollers are admins like you (the "A" bit) and there’s only so much regular users like me can do to battle their deletionist views in deletion request discussions without fear of being targeted for future hounding. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no offence, but the capacity of my photography as either "professional" nor otherwise is not up for debate, nor do i really see the relevance. i am a commercial photographer who takes very serious measures to capture these rare, one of a kind photos. i have a broad portfolio with many unique, one of a kind works. perhaps Commons would have been best suited trying to work with me from an early stage and we could have found a compromise regarding low res files or crops or something. but that windows has long closed, and im afraid i have no wish for any of my unique and highly educational photos to be used after my treatment here - largely due to comments like that, Tuvalkin. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All your capacities are up for the debate once you said that your account was compromised. Who us this we’re talking to again? The person who took the snail pics, or some troll who hacked the snail photographer’s account? One would expect a professional photographer to be wary of licensing and copyrights, not to mention of basic computer safety, and yet here we are. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The person who took the snail pics, or some troll who hacked the snail photographer’s account?"
no idea. seeing as you have no idea either, that means you can't uphold the license as valid as there are clear and significant doubts on authorship. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a block is in order, especially as I gather from User:VoidseekerNZ that they have no interest in uploading to Commons in the future. I'd even be inclined to make a courtesy deletion, because this seems to matter more to VoidseekerNZ than the image can possibly matter to us. However, I also want to say to VoidseekerNZ: if you do choose in the future to participate in Commons, understand that you are personally responsible for what happens on your account. I would not accept a similar explanation a second time. - Jmabel ! talk 01:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your kind, reasonable and considered response. i understand your concerns, and even the hesitations of other users, but i have genuinely taken steps to encrypt my harddrive and will no longer be leaving my computer operating and unattended. this has been a highly stressful ordeal much more for me than anyone else involved, i can promise you that, and i want to avoid this more than anyone. i would like to remind everyone i have requested multiple times for the thread to be closed and for a quick resolution to solve everyone further hassle. i am not trying to cause these problems, the problems are finding me. thank you again for your comment. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hey Jmabel, i see you're an administrator if that's correct? i'm sorry to bother you and this might be a bit presumptuous of me and if so feel free to disregard. but i was wondering perhaps if you would like to do me a great service and consider locking the deletion thread early as a one off exception. i was told i need an admin who hasn't participated so far and i notice that you haven't commented in the thread. i feel like consensus is already being met due to the excessively high activity (admittedly largely my fault but i never meant malice) and i don't think leaving this up for another week would serve much purpose in approaching clarity of the situation. this has been a highly stressful ordeal for me and would resolve my issues instantaneously, and i hope would provide some other users relief knowing that i wont be haranguing them anymore, even if that wasn't my intent.
for what it's worth, if there are any concerns around my posting, i am happy to accept this under conditions where if there is any form of repeat of this sort of issue i am subject to immediate and unquestionable indefinite block. i am happy to enter into this agreement completely voluntarily, provided the CC license is no longer upheld.
i hope this compromise is agreeable. if you would like to make any modifications or suggestions, please feel free. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@VoidseekerNZ: Admins have special powers as trusted users, but they don’t have special authority; they are bound by community consensus like other users and remain accountable to the community when they do intervene. Admins often comment without otherwise intervening. Even so, I’ll ping Jmabel for a response. Brianjd (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is absolutely no way I'm going to be arbitrary and impose my own view, which so far appears to be in a minority. I would hope other people weigh in agreeing with me, but probably the key qualification to be a good administrator is to be able to distinguish your own opinion from the community consensus that authorizes an administrative action. - Jmabel ! talk 17:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree, this could be a good reason for courtesy deletion. The easiest is probably nominate the file for deletion and explain the situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have skimmed over this thread and the deletion request (I have not read everything because it is so long). I also looked at VoidseekerNZ’s global contributions. As far as I can tell, this whole mess started with the events described below (all times are in UTC):

How this problem started

VoidseekerNZ uploaded the photo in question, then overwrote it (at 19 January 2023, 07:08:17) and replaced the information template with a speedy deletion tag with no reason given (at 19 January 2023, 07:09:46). These changes were reverted due to the lack of a reason.

Then VoidseekerNZ again replaced the information template with a speedy deletion tag, but this time gave a reason: because this is my photo and i own the copyright for it and i am informing you that i retract all creative commons attributions and assert full legal ownership over this photo. wikipedia is illegally hosting my IP right now as this photo is against my permission, hence why i requested deletion. This was not a great start, as CC licenses are non-revocable.

That wasn’t good enough for them, so they added a second speedy deletion tag. This time they were more specific, using the {{Copyvio}} tag with this reason: i am the legal owner of this image and wikipedia is currently breaching copyright if they do not remove it promptly. creative commons tags be damned this is my photo!. Of course, this did not help. Then they replaced the copyvio tag and the remainder of the file description with NO LICENCE - ILLEGAL.

Another user replaced the remaining speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion tag (at 19 January 2023, 08:33:03), explaining: CC licenses are considered to be non-revokable.. And VoidseekerNZ promptly replied: why is this still up? i have wikipedia has zero rights or license to host my images and i request, for the third time, that my image no longer be hosted against my wishes on your website. please promptly delete it and stop denying my requests! you are stealing my personal work. i have never given permission for my images to be hosted on your website and you are currently committing direct copyright violation! the image isn't even being used anywhere so stop being difficult. This did nothing to address the issue of CC licenses being non-revocable.

And on it went from there. Based on this toxic attitude by VoidseekerNZ, there was no reason to extend them any courtesy at all. Other users explained that this attitude is not helpful, and slowly VoidseekerNZ seems to taken a kinder attitude, at least towards some users. The person controlling VoidseekerNZ also explained that they were not attempting to revoke the CC license; rather, they were claiming that the CC license was not valid to begin with, as they were not in control of the account at the time the CC license was applied.

But there is an issue that doesn’t seem to have been addressed by VoidseekerNZ at all: actions taken by a person’s user account are attributed to that person. That’s not some weird Commons rule; it’s the whole point of user accounts. VoidseekerNZ seems to be downplaying this issue throughout the entire discussion, when it is actually the main issue (perhaps the only issue) worth discussing here.

Therefore, I find it very worrying that users are calling for a ‘courtesy’ deletion. Calls for deletion (due to uncertain provenance) and an indefinite block (due to either account compromise or terrible behaviour by the original uploader while trying to revoke their CC license) seem justified, but none of this should be described as a ‘courtesy’.

Also note that the file was legitimately in use at the Cebuano Wikipedia at the time it was nominated for deletion, as well as the English Wikipedia and Wikidata (see below), with no free replacement available. Such files are eligible for ‘courtesy’ deletion only in extraordinary circumstances, and it is not clear that those circumstances exist here. Brianjd (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sequence of events were, the deletion discussion was openened at 08:33 UTC on 19 January. To the best of my knowledge, the file was not in use anywhere when I made my first comment at the Village pump at 10:08 UTC on 19 January.[4] User:Elizium23 made their first comment at the deletion page at 10:26 UTC on 19 January[5] and then added the file to Cebwiki at 10:29 UTC on 19 January.[6] The file was added to the Enwiki article at 12:27 UTC on 19 January.[7] User:Pigsonthewing added the image at Wikidata on 21 January,[8] which will have automatically added the image to the cebwiki infobox; this will appear in all versions of the page due to the automatic Wikidata link but this does not mean the file was present in the infobox prior to the 21 January edit. @Brianjd: Can you please strike that part of your comment (and your subsequent comments) as an incorrect interpretation of events? The last thing we want to do here is sow more confusion. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i concur that this was my recollection of events, i had no knowledge of the ceb wiki usage or any other usage until user Elizium got involved and i feel like i remember them either saying or implying it was them who made both uploads but i could be mistaken VoidseekerNZ (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@From Hill To Shore: I was not aware that Wikimedia projects seem to default to UTC, not local time; I had local preferences overriding that on only some projects. I have now set a global time zone preference, so hopefully this will not happen again. I have narrowly struck relevant portions of my comments; I maintain that the file was legitimately in use (even if wasn’t at the time of the deletion requests) and that this is relevant to this discussion. Brianjd (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hi there, as i have stated in the main deletion thread those earlier comments were not an accurate reflection of events. i wasn't trying to revoke a license when i first delete the photo, i was trying to *correct* the license to what it was properly meant to say, as i had never given a license for this image. im not sure where to see it but one of the changes i made before deletion was deleting the CC license with the edit button and changing it to "no license - attributed in error" or something similar, i cant remember exactly. then when i was trying to delete the image i was not aware eveything i was doing and was typing was about to go public. the deletion request where i mentioned "taking back my license" was not a declaration i was meant to share, i thought i literally just typed some random nonsense in that box, pushed speedy delete, then the image would instantly disappear. so if you could just disregard those first statements attached to the deletion templates that would be great as they are not an accurate reflection of events.
you will see in the third comment you quoted that i realised what had happened and corrected my statement to say "please promptly delete it and stop denying my requests! you are stealing my personal work. i have never given permission for my images to be hosted on your website and you are currently committing direct copyright violation!"
this was to reflect that i had never given a CC license for this, which is the central issue here you have ignored entirely. i would request you re-examine the case in that light as this is quite vital and has been excluded from your summary. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i want to also clarify that i was not in control of this account in 26th of december and do not know how these licenses were uploaded. this image has already been removed from all other sources due to copyright violation and wikimedia is the only remaining source that refuses to respect the copyright. i note that inaturalist were very prompt in removing said copyrighted license once alerted to fraudulent licenses. i humbly request an explanation why wikimedia is standing by a photo with no known author and dubious credentials that has been deleted by neutral 3rd party academic organisations for copyright violation.
https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/115638245?size=original VoidseekerNZ (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Also note that the file was legitimately in use, with no free replacement available"
can you explain what this means? i dont quite understand. are you saying it was in use on an article? as this is quite incorrect and it was only added to the article well after the deletion request by another user. regardless, this is an unidentified species of snail and is useless to wikipedia in any case. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record:
  • The image on iNaturalist was identified as Powelliphanta patrickensis by various people including the uploader account "void1", who also seems to go by "Void Seeker" and is therefore likely identical to VoidseekerNZ.
  • While one of those files was deleted, the deletion was caused by void1 after the deletion request over here had already started and various other images by Void Seeker remain as CC-BY-NC licensed on iNaturalist.
  • Regarding the question whether there are free replacements: Brett Sandford, the author of Powelliphanta patrickensis.jpg, has a few CC-BY licensed images on iNaturalist, which might serve as replacements.
TilmannR (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The image on iNaturalist was identified as Powelliphanta patrickensis by various people including the uploader account "void1""
as i have stated previously there are no valid CC licenses for this photo and any you have seen, on this site or otherwise, are misattributions. the photo in question has been removed from inaturalist for copyright violation.
"who also seems to go by "Void Seeker" and is therefore likely identical to VoidseekerNZ."
i'm not sure why people are continuing down this baseless and unsound line when nobody here has any understanding of the nature of these accounts or who has access to them. i have refused to answer these questions. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"there are no valid CC licenses for this photo and any you have seen,"
There are two valid CC licences for this image, one here (still) and one (-nc-) that was in effect at iNaturalist. Both were assigned by accounts under your control. As CC licences, they are irrevocable.
Clearly you don't like this situation. But it is what it is.
You have claimed various explanations for this, but none are sufficiently credible to really change anything. Also you have edited in recent days in such a way as to alienate support from other editors. Civility rules here are such that your accusations of sundry misdeeds don't generate a reply, but they do change editors' opinion of you and your claims, and not in a positive way for your credibility.
There are two likely explanations for what has gone on here: either an honest mistake or non-appreciation of the freeness and irrevocability of licensing your content under an irrevocable free licence; or else your account (and your offline photo storage) is or was compromised. Whether by nefarious hackers, or by someone in your household (the "kid buying a tank on eBay" scenario). But from our viewpoint, it just doesn't matter. It was done by someone with access through your account. So the holder of your account remains responsible for the account's actions (even if it wasn't them) and those actions can be held to be enforceable (i.e. the licence is valid and irrevocable). As an aside, enforcing that is one of Common's most important principles: if licences were revocable, we just couldn't operate this project.
There was a 7 day window for cancellation of these and many editors here would have extended that here, given that it's still a short period. But your engagement with and abuse of the community since could have been calculated to alienate such goodwill (and that's what it does rely on, goodwill). So maybe even that won't happen now.
I can only hope that this issue and the many threads are closed ASAP, just to save the wasted time otherwise. As you claim your account has been compromised, an indef block should be inevitable. A simple request, "This was a mistake, can we please limit its effect" might have encouraged the community consensus that's needed to get it deleted. But abusing the community won't help with that. Nor will claiming that the licences don't exist. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i never made a mistake. i never uploaded this photo. this whole experience is terribly unfair :( i am the one who needs help here not some troll or bad boy. i dont want a courtesy deletion because i dont trust people to just do the right thing and this whole experience shows exactly why. i dont want to ask and then hope that people will be nice because that is how i get ripped off like i have been many times before. there are lots of scammers around, not that im accusing you or wikimedia of being scammers and im not trying to say that. but i am very careful. i want my copyright to be repected and my photo deleted because the CC license does not exist and is illegal. thats all i want. :( VoidseekerNZ (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i have a question for you Andy, can you honestly guarantee me that if i hypothetically had made a courtesy request and politely asked for deletion that this file would have been deleted despite it being in use on other articles and a unique one of a kind example of this snail out of its shell? im highly skeptical and i don't trust that. and i don't see what benefit lying would serve anyway. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "i never made a mistake." Yes, you did. We don't know what it was, but it was either to upload here and then regret it with hindsight, or it was to insufficiently secure your account.
We recognise the first one. That's why there's an explicit 7 day 'cooling off' period (although it's not made as clear as perhaps it needs to be). We can appreciate the second one too, although it does raise issues for the account afterwards (our policy is that compromised accounts get blocked, just to avoid future trouble).
I can't "guarantee" anything. I don't have that clairvoyant power, I don't have the authority here to claim that I do. But I do have some long experience here. Yes, things can move very slowly. Even when it's obvious from the outset how they will end up. But repeatedly denying the obvious and blaming everyone except yourself – it's not going to help.
Your best option now is to try and find an admin who will close this immediately. I would hope that at least one of those reading this might act. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) @VoidseekerNZ: My comment was certainly not intended as a summary of the entire discussion; it was only intended as a summary of the initial events (first impressions matter, rightly or wrongly, and much of the discussion has vague references to earlier events). Still, I have added a note about your claim that the CC license was never valid.
The file was actually in use at the time of the deletion requests (by you and by the other user). See my additions above.
Your claim that the image is unidentified and useless does not seem to have been accepted by anyone else; in fact, another user offered evidence that shows the opposite. Brianjd (talk) 10:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
as the only one who knows the location where said photos are i am the only person who can make definite identification of this species. location data is extremely important for id of powelliphanta. i have never Id'd this species or shared my opions of it online. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The location is given on iNaturalist - apparently by you - as "Lat: -41.654668 Lon: 171.845222 Accuracy: 27.75km Geoprivacy: Open" Others have already noted that it was identified, also apparently by you, as "void1 suggested an ID [...] Mar '21 / Powelliphanta patrickensis . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i assume those are obfuscated GPS coordinates i had attached to the file due to the high poaching likelihood of this species. note that i was not the one who uploaded that photo on that account either and it has been removed for copyright violation. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. iNaturalist has an option to obfuscate coordinates. In this case, they are shown - as I quoted above - as "open", not "obscured". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there are ongoing discussions with inaturalist to automatically obfuscate all Powelliphanta data as they are a high poaching target. see comments by Zetela here. i would appreciate if you deleted those coords above nonetheless, as while not accurate, they still are not productive to be spread around i think.
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/99854760 VoidseekerNZ (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinates which you yourself uploaded, and which are still available online, at [9]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
as i have stated on multiple occasions, i did not upload it. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
to save you time, this is the comment im referencing
"NW South Island is an amazing area to view snails. Good luck! May I recommend not providing precise co-ordinates on iNat for Powelliphanta spp. since they are protected and quite vulnerable to collection? I've asked iNat staff to obscure by default all Powelliphanta observations (as they do for geckos) but they do not seem to think it is worth doing. @predomalpha - perhaps that request coming from a curator might be considered?" VoidseekerNZ (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Even though CC licenses aren't revocable and I'm finding it hard to believe the uploader's assertion that some unknown person actually decided it was worth their time and energy to hack the uploader's computer just to upload this particular image to Commons under a CC license, I don't think this whole mess (not only on Commons but also English Wikipedia) is worth spending any more time and energy on. The only way to be sure that the uploader's account is no longer compromised is for the uploader to have their identify verified by COM:VRT. For the uploader's reference, this would mean emailing permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and requesting that their identity be verified. VRT will respond via email and let the uploader know what they what they need to do to make that happen. Once the account has been verified, a VRT volunteer will add Template:Verified account to uploader's user page, the concerned file can be deleted and the uploader can disappear, never to be seen or heard from again if that's what they want to do. If someday they decide to come back and start using the account again, then almost certainly someone will notice and watch to make sure this type of thing doesn't happen again. Now, if the uploader doesn't want to have their identity verified by VRT, then the account should be blocked as a compromised account and the uploader should send a DMCA takedown notice to the Wikimedia Foundation's designated agent as explained in en:Wikipedia:Contact us/Licensing and let the WMF sort things out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or just spend 30 seconds deleting the photo so the user goes away satisfied and the rest of the community doesn't have to waste anymore time on this Trade (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    im sorry but the last thing i want to to do is send wikimedia more sensitive data of mine! the entire problem here is i cant trust this website! VoidseekerNZ (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    " Now, if the uploader doesn't want to have their identity verified by VRT, then the account should be blocked as a compromised account"
    What difference does it make if i verify my account? this just seems punitive to me. this will do nothing to secure my account and won't prevent this action occurring in future. it doesn't prove anything about the license on december. veryifying my identity has nothing to do with whether or not this copyright is valid. if the copyright is invalid, then just delete the damn photo! you don't get to just apply and ignore copyright law as you see fit! VoidseekerNZ (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    im sorry but your suggestion feels tantamount to blackmail. "give us more sensitive info and we will respect your IP. otherwise we will deny your IP claim exists and keep it". how is that fair??? VoidseekerNZ (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    if you recognise a valid copyright issue then just delete the photo! my identity has nothing to do with whether the CC is license! you yourself just admitted wikimedia has serious doubt about the authorship of this photo so can everyone please stop being so needlessly difficult and obstinate and stop wikimedia from violating my copyright! this is frankly obscene and unacceptabel! i enver expected this sort of treatment from an org like wiki, that professes to be built on knowledge and openness and sharing and respect! no0t thievery and trickery and legal loopholes to steal others work! you have admitted now there are doubts about the license that you would enforce if you had my identity. so just get on with it please~! VoidseekerNZ (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "My account was hacked, it wasn't me" (or whatever this person is claiming, honestly it's hard to follow) and keep repeating that again and again and again should not become a standard method to revoke licensing here. Said that, I would block the account (after all they declared they are not interested in contributing to Commons anymore), delete the file (being a bit flexible & extending the courtesy deletion period from a week to a month may be OK, after all it's still a pretty recent upload. But it may not be, too) and move on, ending this calamitous show. I would not mind much about the file being kept, though (as long as this time-wasting mess ends). Strakhov (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    just to be clear, my story has always been the same. i never uploaded this image. the CC license was never granted by me, the license owner. that is the only thing that should be relevant! if everyone is annoyed at this entire ordeal then perhaps you all should take a good long hard look at the stupid and over the top policies that mad this happen! madness VoidseekerNZ (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Account VoidseekerNZ claims to have «never uploaded this image.» However that is trivially untrue. Nothing else to see here. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    i just want wikimedia to desist from the theft and stop blackmailing me with words like if i verify my itentity then they will respect my copyright. the two matters are not linked! just respect the damn copyright and delete my IP please! VoidseekerNZ (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You throw around pejorative words like "theft" and "blackmail" without seeming to know what they mean. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    would a courtesy deletion still remove the fraudulent license? VoidseekerNZ (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @VoidseekerNZ: A courtesy deletion is just like any other deletion. Your file and its licensing information would no longer be displayed on this website. Whether it would "remove the fraudulent license" is a legal question that I (not a lawyer) cannot give an authoritative answer to. I simply don't know. The only difference between a "courtesy" deletion and a "normal" deletion is that in a normal deletion is required by one of our policies, while a courtesy deletion is technically not required, but is executed anyways as a favor to the person requesting the deletion. TilmannR (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    okay, thank you. so in that scenario of a courtesy deletion, there would be no record of this photo, nor any previous CC licenses, on wikipedia or wikimedia? excluding the conversations we're having about it VoidseekerNZ (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleting images does not delete them from the website in the literal sense. It just mean that non-admins will no longer be able to view them. Trade (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    provided there is no further distribution from said source i guess that would be acceptable. i want it to be known however this still is not a courtesy deletion request and is a copy vio issue. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A copyright violation issue, yes — and the uploader should be banned ASAP. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see "desist", "theft", "blackmail", "fraudulent license" — these are textbook examples of legal threats. Just block this troll and let the WMF lawyers deal with this kind of nonsense: That’s what it is for. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    i have not made any legal threats... that is a sheer misrepresentation of my statements VoidseekerNZ (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This whole experience is wholly unfair and stacked against me
apologies if i formatted this wrong, ive never made a new section in one of these pages. but i want to have a chance to tell my side. this has been by far the most stressful and upsetting event ive ever had as a photographer. i know no one believes me, but please, just put all of that for aside and just hypothetically imagine a situation where what i said *was* true, and try put yourself in my shoes for a minute. this is a highly unique and landmark work and one that was never meant to be online in any capacity. i did not know it was online. i only discovered it was online by mistake, and have since been pointed out to other versions of this image i did not realsie are online. i am not a highly technically capable person and i have learning difficulties and struggle with technology. lots of technical things are hard for me to do, things like editing tags and working with licenses and anything like this are hard to follow. i just walk around and take photos of snails and other creatures because i find it soothing and relaxing and predictable. none of this is soothing or relaxing or predictable. my normal routine has been strongly upset by this whole procedure. i feel persecuted, i feel attacked, i feel bullied, i feel alone, i feel upset, and i just want this all to be over. i never uploaded this photo. i just want my copyright to be upheld. i dont want to fight with anyone. can someone please just help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VoidseekerNZ (talk • contribs) 20:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@VoidseekerNZ: I assure you that the seven day duration of typical deletion requests is not us being unfair or difficult. It is a procedural requirement that we are not allowed ignore. All the volunteers taking their time to inform themselves about this issue and voting "delete" in the deletion request are helping you. The consensus seems to lean towards deleting the file, so I don't think you have anything to worry about. Please try to stay calm. TilmannR (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
im sorry but leaving the file up for a week as i have clearly explained is unacceptable! if consensus is leaning in my favour like you say then i think an expedient deletion of the file is in the best interests of everyone to promptly end this matter! i see little benefit in leaving these open for another 5 days. also i see some is requesting arbcom below so i hope they can read these statements and quickly sort the matter as i have never agreed my photos to be here whatsoever, whether on a temporary 7 day license nor otherwise! the default option should be to remove the photo now and reinstate it later once the copyright is cleared up as right now the license is under contentious and you can have no faith in it! please understand wheer im coming from its as has been pointed out to other uses this is subect to some amount of "streisand effet" and i would have been much better off just making this claim from another account in the first place or telling some other lie! but i do not wish to do you the disservice of lying so instead i am being punished for telling the truth. please help me find an expedient solution because i have no wish for my photo to be publicly visible at all! let alone in fulle resolution with no watermark for an entire WEEK! 😭😭😭 VoidseekerNZ (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@VoidseekerNZ First about the ArbCom: What Matr1x-101 is saying is that it would be useful, if an ArbCom existed, but there is no ArbCom. A simple misunderstanding.
the default option should be to remove the photo now and reinstate it later: So-called "speedy deletion" is the default option in the specific cases listed on the page COM:Criteria for speedy deletion. But for regular deletion requests cases it is important for the image to remain available, because otherwise it would be impossible for the community to make informed decisions. What makes this case difficult is that A) the file has been uploaded for more than a week B) someone uploaded the image from your account. Both A) and B) are ultimately your responsibility as the owner of the account. And I hope you agree that just because you might have gained an advantage by telling a lie doesn't mean that you should gain that advantage. That is generally not a workable principle. Making multiple accounts is also a well-known phenomenon (called "sockpuppetry"), it is detectable and punished by an indefinite ban, so it's really not a recommendable option anyway. TilmannR (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i dont think i have any other accounts but i couldnt honestly tell you but i dont remember making any. i think this is my only account to the best of my knowledge. sometimes i forget logins etc and have multiple accounts on websites but i dont think that is the case with wiki.
i did request a speedy deletion. i still want a speedy deletion. a week isn't acceptable :( i dont think it really is my responsibility as we still have no evidence of how the upload was done. im still yet to hear anything about this investigation into my account? are there any avenues i can request outside help if there is no arbcom? i tried a request to disputes resolution but it was closed ive requested mediation multiple times in the discussion thread i asked for advice on discord, no one will tell me how i can escalate this VoidseekerNZ (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
also for all the people who so keenly want me blocked, for what it's worth, i also want to be able to leave the website. that requires my IP to be firmly back in my grasp. so if you want me to be blocked, please assist in finding a way to get my copyrighted works deleted, as the sooner they are gone the sooner i am gone too and everyone can find an acceptable resolution! VoidseekerNZ (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@VoidseekerNZ, regarding "how i can escalate this": Marchjuly mentioned above that you can [...] send a DMCA takedown notice to the Wikimedia Foundation's designated agent as explained in en:Wikipedia:Contact us/Licensing and let the WMF sort things out. That would certainly be an escalation in terms of legal implications. I'm not a lawyer and I've never interacted with the DMCA takedown process, so I know nothing about how fast, convenient or otherwise appropriate this approach might be. Sorry. TilmannR (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i should not have to escalate to such drastic draconian measures. is this a site about honesty and integrity or about lawyers and legal arguments? i feel like this entire argument just goes against the spirit of wikipedia and the general good virtue that comes with sharing knowledge. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
every hour we sit here having this discussion how many more people see my photo illegally hosted by wikimedia? 10? 100? i dont know. i have no idea. how many people have already illegally downloaded this pirated full resolution image off these servers. i am terrified of where these are already going to turn up later. someone please take some sort of urgent action to protect what is very important to me this is not fair VoidseekerNZ (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this should be treated like a courtesy deletion; these photos are clearly replacable; they don't pose significant value, and the uploader has clearly expressed their intent.

On a seperate note, this is perfect evidence we need an ArbCom. An ArbCom should have taken the case, since the community clearly can't come to an appropriate course of action. A proposal is happening at COM:VPP. --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 22:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@VoidseekerNZ: if you really think that this is a matter of Commons doing something illegal in terms of you copyright, you may want to look at wmf:DMCA policy. However, be aware that if you actually bring this to a level of legal action, issues like perjury, countersuits, etc. may arise. I personally think you don't have a legal leg to stand on, and that as User:Andy Dingley remarked above, you are basically in the position of asking for a courtesy deletion while berating and alienating people with the way you are discussing it. Again, I think you we should grant that courtesy in order to be done with this, but you have definitely made it harder, not easier, to do so. - Jmabel ! talk 23:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you planning to press the delete button or should we let this continue for another week? Trade (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you trade, you have been a consistent and succinct voice of common sense throughout this whole ordeal and i want it to be known it has not gone unnoticed VoidseekerNZ (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for immediate indef block

This has gone on long enough. Accusations like "wikmedia stealing my work" (and many other similar) are too much. There is no useful purpose to VoidseekerNZ and their compromised account being able to edit here any longer.

It would also be useful if an admin could close the deletion request (either way, I no longer care). Andy Dingley (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

andy, i want it known that your forward and abrupt and abrasive matter is the main reason i got so upset in the first place and you are one of the users i keep referring to regarding mediation. i would appreciate it if you stayed out of this further as you are the one who got me so mad in the very first outset and if you had just talked to me like a person from the beginning all of this could likely have been avoided. im not a bad faith user, but if you refuse to consider any other options then i kinda get forced into that box whether i want to or not. if you treat peoples concerns as valid, they're usually more receptive and open to criticism in turn. see how that works? sorry for troubling you and i humbly request you tone down your langauge and have some more respect please. thats all i ask tank you VoidseekerNZ (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i also want it noted i have already been going to lengths to avoid discussion with this user and i was hoping they would drop it without my having to say somethin, this is not me jsut being petty. if you look through all their recent comments you will see i have been avoiding conversation with this user. thank you for understanding VoidseekerNZ (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"tone down your langauge"
I'm not the one accusing other editors of stealing. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
im not accusing editors of stealing. im accusing the Wikimedia Commons of stealing. which, i understand, was never their intent nor was it done with prior knowledge or malice. but regardless, that is my objective evaluation of the situation. and you are free to disagree. but that is just how i perceive it. i am not accusing anyone of anything, that's my calm and objective asssessment of the situation. i dont know why that is being perceived as an attack if i am perfectly honest, i genuinely don't understand this point. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The user in question would beyond doubt have abandoned the website the moment the picture was deleted. We are basically the ones keeping him here on Wikimedia Commons by dragging the deletion discussion out for no good reason despite the majority of users calling for the photo to be deleted. Trade (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
😭😭😭 thank you trade VoidseekerNZ (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support indef ban. Their disruptive behaviour has gone long enough and any means of constructive discussion has failed at this point. At this point, I would expect a major reform in VoidseekerNZ's behaviour, but otherwise, I don't see any other interim solution. --SHB2000 (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth i have asked multiple times for advice on how to properly seek redress for these matters but i am blocked from both discord and teahouse and no one wants to give me advice. i'm trying to do things in the correct manner but no one will help me. apologies if this is not the correct way to request mediation but if someone COULD help me then i could stop disrupting this process as that is not my intent~! is anyone free to discuss the matter on discord or something so i no longer make mistakes here VoidseekerNZ (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You still have the option of sending a DMCA takedown request as i and others have explained earlier Trade (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    i dont think i am legally allowed to enter into something like that. im not allowed to sign forms VoidseekerNZ (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    also can someone tell me why this was removed? i take it i did something wrong again? :\ i genuinely didnt think there was anything wrong with this and am confused....
    https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=727103921
    sorry for stacking up in this comment chain i dont know how to make a new topic. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    for what it's worth, i find it highly troubling that there is a user that is uploading dubious, unsourced info that is currently reaching consensus to be deleted to try provoke a reaction. i hope wikipedia looks in to this regardless of whatever happens to me as these sorts of nasty actions erode the trust of wikipedia at large. this issue really has nothing to do with me and if you are interested in upholding the good faith of wikipedia i hope you agree that these sorts of edits are not constructive, uploading misleading incorrect info to prove a point feels about as far from the 5 pillars as possible to me. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Too many Eric Garcias

Hi. Recently I've seen multiple accounts with the name "EricGarcia[number]", so I decided to do a search...

Eric Garcia, EricGarcia0204, Éric García 974, EricGarcia1973, EricGarciaM and Eric garcia camara are older accounts with nothing in their public logs, so not relevant.

EricGarcia0209 has nothing but one copyvio in 2018, also not really relevant.

are all from January 2023. Some have one or two speedy deleted uploads. Some haven't done anything.

I'm not sure how to communicate with a person, who uses a new account every time they log in. TilmannR (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think a checkuser check may fishing but maybe an admin can see if the deleted uploads are related. They could be unrelated but it's possibly one person who could be getting scared off by each deletion and creating a new account. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Added files to the list above) Based on the file names alone we can be fairly certain that (most of) these accounts are related. TilmannR (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Not highly sophisticated socking, but socking nevertheless. All accounts with uploads are blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: They are uploading PBS logos again.
TilmannR (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User Raramim

Raramim (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  only uploads copyrighted material and warned numerous times. To block permanently and eliminate all his uploads. Pierre cb (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is currently also blocked on :pt for 1 month for copyright-violations. Seems he does understand the concept of copyright or simply doesn't care. On Commons he made only uploads, but never any other edit, even not on his own talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Wow! That's a case! Blocked for 3 months, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valdinho777

On Jan. 12, Valdinho777 (talk · contribs) was blocked for one week for "Uploading unfree files after warnings". They are now back from their block, and they keep uploading unfree images. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 19:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And Valdinho888 (talk · contribs), likely a sock-puppet of the 777, and already blocked for that on :pt. --Túrelio (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Valdinho777 is blocked for a month, and the sock is indef. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brianjabberwocky

Brianjabberwocky (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information): looks like a sock of the recently banned VoidseekerNZ. The account was created at 00:03 (UTC), 20 minutes after VoidseekerNZ was blocked for disruptive editing and their only edit is responding to a message on User talk:VoidseekerNZ. I think this account can be blocked per the duck test as an obvious sock. TIA, --SHB2000 (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm the above and you can block this account I simply made it to reply to my own talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianjabberwocky (talk • contribs) 00:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. Taivo (talk) 09:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic material removed from talk page by an admin, then restored by 2404:4404:1758:400:123:ea89:f77:3f81. Brianjd (talk) 09:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also more trolling at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Powelliphantapatrickensis2.jpg. Brianjd (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2404:4404:1758:400:123:EA89:F77:3F81 has been blocked for a month by Elcobbola Gbawden (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brianjabberwocky has now been globally locked by BRPever. SHB2000 (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Big undiscussed categorization changes, editor won't engage or discuss.

W like wiki (talk · contribs) is engaged in a massive re-categorization of Category:Glass objects to Category:Objects made of glass (other materials too, presumably rippling this down into the subcategories). They're German, this seems like a local language issue. But this is a massive change, just for the categories. I can see no past discussion of this, they're ignoring their own talk page.

Requesting a mop intervention to get them to stop it so that we can discuss what happens next, before they do it anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry, no, I dont ignore my talk page, but needed some minutes to answer. I hope all this becomes a big misunderstanding, Regards --W like wiki good to know 16:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
copy-past from my user page:
Hi @Andy Dingley: , no sorry, actually not. But there were/are around 30 categories with the name sheme "Objects made from" and that term is not quite often used, I hope you agree. I checked it also with google:
made			of	out of	from
---------------------------------------------
amber			6000+	9	1200
stone			50000+	11000	9000
limestone		9000+	4	1400
sandstone		5000+	0	5
rock			27000+	7.000	2900
rocks			15000+	8	2300 
wood			100000	195000+	16000
leather			20000+	4000	8000
bone			33000+	5500	7000
-s			11800	10	3600
Ivory			13000+	3100	3500 
basalt 			4000+	-	600 
animal horn		10+	-	6
horn			3700+	5	700
straw			5900+	1900	1100
Glass 			61000	69000+	6900
sugar			38000+	2900	1600
wax			32000+	7	1500
slate			2500+	0	2300
chocolate		4200	13000+	1200
paper			54000	99000+	6400
concrete		82000+	3600	1900
cannel coal		5+	0	3
schist			3+	0	2
rubber			11000+	2000	1200
plastic			35000+	7000	6000
-s			11000	1500	1200

Regards, --W like wiki good to know 15:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@W like wiki:
  1. Did you also try (e.g.) "rubber objects", "wooden objects", etc. in your Google check?
  2. In any case, though: it's one thing to make an argument for this, it's another to unilaterally change a large number of longstanding categories. If you think you have evidence of a more common usage and want to start a discussion, fine. No one should unilaterally make major and potentially controversial changes to a pattern of category names. It appears there was no discussion at all.
- Jmabel ! talk 16:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Jmabel:
  1. Yes I checked it, but this system has some weakness with categories like Amber objects which can mean "amber colered objects" or "objects made of amber".
  2. You are right. Just one addition: in my experience: longstanding is not anymore a guarantee for quality. They can also be skeletons in the closet. I answerded on my user page.
Regards and Sorry for the fuss! --W like wiki good to know 18:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Discussion is now at Category talk:Objects by material. - Jmabel ! talk 16:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 16:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Cookie030307

Cookie030307 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Hi, I wonder what educational use are this user's uploads... All these files are only used on their userpage (and a few others'). IMO this user confuses Commons with a personal blog. Other opinions? Yann (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, at least some of these are copied from DevianArt without any evidence of a free license at the source, e.g. File:Countryhuman Ukraine Sleepwear (Original, Battle Damaged And Heavy Battle Damaged).png. Yann (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked them for a proper source-link, as they actually linked to the root, which is useless. WRT their uploads: for now I would be lenient, as it's not personal promotion, but seems to be related to a sort of "subculture" or fandom, see Category:Countryhumans. --Túrelio (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No anwser, so Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Cookie030307. Yann (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sänger (talk · contribs)

Despite the happy musical tone of this user's signature, they're angry and name-calling ([10], [11], [12], [13], [14]) other contributors and questioning their motives. I warned them about their tone on their talk page but their latest contribution to a deletion request shows that they have not understood the message ([15], machine translation: "Wanting to delete that is more of a harassment than a serious concern."). This user needs a temporary block to learn how to be respectful of other contributors. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One is double ;)
It was all about one aggressive action by one wannabe mass-deleter, that failed to read licences, that were clear and obvious given on the pages, and that went awol after thousands of pagers were tagged by them with baseless accusations. That action was without a shiver of respect, if anybody should be reprimanded, it's that wannabe mass-deleter. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With due to their great journey of violating MediaWiki COC, I wonder if we should consider permanently blocking em at least two wikis, and submit a Global ban request at Meta or not? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The user continues disrespecting other contributors: "Wenn aber einE ErbsenzählerIn das pedantisch und legalistisch aufzieht"/"But if a bean counter brings this up in a pedantic and legalistic way". This is not a constructive way to contribute to a deletion request discussion. Can a decision be taken here? Cryptic-waveform (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hast Du den Text außen rum auch gelesen? Weißt Du, worum es da geht?
Ein Bild, das privat angefertigt wurde, und zwar sehr offensichtlich, wurde auf einer eher semiprofessionellen Seite veröffentlicht, ist auf der Seite im Impressum als privat gekennzeichnet. Auf der Konto-Diskussionsseite in der deWP hat Frau Müssig, wie ich zwischenzeitlich feststellen konnte, dies auch schon genau so dargestellt. Das ist sehr glaubhaft, es ist also sehr wahrscheinlich, dass dieses Bild bleiben wird.
Parallel lief gegen den Account der einen Beteiligten, also der abgebildeten Person, bei uns in der deWP eine imho Kampagne wegen vermeintlichem PE. Ja, es gab einen deutlichen IK, der aber mit normaler Ansprache vermutlich gut zu klären gewesen wäre. Und der LA kam vom gleichen Konto, daher mein etwas deutlicherer Stil. Und ja, ich habe schon öfter gehört, dass Deutsche durchaus für ihre Direktheit bekannt sind, drumrumlabern liegt uns eher weniger.
Auf der Disk der deWP ist inzwischen alles geklärt, das muss jetzt nur noch seinen sozialistischen Gang nehmen und offiziell über VTRS abgenickt, die Sachlage ist eindeutig. Diese eindeutige Sachlage nicht anzuerkennen aus reinem Formalismus halte ich für ziemlich unfreundlich und abstoßend, wer so agiert, muss auch mit einem entsprechenden Echo leben können. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Malilibu is a w:wp:SPA whose only edits are bad RfDs

This user is just another bluenoser who nominates random sexually explicit files for deletion as “porn”. Please block before they vandalize any more files. Dronebogus (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I gave a firm warning (their first). They had nominated all of three files. I don't think this calls for a block unless they continue now that they've been warned. - 04:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs)

User Edwincas72

Edwincas72 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  This new user has been uploading copyrighted or potential copyrighted photos. All have been marked for deletion and I warned him. However, I just found out that one of these has been a reupload (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gustavo Espina.jpg). Possible sockpuppet. Pierre cb (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Edwincas72 (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Edwincas72: you marked your own previously uncreated user page with a request to delete the page (that is, to take it back to the uncreated state it was in before you marked it. That makes no sense. It is like putting up a sign saying "Please take down this sign." - Jmabel ! talk 04:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aja, eres hispanohablante. Por favor, no puedes tomar archivos arbitrarios que encuentre en la web y subirlos a Commons. Si no posees los derechos de autor y la persona propietaria de los derechos esos no ha otorgado una licencia gratuita, no podemos alojarlo. - Jmabel ! talk 04:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kiilei and all socks

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kiilei. I can't understand why this user and their socks have not been banned. At the very least, they should be blocked for incivility. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More warning sent, all files deleted as per COM:WEBHOST. Yann (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionist SPA accounts

Uoijm77 (talk · contribs)

Appears out of nowhere and immediately targets one uploader's whole upload history (Rainerhaufe (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) ) for deletion (mostly as speedies, until they were reverted). The deletion rationale is the same, yet they do them all as individual DRs (which of course, makes them harder to oppose and allows the odd ones to slip through).

The rationale is "Old photos in new books are to be judged as dated from the book's publication, no matter what argument can be made for the age of the photo".

Then as soon as they get the one INUSE image we had for a notable topic deleted, they speedy the Category:DRG Class E 80 as "CSD C2 (unuseful empty category)". Obviously contentious, as the category and topic are notable, it's just that they've deleted the only content we've been able to find for it.

This is stretching AGF awfully thin. Even to those who accept this as within "the letter of the law" for copyright it's a very hostile action against one uploader, and using an obvious sock account to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the discussion is trying to discredit me. In many cases my justifications differ. Inserting all the artwork is difficult because the allegations are different. Accusation of conspiracy, alleging that I am acting against uploader, is getting paranoid. Editor uploaded hundreds photos and tells that it was published 70 years ago witout evidence. He often disregards copyright. The author of the discussion always defends the legality of the photos, claim that all the old photos were definitely published immediately without evidence. Well, it shows that defending people who break copyright is more important than people who demand that these rights be respected. My objections most often relate to the fact that in many cases the only evidence of publication is books published 10-20 years ago. I don't deny that the photos are old. However, the photos from 70 years ago did not have to be published at the same time. The author of the discussion and uploader don't understand this. Ts that so hard to understand? Don't rely on presumptions. It doesn't mean that someone can scan a photograph from any book and assume it has been published immediately after creation. No one can immediately tell that a given photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. It can't be an arbitrary decision by one editor. Copyright is not based on one or another editor arbitrarily deciding whether it is a promotional photo, a factory photo, or just a photo taken for private purposes. --Uoijm77 (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which was your earlier account? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tycuca (talk · contribs) - I lost my password to this account, please a block that old account, I'm unable to use it because I don't remember my password. I had no other accounts before. I couldn't find any information on how to recover the password anywhere. Unfortunately I had to create a new account. I'm very sorry. --Uoijm77 (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hast Du das Buch vorliegen, aus dem die Abbildungen, augenscheinlich aus alten Veröffentlichungen, abgescannt wurden? Dort wird doch bestimmt stehen, woher die im Original sind.Das sind jedenfalls offensichtlich keine Bilder aus Privatbesitz, die vorher nie veröffentlicht wurden. Warum glaubst Du, dass die noch nie veröffentlicht wurden? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the books from which the some photo was scanned. In many cases there is no date of creation of this picture. Also in the description in the books there is no information that there is supposedly a factory photo here. It is not known when the photo was taken. In my German books, under some photos there is a note that they come from a private collection. In addition, the entire content of the book is copyrighted by the publisher. In addition, the entire content of the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Besides, many his photos have been removed, as you can see from the discussion archive. Uoijm77 (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

image-manipulator

Big baboon 272 (talk · contribs) had 6 uploads, all of them showing en:Marsupail species of the genus Murexia and all claimed as own work. As the first 5 were uploaded already in 2021, they had quite a lot of on-wiki usage in many projects. Only yesterday, when an :en-article created in 2021 by the same user about the Murexia species en:Murexia xenochromus came under suspicion to be a hoax, see en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murexia xenochromus, the uploads of this user were scrutinized.
Result: the 5 images from 2021 were blatant copyvios from a 2020 unfree scientific paper. However, the 2022 upload File:Murexia xenochromus specimen.jpg, used to illustrate the above mentioned hoax-article on :en, was found to be a deliberate and uncredited manipulation of an image, File:Speckled dasyure (Neophascogale lorentzii) .jpg, which shows a completely different species.
In the face of such unscrupulous behavior, I propose to indefinitely ban this user from Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excommunicado.
Delete all uploads, revert all other project edits unless they can be sourced immediately. Indef ban. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Indef., last file deleted. Yann (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Groupir !

24.185.206.49 20:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Final warning"? When? --Túrelio (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
28 August 2014‎. 24.185.206.49 21:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But that is so long ago that IMO it does not really count. His currently nominated upload is from 2018 and not a blatant copyvio, but likely an error of judgement. --Túrelio (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:EugeneZelenko

This guy is such an avid deletionist that he appears to never do the easiest possible kind of checking before jumping to the conclusion that, for example, the logo of a company or publication with a Wikipedia article on it.wikipedia is an "Unused trivial logo" that should be deleted, even nominating logos that are COM:INUSE for deletion that way, and he never responds to discussion threads about his lazy, wrong deletion requests. Some examples: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo rivista il Mulino.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo GZ su 2 linee.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zhongtianbiao.png (deleted for not having a license, without the deleter addressing COM:TOO), Commons:Deletion requests/File:Casdapro (logo).png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The causes of Cardiac arrest (HY).png (of obvious use, despite his lazy claim that it's "out of scope," but might be deleted for copyright violation), Commons:Deletion requests/File:Society6-logo.png (required just slightly more research), Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by TheOleRazzleDazzle (somewhat less obvious, but "Unused charts. Should be in tabular data, MediaWiki graph or SVG if useful." is not a deletion reason and the claim of "Out of scope" was lazy). I also point you to Commons:Deletion requests/File:2018최광모(사복) choi kwang-mo(suit).jpg, in which he lectures a user with thousands of uploads that "Commons is not private photo album." I think it's important for him to be warned that if he does not start doing even the most obvious due diligence before giving false stock deletion reasons for files that are in use, are logos of companies or organizations that have Wikipedia articles about them or are personal photos of users in good standing with hundreds of contributions or more, he risks being suspended from making deletion requests. And the fact that he's a bureaucrat should mean that he's held to a higher, not lower standard. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also note Commons:Deletion requests/File:Treble clef and Bass clef.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:20181028 vinstrekord danska foretag (44870929734).jpg. And before someone argues that I'm not "assuming good faith," this is a pattern of behavior, ignoring responses to his deletion requests and blindly assuming he knows that files are useless without understanding what they are (which I assume must be the case with the treble and bass clefs) or checking whether a company or organization is actually notable. There is no basis for assuming good faith here. There are other users whose good faith is obvious because they withdraw deletion requests when shown to have goofed. Everyone goofs; that's not the issue here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see people use the whole "Should be in SVG if useful" thing in deletion requests for logos quite a lot. IMO it's not a valid reason to nominate a logo for deletion. Although the guidelines should probably clarified to reflect the fact that images of logos that aren't in SVG are fine if people are going to called out or reported for using that as a delete reason. Since right or wrong I can see why they would have the impression that SVGs are the "preferred" file format for logos. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=728552248"