Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

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:Altair Netraphim/Disclaimer

[edit]

The licence template at User:Altair Netraphim/Disclaimer, applied to a couple of hundred of that user's images, says that these images are CC-BY licenced, but specifies three additional and original clauses that seem fundamentally incompatible with COM:LICENSING:

  • The statement that YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO UPLOAD THIS FILE TO ALL SOCIAL NETWORKS. Other anti-Facebook templates of this nature were discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Nofacebook and Commons:Deletion requests/NoFacebook templates a few years ago, with the conclusion being that such a restriction goes against Commons scope, with the WMF taking a similar view.
  • The requirement that For printed publication, you must contact the author via email for approval. This goes against the "anyone, anytime, for any purpose" basics of Commons licensing, uploaders cannot pick and choose which publishers are allowed to reuse an image.
  • Of printed publications, the requirement to Use the highest resolution as soon as possible. - assuming that's meant as an instruction to use the highest resolution possible, that's ruling out anyone who would prefer to use a lower resolution for whatever reason (eg. printing a poster in low quality monochrome to save ink or money, even though a higher resolution would be technically possible).

I raised these concerns on the user's talk page in June, following it up in July, but have gotten no response. It would be helpful to get their perspective on whether this licence should be rephrased, or - if they wish to retain these restrictions on reuse - the images removed from Commons for being incompatible with COM:LICENSING. Belbury (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't see the issue here. The discussed issue about FB also exists for other social networks. And it is usually accepted that modified versions should be uploaded as separate files. Yann (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not the requirement to upload on Commons separately, it is the requirement that all external reusers must contact the author by email for approval of printed use. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, right. I let a message again on their talk page. Yann (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you say the discussed issue about FB also exists for other social networks, have I misunderstood Commons' view on "no Facebook" type templates? I assumed from the linked deletion requests that they were against licencing policy. Belbury (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incompatible with free licensing. Files with non-free requirements cannot be kept. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with Asclepias here. I ran into a similar license a few months ago and asked the user to change it to remove the requirements, which it they did. You might try that and then nominate the images for deletion if they are unwilling to. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I asked exactly that on the talk page that I link to, back in June, but it got no response. Belbury (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Then I'd support a block if they don't respond to this or Yann on their talk page since I think it's enough chances for them to address the problem. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:188.92.251.201

[edit]

Another user just trying to censor videos of sex without a legitimate rationale Dronebogus (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done IP with an agenda, blocked for 3 days, all DRs closed. Yann (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mohmad Abdul sahib

[edit]

Seems to be the same IP editor with an agenda that was just blocked. Dronebogus (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I consolidated.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zomuanpuii joute

[edit]

Yet another obvious sock of Chhanchhana zote hmar, see Category:Sockpuppets of Chhanchhana zote hmar. Jonteemil (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick1984

[edit]

A user threatens to block me. (1). --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I blocked Engelberthumperdink for 3 months. Already several blocks before, but it seems the message didn't get through. Next block should be indefinite. Yann (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lallawmzuali ralte

[edit]

Yet another obvious sock of Chhanchhana zote hmar, see Category:Sockpuppets of Chhanchhana zote hmar. Jonteemil (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonteemil: ✓ Done thanks to EPIC.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, however is it really necessary with a global lock when the socks only seem to edit Commons? Can't they just be handled locally instead? There is no cross-wiki abuse, just locally here on Commons. Jonteemil (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonteemil: The master was locked for "Cross-wiki abuse " after uploading copyvios here and spam on www.mediawiki.org.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know but I haven't seen the socks editing any other wiki than Commons. A global lock hence seems unnecessary but I might be wrong. Jonteemil (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonteemil: Details of the original claim are archived at m:Steward requests/Global/2023-w44#Global lock for Chhanchhana zote hmar. Details of any Checkuser evidence are not shared outside the Checkusers, Stewards, and other Functionaries.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing the global lock of the master but rather the socks. But let's end this discussion, it's a trifle and not something worth spending more time on. Jonteemil (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

DMA180guy

[edit]

DMA180guy is likely a sock of BMarGlines. What makes me believe this is that the master uploaded File:WBNG-DT2 2024.svg which was deleted and then reuploaded by the sock. See also interaction on Wikipedia. All uploads also look exactly the same in terms of layout of the file pages. Jonteemil (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However w:User talk:DMA180guy#KTUU & KATH logos makes me doubtful. Perhaps it'd be better if a checkuser checks on this in a sock investigation instead? Like, why would a master communicate with their sock? Jonteemil (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonteemil: Spreading FUD.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible. Would you propose a sock investigation? Jonteemil (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonteemil: You may at COM:RFCU with evidence which includes diffs / upload log entries.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illegitimate Barrister

[edit]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Locke Cole blocked for 3 months for their conduct in this thread. No further action needed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Editor is violating Wikimedia licensing requirements/terms of use by uploading works by other editors from other projects and not providing attribution. See for example, File:Wordmark of Spokane Valley, Washington.svg and en:File:Logo of Spokane Valley, Washington.svg (the original, byte for byte identical file). It's also unclear if they understand COM:TOO, but the attribution violations are a clear issue. Given the number of uploads they've made, I request for someone to go through all their uploads and determine if they are actually the original uploader or if they're simply lifting work by editors on other Wikimedia projects and claiming it as their own. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that now the editor has taken to uploading PNG versions of the files which were speedily deleted as exceeding COM:TOO. The prior concerns about attribution still remain for this editors other uploads. I'd almost suggest a preventative block until this user discloses how many other files they've uploaded from other Wikimedia projects that aren't actually their own work. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the supposed issue. If you upload fair use material to local Wikipedias and it turns ot that the material is actually PD/can be hosted on commons, and it is moved to Commons, then there is zero need to attribute you in any way, as you aren't the author, you only uploaded someone elses work, and this "someone else" needs to be attributed - and this has been done apparently. TheImaCow (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there is zero need to attribute you in any way Thank you for clarifying that you don't understand the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. Per foundation:Policy:Terms_of_Use#7._Licensing_of_Content, "b. Attribution: Attribution is an important part of these licenses. We consider it giving credit where credit is due – to authors like yourself." This is non-negotiable, and if an editor is stealing other users work, then they need to be banned until such issues can be resolved. If I'm the first one to ever notice them doing this, that's unfortunate, but doesn't change the fact that attribution is absolutely required on all Wikimedia projects per Foundation policy. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that you are the original author of some US town's logo? Is it truly your work, or did you just took it from https://www.spokanevalleywa.gov/? Do you understand the difference between uploader/author?
- If you are the original author of this work (converting the work to SVG, upscaling it etc dosen't make you the author), then obviously you need to be attributed.
- If you are not the original author, then you don't need to be attributed as the author, as you aren't the author. It's not that hard. People can attribute you as the uploader besides the original author, but it is in no way required neither by policy/TOS/legally, let alone blockable. TheImaCow (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the original author. I am the contributor who found and created the SVG file. You are not an administrator and thus your participation in this discussion is... confusing. You have no say in this, and this doesn't concern you. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear: non-administrators are more than welcome to comment in discussions here, though discouraged from dominating the discussion. (1) One of the main ways we find potential new admins is who contributes usefully in discussions such as these and shows a deep understanding of administrative issues. (2) Other than an expectation of a certain amount of general policy expertise, admins really only have two ways we are singled out: (2a) we are considered to have the community's general confidence to enforce and to act in accord with community consensus and (2b) in discussions where some conclusion must be drawn, we are trusted to weigh arguments on the various sides and to be familiar enough with policy to appropriately square the immediate expression of views with policy. As far as I can think, any other thing we do can just as appropriately be done by a non-admin. - Jmabel ! talk 19:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Foundation Terms of Use are not subject to individual project's consensus mechanisms: I literally do not need non-administrators soapboxing this, I need an administrator to act and put the goals of the project ahead of one individual user engaging in plagiarism. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also relevant is w:Wikipedia:Moving files to Commons, specifically for manual moves from English Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons, "A copy of the local upload log — You must state the username of each uploader and the date/time at which the upload was performed". These are not optional precisely because of the Terms of Use. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to wikilaywer, then at least cite the entire section, "You must state the username of each uploader and the date/time at which the upload was performed. This is a strict requirement for the GFDL and Creative Commons licenses."
The file in question is (allegedly) public domain, and therefore dosen't need the username of some person who released the file under that licence - because neither that person nor that licence exists. TheImaCow (talk) 07:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please learn how to read. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from using personal attacks.
en:Wikipedia:Moving files to Commons is not a policy or even a guideline, nor is it on Commons. TheImaCow is quite right, recreating a logo doesn’t make it your own work as you are not the original artist/designer/creator. Bidgee (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't a personal attack. My recommendation to learn to read however applies to you as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a warning to be civil or you will be blocked. In this context your learn to read comment is an attack. Gbawden (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been quite civil. It is not my responsibility to explain the English language to someone when they are clearly not understanding it. I'm assuming good faith that they genuinely do not understand the words and recommending they seek professional help to become better at it. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed true that I am not native in English, and if anything I need a language course, not professional help.
Either way, I hope I dont need to explain to you that Commons is a multilingual project. TheImaCow (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Locke Cole Just to be clear, you're saying that the uploader of the image needs to be credited not the (presumably unknown) author of the original work? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is the person who authored the image and there is the person who uploaded the image (which is grossly simplifying it in my case). I did not simply find an image and upload it, I went over many PDF files to find a vector version of the logo, extracted the logo using Adobe Illustrator, removed any extraneous bits, and saved it as an SVG. How long this process takes varies from logo to logo, but it can vary from less than an hour, to days or weeks depending on how difficult it is to find a vector logo. Per the Wikimedia Foundation terms of use, attribution is a mandatory requirement for all contributions to Wikimedia projects. The act of uploading an image is a "contribution". Contributors don't get paid to work on these projects, the only "pay" we get is credit for our work ("Attribution is an important part of these licenses. We consider it giving credit where credit is due – to authors like yourself"). Illegitimate Barrister is taking credit for my work. They are likely taking credit for other users work as well. They should be blocked until the damage can be determined or they agree to disclose the actual sources of works they've uploaded. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a en:sweat of the brow argument, which is explicitly not a part of US copyright law. I thought it was pretty well established that making a slavish copy of a 2D PD item did not result in attaching a new level of licensing, no matter how much time and effort you put into doing it? DMacks (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're confusing licensing with attribution. In these specific images, I think they exceed COM:TOO, and thus are fair use, but even supposing they are PD-eligible, that doesn't address attribution as per the Foundation's Terms of Use: "giving credit where credit is due" is a strong reason why many contribute to these projects. To take your reading of it, we don't need to give credit to people who provide content to Wikimedia projects. That is part of why many people contribute, not because they get paid but because they get to be recognized for contributing. Your interpretation would undermine that. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed licensing and attribution are related but different ideas. Your start of this thread initially commented partially on licensing, but now seems like only attribution is the topic remaining in play. As you note ,"Attribution is an important part of these licenses", and PD does not require attribution as part of its licensing. Now Commons (or WMF, as its parent) can have a more strict requirement. The image in question was tagged "Author=unknown" by IB. That is a mistake: they should have cited where they got it (provenance being the enwiki file) or the origin of that file (spokanevalley.org URL, since that's what that file says is its origin) so re-users can verify that it is a correct image. But IB explicitly disclaimed being the creator of it or having any other involvement except uploading what they found somewhere else, so they are not stealing anyone's credit. DMacks (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I opened with "Editor is violating Wikimedia licensing requirements/terms of use by uploading works by other editors from other projects and not providing attribution", I only speak of COM:TOO later as a secondary offense, but I even finish my initial report noting that attribution is the primary concern. Attribution is separate from and distinct from the licenses, all contributions to Wikimedia projects are irrevocably released under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL. The actions I take are saved as metadata (the upload log) which provides the attribution that is necessary at a most basic level. When a user circumvents Special:ImportFile and manually downloads, then re-uploads as their "own" work, they are deliberately plagiarizing another users work. There is no nice way to describe this other than theft.
If Illegitimate Barrister wanted to do the work I did, they should have found the file themselves, opened it in a vector graphics editor, isolated the image they wanted, and uploaded it themselves. But they didn't. I did. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with wanting to be credited in the file description when creating an SVG or something from scratch.
What you are doing however is reporting an editor who forgot that -still not mandatory- attribution on a single file (!!), you have apparently not once tried to discuss this with them on their talk page (!!!), and you explicitly demand them to be blocked for that single non-issue. (!!!!!)
And please read the notice on top of this page before suggesting me to seek professional help to me for being illiterate. TheImaCow (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin, seconding every word of what TheImaCow just wrote. If you want the file history from en-wiki noted, you can, of course, copy-paste it yourself, probably on the talk page of the file in question. Nothing here calls for administrative action against User:Illegitimate Barrister. (And if Locke Cole continues to question the literacy of other contributors, that would call for sanctions. I hope this will simply be the last time, and we can just put that behind us.) - Jmabel ! talk 19:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much clearer the foundation's Terms of Use need to be for you to understand that you're wrong, but it's exceptionally disappointing for you to be supporting plagiarism as an administrator, and if you're not feeling any shame in that, then I don't know what else to tell you. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Locke Cole: if you really want to accuse me of "supporting plagiarism", please make that a COM:AN/U report in its own right, and request that I be sanctioned for it. Otherwise, I just consider that an ummerited personal attack. I'll even promise that if you request sanctions against me for this I will not to respond to the report to defend myself, unless I am specifically addressed to answer a question, because I am confident that the main response to the accusation will be laughter. No, it is not "plagiarism" to fail to acknowledge you in uploading a file in which you have no intellectual property rights. Are we also supposed to acknowledge the printer of every book we cite? The person who developed the film on anything that came from a film camera? - Jmabel ! talk 05:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since apparently there's no administrators on this project willing to follow the Foundation's Terms of Use, I've submitted an email to legal@wikimedia.org to determine their position on this. If they agree, I'll simply stop working on anything image related with regards to Wikimedia projects, because it's clear my work is not valued or respected. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Locke Cole Thank you for the work you have done on this and probably other images. As others have already said, there is no requirement for anyone to credit you for that work. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"there is no requirement for anyone to credit you for that work" So the Foundation Terms of Use is garbage and we can just take other users work as our own? giving credit where credit is due is just a suggestion and not mandatory, other users be damned? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I say upload a scan of a postcard I'll usually credit myself in the source field as the one who created the scan while citing the postcard publisher as the author. It's questionable someone else reusing the image has to give me credit for the scan. As I'm not the original creator of the postcard. Although they should credit the postcard publisher instead of acting like it's their own work. The same goes for other people who upload similar images. It's tangential, but we seem to have a serious problem with citing themselves as the creators of works that clearly weren't made by them even if they took a photograph of it or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for off-Wikimedia usage, in theory CC-BY-SA/GFDL should require attribution just as it does on Wikimedia projects (because, again, why do all the work of finding old postcards and scanning them in if someone else will just take the work and claim it as their own).. but as far as Wikimedia projects are concerned, in addition to those licenses, we have the TOU that explicitly sets out attribution as being important and "giving credit where credit is due". I would feel shame taking your work and using it elsewhere without disclosing your contribution to the provenance that got the file to me (take your pic on Wiktionary definitions of "provenance"; "3. (art) The history of ownership of a work of art" or "4. (computing) The copy history of a piece of data, or the intermediate pieces of data used to compute a final data element, as in a database record or web site (data provenance)". And perhaps it's this name we should use for describing the situation (credit to @DMacks, above, for using the word first in this thread). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Locke Cole You are reading something into the terms of use that isn't there. There is no requirement for you to be credited for the type of work that you have described. You are not the creator of the images or the copyright holder. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure I'm not reading something that isn't there. Attribution is clearly listed, "credit where credit is due" is the goal, and anyone with even a minor moral compass understands that plagiarism is morally wrong. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree its probably "morally wrong" not to credit someone for recrating a work, but there's a difference between that and someone being required to credit the person. They aren't the same thing and no is required to credit the reproducer unless its explicity part of the license. But even that case you probably don't have to legally credit them because is false to begin with. Personally I'm not going to waste my crediting some random user another website that I got a file from just because they happen to be the one who uploaded it there. We aren't obligated to credit everyone who interacts with an image in some online. Cool they converted it from a tiff file to a jpeg and uploaded it to Flickr, but so what? It's still not their work. So you should prbably just stop the stick and move on. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is where the terms of use are clear that "credit where credit is due" is important. "So you should prbably just stop the stick and move on" I mean, that's unlikely to happen when clear and obvious plagiarism is ongoing. I have a better idea: we hold users accountable when it's clear and obvious they attempt to take credit for another users work. If your intention is to damage this community by saying "sure, go ahead and steal each others work", then taking your advice is a sure fire way to do it. But if you want to keep users who are actually contributing time and effort (and not lazy people who just upload other users work and try to take the credit) then maybe take this a bit more seriously? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A good percentage of my time on here is spent dealing with COPYVIO. So it's something I take more seriously enough when it's an actual issue. Your taking the guideline to literally to Wikilaywer though. If this was an actual issue, let alone plagiarism, then it would have already been dealt with by an administrator. The fact that it hasn't been should be a sign that this is a nothing burger. Or are you going to argue that administrators on here just don't care about COPYVIO? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Or are you going to argue that administrators on here just don't care about COPYVIO?" Well if the shoe fits... I don't think it's "wikilawyering" to ask that we follow the Foundation's Terms of Use and give credit where credit is due. Seems pretty basic, honestly. Personally, I wish the software did something similar to the duplicate upload check where if someone tries to upload a byte-for-byte identical file to something that already exists on another Wikimedia project, their upload is blocked and they're invited to use Special:ImportFile so the attribution history is maintained. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nth-ing the above. Locke Cole is just plain wrong in their understanding, and I see no action needed related to Illegitimate Barrister.
  1. w:File:Logo of Spokane Valley, Washington.svg has no license. Notwithstanding that it's more likely than not {{PD-Simple}}, it has at all times, and is currently, purported to be used under a fair use exemption. {{Non-free logo}} is not a license; it is merely a template denoting non-free content. (This inherent to fair use in this context; the copyright holder has not granted a license, but it is used nevertheless under the exemption.)
  2. The cited terms ("7.b. Attribution: Attribution is an important part of these licenses. We consider it giving credit where credit is due – to authors like yourself") are not applicable as a) per above, there is no license; b) relatedly, a non-existent license cannot be a member of "these licenses"; and c) the quotation is taken out-of-context; it is a continuation of the preceding section ("7.a. Text to which you hold the copyright")--"these licenses" refer to CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL referenced 7.a. and, indeed, the very next 7.b. sentence (i.e., following the cherry-picked quote) is "When you contribute text ..." (underline added). The relevant section for images is 7.d. Non-text media:, but also not germane to this concern as it too is dependent upon a license.
  3. Even if w:File:Logo of Spokane Valley, Washington.svg had a license, there would be no issue. As noted above, "[going] over many PDF files to find a vector version of the logo, extract[ing] the logo using Adobe Illustrator, remov[ing] any extraneous bits, and sav[ing] it as an SVG" is nothing but sweat of the brow, which the United States does not consider to impart an intellectual property interest. Even if it did, such an interest would be limited to the added original (novel) authorship, which is none per Locke Cole's own description (and, again, this is more likely than not {{PD-Simple}}). Эlcobbola talk 22:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elcobbola So... it's okay to steal other people's work and not give credit where credit is due. The Foundation Terms of Service are a lie. Thank you for clearing that up. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:L

[edit]

Also worth noting is COM:L which states "the following information must be given on the description page, regardless if the license requires it or not: ... [t]he Source of the material. ... Otherwise, please include a web link or a complete citation if possible" (emphasis added). A complete citation would include where the uploader found it, in addition to other users who contributed to the file that was ultimately uploaded here. I am, again, embarrassed on behalf of pretty much everyone above who appears to be taking the side of a plagiarist, but here we are. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:L also says Note: Things like "Transferred from Wikipedia" are generally not considered a valid source unless that is where it was originally published. The primary source should be provided. You are not the source of an image that you have taken from a PDF. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "regardless if the license requires it or not" is unclear to you? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Locke Cole I'm dropping out of this discussion, but I was only trying to help you. You seem to have a very fixed idea and you are taking words that appear in the terms of use out of context. Illegitimate Barrister does not seem to be claiming that their public domain uploads are their own work so there is no plagiarism. Maybe stop and ask yourself why everyone seems to be telling you the same thing? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine thinking wanting credit for your work to be such a controversial subject on a project dedicated to free use media. Y’all are wild. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per my other comment above, you do not "just want credit" -nothing wrong with that, could have added your name to the file description "SVG version created by Locke Cole" and leave a message to IB-, no, you want to block people who forgot such attribution a single time, and without talking with them a single time about this. TheImaCow (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've imposed a 2 week block as a result of their continuing upload of non-free files, and as a result of this discussion. Illegitimate is a long-term user, they should definitely know better. Bedivere (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Proof of any recently deleted unfree files? Very poor block. Bidgee (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, all recent DR notices on their talk page are still open and are about quite complex copyright situations, not "upload random internet files and say you made them"-type situations.
    And "result of this thread"? I see clear consensous that there is no issue with forgetting to attribute someone a single time when that attribution is not required by any guideline etc. TheImaCow (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot use consensus to override the Foundation Terms of Use. I'd think this would be obvious, but if there's one thing I've learned about Commons, there's not a lot of common sense amongst the users who regularly participate here. Which is why I've avoided this project. But seeing my work plagiarized has unfortunately forced me to get involved here. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite a disappointing response by Bedivere. [1] Bidgee (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bidgee Literally the first two comments in this report are about how Illegitimate Barrister persisted in uploading non-free content after having the SVG files speedily deleted. It's very hard to take this project seriously when people can just ignore facts right before their own eyes... —Locke Cole • t • c 03:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ditto to TheImaCow. I see nothing on this thread to suggest that IB did anything wrong (and I long since advised Locke Cole that if they want credit there is nothing to stop them from adding it). This file turned out to be non-free, but it's a close call on COM:TOO, a mistake almost anyone could have made. Unless someone can point at a couple of egregious errors in terms of copyright issues, or a large number of reasonably clear errors, I'd support an immediate unblock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs) 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is wondering, User:Illegitimate Barrister has been unblocked. - Jmabel ! talk 02:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very unfortunate, none of the attribution issues has adequately been looked in to. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly too involved a party to be the one to close this thread, but I think it is due to be closed. For the record, the accusation against me for "supporting plagiarism" has been neither substantiated nor withdrawn. - Jmabel ! talk 02:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it should be closed because this project supports plagiarists? And as to you, specifically, it's substantiated by your defense of plagiarism, above, and why would I withdraw a plain fact? —Locke Cole • t • c 03:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please cease making bad faith statements. You have completely misunderstood how copyright and the ToU works. Bidgee (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't made any bad faith statements. I can read words, and the ToU is quite clear that the Foundation wants to give credit where credit is due. I'm sorry that you lot here don't appear to support that, but it doesn't change that it's true. A better idea would be to stop supporting users who steal other users work. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bidgee's statement above. I'll note that Locke Cole has made personal attacks against TheImaCow and Jmabel that haven't been withdrawn, and I believe that Locke Cole appears to also en:WP:ICHY. I also agree with Jmabel and Elcobbola. Abzeronow (talk) 04:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shocking, more people who support users who steal other users work. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for boomerang block

[edit]

Per @Locke Cole: clear inability to get the point even after multiple administrator have said they are wrong. Along with the multiple insults towards the same admins that they refuse to withdraw or even acknowledge are an issue. At this point @Locke Cole: is clearly just being uncollaborative time suck. Competence is required and intentional or not they clearly lack it. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I be okay with having my work stolen? Again you guys are absolutely nuts. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately  Support. Locke Cole has been combative, making bad faith comments (after multiple requests to refrain) and lacks the competence. Bidgee (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only people lacking competence is pretty much everyone here. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support We don't need incivility on Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But apparently you do need plagiarism. Hey, serious question: if you drive off contributors who actually find and create images with this support of plagiarism, who will actually create images for your site? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was so willing to let this drop, but Locke Cole clearly has no intention of withdrawing or even qualifying his personal attack of saying that I "support plagiarism". Further, he is now claiming that other contributors who, as far as I can tell, are doing perfectly appropriate things are "stealing". As one of the aggrieved parties, I support a block.
    • Let's look at the sequence here. Locke Cole started by, as far as I can tell, making no effort to work this out with User:Illegitimate Barrister, and came to the noticeboard with an entirely false claim that IB was claiming a file as his own work. IB was not claiming anything as his own work, he was saying it was {{PD-textlogo}}. This turned out to be incorrect because of COM:TOO, but that appears to have been an honest error and Locke Cole is still not the holder of the relevant copyright. People here have unanimously told Locke Cole he is misunderstanding the policy (or not-quite-policy) he keeps (selectively) quoting, and that the sort of contribution he made to the file in question is no more required to be credited than (my examples) a print shop that printed a document or a lab that developed film; conversely, that there is nothing wrong with crediting it and he is welcome to credit himself on such files (generally, in my view, a lot better remedy that starting a major conflict). He has responded by accusing us of "plagiarism" and "stealing", not to mention demonstrating a fair dose of They Were All Out of Step But Jim.
    • I have one thing to address directly to Locke Cole: No doubt you have made some valuable contributions and it would be some loss to the project to drive you off, but (1) it does not appear to me that any similar thought crossed your mind about possibly driving off IB, or myself, or any of a number of others and (2) you've managed to get me, for one, to the point where I really don't care. I'm pretty comfortable in saying that of the many people your are attacking here, pretty much all have made contributions to Commons that are at least comparable to your own, and I see no sign that has been even the slightest consideration for you. You have met all disagreement with attacks and accusations; why should you expect that now we'll want to placate you? - Jmabel ! talk 06:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Is this not you? You're telling the victim of plagiarism to "fix it themselves"? What is one to take from what except that you are okay with other users taking work and uploading it as their own? You also endorse TheImaCow's "every word" they had written, including apparently thinking that theft of work somehow involves warnings and discussion preceding remedial action to stop the behavior. If a user needs to be warned about stealing another user's work, there's not much to talk about IMO. As I originally wrote from the very beginning, there is little reason to believe this is the first time this user has done this, and it's far more likely I'm simply the first person to catch them doing it. The reported user has also ignored this entire discussion, despite being pointed to it on their talk page (both by a notice from me, and eventually a block), and has instead chosen to push the other issue (uploading of non-free content) by uploading PNG versions of the SVG images they originally stole after an administrator speedily deleted them as being non-free.
      "possibly driving off IB, or myself, or any of a number of others" A plagiarist and people defending plagiarism get driven off the project? Oh, the horrors. How would this project survive if there was nobody left to take credit for other people's work? /s "I see no sign that has been even the slightest consideration for you" Pardon me for not showing gratitude at having my work stolen so flagrantly. You're right, of course. @Illegitimate Barrister should be applauded for taking the work of someone else, downloading it to their local storage (I sure hope no bytes were harmed in the process, if there's a GoFundMe I can contribute to, let me know), then clicking on the "Upload" button so they can turn around and upload it here. Quite a lot of effort for them to make, I hope they can fully recover from this, but I know there's no amount of thanks we can provide to them that will ever make them whole again (oh, I almost forgot, they copy and pasted the file information I provided for the image when they did this as well). Perhaps a statue erected in their honor would be sufficient? Truly amazing work. "why should you expect that now we'll want to placate you?" The hope that at least some people here have a basic moral compass? Seeing another person's work taken and copied byte for byte without any attribution whatsoever should be disturbing, but apparently it's not. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nothing has been plagiarized here. Again, I stand by my analogy to crediting the printer of a book. You can credit them, but you don't have to.
      • There has been no "theft". You are literally the only person who has commented here who thinks that has occurred.
      • "The reported user has also ignored this entire discussion" which frankly shows admirable restraint on their part. You made a false accusation, they ignored it and trusted the process. No one here, including you, has asked them any direct question, and they are not an admin. Why should they feel compelled to respond?
      Jmabel ! talk 19:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Their comment "The only people lacking competence is pretty much everyone here" made up my mind for me. They need to take a step back from this but don't seem willing to do that Gbawden (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm super glad to see you'd walk away if you were stolen from and "take a step back". Very easy to tell someone else to do something when you're not the victim here. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For one last time, you were not stolen from. You copied (created a derivative) a logo that someone else created (it isn’t your own work, even if you recreated it as a vector). So enough of bludgeoning the process. Bidgee (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen some people on here refuse to get the point before and I'm certainly not totally innocent in that area myself either but this has to be one of the worst examples of IDONTHEARTHAT in history. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Ramliani zahau

[edit]

Yet another obvious sock of Chhanchhana zote hmar, see Category:Sockpuppets of Chhanchhana zote hmar. Jonteemil (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of supprised there isn't a point where someone doesn't just get their IP address range blocked or something after that many socks. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ckfrlgud1

[edit]

Ckfrlgud1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent uploading of copyrighted materials. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 03:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I warned the user, all uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Navi Capitani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent uploading of copyrighted materials. User's uploads were mass-deleted 2 times already (1, 2); the user was notified on their talk page about the deletions. Yet, the user has again uploaded copyrighted material. Please delete, and block(?) the user. DmitTrix (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedragabb

[edit]

Ahmedragabb (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) seems to have reuploaded images that were previously deleted after receiving a warning. Can an admin please give them a sterner one and re-delete the files? Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven95m98

[edit]

Steven95m98 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) seems to be here purely for exhibitionist purposes. Can an admin delete their uploads and give them a warning? Adamant1 (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Softbestreview

[edit]

w:WP:NOTHERE. Only add files and pages and reuploads deleted such files. Jonteemil (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Blocked indef because of spamming. They have been warned 2 months ago. --Achim55 (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. Dr. Md. Abdur Rouf

[edit]

Master is blocked on enwiki that's why the sock was created. Master uploaded File:Prof. Abdur Rouf.png, which was deleted, and the sock reuploaded the file to File:Dr. Md. Abdur Rouf.png. Both usernames has Rouf in the name, seems like a duck. Jonteemil (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Sock blocked, file deleted. Yann (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tihanh

[edit]

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

Uploading a huge chunk (17) of copyrighted images. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done User warned, files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milk Daddy 235

[edit]

Sockpuppetry. Overlap at File:Milk Daddy.jpg, see its log, and obvious similarities in the usernames. Jonteemil (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MilkDaddy235 is not registered here, but files deleted for abuse of COM:WEBHOST. Yann (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I missed the spaces in the master's username. I've corrected the heading and userlink.Jonteemil (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Sock blocked, oldest account warned. Yann (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MZ123455

[edit]

Sockpuppetry, see w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MZ123455/Archive. Jonteemil (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding IP 108.6.98.222 which seems to be the same person. Has been creating some categories edited by the master or socks.Jonteemil (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Socks blocked. This guy has a an article on English Wikipedia, so I didn't delete images uploaded by the main account. Yann (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=908517491"