Former Commons admin: Jcb

This former admin comes from the Netherlands. Lots of problems, according to the de-adminning discussion.

Mass deletions of images that were later determined to be good.

Massive blocks of newbies with no warning.

A quick look a the talk page shows a penchant for biting newbies that makes Manchester look like the Welcome Wagon. [link]

I don’t think this justifies ignoring the 7 day deadline set in deletion policy. I now notice your warning to original uploader. Indiminating warning in place of guidance on how to provide proper source information does not seem healthy at all. Not to mention it’s hard to provide this information now that file is deleted ahead of time. Pikne 13:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Nope, we are not going to babysit the problem tags. This user is not a newby, they have almost 9k edits. Simply removing a problem tag is very disruptive. The admins are busy enough without such behaviour. Jcb (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Yikes, no point in even talking.
And he gets the last word,

“Well, thanks a lot for wanting to waste the time of even more people over this. Jcb (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

This was not the first desysop discussion, for instance there was

The first request for de-adminning (which I guess is what they call it on Commons) was in July 2011.  The last was September 2019, and he kept using the tools even after they voted to remove them.  It took Commons 8 years to deal with this problem.  And how many decent editors were driven off in the meantime?   How many users had to tiptoe around him to try to get the work done?

Why here is one now, our old friend Slowking4, the perennial target of Beestra’s sockpuppet obsessions. (OMG, he is still at it, unwriting Wikipedia as fast as good editors can write it.) In this case yet another user has had their image deleted and the clueless:

Considering JCB’s long history of abusing newbies, and even blocking them out of hand without warning, that looks like pretty good advice. But what does Jeff G do?  Starts some trouble for Slowking. [link]  but as it transpires in the talk page discussion Jeff G has been going around to newbie talk pages and posting a long rant criticizing them for not signing, even though there is a bot that does it. And Slowking has been following Jeff G around, criticizing him for harassing the newbies and directing him to a consultation about talk pages. Jeff G is so pedantic that Colin mistakes him for an admin. “It gives the impression Jeff is a power user asserting his superior knowledge, and not really understanding the “customer facing” role required at HelpDesk”.  but them someone steps in and notes that Jeff G is NOT an admin, and it is noted that Jeff G.’s “third admin request was opposed for being BITEy”.

Fast forward to Fae’s latest RfA on Commons.  I guess he’s bored now that he’s topic-banned from en.wiki again on his favorite topic and decided to try to get the Commons bits again.  But as an example of how he knows how to calm troubled waters he brags about his role in Slowking’s block.

I wrote about this last spring: Fae strikes again: the Cuteness Association. Do take a look at Colin’s lengthy list of diffs, that he has in a collapsed box, [permanent link] …here is the one about the plush toys (disclaimer: I don’t particularly like Colin) :

      • In March this year Fae nominated for deletion photographs from Wikimania 2017 that contained plush toys. Rather than dumping a list of all such toys for review, I would expect an admin to filter out those images where de minimis permits us to retain them. Approx half the 70+ images nominated were kept. During the discussion Fae got increasingly irritated by some of the keep votes (some of which were coming over from Wikipedia). This provoked the following insult:

“in baby speak that middle aged Wikipedians seem to need at open knowledge conferences:

Please help me. My mummy works hard making toys for other children. She has seen her toys being used by Wikimedia to promote their projects and we cry together because nobody cares about giving her credit for her work and we cannot afford to pay a lawyer. Please nice Wikipedians, read the label my mummy stitches on her toys, and give my mummy credit for her work so that future children can enjoy her cute toys.

Admins should deal with DR professionally and not let the ignorance or perceived childishness of some wind them up to the point where they start writing mocking insults. Later, Slowking commented that Fae might not be so welcome at future meetups “because dumping on those who do, might get you unloved“. Fae, now at boiling point, attacks slowking for “a rather personal and threatening sounding attack” on Fae. Fae repeats this “this appears threatening and personal, a comment you would expect to come from someone stalking you“, “The wording appears deliberately chosen to make me feel unsafe to ever physically attend a Wikimedia funded event“, “This is not an overreaction, this a factual reading of your text above, and the words you are choosing fit every conventional definition of harassment.” So a DR on plush toys becomes a nuclear-war allegation of stalking and harassment.

Jeff G.

Oddly enough, Slowking has not been seen around lately, and it looks like the reason is Fae, who with Jeff G as his sidekick, has made a pretty effective demonstration of his power on Commons.  Looking at some previous discussions, Fae seems to thinks the Cuteness Association is a parody of the affiliates association he started and made himself president of (and was quickly removed from) after he was booted from Wikimedia UK.  Also note this discussion, started by Jeff G, that Fae bragged about providing the diffs against Slowking. Unlike Fram, Slowking does not get the right of reply, or even talk page access.  But I guess that’s Commons for you, not exactly a collaborative environment. Anyone who tries to keep the newbies away from the biters learns very quickly that the inmates are in charge of the asylum. Finally, Jeff G. runs to try to get Slowking globally banned, but doesn’t get very far.  Behold, once again, Dunning-Kruger in action, while the real “content creators”- and team-minded individuals – are sidelined.

Food fight: no AGF on Commons

Get out the popcorn.

This one started on Outreach. (see Commons declares war on Outreach) then moved to the mailing list.

On one corner we have Andrew Lih (blue link, natch), the Outreacher’s outreacher, and author of The Wikipedia Revolution (also a blue link), who tries to reduce some of the perceived “procedural incoherence” with an edit to the AGF guideline….

Oh the irony!

You assumed bad faith on my good faith edit to [[Commons:Assume good faith]].

What would you consider “dishonest” about the edits or the summaries?
Telling folks that the [[Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle]] is part of the policy dynamic that even experienced Wikipedians may not know about (I certainly didn’t) is most certainly useful.

That people are reverting the edits, in what seems to be an attempt to either hide the precautionary principle or obfuscate it seems quite odd. I’m assuming good faith here, so I’m not ascribing any motives to these
reverts. You did not even give any reason for your revert, whereas I did in fact leave edit summaries.

For reference:

Edit 1 – “add precautionary principle” https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Assume_good_faith&diff=prev&oldid=349110161

Reverted by Yann with no comment.

Edit 2 – “refine wording” https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Assume_good_faith&diff=prev&oldid=349650525

Reverted by Colin with “Nothing to do with AFG [sic] and certainly not
“refine wording” — dishonest edit summary”

I changed “should be deleted” to “may be deleted” in case that was the wording someone had issue with. That’s why the edit summary said “refine wording.”

-Andrew

In the other corner we have Yann Forget:

This was reverted. It is a dishonest edit with a misleading summary.
>
> Regards,
> Yann
> Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
>https://www.jaijagat2020.org/

Jaigagat means VICTORY OF THE WORLD, and is a peace march from Delhi to Geneva to commemorate the 150 anniversary of Kasturba Ghandi (lol, “article has multiple issues” not to mention templates) and Mahatma Gandhi. Some commemoration, do you think people might be googling these subjects or anything?

All I can say is they better have a lot of porto-potties.

While Andrew (user:Fuzheado) seems to have reason and logic on his side, and attempts to add some stuff to the AGF guidelines to try to help explain this to newbies, Yann is the strong silent type, plus he’s got a block button and a tag-team buddy, Colin in his corner.

In the second ring we have Fae and a few techies, complaining about the admin workload, and proposing some bot solutions, which don’t get very far. Someone brings up the new EU copyright laws, which for some reason are considered to be a barrier.  Or maybe they still remember Fae’s bulk uploader for the British Museum, which cost the Foundation bazillions of dollars to WMUK and only Fae knows how to use it.

In the third ring of the circus we have Asaf, one of the most reasonable persons ever, who recalls an anecdote about offering to help with the Commons workload and being refused.  This was spurred by another offer from Doc Heilman and Samuel Klein, who is one of the sharper tacks in the box, to help recruit more admins to cope with the workload.

But all of a sudden the admin workload is no longer the issue.  Because no one can tell the outreach person what directions they didn’t follow or what precautions they could have taken that would have worked.

Maybe training, yeah, that’s the ticket. And coordination.

A large part of the problem is the disconnection between online and offline communities or types of users. It is quite counterproductive having affiliates, outreach programs, whatever, reaching out to people out to the Wikimediaverse inviting them to use our projects without having any plans or means to have someone from the onwiki communities directly following and monitoring those activities.

As Tomasz wrote: “*And in fact – probably the best thing would be to have in any outreach team at least one person having good knowledge about hostile Common’s habits and how to effectively cope with them :-)*”

This is very true, and IMO very much inescapable.

But is there any way to effectively cope with Commons? Massive training, maybe yes, but training for the toxic admin culture, not for the event organizers, who have dotted all the i’s and crossed all the t’s.  And get that “offline culture” into an “in-person” event. Maybe they will act differently face to face.  And for heaven’s sake, stop bitching about air fare and being so cheapskate and worrying about false economies.  Spend some money to actually try to solve these problems and stop driving away the newbies. That’s what the money is for.

So meanwhile, back at Commons….

Colin reverts Fuzheado’s edit, calling Fuzheado “dishonest” in the edit summary.    And Yann threatens Fuzheado with a block. Aren’t they supposed to discuss it on the talk page or something?

My money is on Fuzheado, he’s been around since 2003.  On the other hand, he might just leave, and stop bringing in the grants.  Even hard-core Wiki-addicts can get fed up. What’s Dr Blofeld doing these days, since they tried to subject him to one of their show trials.

UPDATE: Oh dearie me, I didn’t see this before, guy has a serious messiah complex — big red banner “God is busy, may I help you”   — if this isn’t an oxymoron… it is already stipulated he is a Commons admin.

user Yann - God is busy may I help you

 

Commons declares war on Outreach

commonsWikimedia Education has published a piece on the outreach wiki: “Wikimedia Commons: a highly hostile place for multimedia students contributions“.  If you think the title might be an exaggeration, do be sure not to miss the talk page.

Basically, what happened is this.  An instructor with a history of projects for improving the Basque Wikipedia got an idea for improving articles with media, and did a collaboration with an institute that specializes in video and media communications. And you guessed it, Commons deleted the student projects.  Not because there was anything wrong with them, but because they were “too good for Commons”.

Commons is now telling the professor the students must file a separate OTRS for every video, in spite of the fact that the uploader already declares during the upload process that the work belongs to them. And the class is over, the students are no longer available.

The upshot of the fiasco is that this is all the professor’s fault for not being able to anticipate that Commons would be such a hostile environment and not having the students upload the videos to YouTube first.

This comes at the same time the new video tool has just been announced by Doc Heilman.

This has gotten mention in this month’s GLAM newsletter.  There an archived undeletion request here.  There is also a fairly cringeworthy ongoing thread on the village pump at Commons.

Commons tries to delete Mueller report

At a time when people like Craig Newmark are retweeting stuff like “Don’t rely on the coverage. Read the Mueller report.”, is Wikipedia paying any attention?

Yes, the Mueller report is on Commons.  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Report_On_The_Investigation_Into_Russian_Interference_In_The_2016_Presidential_Election.pdf

You would think this is a government document, and as such would be in teh public domain, right?

But it has been nominated for deletion. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Report_On_The_Investigation_Into_Russian_Interference_In_The_2016_Presidential_Election.pdf

At issue are three pages with images.  The pages in question are

Here is the first one.

Mueller report, p. 42 of the PDF and p. 34 of part 1 of the report.  This is a screenshot of a pre-election Trump tweet posted by the “Matt Skibber” persona, an account controlled by something that is referred to throughout the report as “the “IRA”.  This is not as many would think, the “Irish Republican Army”. I finally found this through google, IRA is Russia’s “Internet Research Agency”, which between 2013 and 2018, reached tens of millions of U.S. voters through campaigns on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. The photos are more or less “smoking gun” visual evidence of how the Trump campaign dovetailed with these campaigns.

Here are the other two, (and the Wikipedia article for Trump advisor and Russian contact George Papadopoulos):

Wikimedia employee fires off takedown notice against Gender Desk

Meet Jonatan Svensson Glad, the “#fuckeverything” admin from Commons who is also a sometime Wikimedia Foundation employee. You may have seen Jonatan a few weeks ago in passing when I was commenting on some of Fae’s more objectionable re-tweets. (See Fae approves “cunt”) He was the guy wearing the t-shirt with the f-bomb (http://archive.is/XpRx9).

 

 

Imagine my surprise when I received a takedown notice from this guy. As it turns out, he published this photo of himself on Commons under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 creative commons license. But it seems he has also been doing some business with Getty images in the side, because you will notice the image as tweeted by him has a Getty watermark. Either that or Getty stole it from Commons and is trying to make some money off of something that is freely licensed. It wouldn’t be the first time Getty Images was behind a threatening letter – a while back they tried to sue photographer Carol Highsmith for license infringement for posting one of her own images online, an image that had been donated to the Library of Congress and was therefore in the public domain.

So let’s back up a little and talk about what I do here.

I am not a paid blogger.  I’m just an ordinary Wikipedia volunteer.  Sometimes I use this small blog to talk about paper dolls or coloring books or saints.  Sometimes I use it to talk about sexual assault and fear and intimidation.   And sometimes I use it to talk about corruption on Wikipedia, and about how the small users are treated by the powerful. And when I do that, I like to use screenshots, so people can see what I am talking about, and also because it is proof that something did happen if someone later tries to delete it or conceal what they did.  Wikipediocracy tries to scrub stuff all the time, as have several admins I have discussed here. But still, it’s pretty hard to imagine why someone would want to come after me, just out of the blue.

So who is this Jonatan Glad person?

In real life, he is a telemarketer. He has an account on Medium here: https://medium.com/@JonatanGlad His first essay was “A Small Rant and Advise (sic) from your Friendly Telemarketer” in which he tells people to pretend to want the merchandise so he can get paid his commission, and the worst that will happen to them is that they will get some unwanted forms in the mail.  I don’t know about anyone else, but there is no way on God’s green earth that I would give out my address to some stranger who cold-called me. It’s worse than that though, he asks people for their social security number.  Not even the government will ask that over the phone.

On Twitter he is .  On Commons he is user:Josve05a, where he is an admin and member of OTRS. Occasionally he tweets letters he receives in his official Wikipedia role and says how stupid he thinks the people are.   Here is a letter he wrote someone as a member of OTRS.

He seems to have a lot of personal things to say on Twitter.

About gay guys who like to “blow”…

About the possibility of cuddling with non-gay guys

Dunno, that would pretty much kill it for me, the implied lack of consent….
Here he is buying a pair of glasses he can’t see with, just for show:

Flipping off a political discussion on TV, and taking a picture of his middle finger:

And my personal favorite, a discussion of urinals and whether straight guys all want to pee together.  For once, here is a discussion about peeing in a European country that is not about the Netherlands:

There was also this.
 

I’m not sure which of these are Too Much Information, but I’m pretty sure we’re already past that point.

Jonatan is also User:Josve05a (WMF), an account that is closed right now, but most recently worked on the Swedish sections of the Wikimedia strategy sessions. He was also paid to photograph the Swedish gay parade, the grant disbursed by Wikimedia Sverige (WMSE), a local chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation in Sweden. See for example this photo. Apparently Wikimedia Sweden has some expensive photography equipment to loan out.  And with WikiMania in Sweden next time around, who knows where he might turn up next.

On Commons Jonatan Svensson also has his own category, complete with Wikidata infobox. In it he has a Wikidata Q number, which he created for himself, and an Orcid number, even though he has never been a researcher and never published or collaborated on anything.  Much like the reading glasses that do nothing. There are also a few sub-categories, and he has meticulously labeled every photo that has him it it, no matter how far in the background. So you can see what he did at WikiConference North America 2016‎,  Wikimania 2016‎, or the Wikimedia Diversity Conference 2017.  ‎ Not sure which is my favorite, maybe this one of him gazing longingly towards James Hare and the pie lady or maybe this other one of him sitting next to Wikipediocracy’s Zoloft on the roof of the San Diego library.

But back to why this guy is after me.

It seems he has a little photography business he is running out of Commons, where he is an admin. On Twitter he thoughtfully provided links his 20 best-selling photos on iStock and Getty, in particular the ones of the Swedish gay parade that he took with Wikimedia Sweden’s equipment.

And also on Twitter we find out that he has recently switched enforcers / photo companies. In September the company Pixsy was able to get him $200, and in January another £150 British pounds.

 

By January he had switched over completely from the Getty companies.

He’s not going after his admin friends, it seems his concern for “copyright theft” does not extend to anyone in power, only the peons.

It seems that writing nasty-grams for the OTRS turned out to be good practice for writing take-down notices and shaking down users of his gay parade photos – photos that, may I remind you, he had already licensed on Commons to be used freely.

So, how did he work this on Commons?  Let’s take a look at one of his parade images, this one. Just for the record, the use of this image here is completely “fair use“. 1. The purpose of the image is obviously criticism and commentary and is not being used for profit 2. The material is published under a free use creative commons license and given attribution  3. the image uploaded to commons is small compared to the surrounding text, and in fact it is the surrounding text, that is important here. 4. my target audience is not the same as the audience that might be purchasing his freely licensed work on Commons, and in fact I am giving him free publicity.  So, the image:

Right away you will notice a “protected by Pixsy” template in the “permissions” section. Let’s look a little closer.

” This image is protected against image theft. Failure to comply with the following license may result in legal or monetary liabilities.”

“I use Pixsy to monitor, find, and fight image theft by issuing takedown notices and recover compensation. Please follow the license specified on this page below, in order not to perform image theft.”

Notice the unusual wording “I use pixsy…” It is indeed a custom template.

And this is where it lives.

Jonatan even used his Commons admin superpowers to protect the page:

And you may notice he used his template to advertise his own business, as well as the business of the iStock/Getty company he was getting paid from. When he changed vendors, he also changed the advertisement, and would have had to edit through the page protection as an admin to change it.

Pisxy_logoSo how many pages use this template? Here is what links to the page. And here is the Pixsy logo, which is claimed to be in the public domain, since it “consists only of simple geometric shapes or text“, lol.

So many issues, where to start.

This guy is obviously getting money from this company. Where is the COI statement? Does Wikimedia Sweden even care about such things? Does the WMF?

Where is Smallbones? I’m sure he could find someone to interview this guy for the Signpost. Inquiring minds want to know.

Why is this guy willing to go after me for so little money? It looks like he can only get $200 for an image.  And the only way someone is going to shell out money for a free image is if they either don’t know it exists on Commons, or don’t know how to find it.

What does he think is wrong with my image?  It contains an exact screenshot of his own tweet, with the same attributions.  And if the screenshot of his tweet is not attributed correctly, why did he not make proper attributions in his own tweet?

Should the WMF enforce the attribution on a Creative Commons license? (They never have, even to ask politely, much less send threatening letters.) If so, should they use an outside contractor like Getty or Pixsy?  Why doesn’t Wikipedia have an attribution on images used on articles (they only have a link on the image itself)?

Who gets to keep the money from any damages recovered from “stealing” free Commons images, the volunteer or the WMF? Why isn’t this guy turning over the money to the WMF?

Why does Jonatan not disclose the existence of a free Commons image when he tweets the image he gets payment for?  Isn’t that a requirement of the creative commons license?  It’s probably a technicality that no one will complain about it since Wikimedia Foundation is known not to be very confrontational about labeling Commons images.  But shouldn’t admins and OTRS agents be extra scrupulous in following Wikipedia’s rules?

Is this some kind of entrapment scheme? It looks like a kind of SLAPP suit, where some people who do not want the cost of a legal defense will probably just pay the fee.

Do Commons admins care about this, or do they protect their own, like crooked cops. Will someone nominate the logo for deletion?

And finally, if this is completely Kosher, how can I cash in on it, and perhaps get the WMF to buy me some cameras.

Oh and I suppose being an admin and OTRS and all, this character ought to go on the Potty Mouth list, even if looking for smut on Commons is a bit like looking for dandelions in a lawn.

Cicero “the perv” Moraes: dead woman’s boobs posted on Commons

Everyone has met a guy like this, the kind of guy who can’t make eye contact, whose eyes wander downward as you talk. And when you meet him, you excuse yourself quickly, leave the room, and distance yourself socially from anyone and everyone who knows him. If it’s a job interview, you quietly cross this company off your list.

Cicero Moraes is this kind of guy, the kind of guy who doesn’t know the difference between a face and a boob.

Moraes is a Brazilian who does facial restorations from skulls. And when I say “face”, I mean “boobs”.  He has recreated a dead woman’s boobs based on her skull.
eva screenshot with arrow 1

Olá pessoas do Brasil.
Sim, é verdade.
As mamas estão aqui.
http://archive.is/0uuyx
(Hello, people from Brazil. Yes, it is true.  The boobs are here.)

Moraes works through the Laboratory of Anthropology and Forensic Dentistry of the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil.  His most well-known facial construction is of Saint Anthony of Padua.

So when Moraes reconstructed the saint’s face using photos of the skull, was he able to use the skull photos to reconstruct the chest as well?  Um, no.  Did he draw any nipples?  Nope.  Not that we know of.  At least, not in the final image that was released to the public.  Of course this was all done through the Museum of Anthropology of the University of Padua, Italy, and the “Centro Studi Antoniani”, an Italian institute that researches saints, so there may have been some grownups in the room.

But when Cicero Moraes did a reconstruction of “Eva de Naharon” a Mexican woman found in a cave who died with a fractured spine some 13,000 years ago, he thought it was just fine to imagine what her boobs looked like, draw them onto her image, and donate it to Commons.  [Note:I’m not going to link to it for obvious reasons, but just for verification, the file is here.

O arquivo de imagem está aqui:

File:Woman of Naharon – steps forensic facial reconstruction.jpg

Over on Wikipedia Weekly , they are busy posting and liking the dead woman’s boobs. Rodrigo Padula de Oliveira posted it, Thomas Alcorn Shafee, and Martin Poulter “liked” it, and Owen Blacker gave it a heart.

Rodrigo Padula de Oliveira is a Brazilian project coordinator for WikiEducation.  Martin Pouter appears to be Wikimedian In Residence at the University of Oxford, Shafee appears to be associated with WikiJournal of Medicine.  Blacker likes cats. None of these dudes seems to find anything odd about looking a dead woman’s boobs.  No women, funny that.
 

Left to right: Martin, Owen, Rodrigo, Thomas.

You have to wonder if someone dug up these guys’ mothers or daughters or sisters’ bodies, and drew some boobs on them and started passing the pictures around, if they would be quite as excited about that.

But Eva is dead, her family is dead, and she doesn’t have any pesky institutes for saints protecting her. So she’s sexually available, right? She’s fair game, you can treat her like a slut, and nobody cares. Does she have any “personality rights”? Who cares, nobody is going to enforce them anyhow.  And you already know Commons. A woman died horribly and all they want to do is see her boobs.

Dignity in death.