Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 77

personal solicitation of money

I chanced upon this and tried to delete the latter portion of text and burq'd email addresses, but was prevented by an automated sequence. I do not believe WP/WM is for this, but I cannot find easily/quickly any policies/guidelines. You can reply here. Thank you.--86.29.222.228 14:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Pigsonthewing.--86.29.222.228 01:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

New spam files

Need a new COM:AF update to block spam bots... Category:Https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard, Category:Https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard...--BevinKacon (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Nuked and blocked, don't have time to get into AF right now though. I'll leave that for another admin. ~riley (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

IP block exemption right

猫猫的日记本 (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

The user asks IP block exemption right via OTRS because they have problems with the Great Firewall. Please ping me if you reply. Thanks in advance! Bencemac (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Yo Bencemac, IP block exemption  granted. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 12:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I notified the user. Bencemac (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

A RFC for partial blocks

Hi, I just wanted to let administrators know that we are planning to propose to deploy partial blocks on Commons. ~riley imported the draft RFC from English Wikipedia but we are still amending it for Commons. We might need to study cases where this feature could be useful. Any help would be appreciated. Translations would be needed but after we finish drafting the proposal. See Commons:Requests_for_comment/Partial_blocks. Thanks. Masum Reza^📞 06:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Majora, Alexis Jazz, and Zhuyifei1999: , some local experienced users that I know to let them know about this (unharmful canvassing). Masum Reza^📞 06:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Donald Trung didn't you propose something like this some time ago? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 06:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and study Incnis Mrsi, Slowking4 and Amitie 10g. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 06:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I am familiar with Mrsi but I don't know the last two users. Please explain how this feature could have been useful for those two users. Masum Reza^📞 06:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Masumrezarock100: Slowking4 is well known, trusted uploader but used disruption to make a point one too many times. ("it was super effective")

Amitie 10g was blocked for bugging Ellin Beltz one too many times. All three could be considered for a partial block, blocking in particular the Commons: namespace. (though the issues with Amitie 10g may be more complicated) This was previously simply not possible, so this option was never really considered. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 06:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: So something like this. Feel free to modify it as I am not familiar with this user. Masum Reza^📞 13:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Case Study #3 - Interaction ban

Amitie 10g harasses Ellin Beltz and shows hostile behavior towards him in discussions mostly in deletion requests. A discussion is created at COM:AN/U regarding Amitie's behaviour. The community decides to ban Amitie 10g from interacting with Ellin Beltz. ExampleAdmin closes the discussion and blocks Amitie 10g from editing Ellin Beltz's talk page, the Commons namespace, other namespaces and pages where he usually conflicts with Elin.

@Alexis Jazz: , yeah, at the time I often got replies akin to "if a user is disruptive in one space then they shouldn't edit whatsoever", if global bans were the de facto standard and the Wikimedia Foundation would have introduced project-only blocks then one could just as well state "global blocks should remain the standard because if a user is disruptive on one project then they don't understand "the wiki way" and shouldn't edit any other Wikimedia wiki", though my main problem with this is that site-wide blocks/bans would continue to be issued as often while I suspect that eternal partial blocks and bans would be issued more often when a simple warning and discussion would have been issued in the current environment.

Partial blocks and bans should be issued and site-wide bans should be a last resort, but even if it’s technically possible the entire culture around blocks and bans need to change, but that's a discussion for another time. A major difference with when I proposed it and now is that it has been successfully implemented on a plethora of other Wikimedia websites while at the time only the French Wikipedia and a few others were using it in an experimental phase. Personally I would like to see limited partial blocks (like a couple of days, weeks, months, years, like for example a 5 (five) year block) and that indefinite partial blocks should be a last resort like site-wide blocks should be now.

Alternatively we could have like a “Commons:Requests for unblock/USERNAME” which could be like “a last court of appeals” like an on-wiki UTRS with wider community discussion akin to the “escape clause” the Dutch Wikipedia has for sockpuppetry, but also that’s another discussion for another time. But partial blocks and partial bans would open up a lot of possibilities and in the best case scenario would otherwise productive users avoid site-wide bans and allow the administrative community to see the partially blocked users learn more about copyright and conduct which would be a better measure for unblocking than just setting an arbitrary amount of time like the standard offer. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Justnoting that there is Template:Noping for when you need to reference/link to someone but don't want to necessarily leave them a zillion pings...or any pings. GMG^talk 20:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

About time. I've been wondering when this feature would be implemented here. Obviously there needs to be some guidance on when this should be used. I'm not entirely sure partial blocking for copyright violations should be a thing to be honest. That's our bread and butter. If you can't be trusted not to upload copyvios, then you don't know our policies at all, and should probably be blocked fully until you can prove you won't be a danger to the project. --Majora (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I think site-wide blocks will remain needed for vandalism (obviously) and anyone who causes disruption while being unable to contribute in a meaningful way in either the File: or Data: namespace. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment Commons:Requests for comment/Partial blocks has been opened for discussion. Please note that restrictions and changes to COM:BLOCK would likely be in a smaller proposal, such as on COM:VPP. ~riley (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment There is a proposed m:Partial block model policy, although it lacks detailed guidelines on when to use partial blocks (use-cases), to what extent and timespan. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 02:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  As its name says, that's a 'model' not actual policy per se. It's meant as a generic draft that indididual communities can copy and modify as it suits their immediate and local needs. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Possible to set default block durations

Hi to all. We can set default expiry periods for blocks through

• MediaWiki:Ipb-default-expiry generic/user accounts
• MediaWiki:Ipb-default-expiry-ip IP addresses

It would be useful to get a consensus of administrators whether we would find it usable here, and if yes, then the default durations that we would accept.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Not entirely sure defaults are necessary to be honest. It doesn't take all that long to select an option from the drop down list. If we are going to do this I'm thinking we should only really do IPs. I default standard IP blocks to 3 days only escalating if it can be shown that the IP is stable to the person using it. User account blocks are far too varied to really have a default time period. --Majora (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Same thoughts as Majora, IP 3 days is good, block lengths for registered accounts deviate too much. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

+1 above. ~riley (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Majora. For users no default is needed. They will start to request unblock with only reason "why did you block me longer than default?" This is not a constructive unblock request. Taivo (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk page trimmer

Based on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 76#Messaging_37_accounts_about_their_transclusion_count_problem and the related VP discussion, an initial tranche adding the 29 accounts listed at Category:Commons users banned by the WMF has been run. The inclusion is 'active', so any new accounts added to that category will be included in the housekeeping task automatically. The best place to raise any bugs in the longer term is my talk page. If there are immediate problems this version of the task is initially on my laptop only, so can be toggled off easily if issues are raised in the next day or so. Example diff. Sysop-only locked pages like User talk:WayneRay cannot be changed by this housekeeping task.

As these are WMF banned accounts, there is no notification to the individual page. Many of these talk pages have been out of use for a long time, but shrinking the templates is a cosmetic change that should make those pages simpler to review even for those old cases. --Fæ (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Fæ: I have reduced the protection of User talk:WayneRay. ~riley (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, it'll be picked up, the laptop runs this once an hour (when it's on). Whether individual pages happen to get write protected will not damage anything, they just get skipped at the point of being written. Generally there are several types of error that might happen at that point, including server downtime, so it's normal to have some error handling. --Fæ (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The run seems successful with no objections. As banned users appear to be very low traffic user talk pages, I have also set these to run just 1/100th times the housekeeping runs, which may be less than once a day even if it runs on several different platforms, this should save slightly on processing time and internet page/category reads.

A second message to users in category:User_talk_pages_where_template_include_size_is_exceeded has gone out, explaining that they can opt-out but the task will be run on their pages. Rather than this being 'active' based on the category, I will be extracting the list to be permanent, otherwise the pages would drop off the list after one run. This run will probably start in a few hours time. As these are all large pages, they will probably be set to be processed infrequently, perhaps 1/20th of the run times. --Fæ (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Out of the original 37 talk pages in the over-transcluded category, only one remains, User talk:Ввласенко. This is due to the heavy postings of Quality Image templates which the trimmer does not touch at the current time. As a side experiment, these pages were processed in the background on a cheap Pi Zero, which is otherwise devoted to image recognition. The 37 accounts are explicitly listed at User talk:Fæ/talk page trimmer and the update is now 'live' on Toolforge. Fæ (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The way the bot converts the Speedywhat template is propagandistic and unnecessary, and should be changed to reflect the other notices. 1989 (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello again 1989. That was an oversight, running an older version. The code has been updated as shown on github.

The exception of Ввласенко has been fixed this morning at their request, by shrinking most of the QICpromoted templates, 'most' because there is variation in how they get used. Their talk page is now under the maximum transclusion count. --Fæ (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Will the bot change the message if it was an oversight? It’s still there. 1989 (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

These have been swept up, ping me if anything else stands out with the standard trimming task. Fæ (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Extending to long term non-WMF indef blocked accounts with significant edits

A search for indef blocked users who were blocked before 2018, and with greater than 20,000 edits, gives the following list:

• User talk:Juiced lemon
• User talk:Worldenc
• User talk:Lycaon
• User talk:Massimilianogalardi
• User talk:MakBot
• User talk:MaybeMaybeMaybe
• User talk:Saibo
• User talk:Unauthorized Bot
• User talk:FA2010
• User talk:Scotire
• User talk:Erwin Lindemann
• User talk:Steinbeisser~commonswiki
• User talk:FSV
• User talk:Orrling
• User talk:EChastain
• User talk:Soranoch
• User talk:Hiku2
• User talk:Blackwhiteupl
• User talk:苏州河
• User talk:Co9man
• User talk:Look2See1
• User talk:Kharkivinite
• User talk:OSX II
• User talk:FlickrWarrior
• User talk:Dr. Bernd Gross
• User talk:Amitie 10g
• User talk:TohaomgBot
• User talk:BulbaBot
• User talk:GH1903892AH

A table of the accounts with block reasons and dates is at User:Faebot/SandboxV.

I suggest these accounts are added as an additional list for the talk page trimmer. There may be reasons to trim back this list, and as this is mainly cosmetic, I would be happy to remove accounts without anyone needing to give a specific rationale as to why they think the talk page is better left alone. --Fæ (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Notices for potential opt-outs have been posted to the talk pages listed above, even if the blocked users may not reply there may be TPWs who may have a view.

Talk pages on the list that are locked and so cannot be included are Joymaster, Mbdortmund, Rolf H., and because they are redirects, DcoetzeeBot and PF95-SAuto. --Fæ (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

 Comment Category:Talk page trimmer has been created to make self-inclusion as easy as possible. This should not be added to other users' talk pages without permission or prior consensus. --Fæ (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Revizskie skazki of Volyn Governorate

A file would not download. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:%D0%94%D0%90%D0%96%D0%9E_118-14-0112._1857_%D1%80%D1%96%D0%BA._%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%96%D0%B7%D1%8C%D0%BA%D1%96_%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%97%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%96%D1%82%D1%83_%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%96%D1%82%D1%83.pdf&page=7

Request from 2601:6c0:c103:33a0:d0f8:3aca:b823:4ded via cp1076 frontend, Varnish XID 692210218 Error: 503, Backend fetch failed at Tue, 10 Dec 2019 16:16:22 GMT

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6c0:c103:33a0:d0f8:3aca:b823:4ded (talk • contribs) 2019-12-10 16:28:21‎ (UTC)

• It works for me. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 04:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • PDF rendering is often delayed, and sometimes it fails. This is a known problem. Ankry (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism on File:Togatus (Louvre, Ma 1212).jpg

The user 185.165.34.122 made only a few rotten contributions on File:Togatus (Louvre, Ma 1212).jpg:

2/12/19 : Added texts, for example : Au wc j'ai fais du sal (=In the toilet I made sal (?))

9/12/19 : Added texts, for example : T'es une connasse espèce de méchant caca (=You're a nasty bitch, you are a kind of bad turd)

--Tangopaso (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Have blocked IP for 2 weeks and protected (allow only autoconfirmed users). - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 19:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Jelly donut (crop).jpg is a copyvio

It is a derivative work of a copyrighted work of art. I'd nominate it for deletion, but can't because it's protected because it is on en.wp's main page. Sandstein (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Sandstein It's not protected see this edit -- Eatcha (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I got an error message from the deletion nomination script. Sandstein (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Resolved now, thanks. Sandstein (talk) 13:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Deleted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect DRs

[1]

Can an admin close-keep these recent DRs? (and add license reviews) TAnthony is obviously unaware of YouTube's Creative Commons option. I'm asking for this because not every admin is aware of YouTube's Creative Commons option. Also, the damage already propagated to Wikipedia thanks to Jkg1997.. There is enough to clean up as it is. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 20:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

 Doing… --Majora (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

You kinda cut me off there, 4nn1l2. I was diving deeper into Commons:Deletion requests/File:Austin Abrams 2018.png since it looks like license laundering to me. --Majora (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Majora: I reverted my actions. Feel free to close the DR again. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Should be all set, Alexis Jazz. Kept all but the one mentioned above since that one really does look like license laundering as the uploader doesn't appear to have any affiliation whatsoever with the video. --Majora (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I had checked several (which were fine) but didn't investigate as deep as a license reviewer would. (that said, who knows, I might have missed it even if I had looked deeper.. I don't know which YouTube video that file came from) - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Just for reference sake, it came from [2]. The entire video appears to be license laundering. The uploader isn't right and the video itself has what looks like an entire copyrighted trailer for en:Brad's Status --Majora (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Majora: actually I suspect that may have been alright if the uploader didn't screenshot the trailer.. See the description at The Pirates! Band Of Misfits Celebrity Spotlight: "Nancy Jay of the Exchange interviews some of the cast from this new film...". The trailer is not OK but the intro and interview against a white background would appear to be. https://www.facebook.com/shopmyexchange/ links the YouTube channel and https://www.shopmyexchange.com/ links the Facebook profile. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 02:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Fair enough. I reopened the DR due to what you found and the fact that I may have deleted the image out of process since I closed that without waiting the full 7 days. I'm not entirely convinced about this video though so I don't want to just keep the image right away either. So I relisted it for discussion. --Majora (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Move category and history Category:Mette-Marit of Norway

I proposed to move the Category:Mette-Marit of Norway on November 29, 2019. There have been no objections since. I request that it be moved as no one objected. Minerva97 (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Is this adequate evidence of permission?

Earlier today, I tagged four files transferred from Wikipedia by Liftarn:

• File:PiLposterforWikipedia.jpg
• File:DFBioPicWEB.jpeg
• [[:File:AndyVivaforWiki.jpg]
• File:CDPresetsBTlogo.jpg

with {{No permission since}}, and in each case the tag has been removed by them. They have also provided links to archive pages claiming the images are under open licences (example), but these do not seem to adequately convey permission from the photographers - they seem to be the self-hosted equivalent of "Flickr washing". None of the images includes a derivative of a picture of the singer John Lydon, for example. Given the additional links, I'm not about to revert their edits: so what's the next step? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

According to https://web.archive.org/web/20081008230349/http://www.ifuc.org/about.html IFUC is "a San Francisco-based 501(c) (3) nonprofit that supports emerging artists and promotes artistic attempts to challenge the status quo.". At https://web.archive.org/web/20081008231442/http://www.ifuc.org/newsroom.html the links to the images can be found. // Liftarn (talk) 07:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed - but as there is no indication there as to who owns their copyright, how is that relevant? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the first example image, if the CC-BY-3.0 license is verifiably correct and applies to the artwork depicted, then anyone can use the exact same license to upload https://i.pinimg.com/564x/8c/bc/fd/8cbcfdf8b90c9861c6c6d3422ccc991b.jpg which is the same poster artwork, with some text changed in a non-copyrightable and insignificant way, yet the image is a magnitude larger, rather than the slightly useless or "fair use" sized thumbnail uploaded so far. This rationale is either sufficient to start a Deletion request discussion, or to push the case and go ahead with uploading the larger image(s) too, even if as separate files. --Fæ (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

"Because it is Other"

Lately, I'm quite often coming across deletion requests with strange, short reasons that start with "Because it is"; a common variant is Because it is Other. This kind of deletion request seems to have started in August 2019, see this search result. As admins, we're then left to figure out what may be wrong with the image, if anything. It seems to come from some tool or app which offers this default value for filing a deletion request (not the standard "Nominate for deletion" gadget). Any idea of what the "culprit" might be and where to request fixing it? Gestumblindi (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

"Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit". Before we start criticizing app developer, please remember they are volunteers. Just file a polite bug report. Thanks -- Eatcha (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

repository link: https://github.com/commons-app/apps-android-commons - Eatcha (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Gestumblindi: imho, don't bother. Unless extremely obvious at first glance, answer with the default response: "no valid reason for deletion". - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

{{delete|reason=Because it is Other|subpage=File:Las Canciones de Mis Viejos.jpeg|day=12|month=décembre|year=2019}} why are we not using ISO date.. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 11:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Uploader not informed. The message ended up at User talk:Unknown it seems. Pinging @Majora, Achim55. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 11:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

---

copied from /Archive 76 --Achim (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Colleagues, in the past there have been a lot of DRs with a given rationale "Because it is Other" or the like. That is caused by a poor design of the Android app that provides a menue of predefined reasons (I already requested that to be changed). In fact some of these DRs are nonsense, some require AGF, so we should not treat it automatically being disruptive but have a closer look. --Achim (talk) 11:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The notification bug https://github.com/commons-app/apps-android-commons/issues/3147 should be fixed in the meantime I think. --Achim (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. If I get this discussion at Github right, the app developers are now working at removing the "Other" option at least. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

73.165.65.46

Please delete the talk page, harassment by LTA. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 09:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. --Achim (talk) 11:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Small scale automation of license reviews for Uploads by Kotoko09032

A short script is going through this recently created uploader category to give license reviews. It seems pointless to do this "fully" manually, when a script can scrape the YouTube video page for "Creative Commons Attribution licence \(reuse allowed\)" and either pass or fail the LR on our behalf.

The failures are being marked for speedy deletion for copyvio, an example being File:Jo Han-sun in 2017.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). In the past there has been some resistance for self-reviewing for batch uploads, so raising this note at AN in case there are issues of trust or process that others wish to raise. If necessary the code can go up on GitHub, however it is trivial and specific to this case. About 500 photographs created via YouTube video snapshots are likely to be assessed this way. @大诺史: FYI. --Fæ (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't mark for speedy deletion without checking archives(way back machine). A normal dr would be fine, IMHO. --Eatcha (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jo Han-sun in 2017.jpg.

Any others like this will automagically appear in the non-existent category Category:Uploads by Kotoko09032 where a current CC-BY license cannot be found on YouTube. They can be manually checked out and raised to a DR if needed. Files with an existing passed LicenseReview get skipped. --Fæ (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Uploads by Kotoko09032 where a current CC-BY license cannot be found on YouTube --Fæ (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Bumping a thread

Just noting that this thread at the HD could use some more participation from experienced contributors. GMG^talk 01:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Abdullah's Nationality.jpg

This image is an ID document with personal information and has a description of "This is a prof for my name and Swedish nationality, and I hope that it will be private and no one will have permission to access the photo. However, I give my consent for people to see that my name is [name redacted] and my nationality but not to access the photo. Thank you". I believe the uploader does not realise that the file is public, which, thereby, contradicts his statement as the photo is not private. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 02:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Túrelio deleted the photo. Really, the description is not acceptable, every Commons file must be usable for any purpose, including commercial. Such description makes the file not suitable for Commons. Taivo (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Other views would be helpful

I've just deleted a number of photographs of a UK politician that had come via Flickr and were "correctly" licensed however the EXIF had another name as the author/copyright holder. I'm not unhappy with my deletion action but would happily have it reviewed. What does concern me is that there are a large number of other images transferred from Flickr on the same basis here. I am aware that politicians have remarkable powers (...) however the ability to take professional quality selphies is a new one on me. Does this require further attention? TIA --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

LR review

Examining Commons:License review there does not appear to be an obvious process for asking that the LR membership for a user are reviewed if the user appears unable to apply it correctly. Could someone advise? It seems wise to avoid trying different processes and risking creating avoidable fuss on a noticeboard. --Fæ (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

To me this fits COM:AN/U perfectly. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll take that as the default, unless LR more clearly sets itself as the venue. The case may be superseded by events. --Fæ (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Revision deletion request

Please delete the first version of File:Radio Times - 1923-12-21 - p467.png, which I have just cropped (after uploading it myself) to remove a not-yet-free component. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

 Deleted. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 15:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

License review for MotD needed

Could someone of the admins, please, do the license review for the MotD Leipzig Hauptbahnhof Time Lapse with iPhone 4s 2012.webm? (Side remark: It is fine.) Unfortunately, Roy did forget to ask for this before it was protected. — Speravir – 01:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Ehemm, Roy17 was meant be be pinged. — Speravir – 02:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

THX. — Speravir – 02:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Improper behaviour

Since I am an admin I don't want to take administrative actions. On the category Members of R.E.M. the user @Koavf: is keeping sorting the item by R.E.M. whereas I corrected in Rem because the dots influence the sorting. Instead of accepting the fact the user has started demanding for sources that (that what? that dots influence the sorting order? don't know what). So it's better that another admin manages that question, I cannot use administrative tools like page protection and such. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 18:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Blackcat for discussion. If anyone can provide me with a policy or guideline about sortkeys, I would be grateful. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I've given my opinion there. This is an unecessary edit war. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I gave another opinion. Maybe broader discussion is needed (maybe not). Taivo (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Religious user names not allowed in wikipedia .The same rule applicable in Commons? Any user name policy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:MyBuddha

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RfC/User_names/Institutional_memory#Names_of_religious_figures

(Dentnoyes (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC))

"Religious" is too vague, but if any name is disruptive or offensive, it may be blocked and the user asked to pick something different. See COM:IU. --Fæ (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me @Dentnoyes: , what do you exactly mean with religious names ? The name an user adopts that is similar or equal to one of the divinities of the about 700 religions existing in the world? Because in the Spanish - talking workd there are a lot of men called Jesus, for example, and we cannot ban someone because he puts "Jesus" in his username... -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 21:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Trolling. See w:en:WP:Long-term abuse/Nsmutte. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 73#The Black list user names - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 23:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Hanooz, Magog the Ogre - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 01:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I didn't find any restrictions for choosing religious usernames on Commons policies. Hanooz 02:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment :Yes you are right User:Hanooz , at my view religious user name have no restriction in commons.But religious user name restricted in Simple wikipedia , english wikipedia ,en.wikiversity and some local wikies. If a person have religious user name in commons , he have to re open other user account in below specified wikies.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Username#Offensive_names_policy Do not use the name of a political, military or religious figure or event (including real people).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RfC/User_names/Institutional_memory#Names_of_religious_figures

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Username Names of religious figures such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", or "Allah",and other religions names. Which may offend other people's beliefs

(Dentnoyes (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC))(Dentnoyes (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC))

• Someone block this account. Long term abuser spamming this xwiki with a number of socks. See [3] [4]. GMG^talk 13:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

User:GreenMeansGo I am telling the fact ! I am an user , very much interest on god Jesus...actually inetially i think to create user account with the name jesus, at the time of creation i realised that user name "jesus" blocked, at my furthur curiosity about this subject , i confirmed one point that is , religious user names not allowed in some wikies, due to this reason i posted this question here...

Here some important thing i observed is the following link:

w:en:WP:Long-term abuse/Nsmutte. —Justin , justin posted this link, Please read this link.Nsmutte a sock of wikipedia ,,,but this sock didnt mentioned in this link any where about "religion" .Due to this post some one mis understand me i may be sock.Another point is This Nsmutte sock is againest Bonadea ,a real long term contributor of Wikipedia . One impotent thing is there is a god name "Bonadea" of roman religion..Due to this issue some one mis understand me that i am a sock , but the fact is i want to change my user name to "jesus" related. Nsmutte didnt mention any wher the word "religion" I think now every body may understand the mis understanding. I am a real contributor with very muoch interest on my god Jesus. Now one thing i confirmed i can change my user name to jesus relation , but appplicable only in commons .

(Dentnoyes (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC))

 Blocked 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Re-uploading a deleted historical map

Toady I have re-uploaded a historical map which had been deleted. ([5]) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Why were they deleted? Ruslik (talk) 08:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

"Out of project scope - Using VisualFileChange." ([6]) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ruslik0 and Shizhao: 　Was this deletion ([7]) within the boundaries of Wikimedia Commons deletion policy at that time?

If the deletion was legitimate, would the rationale given at that time be valid today? That is to say, could the new upload of the map ([8]) be deleted from Wikimedia Commons at this time or ever again at any future time?

If the deletion was not legitimate, what should I do or what should the community do to help prevent future illegitimate deletions of historical maps?

(如果有人需要中文翻譯請告訴我.) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I just clean panoramio photos--shizhao (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Shizhao has commented that the historical map was deleted (cleaned) because it was a Panoramio photo. Does that mean that the historical map uploads that I have made can never be taken down on a similar basis? None of my maps are Panoramio-derived- they are all from the online Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection and are US Federal Government works. Are all Panoramio derived historical maps subject to the technical difficulty that lead to this deletion? If so, there are a few more Panoramio-derived maps that I may want to have deleted and then reuploaded to secure their position as permanent fixtures which can't be legitimately removed. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I have invited comment from the copyright noticeboard [9]. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Here's an example: [10]. Is this map in danger because of its origin with Panoramio? Should it be deleted and then reuploaded? It can also be found in the online Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection - [11] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I am looking forward to getting clarification on these issues somehow. I have come to the conclusion that [12] really does need to be reuploaded so that users who use that map are no longer forced to give "Attribution" to www.almatymaps.kz . Let me know if you all have any opinions or guidance for me. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Update- awaiting result of deletion request at [13] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

You did not complete the deletion request. Otherwise, this entire discussion is best for Commons:Undeletion requests rather than reuploading these without actually letting anyone explain the issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This was my first time reversing a deletion, so I was unaware of that procedure. I will use that method in the future. I have made a page at Commons:Undeletion requests [14], but I don't actually know if I want that image to be restored- it's origin from Panoramio may be problematic in a way that my newly uploaded version from the online Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection is not problematic. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I have attempted to complete the deletion request for one of the other maps uploaded from Panoramio in the series ([15]) that is mentioned above. I am a little confused by the situation, but I think that I need to know whether or not the Panoramio maps like [16] are "safe" from the type of deletion that happened in 2016 to this map ([17]). If they are not safe, then I can request a deletion and then reupload them without any Panoramio intermediary. Let me know what I need to do to put these historical maps in a sturdier position long term for Wikimedia Commons such that there is no longer any possible leeway that could allow for the deletion of these valuable historical English-language maps that can be used throughout the Wiki projects. Thanks for reading this far. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC) (modified)

Update: discussion ongoing at the deletion page ([18]). --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

On 16 Dec 2019, I tried ([19]) to confirm that the changes I made here ([20]) a) were appropriate (I'm still not sure that the edit I made was appropriate) and b) would put the map outside the scope of a future deletion of this type ([21]) which was removed because "I just clean panoramio photos" (accoridng to Shizhao's statement above). So my remaining questions are: a) were the changes I made to the extant "Paramio-derived" map appropriate? and b) Have those changes put the map outside the realm of any future summary deletions like the one from 2016? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello all-- I want to nail down the historical maps in the collection that I am uploading (including the ones that were uploaded in previous years from Panoramio) such that they can't be deleted like this one ([22]) was. If no one is interested in this issue, then I think Wikimedia Commons just becomes a free-for-all where historical maps like [23] can be taken down. I'm asking for help from anyone to clarify what happened in the 2016 deletion mentioned above and what can be done to prevent similar deletions in the future. Thanks. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear Diary, The 2016 deletion was seemingly determined to be invalid ([24]). Apparently, I may need to go through and "Upload a new version of this file" straight from the online Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection to remove the Panoramio and CC junk remaining on the maps that were uploaded from sources that claim some kind of control over the map (illegitimately). --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello all: Was the deletion of this map in 2016 ([25]) within the boundaries of Wikimedia Commons deletion policy at that time?

If the deletion was legitimate, would the rationale given at that time be valid today? That is to say, could the new upload of the map ([26]) be deleted from Wikimedia Commons at this time or ever again at any future time?

If the deletion was not legitimate, what should I do or what should the community do to help prevent future illegitimate deletions of historical maps? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Mistaken and out of policy deletions happen all the time. Examples being PD by age material being deleted as vaguely out of scope and uploads by the photographer on a pseudonomous account being deleted over a decade after upload as not having sufficient evidence of permission, despite there being no specific rationale to doubt the release. In a future for Commons where we might host a billion media files but with fewer volunteers than we have right now, this erratic implementation of our deletion procedures may actually get worse.

Commons has no bulletproof gurantee against deletion, and we probably should. It would be a trivial matter to accept verified collections and classes of upload as being permanently protected against deletion requests. You may want to move that forward as a proposal along with some generic examples of files or past cases. --Fæ (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Update needed

This template {{USSenators}}‎ is horribly outdated, can we get some admins to commit to working on it?--NL19931993 (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. The template is not protected. Everybody can edit it, even you. I encourage you to do the work yourself, but be careful not to spoil anything. Taivo (talk) 09:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Edits to fully protected image descriptions as suggested by SchlurcherBot

Hi, I'm the operator of SchlurcherBot. My bot is tasked to perform internationalization changes, https updates and general fixes to image descriptions. Commons currently has ~500 permanently and fully protected images that unfortunately never get updated, so I'm searching for help with these. Would an admin be willing to help me edit ~100 of these fully protected image description pages? The complete list as well as the proposed changes are listed here: User:SchlurcherBot/Blocked. Thanks --Schlurcher (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

 Doing… --Majora (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Alternatively you could generate a pywikibot / mwclient / whatever MediaWiki client library code that specify the exact changes, such as below, and I can execute that.

p = pywikibot.Page(SITE, 'File:FISHERMAN.jpg')
p.text = p.text.replace('== {{int:license}} ==', '== {{int:license-header}} ==')
p.save('I18n per [[Special:Permalink/381518752#Edits_to_fully_protected_image_descriptions_as_suggested_by_SchlurcherBot|COM:AN]]')

(After seeing edit conflict) Well, in case this is needed again in the future --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about the conflict. I realized my suggestion was rather stupid so I just removed it entirely. Can't do what I suggested for the same reason they are asking for our help in the first place... --Majora (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

And all  Done --Majora (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!!! -Schlurcher (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Vitold Muratov block

A.Savin blocked Vitold Muratov indefinitely because of personal conflict in Russian Wikipedia--1Goldberg2 (talk) 09:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you elaborate what personal conflict in Russian WP I shall have had with this user? Thanks. --A.Savin 13:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

You saw his topic on ВП:ФА--1Goldberg2 (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

So what? Which personal conflict you are observing between me and Muratov? Any difflinks? --A.Savin 16:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

You dont want him to be unblocked in RuWiki, so you try to undermine his reputation. Didnt you announce there proudly that you blocked Vitold here? Am I the only user, who opposed this unjust action?--1Goldberg2 (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Confusing cause with effect? I saw this remark by Muratov and decided to extend his block to indef. I let Russian admins know about it, because, maybe, this would be helpful for the decision, if Muratov should be unblocked on RU. That's merely an admin action here on Commons, not part of a personal conflict. Lying is useless, 1Goldberg2; stop disgracing yourself. Was your vandalism on several wikis not already enough of disgrace? --A.Savin 16:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Judge judging by personal emotions says I am a liar? You must not be admin of any project, cuz youcant admin your own temper.--1Goldberg2 (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

This is solely your opinion; I can live with it. --A.Savin 17:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

User:MBH, we need you--1Goldberg2 (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Boldly fixed formatting and changed title to be about the indef block.

The block log shows a 2 week block followed by an indef block. The rationale of this diff was sufficient to justify the block. If the block were lifted, the nature of the casually homophobic remarks by VM would be sufficient to ask WMF legal to consider a global lock. If the account holder wishes to retract their remarks and apologize for misusing this project to publish them, there may be grounds to review the block, maybe not. --Fæ (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the two week block was definitely justified, since the uploader continued to upload out of scope images after warnings. I can not really comment on the indef block, since I have a hard time understanding what Vitold meant. But they have the chance to explain themselves on their talk page. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity about: "By the way, silencing the problems of classical heterosexual practice frees up an ecological niche for mass homosexuality. And we don't live in the woods."

This is a very old homophobic trope, it does not require much "understanding" nor is it worth an explanation. Anyone using this project to demean LGBT+ people as if they were a disease or infestation is breaking Commons policies and the WMF terms of use in a way that is not open to debate. --Fæ (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

What about freedom of speach? I am a supporter of LGBT rights, but why user should be block for another opinion very far from hate speech?--1Goldberg2 (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

You are perfectly free to write whatever you want on your own blog, or stand outside your house with a poster. That's free speech. Wikimedia Commons and the Wikimedia Foundation are not required to protect anyone's imagined "right" to use these projects as a platform to publish their personal racist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic or whatever other nasty opinions that create a hostile environment and only serves to harass and bully contributors. You are free to use this project to host an educationally useful photograph of whatever, including anti-gay protests, that's documentation of real events, rather than using the project like a blog.

BTW, as you are making claims about hate speech, under the law in my country, demeaning minority groups by comparing them to animals or a disease is hate speech. --Fæ (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in my country laws are anti-gay now. Thats a shame. But do you say (and I understand correct) that on wiki here I can write "Its OK to be black" and it is forbidden to write "Its OK to be white"?--1Goldberg2 (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Context matters. Both are ok to write in some circumstances, and not ok in others. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Its OK to be white--1Goldberg2 (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure which point you are trying to prove here. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I wanted to see if I will be block for saying it--1Goldberg2 (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The 1Goldberg2 account is currently indef blocked on 3 projects, so already meets the global ban criteria. The "unblock" request on en was "I still hate left betrayers but will not attack them in Wikipedia again", which may illuminate their interests here. --Fæ (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• Interesting reaction on my Its OK to be white/ I sucessfully work on RuWiki, but yes, blocked in English--1Goldberg2 (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fæ: I find it quite convoluted, but the "mass homosexuality" spectre indeed sounds like a homophobic attack.  Support indef, until an explanation/apology comes forward. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• @1Goldberg2: , provoking community members is one of the worst strategies to get understanding. Please desist at this point. If you wish we can discuss this matter in Skype. @Fæ: , 1goldberg2 is indeed blocked in some wikis, but I try to guide him and we fiund more or less working modus operandi in ru-wiki. I will look after his contribution here. Sir Shurf (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• 1Goldberg2, if your goal coming here was to make some of A.Savin’s friends among Commons regulars to like him a bit less, I must say that your plan resulted fully backwards, at least in one case. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Revision deletion request

Please delete the first version of File:Radio Times - 1923-12-14 - p439.png, which I have just cropped (after uploading it myself) to remove a not-yet-free component. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

 Deleted by ~riley. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 06:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Licencing issue with Washington State Legislature photos

 Info I recently opened a discussion on licencing issue with Washington State Legislature photos at the Village Pump and seeking some input. :) --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 14:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Assistance on Deletion

I have tagged File:WAG 12 launch.png for copyright violation 3 days ago, and nothing was done. Did I make something wrong? Thank you for your attention.廣九直通車 (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

 Deleted. No particular problems that I could see. We probably need more admins on Commons. I suggest you, 廣九直通車, apply for adminship. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

User Ljwljw.001

Special:Contributions/Ljwljw.001: This user has been blocked on English Wikipedia due to continuously posting copyvio content in the article w:Ping An Insurance. Almost all the files they uploaded here are the trademark of w:Ping An Insurance which are allegedly licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 without any sources. I think it is reasonable to rollback all of edits and files uploaded by this user.--虹易 (talk) 05:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

It seems like a clear lack of permission but an admin can decide whether we should list everything for seven days or just block and ignore someone who seems oddly set on just uploading things without a clear knowledge of copyright law. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Debbie is so cute and dumb

Special:Contributions/Debbie is so cute and dumb:Can somebody block this user who has nothing useful to do with hollidays. Please roll back all edits and requests for deletion of this user. Thanks and Merry Christmas.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Debbie is indefinitely blocked as vandalism-only account, her edits are deleted. Taivo (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

An incorrectly described photo

Hello, There is a photo which is incorrectly described and does not pertain to the page where it is published. The photo needs to be deleted but I am new to wikimedia and don't know how to go about that or if I have the right to delete it. Can I talk to an administrator about deleting the photo? Thank you in advance.

Sincerely, Doubleikat1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubleikat1 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Is the file uploaded here? If yes, can you provide a link to the file? Regards. T Cells^Talk 12:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

VIC problem

I have nominated the File:M82 HST ACS 2006-14-a-large web.jpg as valued image. It successfully passed the nomination and was promoted as valued image on 21 December. But still the VICbot has not tagged the file as valued image. The operator of the bot is not active currently so I have to report the issue here.--@Tæ 07:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Other admins can't do anything about it unless they have access to the bot. You are better off asking this question to the bot operator. Masum Reza^📞 00:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• But the bot operator is inactive nowadays.--@Tæ 06:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Block of Dandy1022

Hi folks,

I processed an unblock today of Dandy1022 that was made by admin Shizhao as there was no apparent abuse and the block appeared unintended at the time. The block was for vandalism, however, no block warning template was issued prior to the block. The users appears to have been offered no chance to correct the edits that Shizhao has views as vandalism-like. COM:BLOCK policy states "ensure that the user has been appropriately warned". Additionally, there was no block notice left on the user talk page to "notify the blocked user" so I am not even able to identify what edits are concerning (not apparent in contribs). I am concerned that this user was blocked for a month (excessive for first block), with no rationale provided, with no opportunity to correct their behavior. In hindsight, I should have left the block in place and then initiated this conversation rather than doing this in reverse order. @Shizhao: Can you clarify what's going on here? ~riley (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Dandy1022 All edits to POTD are putting non-FP pictures into POTD, see [27], I think this is a clear vandalism, so I blocked him.(Hope commons deploy Partial blocks soon )--shizhao (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Shizhao: I have serious concerns here about your use of admin permissions if that is your only rationale for placing this block. Blocks are a last resort and designed to be preventative measure. Their last POTD edit was on December 7, 2019 and your block was placed on December 26, 2019, this is nearly a 3 week gap. How do you expect the editor to learn if you offer no warning or rationale? You are far too experienced of an administrator to be placing blocks like this. ~riley (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • This is my mistake--shizhao (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

  Agree with Riley. That user wasn't eligible for a site-wide block let alone a partial block. Masum Reza^📞 02:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• I wondered if his account had been hijacked, but I forgot to remind him--shizhao (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Delbug issue

File:Negros Oriental State University.jpg is tagged with {{Delbug}} but it isn't categorized into Category:Deletion bug and I'm sure there are more files like this. {{Delbug}} isn't working, I've checked the template source and probably there is no issue in it. See Transclusion report and Search result (showing 2 files only), Category:Deletion bug is empty too. Am I missing something? Please let me know. -- CptViraj (📧) 14:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

No idea what's going on. I tried to tweak the template a little but it doesn't appear to be working. Masum Reza^📞 17:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Funny. I substituted the template on two files (File:Fredi diaz.JPG and File:Negros Oriental State University.jpg) and then reverted my edit. These two files are now listed on the category's page. I didn't do the same thing for File:EDZNÁ.JPG, and it is not listed on the category. I tried purging them all many times, but a purge does not fix the issue.

On a side note, I've seen strange behaviour of categories before. See Category:Redundant media renaming requests for example. File:Mozart, KV 622-1, score title sheet.jpg shouldn't be listed on the category, but it is. Ahmad^talk 17:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Stasiun Kebumen 2019.jpg

Just wondering about all the extra templates that come with this image... Would they be considered as an extra restriction on top of the CC-BY-SA-4.0 licenses (and therefore not allowed), or can they be seen as (friendly?) directions on how to re-use the image? Ciell (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• I would consider them extra restrictions in contravention to the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license and the freedoms listed on COM:L. The last phrase of the first tag, the second tag in its entirety asks that users seek permission, however, the CC-BY-SA-4.0 licence already technically grants permission to use, share, adapt, etc. Tag#3 is trying to restrict where it could be shared, however, the licence states "You are free to: [...] Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or formatcopy and redistribute the material in any medium or format".--Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 02:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Spam?

A collection of 779 images has been transferred from flickr (I didn't look at every single image) in 2018 that looks to me like an advertising catalogue of products and services of a company in Richmond VA. Opinions? --Achim (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Ser Amantio di Nicolao was trying to advertise for the company, no. Whether the company was trying to advertise by uploading so many files to Flickr? I dunno, they seem to be generally arguably in-scope images related to carpentry/interior design, and we have to attribute the creator. But a lot of these seem to be miscategorized and don't rightly belong in Category:Crown moldings, which it looks like has been overwhelmed with some 1,600 files. GMG^talk 16:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

No advertising. I just thought it was nice to find some professional images of architectural elements, as it seems to me we don't always have access to those. There aren't many companies that use Flickr for advertising like that (with free images), but there are a few I've come across now and again.--Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Personally the link placement (the company website not the Flickr link) within these images HAS to go and as soon as possible. We are not here to support products though I understand the logic about the images. Anyone wanting to spam Commons can simply point to these and say that they got away with it so why can't it. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for a friendly neighborhood bot operator. GMG^talk 17:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Removing those links is fairly easy, I can (and most probably will) do it with my bot. The question is, what are we going to insert instead. I know an empty description is better than a promotional one, but maybe we can find a general description to insert. Ahmad^talk 18:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

File name without #? --Achim (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. The file names aren't half bad. We may also want to consider taking any of them that don't include "crown molding" and putting it into some "uncategorized images from something or other" category for human review, I mean, while we're in the business of unleashing bots. GMG^talk 19:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

"File name without #" sound good to me. @GreenMeansGo: Apparently all of them are categorized. (this returns 778 results, and this returns 776. The two remaining files are File:Fireplace-mantels.JPG and File:Wrought iron balusters richmond virginia (19) (5079515273).jpg). I can change the description using Module:String, but I can't substitute it properly. Not substituting it will result in extra pressure on the servers. I'll ask for help at COM:VPT. Ahmad^talk 08:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Village pump/Technical#Substituting "#invoke". Ahmad^talk 08:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ahmad252: Sorry if I wasn't clear. As far as I can tell, they're all uploaded into Category:Crown moldings, but many or most don't belong there, probably any image without the word "molding" in the title. If we can sort these and put them in some tracking category, then we can probably go back using simple ctrl-f and cat-a-lot to get many of them into better categories fairly quickly. GMG^talk 12:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. I will change the categories as well, but I'm not sure what tracking category I should add them to. Maybe something like Category:Uncategorized images of house interiors?

P.S: Maybe we should take this to COM:BR. Ahmad^talk 15:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed - I could finally fix the problem with #invoke. I think we only need to discuss the categorization now (@GreenMeansGo: Any suggestion on which category to add files to? Maybe "Category:Uncategorized images of house interiors"?).

On a side note, should I request bot permission for such edits with AutoWikiBrowser? Not sure, personally. Ahmad^talk 18:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

That seems like fine enough of a category to me. Anything that is meaningful as far as I'm concerned. I can try to look through the tracking category and move files, but it might be a while before I can get to it.

I'm afraid that the bot process is beyond my technical expertise, and I can't really offer any advice. GMG^talk 21:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I requested for permission at Commons:Bots/Requests/AhmadWikiBot 2 - please feel free to review test edits and/or comment at the request for permission. Thank you. Ahmad^talk 22:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Main Page

At 07:54, bawolff alerted administrators on Commons that the mainpage was down via IRC after a Wikimedia Operations alert. It was identified by Stryn, through my notification of stewards, that the main page went down at 07:44 1 January 2020 when NancyAce created Template:Motd/2020-01-01 (en) transcluding the VP, AN, AN/I, etc to the main page. I deleted the translation at 08:04 at which time the main page came back up. An English translation, originally overlooked, was in place by 8:18. To address the immediate concern of this high-impact (but low probability) vandalism, I have adjusted the titleblacklist to only allow autoconfirmed users to create or modify these pages. ~riley (talk) 08:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Titleblacklist is limited in what permissions it can restrict to. Using titleblacklist, it was either only administrators or autoconfirmed. I have concerns with only autoconfirmed users being able to create descriptions that will appear on the main page (cascading protection is not an option for templates that do not yet exist) so I have restricted making descriptions to autopatrolled only for now. We can figure out a long-term situation later but for now, this is what will allow me to go to sleep knowing the main page is safe. ~riley (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of only one specific version of image. File:GLOBO_LIGHTING_10600-2_E27_810Lm.jpg

Hi, i uploaded an image, then stripped the meta data and uploaded as new version for the same file. Can an admin delete the first version? Alex42 (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Alex42:  Done Under G7. Though I'm not sure I understand why you should want to strip the meta data. GMG^talk 22:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Autoblock request

A user (does not mentioned the username) reported via OTRS that they are affected by the autoblock of 2600:1:f228:7d04:a454:afde:4543:cbcc (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log). Please let me know what additional information you need, or what the user should do. Thanks in advance! Bencemac (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have taken over this ticket and will handle it, thank you! ~riley (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Bencemac (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@~riley: There is one more in Russian. Would you please take care of that as well? Bencemac (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

And one more. Bencemac (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Working on these as well :) ~riley (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• @1989: blocking all of Special:Contributions/2600:1:8000:0:0:0:0:0/33 for over 2 years is not appropriate. IP blocks should rarely last for more than a week, unless the range is proven to be very stable (in which case it still shouldn't be blocked for more than 3 months, 6 tops) - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 03:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Quite agree. I have reduced this block to one year, allowed talk page access (no justifiable reason to do this to the range), and allowed account creation (no evidence to suggest account creation should be blocked). ~riley (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Users reuploading images by blocked user Midnight68

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Midnight68
• Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Midnight68

Midnight68 (talk · contribs) had his uploads deleted in 2010. Some users have been reuploading his works (see the RFCU). For instance see this file: [28] It has several users restoring Midnight68's upload and a specific nude version of it. The credited author is "Simon Kirby" via Flickr, but the drawing style is exactly that of Midnight68 and an off-site wiki [29](NSFW) tells that Midnight68 is also known as Simon Kirby.

Futhermore, there is some trolling involved. Niabot was the person who initiated the deletion request of Midnight68's files. These pictures that are obviously drawn by Midnight68 have been credited to Niabot: [30][31][32].

I propose that users who are reuploading Midnight68's work are blocked and the files are deleted to enforce the 2010 DR thread. Users involved: Bluefarrow (talk · contribs), ThomasSaxon (talk · contribs), CrutchCargo (talk · contribs), Nevadawest (talk · contribs), CrossPlains (talk · contribs).

--Pudeo (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Some of the images are problematic cartoons, others are not and the DR linked is now a decade old. For example there is no apparent need to delete File:MajorTriumphPaperback002.png which is currently in use on 6 different language Wikipedias, but is credited to Simon Kirby.

Neither are the accounts listed obvious block-worthy candidates and CU results will remain inconclusive due to the records being stale. Their activities need to be examined separately and judged on their own merit or for their specific policy problems. It is possible that some of the accounts are ignorant of the history of the artist and the potentially problematic nature of the content of some of the images.

If specific images are an issue, a fresh DR might be a sensible approach unless they are verifiable copyright violations.

However, it may also be worth sending a note to the COM:Oversight list and ask for their review if the fact of who the artist is and their personal history is the overriding factor, rather than the specific content of individual cartoons. Based on an Oversight review there may be a need to blacklist all content from the artist (an act of censorship which may be needed to comply with hosting requirements of this website rather than copyright law), and that is not normally how DRs are used. --Fæ (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

P.s. As Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_by_User:Midnight68 is protected, could an admin please fix the underlining problem which is making this old DR hard to read? Note that if there is to be a second DR then the page will need to be unprotected. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Strongly support blocking all of the above mentioned users and deleting every file by "SimonKirby". As stated in prior discussions, Midnight68 was/is an unapologetic pedophile with has a fetish for children's panties and spanking. The project should not host any of his so-called "artwork" as commons is not a hosting service for amateur child pornographers.

Fae stated that the original DR is ten years old. That means that Midnight68 has been a thorn in our sides for at least a decade. We need to take immediate action on this before it goes any further. The only way we'll ever be free of this malicious troll is to declare all of his work out of scope - including files currently in use - and block anyone who attempts to upload it. I'd also like to see a CU for the following users, each of whom have posted Midnight68's files at different points in the past:

User:Hyju, User:Ayumu Kasuga, User:CanaryYellow, Doctorzeemo, User talk:Buckybarnz (the last three are sockpuppets of Midnight68; notice the comic book references in the usernames).

Looking at some of the earlier DRs, it's obvious that numerically speaking, the majority of users supported the deletion of this file, even if consensus was never reached. As a result of this piece being retained, we now have dozens of Midight68's pictures smeared all over commons (and wikipedia) like fecal matter. We should have gotten rid of everything from the very start.

The inclusionist faction will almost certainly claim that the files are in use and therefore within scope. Such claims should be ignored for the simple reason that Midnight68 was indefinitely banned by arbcom. The Wikimedia Foundation has very explicit policies in regards to child-abuse fetishists. Subsequently, deleting his poorly-drawn psuedo-porn is not censorship, it is simple obedience to the law and protection of younger, impressionable users.

BTW: I am well aware of how unpopular I am on this board, but I urge all users to take this matter seriously. If word gets out that we are promoting the "artwork" of a known sexual pervert, it would be a public relations disaster for this project. AshFriday (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit: have struck the word "pedophile" to avoid further unnecessary controversy. AshFriday (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Pictures should be deleted immediately, per Ashfriday. --Cuatro Remos (nütramyen) 03:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

If word gets out that we are promoting the "artwork" of a known sexual pervert, it would be a public relations disaster for this project. - no, we are not promoting anything here. Commons doesn't care if an image is uploaded by a pervert or not. As long they are free and educational, Commons can host them. And the linked images looked quite educational to me. Masum Reza^📞 04:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Please use COM:SPI to request CUs for other accounts, where you can provide the evidence needed to justify use of the CU tools. However, only the first account listed has edits in the last 9 years and three of the others were blocked or locked 9 years ago, so those would be pointless to raise and only serve as a tangent here as there can be no relevant sysop action to request.
• Emotive terms like "fecal matter", "pervert" are not especially helpful, and the concern here should be on project scope. Anyone who wishes to write about "child-abuse" should not do so here, or in a DR, please follow Template:Editnotices/Page/Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard if you have evidence.
• As stated above, if folks want to lobby for the censorship of all artworks credited to "Simon Kirby", regardless of what the artwork contains, then writing to Oversight is more appropriate than here. Oversight will be in a better position to assess current and previously removed content, along with past actions to lock or block apparent sock accounts which the WMF will not discuss publicly.
• Using community noticeboards or deletion discussion pages to apparently make non-copyright related criminal allegations about identifiable living people is unnecessary, potentially a misuse of talk pages, and can and should be avoided when it is straight-forward enough to assess uploaded files based on their content and whether they meet COM:Scope. --Fæ (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

 Comment I haven't seen any content that have been oversighted, if I missed something please point me toward a file to check. --PierreSelim (talk) 05:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. This is especially helpful as there are several claims in this thread about "child-abuse" and one direct allegation against an identified person of being a pedophile. These are criminal allegations against the artist which should not be made on this noticeboard, especially if there is no history of decisions from WMF Legal or Oversight to reference. --Fæ (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

DRs created by AshFriday

Could someone please merge these 47 DRs created an hour ago?

Note that these DRs are the censorship of all artworks credited to "Simon Kirby", regardless of which account uploaded the file, regardless of the actual cross-project current use of the image, or the subject matter of the image. Some of these uploads have had prior DRs and been kept already. Thanks

--Fæ (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

AshFriday has nominated a bunch of files for deletion today. And he specifically did so in a way that it would be hard to vote on every pages. In other words, he nominated each files for deletion one by one creating bunch of DR pages. Therefore, with regret, I am compelled to initiate the discussion of deletions of the files here. Please merge the above DRs and move this conversation to somewhere appropriate or feel free to continue discussing here.

As I stated above, I do not care whether it's uploaded by a pervert or anyone else. And I take good uploads of even banned/blocked user as "contributions". Most of the files are illustrations of anime/manga girls. While some of them may look like sexual but that's the way anime and manga are. Those materials usually contain nudity, violence among other things, in form of artistic way. Commons is not censored. It is hard to get "free" illustrations of anime and mangas. Most free illustrations of anime/mangas used in Wikipedia articles, are volunteer made. It is hard to get anime/manga production companies to donate their artworks to Commons.

I urge the community to seriously consider whether it is appropriate to delete images based on someone's rationale who is clearly attempting to "clean up" Commons. Please note this is not the first time, AshFriday has been reported to AN; his talk page and AN archives are proof of that. Masum Reza^📞 05:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

AshFriday has nominated a bunch of files for deletion today. And he specifically did so in a way that it would be hard to vote on every pages. In other words, he nominated each files for deletion one by one creating bunch of DR pages.

In actual fact, I was simply following Fæ's advice that each file should be judged on an individual basis. However, as you're apparently too busy to click on the "edit" button for the various DRs, I've folded them all into a single mass deletion request. I hope this makes things easier for you. AshFriday (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

While I agree that each files should be judged on an individual basis, it is disruptive not to merge DRs that has the same nomination statement. We are not here to clean up your mess. Masum Reza^📞 12:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

It is worth reiterating that AshFriday openly created their account with the single mission of "Fighting a never-ending battle against copyright vios and smut."[33]. If their form of "battling" against "smut" is disruptive (as it has demonstrably been in this case), creates a hostile environment for good-faith contributors, uses Commons to publish criminal allegations or legal threats, or is clearly in conflict with the community agreed scope of this project, then blocking policy should apply to their account as it would to any other with a such a singular overriding political mission for their actions. Previous discussions:

1. Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_67#Disclosed_his/her_intention_to_violate_the_Terms_of_Service, Jan 2018, 1 month block in relation to disruptive creation of deletion requests
2. Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_69#AshFriday, April 2018

--Fæ (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

It is worth reiterating that AshFriday openly created their account with the single mission of "Fighting a never-ending battle against copyright vios and smut."

It's also worth reiterating that I have never used the word "smut" in a single DR as long as I've been here. I've also made no legal threats against anyone, nor have I made any "criminal allegations", as you put it, I've simply pointed out that Midnight68 attempted to upload pornographic cartoons to Commons in the past. Anyway, Fæ, you have not demonstrated that I'm creating a hostile environment for any good-faith user (Midnight68 was banned as a confirmed troll), and I could argue that your knee-jerk responses to my deletion requests are far more disruptive than anything I've ever done - see your attempt to keep potential underaged porn on the site two years ago. Your personal animosity against me was very obvious at the time. AshFriday (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

"If anyone believes that an image is child abuse they should contact legal-reports@wikimedia.org and avoid drawing attention to the content on-wiki, in particular a DR should be avoided. For reference, the WMF policies that govern suspected child abuse are at m:Legal/Legal_Policies." DR. --Fæ (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Fæ, you voted to keep an image which was later deleted as potential underaged porn. It's right there in the edit history. Feel free to elaborate on why you believe it's acceptable to have a photograph of a naked teenaged boy with an erection on Commons. AshFriday (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

"If anyone believes that an image is child abuse they should contact legal-reports@wikimedia.org and avoid drawing attention to the content on-wiki, in particular a DR should be avoided. For reference, the WMF policies that govern suspected child abuse are at m:Legal/Legal_Policies." DR. --Fæ (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

So, refusing to answer the question yet again? It's no wonder that every one of your RFAs ended in defeat, Fæ. AshFriday (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Could someone please sort out AshFriday's DRs? They have created a mass DR in addition to the original 47 DRs, so each of the above files now has two deletion requests open against it at the same time. Thanks! --Fæ (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• What are you on about now, Fæ? For anyone who's genuinely interested, I made a couple of mistakes which I corrected within minutes. Certainly didn't need an admin to sort it out. AshFriday (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Could someone please sort out AshFriday's DRs? Despite misleading protestations to the contrary, the fact remains that there is a mass DR Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_created_by_User:Midnight68 and the same files are also listed in individual DRs like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Backstage.png. It's an apparent deliberate mess to make responding impossible without investing rediculous amounts of volunteer time. --Fæ (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Could some please ask Fæ to stop stirring up drama? By my count, it took less than thirty minutes to remove the individual DRs from the files, and it wasn't even that big a deal in the first place. AshFriday (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Is that what you were doing? All those removals have to be reverted; all you did was hide the DRs from people looking at the image page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

You're perfectly welcome to restore them if you want, Prosfilaes, but Fæ will probably object on the grounds that "each of the files" would have "two deletion requests open against it at the same time". Thanks. AshFriday (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

You didn't close any of those DRs; you just deleted any indication from the page that they had a DR pending on them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, let me get this straight, Prosfilaes; you want me to close the DRs themselves? I'm willing to do that, but I was under the impression that deletion requests could only be closed after some kind of consensus had been reached. Please explain this in more detail. AshFriday (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Do not remove a DR notice from a file when there is an open DR on the file. Thanks.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not what I asked. Thanks. AshFriday (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

After this thread was started, AshFriday has continued their creation of deletion requests, as a result of which a further 83 files are affected:

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Nevadawest
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Bluefarrow

They are on a declared anti-porn campaign for which the creation of deletion requests is being misused as a weapon. --Fæ (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal, prohibit DR creation for AshFriday

In the light of the very long term disruptive use of deletion requests, it is proposed that AshFriday is prohibited from creating any further deletion requests on this project. They are free to ask an administrator to do this on their behalf if they provide appropriate justification.

List of 180 deletion requests created by AshFriday, updated 7 Jan 2020 with 3 mass DRs

Deletion requests created by AshFriday Date Deletion request 2020-01-05 Files created by User:Midnight68 2020-01-05 Files uploaded by User:Bluefarrow 2020-01-05 Files uploaded by User:Nevadawest 2020-01-04 File:Backstage.png 2020-01-04 File:NightRemember.png 2020-01-04 File:JeanBackstage002.png 2020-01-04 File:JeanBackstage001.png 2020-01-04 File:WikiReader025.png 2020-01-04 File:KodomoBitterSweet.png 2020-01-04 File:WikiReader024.png 2020-01-04 File:KodomoMajokko.png 2020-01-04 File:KnickerFlasher000.png 2020-01-04 File:Freshly.png 2020-01-04 File:NeicesKnickers.png 2020-01-04 File:Kogal005.png 2020-01-04 File:HolyMoley001.png 2020-01-04 File:WikiReader023.png 2020-01-04 File:WikiReader022.png 2020-01-04 File:SaoriCover000.png 2020-01-04 File:GimpScreenshot002.png 2020-01-04 File:WikiReader015.png 2020-01-04 File:Akibachan001b.png 2020-01-04 File:SelinaFlying001a.jpg 2020-01-04 File:WikiReader018.png 2020-01-04 File:KodomoPress004.jpg 2020-01-04 File:Aki1.png 2020-01-04 File:WeirdAdventureTales.jpg 2020-01-04 File:Netball001.png 2020-01-04 File:YukiClip2A.gif 2020-01-04 File:GloryBeaFuntimeComics002.png 2020-01-04 File:GimpScanlation001.png 2020-01-04 File:StarsAndStripes.png 2020-01-04 File:TimelyShield000.png 2020-01-04 File:TimelyShield2.png 2020-01-04 File:TimelyShield3.png 2020-01-04 File:CapAward.png 2020-01-04 File:PollyPigtailsNo30pp26.png 2020-01-04 File:ColoringBook002.png 2020-01-04 File:KodomoNiabot.png 2020-01-04 File:KodomoCensored.png 2020-01-04 File:RenPy001.png 2019-07-11 File:Eldvid.png 2019-04-03 File:CapShield05.jpg 2019-04-03 File:TWL3.jpg 2019-04-03 File:A still from The Legend of Azad.png 2019-04-03 File:Dealers Table (1222358750).jpg 2019-04-03 File:Dealers Table (1221500837).jpg 2019-04-01 File:Wat Tambor.jpg 2019-04-01 File:Thrawn.jpg 2019-04-01 File:Star Wars comics.jpg 2019-03-17 File:Evolution of Dick Grayson by Elenveth.jpg 2019-03-24 File:Pulko1.png 2019-03-24 File:Juroji 1.PNG 2019-03-24 File:Mitsuko wiki.PNG 2019-03-24 File:(رسم للمحقق كننا (انمي.jpg 2019-03-17 File:Farm-Fresh user ironman.png 2019-03-17 File:Drax.jpg 2019-03-17 File:Flash (3910294756).jpg 2019-03-17 File:Toy Spot DC Collectibles DC Essentials No.03 The Flash Figure.png 2019-03-17 File:Wonder Woman and the Missile.png 2019-03-17 File:Hawkman dc comics toy figure.jpg 2019-03-10 File:Gumi Megpoid.png 2019-03-10 File:Anonymized Cubitus.jpg 2019-03-05 File:Mysivyvar.jpg 2019-03-05 File:My Number man.png 2019-03-05 File:M.Loutre.jpg 2019-03-05 File:Kapitulo1 freakkomix.png 2019-03-05 File:Jimmy Wherever.jpeg 2019-03-05 File:Jenny Somewhere.png 2019-03-05 File:Inspector Steel Trendy Baba Series.jpg 2019-03-05 File:CROISS dessin herisson croissance CFZ.jpg 2019-03-05 File:Arkincomics header.png 2019-03-05 File:ArtisticTerror.jpg 2019-03-05 File:Alicia02 bg.jpg 2019-03-05 File:KelpieSpirit Chameleons Webcomic.jpg 2019-02-25 File:Jigaraphale.jpg 2019-02-25 File:InvaderSpaceShip 11192017 0504PM.jpg 2019-02-25 File:Hollow.jpg 2019-02-25 File:HanzoF60.jpg 2019-02-25 File:Fliffyeshery.png 2019-02-25 File:Fiffiki.jpg 2019-02-25 File:EB animated.jpg 2019-02-25 File:Chimdi's Comix (newlogo2015copyright).png 2019-02-25 File:Christabell&paul.png 2019-02-25 File:CB2Page51 07032017 0414PM.jpg 2019-02-25 File:CB1Lancie 10212017 0232PM.jpg 2019-02-25 File:CB1Cantria 10212017 0230PM.jpg 2019-02-25 File:CB1Arcarie 10212017 0231PM.jpg 2019-02-25 File:AfroSeeds Manga.jpg 2019-02-24 File:5 Selectos página 1.jpg 2019-02-24 File:582088315156799.jpg 2019-02-24 File:Random City Comic.jpg 2019-02-24 File:Random City.jpg 2019-02-24 File:Star Stern.jpg 2019-02-24 File:Wolf Ghetto Warrior.jpg 2019-02-24 File:GeneralCoho 11192017 0458PM.jpg 2019-02-24 File:ThornyBeast 11192017 0455PM.jpg 2019-02-24 File:YoungLady 11192017 0459PM.jpg 2019-02-24 File:Shocker188.jpg 2019-02-24 File:Sck.jpg 2019-02-24 File:Ryhillcharacters.png 2019-02-24 File:Operado.jpg 2019-02-24 File:Nodres3.JPG 2019-02-20 File:Storm vs. Red Tornado action figure x-men dc comics marvel (cropped).jpg 2019-02-20 File:Star Wars toy trooper.jpg 2019-02-20 File:Star Wars toy trooper-closeup.jpg 2019-02-20 File:Storm vs. Red Tornado action figure x-men dc comics marvel.jpg 2019-02-20 File:Marvel peter parker and miles morales.jpg 2019-02-20 File:Marvel peter parker and miles morales (cropped).jpg 2019-02-18 File:Jaime Reyes Blue Beetle III 2.jpg 2019-02-18 File:Jaime Reyes Blue Beetle III Action figure.jpg 2019-02-18 File:Deadpool's 12 Gracious Melodies.jpg 2019-02-18 File:DC-Direct New Gods Series 2 Darkseid action figure.jpg 2019-02-18 File:DC-Direct New Gods Series 2 Darkseid action figure (cropped).jpg 2019-02-18 File:Eckernfoerde cartoon 3.jpg 2019-02-18 File:Parental slippering.jpg 2019-02-18 File:A typical school slippering.png 2019-02-16 File:아 배고프다.jpg 2019-02-15 File:The Man of Steel (3911407185).jpg 2019-02-15 File:I am Superman cropped (6045258692).jpg 2019-02-15 File:Rocketeerlt.png 2019-02-15 File:Butta1.jpg 2019-02-15 File:Batman toy.jpg 2019-02-15 File:Spider-man toy.jpg 2018-01-08 File:Nude woman masturbating.jpg 2018-01-08 File:Woman performing fellatio on man.jpg 2018-01-08 File:Cum leaking out.jpg 2018-01-08 File:Eropolis Toulouse 2008 03.jpg 2018-01-08 File:Courageous Cunt 06.jpg 2018-01-08 File:Courageous Cunt 04.jpg 2018-01-08 File:Shaved Vagina.jpg 2018-01-08 File:Schamlippen 03.jpg 2018-01-08 File:Man on top.jpg 2018-01-08 File:Close-up Missionary Position.jpg 2018-01-08 File:Intercourse Woman on Top.jpg 2018-01-08 File:Courageous Cunt.jpg 2018-01-08 File:Anal Penetration.jpg 2018-01-08 File:Mريaم Faرeس.jpg 2018-01-08 File:Penis entering vagina.jpg 2018-01-08 File:Female performing fellatio on male 2.jpg 2018-01-08 File:Female performing fellatio on male.jpg 2018-01-07 File:Tubuh Laki-Laki.jpg 2018-01-07 File:Penis ereksi.jpg 2018-01-07 File:Buang air besar.jpg 2018-01-07 File:Beschnitter Penis.jpg 2018-01-07 File:Before triple-p injection.jpg 2018-01-07 File:Asian T Penis.jpg 2018-01-07 File:Asian boy penis.jpg 2018-01-07 File:Apadravya 10mm.jpg 2018-01-07 File:ALANIUS 02.jpg 2018-01-07 File:ALAIN07.jpg 2018-01-07 File:Aha 012.jpg 2018-01-07 File:Adult human penis flaccid.jpg 2018-01-07 File:A penis viewed from the front.jpg 2018-01-07 File:8-Shot sequence of a penis going soft to hard.jpg 2018-01-07 File:508377-14aea10f41b7cfd8d79.jpg 2018-01-07 File:48871472064706-dd4cd225.jpg 2018-01-07 File:230604 itsme 011.jpg 2018-01-07 File:1human penis.jpg 2018-01-07 File:01foreskin.jpg 2018-01-07 File:3kilt.jpg 2018-01-07 File:AdRN - naked man in open seated pose - uncircumcised penis slightly engorged - natural pubic hair.jpg 2018-01-05 File:Brazilian Wax Mons Pubis.jpg 2018-01-05 File:Bed Fingering.jpg 2018-01-05 File:At the Pool.jpg 2018-01-05 File:Hawaii Nude Beach.jpg 2018-01-05 File:Haulover Nude Beach.jpg 2018-01-05 File:Aroused and Shaved Vulva.jpg 2018-01-05 File:A Tergo.jpg 2018-01-05 File:Wife creampie at new years eve party 02.JPG 2018-01-05 File:A recumbent male masturbating with his legs bent and apart.JPG 2018-01-05 File:05 Vulva Latina.jpg 2018-01-05 File:01 - Unshaved Vulva.jpg 2018-01-05 File:002 Vulva.jpg 2018-01-05 File:Ironman 28.JPG 2018-01-05 File:Socks series keytoon.jpg 2018-01-04 File:LosGlumpers.jpg 2018-01-04 File:La espada del anormal cover.png 2018-01-04 File:Animated qarla.jpg 2018-01-04 File:UDE Screenshot.jpg Total deletion requests created 180

--Fæ (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• So, Fæ - is this revenge for my opposing you at your last RFA? If so, you're an extremely poor loser indeed. AshFriday (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not how my mind works. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@AshFriday: "you're an extremely poor loser" - that's a blatant personal attack. If you really think they are reporting you just because you "opposed" their RFA, you must have such habit yourself. Commons is a community and we don't take "revenge" against each other. Think about why multiple users reported you in the past and what they tried to tell you. I was going to start a thread about you ANI myself but Fæ beat me to it. Masum Reza^📞 13:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Masum Reza: my exact words were as follows: So, Fæ - is this revenge for my opposing you at your last RFA? If so, you're an extremely poor loser indeed. If you're going to quote me, at least include the complete statement; don't edit the wording to make it look like a personal attack. AshFriday (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to repeat the full sentence from two lines above. Did you write this because you're a XXX? If so, you're YYY. I'll let you invent your own nasty things to add for XXX and YYY, but no matter how nasty, apparently they can't be personal attacks, despite reading exactly like personal attacks.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The conditional "if" is the operant word in this case. If he's not doing this for revenge, then he's obviously not a poor loser; subsequently, there is no personal attack. Thanks. AshFriday (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

If you are unaware that asking questions like that is a frequent tool of deniable personal attacks, then you are sadly deficient in your understanding of human communication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Support indefinite prohibition until such a time as it can be demonstrated that they are competent to raise requests which add more value to the project than disruption. --Fæ (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose on the principle. I clicked on 6 or 7 of the links provided above, and only one DR have been closed as kept. If I missed nothing that's mean that the DRs were justified, otherwise, the closing administrators should be blamed in the first place. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  Sampling is one method, however keeping in mind that in the context of sex and nudity raising poor DRs is almost guranteed to create disruption, an automated text search finds 93 deleted out of 186 deletion requests (4 not processed). That makes these DRs as good as tossing a coin at random. With regard to the closures, a lot of the deletions have rationales based on quality alone, which is at best an arguable rationale considering the topic, as to justify deletion the quality must be so demonstrably poor to be of no realistic value to any potential reuser. --Fæ (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  "93 deleted out of 186 deletion requests (4 not processed). That makes these DRs as good as tossing a coin at random"

  Sorry but I can't let this pass unchallenged. It would only be true if half the images on Commons deserved deletion in the first place. As it is, or as I very much hope it is, only a tiny proportion of our images deserve to be deleted. Given this prior, having half one's DR resulting in deletions actually indicates a very reasonable success ratio, certainly incommensurable with a random baseline. Rama (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Fæ also neglected to mention that the vast majority of DRs I've voted on have been closed as delete. The only reason why my deletion rate isn't higher is because Fae and several other users deliberately sabotaged my first 100 DRs in a heavy-handed attempt to "put the new boy in his place". AshFriday (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The proposed prohibition would not in any way affect votes on other DRs raised by others. --Fæ (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Strong support per Fæ's comment. We don't need more deletionists hostile to our project scope. He was warned multiple times and yet he continues to label clearly educational files as "worthless, poor quality, redundant and out of scope" without any further comments. His statement doesn't even apply to most of the file he nominated. Did he even look ar the files he nominated? and where they were being used? He nominated previously kept files for deletion, clearly he either didn't read COM:DR or was doing that on purpose. In Fæ's request for adminship in 2019, AshFriday was pestering Fæ by repeatedly asking him to answer all of his questions even after he opposed him. That was harassment, that was trolling. I support even an indefinite block of him. As you and others can see, he was the subject of multiple discussions on ANU. He doesn't contribute here, his only intention is to remove all sexual content from Commons including educational ones and he trolls around in discussions. Looks like a w:en:WP:NOTHERE case to me. Masum Reza^📞 10:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

In Fæ's request for adminship in 2019, AshFriday was pestering Fæ by repeatedly asking him to answer all of his questions even after he opposed him. Masum Reza: there is literally no rule against asking questions at an RFA, nor is there any limit on the number of questions that may be asked. AshFriday (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there are rules against harassment. And the fact that your response to this statement dismisses any concept that there might be implicit limits to what should be posted besides the explicit limits is deeply concerning; it leads to the conclusion that you're either a troll or someone with so little social abilities that you'll disrupt things to the point of a block anyway.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

"...you're either a troll or someone with so little social abilities that you'll disrupt things to the point of a block anyway." Is that a personal attack, Prosfilaes? AshFriday (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. You're more interesting in wikilawyering than in actually discussing anything.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

 Support. Unfortunately I must agree with Fæ. Most of the nominated files are ineligible for deletion, because they are used, often even in multiple projects. "Uploaded by banned user" is not a reason to delete: banned user Russavia uploaded thousands of good images about planes, we don't delete them. AshFriday claims, that the nominated files have poor quality and this shows, that (s)he has unrealistically high demands for quality. Taivo (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The difference here, though, is that the images are original artwork of Midnight68/Blackshade9/Simon Kirby wih questionable educational value, there is previous community consensus to delete all files by Midnight68, and there is some trolling done by the users (such as crediting files to Midnight68's "opponent" Niabot). Perhaps AshFriday should have bundled the nominations, but nominating them for deletion should be within the remit of any editor. --Pudeo (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

This ignores the fact of the proportion of these files which are in global use (i.e. on other Wikimedia projects), which makes them automatic keep per "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough." COM:INUSE. 61/186 files that are in the above AshFriday DR list are in current global usage by other projects. 35 of the 47 files in the previous list for deletion are in use and are automatically in scope for that reason. --Fæ (talk) 09:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no "automatic keep". The last time similar files were discussed (Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Midnight68) some of them were in use. They were deleted. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

"is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose" above.

With respect to what happened 10 years ago, and considering that some of those files have never been deleted, please supply diffs showing which files were in use and were deleted. This appears misleading as the exact opposite is actually stated in the DR discussion. Thanks! --Fæ (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Strongly oppose any action against myself. Fæ has yet to show a single instance where I have used the word "smut" in any deletion request and it goes without saying that there is no rule against placing DRs on out-of-scope images. He has also conveniently forgotten to mention that the vast majority of DRs I've voted on were closed as delete. His "research" into my editing-history is nothing more than cherry picking. AshFriday (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This proposal is not a prohibition against voting on existing DRs. --Fæ (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The block request below is starting to look suspiciously like a vendetta, Fæ. AshFriday (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

 Support, 1) because of the laziness in mass-nominating for deletion bunches of images with without caring to check which one is in scope/in use, which one is of good quality (as, opposite to the claim, several of them are pretty good), which one is actually "problematic", so undermining his own deletion rationale. 2) the lack of care in nominating some of them invidually, then re-nominating them in mass deletions, then removing templates with the open DRs, and so on, showing a lack of basic competence. 3) because of the level of hostile remarks, passive-aggressive replies, insults and (except proofs are provided) serious libels showed in this page indicating a w:en:WP:NOTHERE attitude. Also the IDONTGIVEAF..K attitude of starting two additional mass deletions while his case was already being discussed and criticized here is quite appalling. --Cavarrone (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Cavarrone: to the best of my knowledge, there is no rule against starting deletion requests on controversial images. Regarding the mass DR: I made a couple of errors and I tried to clean them up myself. I apologize for the inconvenience I may have unintentionally caused others, but it was an honest mistake, not a deliberate attempt to disrupt the project. I'd like to think that all users are granted a little leeway when it comes to error margins. AshFriday (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, please note that I struck the word "pedophile" in the interests of reducing the level of controversy surrounding this subject. AshFriday (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Again with "there is no rule". Working with a IDONTGIVEAF..K attitude is not conducive to working in a Wiki. Acting like it's okay to start as many DRs that are unlikely to end in deletion as you want, and that it's okay to harass people at RFAs as much as you want as long as you're not breaking any explicit rules, is very problematic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I haven't harrassed anyone and I haven't violated any rules. You, on the other hand, have freely admitted to posting a personal attack against me: "...you're either a troll or someone with so little social abilities that you'll disrupt things to the point of a block anyway." In the interests of promoting a collegial atmosphere, I request that you cease making personal attacks and confine the discussion to the main issue at hand; ie the removal of files created by a banned user. AshFriday (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

As I said, your insistence that you haven't violated any rules is problematic; it's a refusal to understand that that's not good enough, that there are problematic behaviors that aren't strictly rule-breaking. Do you understand that repeatedly demanding answers to your questions can be harassment? Do you understand that starting DRs that aren't going to go anywhere is going to be disruptive? Do you understand that deleting DR notices on files that are up for DR is practically automatically vandalism?

I have not freely admitted to any such thing. I find it interesting you complain when someone doesn't quote you fully enough, but you'll clip my quote and stick words in my mouth.

The issue at hand is "Proposal, prohibit DR creation for AshFriday". I haven't broken any rules; is that a defense for anyone else besides you?--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is a direct quote from our discussion above:

Prosfilaes: ...you're either a troll or someone with so little social abilities that you'll disrupt things to the point of a block anyway.

AshFriday: Is that a personal attack, Prosfilaes?

Prosfilaes: Exactly.

By typing the word "exactly", you agreed that you were deliberately posting a personal attack; ie calling me a troll or a person lacking social abilities, neither of which claims are even remotely true. Once again, in the interests of promoting a collegial atmosphere, I'm asking you to stop making personal attacks and baseless allegations. Thanks for your time. AshFriday (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Admin action requested to control poor behaviour of all parties

This mess seems to be deteriorating daily. Commons:Deletion requests/Files created by User:Midnight68 has been closed by non-admin User:Alexis Jazz (who has already participated in the above discussion) and replaced by Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files AshFriday doesn't like. The insultingly named category was created by User:Masumrezarock100, who has been a very vocal oppnent of Ash Friday in this matter. This is getting out of hand. Can someone volunteer to act as the adult in the room, please? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

You unambiguously quit this topic yesterday after throwing in several tangents and attacking one of the participants for daring to taking part based on information about their age and occupation you researched on Wikipedia. What next, LinkedIn profiles?

Your comments here about adults appear to be more tangents that deliberately reinforce that ad hominem theme and fail to take in the clear explanation in the procedural closure. --Fæ (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for illustrating why I am asking for admin action. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Can we please not turn this into a reality show? To everyone?

Alexis, Masum, can we at least agree that this is a little too obviously POINTY for most people to stomach? Many of the people involved in this discussion are among our post valuable contributors. It would very much be in the project's best interest if we didn't actively make things worse, and try to resolve things as best we can, so we can go back to doing our jobs instead of squabbling amongst ourselves.

You guys can fix it or I can. I would very much prefer that you did. GMG^talk 23:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

For the record, Alexis Jazz added the category to all files which was nominated for deletion by AshFriday. And then he created a single mass DR of all the files listed in the category. He also voluntarily cleaned up extra DR tags and other mess AshFriday had made. This looks like a good faith attempt to help voters and the closing admin. While the category name may seem like a bit unusual/weird, it certainly is not insulting, actually it looks funny to me. I saw the red linked category after I followed an edit for my watchlist. I feared that a bot would remove the non-existent category from the files and we would have a hard time tracking all of the files listed there later on, and so I created the "category description page".

To WLC: STOP treating Commons like a battlefield. I am not his opponent, I am just a participant in this discussion seeking consensus about this long term abuse of process by AshFriday. And stop digging into my personal life, you can't distract me from this discussion that way.

@GreenMeansGo: certainly. I also want this discussion to reach consensus. You asked AshFriday to report child porn to legal but he isn't doing so. In my opinion, this discussion can be solved in these ways:

1. AshFriday reports child porn to WMF legal and leaves wiki out of it as he was repeatedly advised in this and past discussions by you and other experienced contributors.
2. Instead of disrupting Commons, he starts contributing and abandones his "mission". If he doesn't, we take appropriate steps to stop him.
3. When voting in DRs, he should stop using the generic reason "worthless, poor quality, redundant, and out of scope" without clarifying his rationale in accordance with COM:DR and COM:Deletion policy.
4. We reach consensus about the files he nominated for deletion.

thanks. Masum Reza^📞 01:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I have faith that admins here can read these sections and understand who is creating a battlefield. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I closed and replaced Commons:Deletion requests/Files created by User:Midnight68 because it was a mess. See a bunch of edits like this one where AshFriday removed deletion templates as well as this unlisting all the while leaving the actual DRs open. I needed a category as a target to create the mass DR and honestly the first thing that came to my mind that all files had in common was.. that AshFriday doesn't like them. And come on, AshFriday thinks it's okay to call another editor a pedophile (now struck, but not because they gained any actual insight from what I can tell..), I doubt I could possibly offend AshFriday by merely saying AshFriday doesn't like some files? Slightly pointy, maybe, but I'm no Buddhist. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 02:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Renamed to Files nominated for deletion by AshFriday.

It continues to be a concern that World's Lamest Critic has disrupted discussion here by attempting to shut up an editor based on age and occupation not published on Commons, in the light of their indef block on Wikipedia by Oversight for misuse of personal information about Wikipedians. --Fæ (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Majora: Given the indef block on Commons,(diff) and the misuse of personal information about a contributor in order to bully them off these legitimate noticeboard discussions, could you review the conditional agreement you came to at that time for an unblock of World's Lamest Critic (talk · contribs · logs · block log) as this seems to cross the line? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

You want me to be blocked because I read Masumrezarock100's user page? I think the issue here is that he's a high school student aggressively participating in a discussion that deals with sexual content on Commons and touches on child pornography concerns. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Majora, as you can see, World's Lamest Critic is researching contributors' personal lives cross-project in order to publish personal data on Commons without permission in an especially nasty way, in an attempt to scare them off joining discussions. These are battle-ground tactics that skirt direct outing but is blatantly still bullying and malicious. Given their indef block by Oversight for a malicious outing on Wikipedia, and the directly related block for an attempted outing here on Commons, this is far too close to the same behaviour and nothing it appears has been learned in the intervening years. Commons is not 4chan and these bad behaviours should be met with sanctions rather than endless tolerance. --Fæ (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

...these bad behaviours should be met with sanctions rather than endless tolerance. I couldn't agree more. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

"I think the issue here is that he's a high school student aggressively participating in a discussion that deals with sexual content on Commons and touches on child pornography concerns." - Why just because I am not an adult? Stop researching my personal life and my real life occupation. If you continue to do this, I will be forced to contact Trust and safety and ask for their help to stop this harassment. If AshFriday really thinks something looks like child pornography, "why" he doesn't report it to legal? Masum Reza^📞 01:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

By "stop researching my personal life" do you mean that I should pretend I haven't read what you wrote on your own userpage? Can you and Fae please drop the act? I'm not some kind of super spy. Anyone can read your user page and find out that you are a high school student. Because you wrote it there. If you feel like you are being threatened, please go ahead and contact Trust & Safety. I ask that you tell them that the context is sexual imagery and an editor who draws lolicon. You should also read Commons:Child protection. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, just because you know someone's private information, doesn't mean that you should publish the information without their consent. I did not create a userpage here for a reason. And the fact that you went through the trouble to view my userpage on English Wikipedia, gives me the feeling that you purposefully were researching me. As I have warned you, you should not bring up irrelevant matter to this discussion. STOP misusing personal information to blackmail others. This shall be your last warning. Masum Reza^📞 04:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

If AshFriday really thinks something looks like child pornography, "why" he doesn't report it to legal? Masum Reza: Perhaps you didn't notice that I have struck the word "pedophile" and have not used the words "child pornography" in any of the current DRs. I have no reason to report the files to Legal, as the DRs stipulate that the images were created by a banned user and subsequently have no place on Commons. AshFriday (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not know if you know the deletion policy of commons. We only delete out of scope images, what used images are not, per definition. And we delete for legal reasons, where, except of copyright, only the laws of the server location USA are relevant. --GPSLeo (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Majora: I strongly oppose any action being taken against World's Lamest Critic. Contrary to the argument outlined above, nothing he's said or done during these discussions could have real-life consequences for any user on this project. AshFriday (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

---

This discussion has more than run its course. No admin action is necessary. Whether the images should be deleted can be discussed in the DR. Whether the uploaders are socks of the blocked user Midnight68 should be determined in a CU request. Whether we should forbid the upload of images created by blocked users is something for the community to decide. I suggest opening a thread on COM:VPP.

@AshFriday: In the future, please create one or a few DRs if nominating multiple images from the same author or with the same rationale. Creating many DRs with the same rationale can be considered disruptive, depending on the circumstances. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Block request for criminal allegations by AshFriday

Moved to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User problems#Block_request_for_criminal_allegations_by_AshFriday — Masum Reza^📞 11:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. De728631 (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Restore template

Please, restore Template:IAM Centre Valencià d'Estudis i d'Investigació/lang. It was mistakenly deleted and now this other template is broken.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I restored it, but for me the other template still seems broken. Taivo (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

photo matzneff

pourquoi ma photo se retrouve au milieu et nom pas en  haut? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2001:861:3F43:8C90:5D1D:6655:CBF9:EC9F (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

You were not logged in to your Wikimedia account when you wrote this request, nor did you provide a proper file name. Therefore it is almost impossible to answer your question. Please log in, and be a bit more specific. De728631 (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Tony Ricca does NOT belong on here

Long term abuse --Majora (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

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

---

I'm starting again and I have to do this here because I can't apply deletion requests due to page protection! Unprotect those images or tell me once and for all how Ricca can stay on this site? He's a NOBODY! He has no educational value at all and he's using this place as his promotional toy!! Come on! Why can't any of you see this huh? DELETE THE IMAGES! ALL OF THEM! You're being played for fools! See Category:Tony_Ricca for the images I'm talking about. Oh and I'm not stopping until I get a full explanation at least. This is not a grudge against Ricca. WikiCommons is not upholding it's rules which apply to anyone like this and I'd get others deleted as well in the same circumstances! I'll keep putting this here for as long as it takes, no matter how many illegal acts of gagging (blocking if you want to be fastidious about it!) you perform! I have a right to be heard, considered PROPERLY and so on! It's called Freedom of Speech! 2001:8003:58A3:6C01:2C50:C98A:CF77:28BB 10:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm willing to ignore the IP's childish tone, but what we have is the following:

• The category in question is Category:Tony Ricca
• Seems to be unnotable even for English WP,see en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Ricca
• Not used anywhere except his Wikidata item
• Low-quality self-promotional content

Do we really need this? @Srittau: you semi-protected the category, what do you say? --A.Savin 10:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

This has been talked to death. Sufficient internet footprint to be in scope for this project, regardless of Wikipedia notability policies for full articles.

The lobbying is flogging a dead horse.

• 2019 Oct Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_76#Tony_Ricca_Deletion_Requests
• 2019 Oct User talk:2001:8003:5999:6D00:310A:FC24:4235:37E rejected unblock request
• 2019 Nov Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_81#Tony_Ricca_image_disrupter_again
• 2019 Dec Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_82#Tony_Ricca_disrupter_request

--Fæ (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The only reason this is being "talked to death" is because @A.Savin: is right, and the rest of you are totally ignoring it! Sufficient internet footprint? Bull! He's promoting himself! That will give any Tom, Dick or Harriet an internet footprint! Draw the line and admit he's not notable and outside the scope of this project! Stop ignoring the facts and either provide proper proof, or allow this process to go ahead as you should do and address the issues instead of getting personal! 2001:8003:58A3:6C01:2C50:C98A:CF77:28BB 10:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear anon IP, Wikimedia Commons has no notability policy, so shouting about notability is pointless. Read COM:Scope and take on the difference between "educational media" and notability for Wikipedia articles. Wikimedia Commons is not governed by Wikipedia policies, deliberately. --Fæ (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Somewhere there is always a border between "educational media" and "not realistically useful for an educational purpose", and, as you can read in COM:PS#File not legitimately in use, it is difficult to argue about educational content if not a single one usage is detected, actually not even a mention. --A.Savin 11:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Come on. Drop it already. Or do you hold a grudge against Tony? Masum Reza^📞 11:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

What a stupid accusation! I've nothing to do with the pre-history, so I surely have every right to say third opinion. --A.Savin 12:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of anything. I was telling that to the Australian IP sockmaster who started this thread. Masum Reza^📞 12:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. --A.Savin 15:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I deeply discourage any change here. Permitting someone to keep digging at something like this is way more costly than keeping five pictures, no matter how unnotable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• This is not the correct venue to argue for the deletion of files under SCOPE. Administrators may assess community consensus, but have no privileged opinion in building it. If a(nother) deletion discussion needs to take place, it should happen at DR. There is nothing for us to do here. GMG^talk 11:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

---

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

How do I change a photo--a wrong (inaccurate) image is posted

Photos depicting Western Gray squirrels actually show images of Eastern Gray squirrels--which are an invasive species, while the Western Gray squirrels are native residents. There is a danger of people eradicating the wrong species of squirrel if using your photos for identification. I've never edited before. I tried to replace a photo by uploading one of my own, but I am not sure if this will replace the inaccurate photo or just make it an addition (or not be posted). Additionally, there are 2 photos of Eastern Gray Squirrels on the Western Gay Squirrel site, how can I (or you) delete the pics? I'd like to add more pics of Western Gray squirrels, specifically showing features that are different than Eastern squirrels making identification easier. The Eastern squirrels are the same ones invading Europe and pushing their native red squirrels towards extinction. Identification is important especially when Eastern squirrels are actively being hunted, I'd like to help make sure people are not killing Western Grays due to inaccurate info on Wikipedia.

How can I add a series of photos and how many will be posted (currently 2 photos posted)?

Thank you, Julie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julielynns (talk • contribs) 20:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Julielynns: . Just (re)categorize any photos — yours or others’, old or new — as either
  • Category:Sciurus griseus or
  • Category:Sciurus carolinensis.

(Furthermore, please consider that this is a worldwide forum: What is invasive in a given area is native elsewhere, and vice-versa. Please qualify geographically when discussing these matters.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Mass Undeletion?

Naive question -- VFC allows Admins to do mass deletions of a category, user, or gallery list. Do we have the ability to do a mass undeletion if we have a list of deleted files? If not, we should. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 74#Mass undeletion tool? 1989 (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: MediaWiki does not have the capabilities for massundeletion, the need for the opposite of Special:Nuke is definitely needed. That said, I can run mass undeletion through a bot script if needed. I just did 650 files for an OTRS request last week. ~riley (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I also have a bot script that can bulk undelete if needed - I'm happy to run it on request. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Mike, 1989, Riley -- Thanks for your responses. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Illustrations by J. F. Horrabin where we have 262 files that need to be undeleted, at least temporarily. I'd be happy to do whatever part of the work I can do -- reformatting or whatever. Note that the list is at the bottom..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: On it, they will be undeleted shortly. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Mike, didn't realize you started this task. I think I got the last 100 or whatever you didn't. Please note File:Neustrie.jpg was on the list but doesn't exist. ~riley (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@~riley: No worries, my script stopped when it reached the ones you'd done. @Jameslwoodward: all sorted now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. File:Neustrie.jpg is actually File:Neustrie.JPG -- the incorrect caps were an artifact of the way I made the list. I restored it myself.

More generally, a mass restore - more than a couple of dozen -- comes up for me maybe every few months. If I (and our colleagues) get to be a nuisance, you might stick your heads together and see if there is a way to make it possible for ordinary mortals to do this. Thanks again, .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

If you can run pywikibot scripts, then my code's at [34] - just give it a list of files to remove, an edit summary, and any text to remove or replace, and it'll run through them automatically. Or just ping me and I'll run it, it only takes a few minutes to set up. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Nocturnal306

User:Nocturnal306 globally locked due to Long-term abuse, sockpuppet of Abdullah Zubayer, Paid editing, COI and violating other numerous policies. Please remove user rights. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 17:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Done ~riley (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Close partial block RFC

As the English Wikipedia has launched partial block today after their successful RfC, Anti-Harassment Tools team is looking to us as the last wiki to determine consensus to launch it or not. Commons:Requests for comment/Partial blocks has been over 30 days and needs to have consensus determined and closed accordingly. This does not require a bureaucrat, however, it should be someone who has not voted who has enough experience to determine consensus. ~riley (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done I would say that it is probably best if we leave closing controversial discussions to bureaucrats. That being said, the question is moot here, as I have closed it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Can you please revise your closing comment to clearly state whether partial block is approved or not to be launched? While I know what your closure means, the sysop operators on Phabricator will want to see a clear "approved" or "not approved" as they don't know whether 71% is a passing number. ~riley (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I used the word "accepted" rather than "approved". Is that really a problem? Or do we just have an edit conflict here? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I had not refreshed the page so I was still seeing the version that lacked a statement of consensus. Your clarified closure hits the mark. ~riley (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

speedy deletion of categories?

User:Vinayaraj has created hundreds of categories that disrupt our established category structure. He has incorporated his own name. An example is Category:Odontoptilum Vinayaraj. I have nominated a batch for speedy deletion, but do not know what to do next. He has not replied to posts on his talk page. Can anyone help please? Charles (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

These categories are correctly tagged {{User category}}. --Achim (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. These are not valid user categories Achim There is a well established structure for scientific names and it is not appropriate to add a user's name. I am adding @Archaeodontosaurus: one of Commons most distinguished expert users in this field to this discussion. Charles (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't look through all the stuff, but what I see is perfectly legitimate with {{Usercat}} template and was not included in the main category trees. Not included = not disrupted. We have a lot of freedoms wrt user categories; if it's good or bad, is an other question and perhaps worth raising a Request for Comment. --A.Savin 10:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, This is a real problem because if everything looks correct why these categories are not hidden? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

What is marked with {{Usercat}}, is always hidden. --A.Savin 11:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

A.Savin and Achim may not have understood the problem users face Archaeodontosaurus when they upload new files. To test what they have said, I inserted {{Usercat}} into Category:Tagiades gana Vinayaraj, its parent Category:Tagiades Vinayaraj and its parent Category:Hesperiidae Vinayaraj. I then tried to upload a file and typed in "tagiades gana". The Commons system displayed "Tagiades gana Vinayaraj" as a category I could choose. It was not hidden. The third word, if one is displayed, should be a subspecies or a further non-user-specific description like "in flight". I then added __HIDD ENCAT__ (space added so that you can read it) to the three categories and they still show up as above. Charles (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

These categories are likely to cause confusion in the future as they look like they could appear at first glance to be valid species categories - as a random example from my recent edits, see the name of Category:Telmatogeton japonicus. I think it's best if they are deleted, or if not, then they should be renamed to something that indicates that they are user categories. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• I tried speedy deletion, but I don't know how to do this properly. Charles (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a flaw in data neutrality, which is one of the fundamental principles of wiki. If it is known, other unscrupulous authors can invade our databases for commercial purposes. I am convinced that the user in question is not toxic and does not have bad intentions, but it would be prudent to destroy these caterogies. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: I'd suggest COM:CfD, but there is a big backlog there. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

User categories are a well established and useful feature of Commons that allow users to collect images in ways that are helpful to them. These do not quite follow the rules at Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories, namely:

"Ambiguous user categories (e.g. Category:Photos of London) must be disambiguated (e.g. Category:Photos by London (Commons user))."

I suggest that these by renamed as follows

Category:Tagiades Vinayaraj >>> Category:Tagiades images by User:Vinayaraj

Images in that category should also be in [:Category:Tagiades]]. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess that would work, but can it be automated? - there are dozens of these categories. No chance of anyone renaming them one-by-one - hence my request to just get rid of them all asap. Charles (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward and Charlesjsharp: That sounds reasonable. If you have a list of them all, you could add them to User:CommonsDelinker/commands to run through and rename them. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Mike, I may be dumb, but User:CommonsDelinker/commands looks like I'd have to do them one by one. And there isn't a list of them all. Charles (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: I think there's a list of all of them at [35]. You have to add one command per category, but you can add multiple commands at once. Or if there's a set format to rename them to, I can have a go this evening. (Ideally a format that the user will use in future as well! but they don't seem to be responsive on their talk page. Pinging @Vinayaraj: ). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Well done. My suggestion would be to add "Photos by Vinayaraj " at the start of every category. So category:Herspiidae Vinayaraj becomes Category:Photos by Vinayaraj Herspiidae Vinayaraj. Good luck. Charles (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Correct use of categories - and an admin's behaviour

It has taken a lot of words to get here, however, both users have agreed to cooperate and play nice in the sandbox. Closing discussion as having no consensus for formal editing restrictions with a voluntary agreement for mutual interaction restrictions. I hope both users can gather more insight and awareness through the plentiful comments here and will consider implementing this feedback in the future. Back to work, everyone. ~riley (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

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

---

I seek a third opinion relating to this exchange. A.Savin has accused me of breaking Commons rules. I created a new category in line with Commons' established category structures. I create more than 100 new categories every year as I contribute new species and subspecies to Commons. Of course I make the odd error, but I cannot see any rule-breaking with this new category. To explain: There is a mature category Category:Odonata of India. It includes categories of more than 10 Indian States, but not Rajasthan. So I created Category:Odonata of Rajasthan - the new category referenced by A.Savin. He added a parent category Category:Animals of Rajasthan. This is a careless error. If he wanted to add a correct second parent category, it should have been Category:Insects of Rajasthan. So I ask why an admin should be allowed to use his position to 'warn' me (and insult me), when he himself does not know how to use the category structures correctly? Charles (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

LOL! If you knew that Category:Insects of Rajasthan exists, why didn't you add it instead of "animals"? I didn't know it, because how shall I know it if this category was not sufficiently sorted into system? It should have been a part of Category:Animals of Rajasthan, you know? I'm going to fix it all now. You're welcome, as always ;-) --A.Savin 10:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• I was not aware that Category:Animals of Rajasthan existed until A.Savin added it to my file. Charles (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yet you were aware that Category:Insects of Rajasthan existed -- so why didn't you just add it? --A.Savin 16:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• No I wasn't aware till after your interference. Charles (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Fine. Why didn't you then add it after my "interference"? --A.Savin 18:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Any response? --A.Savin 21:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• You made the error. You should correct it. After admitting you are in the wrong and have withdrawn your threat. Charles (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Where do you see any error by me? --A.Savin 21:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• By the way, "You made the error. You should correct it" is exactly applicable to you. You didn't add the appropriate Rajasthan category, so it is you who actually should have corrected it, not me. But you refused to do it, because you are definitely playing a game here. But playing with me is useless, I'm long enough here to know all about categories. --A.Savin 22:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and of course sorting Category:Odonata of Rajasthan into Category:Animals of Rajasthan would NOT be a "careless error" if the intermediate Category:Insects of Rajasthan would not exist. Poor argumentation by you, as always. --A.Savin 11:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Give someone a "warning", because the categorization is not complete enough is of course inappropriate behavior, especially from an administrator. Incite, recommend, invite, ect... are appropriate, but a "warning", is clearly inappropriate in this precise case. What next? a block? ridiculous. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

  Obviously not a neutral statement. Surprise... --A.Savin 11:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• The fact that Charlesjsharp opened this thread instead of just fixing the above category, speaks for itself. He seems to be playing a game with Commons, I don't know what exactly. If he was interested in constructive work, he would just have corrected it, that's for sure. --A.Savin 11:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Playing a game with Commons? Since I am one of the more active and constructive contributors of free-for-use original material, that is a strange allegation. Charles (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• We are all active and productive, not exclusively you. If you decide to create categories yourself, you have to do it in accordance with the rules. Otherwise, you're of course perfectly free to just upload and to stay away from any kind of maintenance. --A.Savin 16:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Useless comment.

Two things: A). A.Savin you were rather harsh on Charles - Your original message to him didn't make much sense (which is 100% understandable if English isn't your native tongue) but as he asked three times you really should've re-explained it maybe in a different way or failing that ask for an English editor to explain it for you. B). Looking at categories like Category:Odonata of Russia / Category:Insects of Russia or Category:Odonata of Belgium / Category:Insects of Belgium none of these are in "Category:Animals of X" so IMHO I'd say A.Savins categorisation is wrong here...... I don't know much about insects and its cats so ofcourse there could be something I've missed but given no other insect/odonata categories have the "Animals of" cat I fail to see why we'd need to have it in the aforementioned one.... –Davey2010Talk 12:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC) But I suppose you're aware of the fact that Animals->Arthropods->Insects->Odonata and it's by all means included in the "Nature of Russia" tree, or not sure why you're referring to it, as I didn't create this category? Should something still be wrong, be bold and fix it, you know? --A.Savin 13:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC) Ah so this whole issue relates to whether Category:Arthropoda of India or Category:Animals of Rajasthan should be the category for Category:Insects of Rajasthan[36], My apologies I thought the issue was over "Animals of X", Struck & hatted, Apologies again. –Davey2010Talk 13:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comments like this is unbecoming of an administrator. I’d advise to A.Savin to be civil + calm, and not resort to insults. 1989 (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The use of 'stupid' could be taken as a useful indicator of a long term behavioural problem of making personal and demeaning attacks to win arguments or provoke misbehaviour in others, distinctly in conflict with the agreed community role of administrators. This discussion, right now, would be a good time to see some acceptance from A.Savin that the problem exists and to own it:

1. 2020-01-11 10:10 User talk:Charlesjsharp /* your categories */ r "Unless you're stupid"
2. 2020-01-10 12:04 Commons:Administrators' noticeboard /* Tony Ricca does NOT belong on here */ r "What a stupid accusation!"
3. 2020-01-05 00:34 Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems /* Continually violating QIC guidelines and gaslighting everyone about them */ wow "So a user is too stupid to participate in image reviews"
4. 2019-11-18 14:18 Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Dubai Marina diff "that makes the stupidity of your response inevitable"

--Fæ (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

What exactly would happen if they didn’t? 1989 (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

It will be raised again, and next time we can link back to this thread add a much bigger list to demonstrate disruptive patterns of behaviour, not just the one word 'stupid'. The intent here is not to make posturing threats, we are not stupid and A.Savin is fully aware of past debates and how they would appear when listed out as evidence in the cold light of hindsight. --Fæ (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "/* Tony Ricca does NOT belong on here */ r" - I used exactly four colons on purpose to indicate that I was replying to the IP. It was probably a misinterpretion that he thought the comment was for him. But this comment in a DR is not particularly helpful and looks like an insult. This shows a pattern of behavior, and if he continues to do this, proper measures should be taken. Masum Reza^📞 15:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• The contributions above on a pattern of behaviour by A.Savin is helpful, but I would be grateful if an admin could give an opinion on what measures should be taken when this admin issued an official warning that was unjustified. Charles (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

  Why are you pinging me at every occasion despite the fact that I'm of course watching the board? Could you please finally response, why did you open this discussion instead of just fixing the category you created yourself? Thanks. --A.Savin 15:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

  I opened the discussion because you, an admin, threatened me. I left your error in categororization so that independent admins could see what you had done. Charles (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

  Please finally stop lying Charlesjsharp, as lying to me is useless and only a further disgrace for yourself. I didn't made any error, or, at least, I was by no means "worse" than you. Because it is still better to sort the Category:Odonata of Rajasthan into Category:Animals of Rajasthan rather than not to sort it whatsoever. I hadn't found the Insects category at that point, but it was because someone else (not you and not me) did the similar error as you did: not sufficiently connected the category when creating it, resulting in limited usability of HotCat/Cat-a-lot. And with the above reply, you have only confirmed that illustrating a point and inflaming conflicts has a higher priority rather than improving Commons' content, meaning that you are definitely for playing games here. Otherwise, you certainly just would have fixed the category and everybody was happy. Q.E.D. --A.Savin 18:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

  Ok, I get it now. But there was no need to link to their username thrice. Masum Reza^📞 15:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

What measures?! against who? against you? this would be ridiculous, we don't warn neither we block the hundred of hundred of users who uploads images without categories, and therefore we are not going to block you, a prolofic and experimented user. Ridiculous. Against A.Savin? sadly it seems that numbers of our colleague administrators, and as well as a signifiant part of the community don't consider this kind of behavior as a "misuse" of the administrator's tools, and the direct consequence will be that this paragraph will be closed with a "keep all calm and go back to your activities". And rendez-vous in 1 week, or in 2 weeks or in 1 month for the next dispute between A.Savin with another experienced user, or with a QI's or FP's regular, or with a user coming from DE wikipedia. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

why did he open this discussion? maybe because he felt a bit under pressure, as beeing wrongly "warned" by an administrator? Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

We are all "prolofic and experimented". Even Livio was, and even your best friend INC was, at least up to some timepoint, LOL.

So the only difference is: some of us have much too high opinion on oneself, do not respect colleague's work, and are not willing to follow established rules and Common sense. --A.Savin 16:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

"too high opinion on oneself" The gratuitous insults continue. Charles (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, your right. However your behavior would have been even more inappropriate and inacceptable if Charles had been a new user...but maybe you already did that on new users, and we are not aware, I would not be surprised... you are at a loss for argument if you start to compare Charles to those blocked users. It's a bit insulting and demeaning to Charles. But lets put that on xxxx rather than wickedness. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm also tending to put your claim that my "behavior would have been even more inappropriate and inacceptable if Charles had been a new user" on xxxx rather than wickedness. It's not true, by the way. --A.Savin 17:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have now been falsely accused of lying. Would an independent admin PLEASE step in. Charles (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

  A.Savin has set the bar of acceptability. It's now absolutely fine for anyone to call A.Savin stupid or a liar, and there will be no consequences for anyone that wants to, as obviously Commons would not want a double standard to exist. Or am I missing something about the logic of where we are with regard to tolerating this <insert any of the words A.Savin uses to demean and deride others> behaviour from A.Savin? A.Savin, no sign so far that you think that your behaviour is sub par in any way, do you still believe you are the exception to the rule of "follow established rules and Commons sense" that you demand of literally everyone else? --Fæ (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

  I don't know if you are a liar (it's well possible, but not obvious so far), but now you are lying, yes. Because you write that I insulted someone a liar and stupid. That's a lie. I didn't insult. There is a significant difference between saying "this is obviously a lie, you are lying", or "you are a liar", as the latter implies lying as your normal behaviour and telling the truth as an exception or completely non-existent. Besides that, it is obvious that Charlesjsharp has no counter arguments anymore on the category question in this thread; so of course the only thing he is able to respond is: "I have now been falsely [bolded by me] accused of lying". But why "falsely"? No response of course, because no arguments. So actually there should be EOD, as it begins to repeat itself. --A.Savin 21:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's get your assertions in order:

1. You assert that I am lying but allow that I might not be a liar
2. You assert that calling someone a liar (or lying) should not be interpreted by anyone as insulting in the examples where you do it
3. You assert that calling someone stupid should not be interpreted by anyone as insulting in the (multiple) examples where you do
4. You assert that Charles is lying and so cannot make a complaint about being called a liar in this way

Thanks for the clarifications. Based on the evidence so far, I don't think you are sufficiently competent to wield the sysop tools or discuss administrative requests with others in a way that respects consensus and does not create a hostile environment for others. --Fæ (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

A.Savin is equal to himself, unable to understand what is wrong in that, unable to to really question himself. An administrator's warning implies possible sanction, and to warn someone (therefore to put a pressure of sanction on someone) because it lacks this category, is of course totally inadequate with the function of administrator, and after all that, beeing unable, for an administrator, to really question himself about that is the worse. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• @A.Savin: I appreciate all your hard work over these many years. But can you please take a small break, a few hours or whatever is needed, and please calm down and appreciate that even if you are correct, you are not necessarily handling things in a way that helps us to better build a collaborative community-driven project. Everyone makes mistakes. At some level, making mistakes in good faith is encouraged in opposition to inaction, for all users, so long as we can fix mistakes in good faith as a community. But we all have to get along. Otherwise we have nothing to defend to begin with. GMG^talk 22:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• I would love to not waste my time on this ridiculous show anymore, yet sadly, the current situation seems to be, that three users are doing their best to inflame it all against me (with two of them doing it for reasons known only to themselves), without sharing any content-related arguments. --A.Savin 22:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

So basically you see nothing wrong with your behavior and have ignored my warning. Is that correct? 1989 (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I take your warnings very serious, especially considering the relatively high likelihood for me to be blocked by you. --A.Savin 09:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I don’t want to block you. I’d rather see improvement in regards to your temperament. 1989 (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for this contribution. I wouldn't expect you to have read the entire discussion, but I actually made no error. I have made a few mistakes in the past as I create more than 100 new categories every year. I get some IDs wrong too. A. Savin made an error when he addied the category Animals of Rajasthan to my file which had the new category Odonata of Rajasthan (this I had linked correctly to Odonata of India). He should have added Insects of Rajasthan, an existing category which links to Animals of Rajasthan. So the sad thing is that all this ghastly behaviour is founded on his own lack of knowledge of Commons insect categorization custom and pratice. Charles (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Charlesjsharp: "A. Savin [...] addied the category Animals of Rajasthan to my file" -> difflink please. --A.Savin 22:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• In trying to explain the chain of events, I said A. Savin had added the category to my file. He actually added it to the category Category:Odonata of Rajasthan on 10 January at 16.46. Charles (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

* Is this entire issue whether Category:Odonata of Rajasthan should have included a category (either or within) related to Rajasthan itself? It was added so what admin action is needed? Is this a request to reprimand someone for not adding all the proper categories the first time (which would require a lot of reprimands) or for someone for adding a parent category to the category that actually makes the most sense? Charles, you didn't add either category so why are you jumping on someone else adding the wrong category when you didn't add either category in the first place? If you see that A.Savin is adding the wrong category somewhere, then I hope you would do the same as you forgetting either category and just help fix those mistakes. If you think Odonata belongs under animals and under insects, categories for discussion is the proper location not the admin noticeboard. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• • Ignore me. I think the discussion is reaching its natural end and I don't want to reengage it for no reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Charlesjsharp: I'm still waiting for you providing any evidence for your claim "A. Savin [...] addied the category Animals of Rajasthan to my file", otherwise we have kind of a smoking gun with regard to the "L" verb here. --A.Savin 14:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  Nice that you prefer to talk about me and not with me. So, after that, who is here the liar please? --A.Savin 15:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Propose 6 month interaction ban

After an extended discussion, it has been confirmed that A.Savin believes that it is justifiable to call Charlesjsharp "stupid" and appears unable to exercise good judgement as to when providing advice while wearing the sysop hat crosses the line into extended provocation and derision.

It is proposed that an interaction ban applies for A.Savin and Charlesjsharp through to the end of July 2020. This includes avoiding any discussion about the other party anywhere on-wiki and not reverting each other's edits. If there are issues about the other party's edits that they believe need sysop action, these can be raised by email to an administrator. --Fæ (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Support as proposer. --Fæ (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose Kangaroo court. --A.Savin 09:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  Presumably "kangaroo court" is how you describe community consensus, the same community consensus that as a privilaged holder of sysop tools you are required to implement or resign them per "respect community consensus".

  This is rather a poor judgement, but no surprise -- I don't know anymore how many times you ran for sysop, every time you failed, and every time it was because people attested you a poor judgement and a bias towards making unnecessary drama. So glass house, stones etc..., you know the rest. And of course it's a Kangaroo court, as none of you is interested to listen to my arguments, only to Sharp's arguments which are much weaker (I already explained why he is not right with the categories, I'm not willing to repeat myself again and again). --A.Savin 16:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  Could you or anyone else provide a link to your successful RfA? It does not appear listed in the archives under your current account name. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  Commons:Requests and votes/S1 1989 (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Though ancient history, the RfA is interesting due to the remark and neutral vote by EugeneZelenko. Back in 2007 the Administrators guideline still included "respect consensus of the Commons' users", though A.Savin's nomination was not focused on any community role or their competence in mediation. It is perhaps an interesting case that would be part of again revisiting the idea of reconfirmation RfAs every 5 or 10 years, rather than holding sysop rights being a lifetime appointment with only gross incompetence or misuse being a rationale to remove them. --Fæ (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment the wording of the proposed ban implies equal fault. I am not happy with that. But if you ban A. Savin I promise to make no comments or edits on his edits or about him during the period of the ban. Charles (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• With immediate effect. I will not engage in any further exchanges with A.Savin. It has been a most unpleasant experience. Charles (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• I surely can live with it, however you'll have to respect what I said wrt categories, as you don't have any counter arguments on this issue except ad personam attacks. --A.Savin 16:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Oppose a six month interaction ban for calling someone stupid? Well, that's ... Oh, never mind. Let's stick with proposed sanction is disproportional. Natuur12 (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  Which was not the case. --A.Savin 16:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment Would both parties be willing simply to accept an interaction ban (which really shouldn't hamper your work here) without it being considered punitive? I certainly have users I don't interact with, because we simply don't get along. - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment Interaction ban is unfair towards Charles who did nothing wrong. Charles were right to ask for external opinions here, after to have been wrongly warned by A.Savin. This is a clear misuse (not of the admin. tools) but well indeed of his administrator status. He is very very far to understand what he did wrong, I quote "Otherwise, you're of course perfectly free to just upload and to stay away from any kind of maintenance.". Nobody think that's him who should stay away of this kind of maintenance if he is not abble to do it in a calm and collegial way??... But we know A.Savin, this is far not the firt time that he use various threats and or warnings, and he will did that again. He should not be administrator. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  You really cannot find a way to stop bashing and harassing me? Every single conflict I'm involved in, you feel obliged to spend your 2c and there appears to be only black and white for you? Sometimes I wonder if you still are a mouthpiece of INC (banned user) and write what he tells you to write; which is really a very serious problem, especially for a sysop. --A.Savin 17:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Where you're wrong is that, as a sysop (and also as a colleague as well) I consider as part of my duty to stand up for someone who is unfairly put under pressure. And since I don't really run the risk of lowering your esteem of me, I don't have much to lose by doing my duty here.... Seriously?!? you still flip things around your own person?; are you not abble to put yourself in the place of Charles? do you really think that the simple user (no-sysop) have to obey to you? we are all voluntary, Charles does not have to obey you under penalty of sanction... If you feel that it lacks a category in one of the page that he have created, suggest to him how to improve it, and if he does not follow you for various reason (even a stupid one, and I don't say it is), so do it yourself, and if you are tired of bored by doing it yourself then find another stuff and pass your way. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

You are causing huge drama and timewaste here, and this is much more counter-productive than a warning, even if its reason was not worthy. So would you please finally let me alone? I am not willing to have anything to do with you -- not now, not in 2 years and not in 20 years; please respect that. --A.Savin 18:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

No. And as you are not able to read what I have written, I write it again: "Where you're wrong is that, as a sysop (and also as a colleague as well) I consider as part of my duty to stand up for someone who is unfairly put under pressure." And unless I'm stuck no one will stop me from saying my opinion and to stand up if I feel it's necessary. And the fact that apparently you don't like, doesn't make me wrong.... absolutly not, maybe quite the opposite here... You are not reasonable. And once again you bring things back to you and around what you want. I'm afraid that the life is not so easy. Behave correctly and you won't have to deal with me, or with someone else... that's all. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit ironic that your last sentence is in principle exactly what I advised to Charlesjsharp wrt categorization and what caused all the drama. --A.Savin 18:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes that's the main point of the issue. The main difference being that he is free (in the sence he will not be blocked) to make "not perfect categorisations", while you are not free to use your status to make others obey your good will... Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• A.Savin, here you are accusing Christian Ferrer of being a meatpuppet of INC, with no evidence. Do you recall that a week ago you stated <redacted> made severe suckpuppet [sic] accusations, did not provide evidence, and did not apologize. If this is not a heavy personal insult, then I really don't know what is one (diff)? It seems increasingly bizarre that you are clearly behaving in ways that you robustly and rudely criticise others for, yet are incapable of recognizing that your behaviour is any problem whatsoever. You are way overdue to recognize that anyone with an egotistical manner of arguing and misusing the authority of the sysop rights to create a threatening and hostile environment, is failing to meet the basic requirements of COM:Administrators. --Fæ (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment Fae, unfortunately, there is no amount of IBAN that solves the problem that A.Savin is still an administrator on this project. T Cells^Talk 18:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
• We have reached the lowest depths here. I kindly request to close the thread. No time and desire from my part anymore. --A.Savin 18:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

And once again, what is important here is what A.Savin wants.... a model of acknowledgment of a potential issue, a model of administrator. Ah, I forgot, A.Savin did nothing wrong, he is the victim of an unfair drama... Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I suggest this proposal can be closed as both parties have agreed to comply with a voluntary interaction ban and the reality is that most folks are probably loath to stick their signature in this !vote:

• Charles: "I will not engage in any further exchanges with A.Savin"
• A.Savin: "I surely can live with it..."

Unless either Charles or A.Savin wishes to keep this discussion going, the community can consider voluntary mutual interaction restrictions in place, with a consequence being that A.Savin is "involved" and will avoid using sysop tools in relation to Charles. If that compromise is broken by one of the parties before August 2020, then anyone can raise those edits for review on this noticeboard for further community assessment of the behaviour of that party, probably resulting in non-voluntary restrictions or sanctions. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Oppose an interaction ban. Interaction bans are supposed to be put if there is long term evidence of misbehavior of two or more users while they interact with each other. My humble opinion, this certainly doesn't look like a banworthy case to me. If anything, A Savin should be more civil when he interacts with others. If it does reach the point when A. Savin and other users can no longer tolerate each others, a desysop request and/or a block should solve the problem. Masum Reza^📞 23:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  Informal "voluntary mutual interaction restrictions" is a matter that the parties have agreed, these don't get logged in edit restrictions or the logs. --Fæ (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment Yes, per User:Fæ above and the request of User:A.Savin on my talk page, it may be best to just close this as people seem to have agreed to drop the issue and go their separate ways. I would do it myself but I have participated and would greatly prefer if someone else would wrap things up for us. GMG^talk 18:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

---

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

MinervaAustral and Emans

They aren't the same user, nor sock puppets. It was a false positive on eswiki. Regards!!! Ezarateesteban 12:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done? Minerva is unblocked, User:EMans is still banned. Taivo (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I just unblocked MinervaAustral this morning, this only an advise Ezarateesteban 21:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

How do I delete an image?

I uploaded a flickr image here which had the right copyright on flickr. However, I see it appears elsewhere on the web, such as here, and may be a copyright violation. How do I delete the image? --Epipelagic (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Epipelagic:  Done under speedy deletion criteria G7 if nothing else. It's usually a good idea to check the EXIF data on the Flickr image to make sure it's original. If it's not, they may have taken it from online themselves, which seems likely to be the case here as you indicated. GMG^talk 18:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is a link to explain G7: Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion --Schlurcher (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Schlurcher: . I probably should have linked to COM:CSD for their benefit. GMG^talk 23:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete image of me please

Hey there

I am sorry to bother you. I tried yesterday but I can’t find back there so I try here again.

Someone had uploaded apparently years ago a image of me that I have never given consent to to an Wikipedia site.

I followed the instructions and asked the person who uploaded it to delete it but that person said they couldn’t and I shall ask the administrators for help.

Can you please let me know what to do?

It’s about this image.

https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuck_for_Forest#/media/Datei%3AFuck_For_Forest3-Mutter_Erde_fec.jpg

We were passing on the way to a performance I Guess, but I really don’t want to be at Wikipedia representing this project I have nothing to do with. Would be glad to get help — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.10.143.124 (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Image link here, so that you don’t have to suffer MediaViewer. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Please see here: [37]. Quoting@Taivo: : The file cannot be deleted on that reason, because it is used (and even in multiple projects). Even if unused, the file is ineligible for speedy deletion, because it has good quality and educational value. In addition, due to large number of fans and impostors, anonymous requests do not count anyway, because Commons cannot be sure, who is behind the IP. In case you disagree, please start a deletion request. Details on how to do this are here: Commons:Deletion requests --Schlurcher (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you I understand that and will follow your instructions — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2.247.241.241 (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

If you're the third, unnamed person, it might be simpler to request that the article use a cropped version, showing only the named subjects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Whither goest Tineye search?

To my fellow admins, perhaps I missed an announcement somewhere, but is there a reason why Tineye and Google Image searches are no longer available under the "More" tab on a file's page? It was a convenient tool for detecting copyvios without having to go to tineye.com and do a manual upload.  JGHowes  ^talk 16:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@JGHowes: It's still there for me. Did you ensure that the Google Images & Tineye gadget is enabled in your preferences? Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The individual gadgets have been merged into one gadget, and you should enable it from Special:Preferences again. Another similar gadget has been developed for mobile users. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep, gadget prefs fixed it (using my BlackBerry mobile). Thanks.  JGHowes  ^talk 16:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Scientific racism as categories on Commons

Hi. A user has started uploading photos and creating categories that are based on scientific racist views and whose terminology is straight from that garbage, i.e. "Lapponoid race", etc. Besides being utterly trauamatic for the people photographed and their communities, this does not belong on Commons for any reason. What can be done about this and how quickly? -Yupik (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Yupik: It would probably be helpful to give us links to the kinds of things you're talking about. It's a pretty big project, and it's pretty hard to divine what you are referring to without further clarification. GMG^talk 00:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

This is weird; there is a link in my text, but it's not showing up for some reason. Here's the cat that I started from: Category:Lapponoid race L. The rest of them can be found linked to it plus a lot of photos. -Yupik (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Have you discussed this at all with User:Silar? GMG^talk 01:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

No, not yet since it's almost 3:30 a.m. here and they're assumedly in the same time zone. Thank you for fixing the link in the first post. -Yupik (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: By the way, if you have any advice on how to bring up the situation with the user, etc. I'd be grateful. -Yupik (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I pinged them here when I left my last comment. So I was thinking they may join in the discussion. As far as these images in particular, I'm not sure I understand the context here enough to know. I mean, scientific racism is a perfectly valid topic of historical scholarship, as much as astrology, phrenology, or alchemy. That we have Category:Alchemy doesn't necessarily mean that Commons endorses the transmutation of lead into gold, only that historically it was "a thing" and so as a historical thing it has educational usefulness independent of it's truth value.

So if these are period images that were used in their time to illustrate period concepts, then they may be perfectly fine. If these are more modern images isolated from the historical context, categorized in a way so that it seems to comment on their truth value, then they may not be appropriate. GMG^talk 11:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Though we may keep images which illustrate concepts which may be considered harmful, is it wrong to dismiss the concerns about racist terminology being used about photographs of people as being equivalent to something like astrology.

A fair response is to remove offensive terms from filenames, descriptions or categories unless they are, at a minimum, clearly qualified as archaic usage. In this way Commons hosts music scores and photographs related to offensive 19th Century songs about African American slaves, this does not mean that we unthinkingly or without qualification use the n-word in category names or descriptions.

If the files and categories are in scope, a renaming discussion on the VP or similar may be helpful to reach a consensus of the best way of doing it. For anyone confused about "race science" and its relationship to eugenics, this article might be useful to consider how realistically harmful and misused this bullshit might be, it may even be a rationale to consider some of this material to be not "realistically useful for an educational purpose" but in practice the exact opposite. --Fæ (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Examining Category:Race and genetics, this looks like a whole pile of racist/eugenics garbage. There are no qualifications that any of this is archaic and wrong, so any reuser can basically treat Commons like a pro-eugenics resource. That's not within COM:Scope as it is literally anti-educational. Any suggestions about how to make this better, without feeding any race trolls?

By the way, this is likely to blow up. Category:Nordic race A only exists to promote a white supremicist ideal of Nordicism, there is no excuse whatsoever for Commons to be open for this misuse, it should be handled as vandalism. Where terminology of this type appears it should be blanked, and if quoted from archaic sources, this must be made explicitly clear in the descriptions. At the moment these racist terms are being used as if they were facts in photograph descriptions. --Fæ (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that this should not just be blindly stuck under Category:Race and genetics. That does come off too much like a statement about truth value. GMG^talk 21:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Fæ: Thank you so much. You've explained this much better than I ever could have. This stuff is also on multiple Wikipedias and on Wikidata too. -Yupik (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Silar: , you recently created (along with many similar "race" categories):

1. Category:Cromagnoid race Y
2. Category:Mediterranean race E
3. Category:Armenoid race H
4. Category:Nordic race A
5. Category:Lapponoid race L

These appear unquestioningly to promote eugenic theories about race, still used by racist groups to spread misinformation and hatred of minority groups. Do you have any suggestions about how to repair these categories and the images you have uploaded to ensure that they do not actively promote discredited racist theories? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• Raised at Commons:Village pump#Correctly representing, but not promoting, "racial theories" used in Nordicism and Nazism for wider views on a general guideline. --Fæ (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Raised at wikidata:Wikidata:Project chat#Correctly representing archaic or debunked "racial" term entries. --Fæ (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Raised at wikimedia-l. --Fæ (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

More detailed examples and discussion of corrective action for race and genetics categories by Silar

Reviewing Category:Wielbark culture race and genetics composition, the existence of this category again makes it appear that Commons is promoting fringe theories of race. The Wikipedia article Wielbark culture consistently uses "culture" and says nothing at all about genetics or race, yet this category has been turned into a parent category of Category:Haplogroup I1 L1237 of Y-DNA and all the content of Category:Wielbark culture has been placed into a child subcategory of that genetic test, bizarrely making categories like Category:Archaeological Museum in Kraków‎ grandchild categories.

I propose that all categories related in any way to "race" and "genetics" that were created or moved by Silar from at least December 2019 are deleted or reverted. If necessary media uploaded can be categorized by the source publication where these changes might leave a file uncategorized. The burden of proof needs to be on those using genetic marker categories to extend to any media not directly related to genetic tests and publications about the theories related to publications about the genetic analysis. Creating empty categories using indefinitely more refined names for genetic markers is not within COM:Scope and remains a hazard for the promotion of false genetic theories about "race".

A filter on Silar's contributions highlights these categories as needing review:

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I've started (example) to remove these categories from pages like Category:People of Poland, and invite others to join me in doing so, given the volume. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Done; took less time than I expected. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

See also Special:Contributions/Sholzhenitzyn. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Note that I have put Category:Negroid up for speedy deletion now it is empty (it was created last week by Silar). I suggest this and other "race" categories in the above list are protected from recreation, so that at a minimum any potential recreation will require direct sysop action after discussion. Thanks! --Fæ (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Ordered by creation date, ascending. @Pigsonthewing: --Fæ (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Quarry:query/41481 is a handy filterable report of categories created by Silar. --Fæ (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Today's MOTD

File:Sascha Ende - Also Sprach Zarathustra (2001 - a space odyssey) (cc-by) (filmmusic).mp3 is taken from the soundtrack of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Although the composition has entered the public domain, this recording of a performance by the Berlin Philarmonic Orchestra directed by Karl Böhm was released in 1958 by Deutsche Gramophon and is copyrighted until 2029 [38]. It seems appropriate to change the MOTD and to put the file up for DR. — Racconish ^💬 13:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The source page says this is a "new recording". What makes you think it is the 1958 recording? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

It is very unlikely Sachsa Ende played himself all the instruments of a symphonic orchestra. — Racconish ^💬 13:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to see more evidence than that, but if you look up the version by the Berliner Philharmonic directed by Gustavo Dudame on YouTube, that's a lot of people, uncredited either singly or collectively in our version. I can't tell the difference between our recording, the copies from 2001 on Youtube, and the modern Dudame recording (maybe I shouldn't chase a job in music?), I would think any significant reduction in the number of musicians would be noticable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Add Charlie Qi (talk · contribs) to IPBE groups

He comes from China. Need this flag. Thanks. --轻语者 (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

 Granted for one year. It may be extended upon request. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

About File:SubCradles foto.jpg

I use google search to find this image's source is [39]. And there is no information there indicating that the picture was released under a free license. So I marked this photo copyvio. But Juan90264 change license to cc-zero without explanation. I try to undo it and illustrates the situation. Soon he reverted to the cc-zero version. I don't know who did it wrong, so I report this to identify it. Regards. 轻语者 (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

On a side note, Juan90264 already have a note on their talk page for removing speedy tags from their own uploads. Ahmad^talk 06:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Nominated for speedy deletion. Taivo (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Old DR's not listed by date

I recently came across a DR from Sept 2019 - Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hadi bin Arshad at the launch of Suno!.jpg which was still open. But Commons:Deletion requests/2019/09 has been deleted so admins don't see this old DR. If we undelete Commons:Deletion requests/2019/09 will we see the outstanding DR's? Or is there another way? Gbawden (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Gbawden: Not sure if this works as effectively as it should as some admins use other words other than "Kept" or "Deleted" but you can try this. Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 13:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Also for the whole of 2019, however I'd suggest searching by month [Aa]ugust 2019, [Oo]ctober 2019, etc. Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 13:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

No. First of all, we are not interested in Commons:Deletion requests/2019/09, we are interested in Commons:Deletion requests/2019/09/19 because this is the file where the DR actually had been listed. Second, the DR had been closed and a few hours later has been reopened, but it the meantime closed DRs have been archived. That's why DR in question was "dangling". Or, more precisely, it has been listed in the archive since then. --jdx ^Re: 14:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Jdx: - it appears as if there are a number of DR's hanging though, for example Commons:Deletion requests/File:Caporal Jean-François Drouin (3904244787).jpg - finding these will be a bit of a chore Gbawden (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, it looks like a job for a bot – it should go through the archive for a given day and for each DR check if it is actually closed by finding matching pairs of {{Delh}}/{{Delf}} (or {{DeletionHeader}}/{{DeletionFooter}}). As a side effect it could also detect possible vandalisms. --jdx ^Re: 00:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jdx: how about intitle:Deletion_requests insource:/[Ss]eptember 2019/ -hastemplate:delh? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 02:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)