Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 41

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

User:Gopnik139

Gopnik139 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. Upload vandal images (see also Liza Hachard (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user and ru:Википедия:Проверка участников/Толпа вандалов) — Stas1995 (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

= Теракт (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) — Stas1995 (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

All uploads by Теракт = copyright violations. deleted. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Phanlinhhn and File:Flag of Tay Dam.png

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

The user has uploaded over the file but not made any significant change other than increasing the file size and native resolution. For that reason I reverted it, however the user has again done so. I would like to request these be RevDel'd. I also have reason to believe this may be a sockpuppet of Huyme who also did this to Vietnamese flag files quite recently. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

No attempt has been made to contact Phanlinhhn. I've cleaned up the mess and I close this discussion. Jcb (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

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

6AND5

User is edit warring on File:Flag map of Armenia.svg and attempting to push nationalistic territorial POV on the file. I have asked the user to stop and informed them that they may upload the file separately, but they have ignored this. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Apparently the user is also attempting to do this on other files including File:Am-map.png, File:Rivers of Armenia.jpeg, File:Rivers of Armenia.jpg, File:Armenia locater map ararat.svg and others, all of which they have deleted the exclaves which they don't agree with. I suggest all files be reverted and RevDel'd and the user be strictly warned. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Flag map of Armenia.svg protected for three days. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is now more complicated than I originally thought. In the case of File:Am-map.png, Hoshie also informed the user that they should upload their version without the exclaves as a separate file, and they ignored it there as well. All of them have to be reverted. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Если уже 23 года эти територии входят в состав Армении, почему они должны показываться в картах?--6AND5 (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I attempted to revert all the POV changes (some of which date back to 2010) and this user has instantly reverted them all again. Two of us have requested that these be uploaded separately and it has been ignored, the user has edit warred to force their POV, they only have one source which is from the Armenian Government which naturally would support it's own territorial claims, and for these reasons they should all be reverted and protected. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

And within about 10 minutes of the Armenian flag map being reverted and protected, the user has decided to upload their version separately. The deliberate territorial POV is complicated further by the fact that while this user is interested in deleted Azerbaijani exclaves in Armenia, they have decided to keep the Armenian exclave Artsvashen which has been under Azeri control since 1992 and which is populated by Azeris and the Armenians have been expelled. This shows nationalistic POV and hypocrisy. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

hypocrisy., for this you have to ask for forgiveness, and you have yourself a nationalist--6AND5 (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I am a nationalist on several matters, but I do not force my views on maps where they are not commonly accepted. You are removing Azerbaijani exclaves from these maps because you don't like them, while at the same time keeping Armenian exclaves in Azerbaijan, that is not only hypocritical it's also inappropriate. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The maps affected are:

Fry1989 ^eh? 00:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

This remains a problem to be resolved. Should 6AND5 be permitted to alter several Armenian maps to remove Azerbaijani exclaves in Arrmenia while simultaneously maintaining Armenian exclaves in Azerbaijan, in an attempt to promote nationalistic and territorial POV? Fry1989 ^eh? 18:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

6and5 has acted wrongly. I warn him: if he alters any map of Armenia once more, then he can be blocked. Fry has acted correctly, reverting 6and5's edits. Taivo (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Hedwig in Washington

How did this user ever become an admin on Commons? In my short experience interacting with him over this issue, he has:

Repeatedly grossly insulted me, calling me a child [1][2], calling my complaints about his behaviour and actions as "whining" [3][4] and "yapping" [5] (that last one was presumably intended to compare me to a dog)
Stated that I "don't care" about Commons [6] (when in fact I am a user with thousands of edits/uploads to Commons over 5 years service)
Inserted inaccurate and misleading information into a gallery. I can AGF that the first time, but he then:
- reinserted that back into the gallery even after he knew it was wrong [7]
- made the veiled threat that if I tried to remove it again, it would be considered "an act of vandalism" [8]
Repeatedly claimed that I was trying to write an article on Commons (that's not bad behaviour in of itself, merely one opinion, but it becomes bad behaviour when his only response to objections is to simply keep repeating it [9][10][11] as if I had never even heard him say it before)
Largely ignored me, in respect of choosing not to even acknowledge the points I've actually raised in favour of just questioning my intelligence [12], using sarcasm [13][14] or simply tossing out aggressive and inflammatory lines like "It's your way or the highway. Sad." [15] (also note the irony that his responses to me have effectively just been, 'do what I say, or get blocked')
Resorted to naked intimidation, taking the bizarre step today of choosing to "remind" me of an angry post I made in February 2011 over an unrelated issue [16] (try as I might, I can come up with no AGF reason at all for that 'reminder')

I very rarely complain about abusive and insulting admins on Commons, in part because I know that in some ways admins being a little strident is how this particular part of the WMF likes to roll, and I have no issue with that. But what this guy is doing, particularly that last point, is beyond the pale even for Commons. Surely even the hard-ball admins on here cannot in all seriousness not feel a bit ashamed that they're associated as a collective trusted group with this sort of behaviour. Ultra7 (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like you would both benefit from giving each other some space. However, that's not the sort of behaviour I expect from an admin. Hedwig, it looks like you need to take things less personally, and try to deal with issues calmly and professionally (or disengage if you can't). We don't need admins throwing their weight around—regardless of who's right or wrong, it only inflames the situation. And talking to editors like they're toddlers is likewise only going to piss people off. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

As originally written, 2012 Summer Olympics and Paralympics gold post boxes did not comply with the guidance of Commons:Categories#Creating_a_new_category and Commons:Galleries, item 3, in my opinion.[17] The first link suggests adding a "short description text that explains what should be in the category, if the title is not clear or unambiguous enough on its own." The second advises "A brief description of the subject (if necessary)." Unnecessary information may be distracting and unhelpful to our users who are looking for an illustration, not text. Also, (unnecessary) work may be needed to keep that information accurate. It may engender arguments, as in this instance, regarding how the description should be written, whereas, a short description may not. However, Interlanguage links make it easy for our users to navigate to Wikipedia articles in their own language (when available) and are strongly encouraged (Galleries, item 5). Ultra7, please consider withdrawing your deletion request. The DR process is not to bring attention to problems with other users or administrators. Instead bring them here. That said, I urge User:Hedwig_in_Washington to set a good example by remaining calm and dispassionate in his/her discourse. If s/he can not do so, s/he should bring the matter here and let others intervene. Given the diffs provided by Ultra7, In think Hedwig_in_Washington would be well-advised to avoid any appearance of acting in the capacity of an administrator in discussions with Ultra7. Finally, I don't see that Hedwig_in_Washington was advised of this discussion. I have done so. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't file that DR to complain about Hedwig, that's what this section is for. I've responded to your withdrawal request at the DR - there's no point discussing that (or the content policy issues) here. Ultra7 (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Friday83260

I came across Friday83260 (talk · contribs) while reconciling differently-named duplicates between the English Wikipedia and Commons (aside: that's a fruitful source of problematic images). The first file I examined was File:MAR-1 anti radar.jpg, which I think is a pretty obvious copyvio and I've nominated it for deletion. I started going through the user's contributions and the next file I examined was File:Chaparral (missile).jpg, which he claimed was his "own work." It's pretty clearly not; in fact it's a downscaled version of File:MIM-72 Chaparral 07.jpg, which as a work of the US Government is in the public domain. He probably copied it from the English Wikipedia, where we have a similarly downscaled copy (which I'm about to delete). Looking at his talk page, it's full of copyvio notices. I think all this user's contributions need to be checked, and a block might be in order. I'm not an administrator here and I don't know how these things are handled. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi ! Very hard to understand how it really works... Some files are written as "public domain" but don't work in the french Wiki, other are said "free to share, adapt, copy, etc..." but impossible to use in the french Wiki... Some things aren't clear! Why people say "This is a work from a US Navy employee and i'ts in the public domain", and no one can take it to illustrate something ?? --Friday83260 (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC) (wanna talk ?) (FR)

Atiya567

All of Atiya567's uploads thus far seem to be copyright violations, and have been tagged for speedy deletion as such. This user should either be given a warning or blocked. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If the user continues to upload copyright violations, please template him with Template:End of copyvios. If that doesn't work, report again for blockage. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Beleiutz sock to block

Beleiutz (talk · contribs) is back with another sockpuppet, Delia Mihai (talk · contribs), which is being used to upload copyright-infringing photos for use by his Wikipedia sockpuppets. Could an administrator please block? For further reference see Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beleiutz and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 39#Beleiutz. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Already done. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Flow92, likely sockpuppet of Hamburg73 and Invitto

I strongly suspect that Flow92, a rather problematic and tendentious editor who repeatedly corrupts numerous categories is a sockpuppet of blocked User:Hamburg73 and User:Invitto. Same obsession with the Nissan NV400 and Vanettes, I noticed that Hamburg73's name popped up repeatedly in the edit histories of the various files and categories Flow92 has been targeting. They also have similar edit histories in German WP and all three prefer using German.

Could any of our checkusers see if Flow92/Hamburg73/Invitto are indeed the same? mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 03:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Also as Zweileben. Interestingly, Zweileben uses the same edit summary (K), see here and here for instance. Quack quack, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 04:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Phanlinhhn

User is continuing to overwrite images and SVGs with non-SVGs. They have received warnings and will not cease. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Is the a regular on Commons who can communicate well enough in Vietnamese to tell this user to stop? I'd hate to block a user just because no one can figure out how to tell him to stop. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm nearly 100% convinced this is a sock of Huyme as the behaviour (uploading PNGs over PNGs while essentially change noting but the native resolution and blow up the file size, as well as uploading raster content over SVG files), specific content (Vietnamese flags), and now even the replies are the same. While I would hope that someone who speaks Vietnamese could make it stop, I believe this is more serious than just a language barrier. This is edit warring, it could easily be considered vandalism, and it's repetitive against warnings and requests to stop. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Done - the second account I've blocked indefinitely, and I've implemented a one-week block on the original account. You are correct: even if the user has no understanding of English, s/he is making no effort to understand or care about the warnings on his/her talk page. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Extended to indef upon realizing this is another incarnation of User:Namkhanh02 Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

A new sock as just appeared as JVevermindDVT. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Done Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

A new puppet of Pablo Milano #4

I 'm very sorry to have to bother you again for this, but we have a new puppet named Pablojaviermilano gul; I took care to nominate for deletion his files. Thank you very much. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 02:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Done Blocked forever. Taivo (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Scotire (talk · contribs)

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

Hi, could uninvolved admins review this user's recent actions please. He is edit warring over placement of Scottish localities from a highly charged POV (which has caused disruption on enwp too).

The basis of the dispute is the categorisation of localities which are in both the modern council area of Moray, and the historic county of Banffshire. More specifically, whether Moray or Banffshire should be used as disambiguators. Note enwp guidance on this matter, and while we do not have to follow that, IMO we shouldn't deviate from it without good reason. This CFD is of relevance.

Scotire is throwing accusations of vandalism around (including me) [18], [19]. I have warned him not to accuse editors acting in good faith of vandalism.

In addition, a number of longstanding categories have been moved to his preferred Banffshire disambiguator (as can be seen in Special:DeletedContributions/Scotire). I'd prefer if no categories are moved (in either direction), until closure of that CFD.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Keith, Moray edit protected (expires 23:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)). --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Ditto, this user appears bent on imposing his preferred version of the structure of Scotland regardless of existing conventions and naming policies. I didn't realise his edits were so widespread, but I believe (at best) he has misunderstood the reason for categorising images here; I don't believe any of his reasons for his own interpretation of how categories should work here,and that he should stop doing anything until he is more familiar with how Commons, and particularly categorisation, works in practice. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the County of Banff (Banffshire) is divided for Local Government purposes between the Local Government management of Moray, and the Local Government management of Aberdeenshire. By placing the towns firstly in their correct location of Banffshire, then they can be put into their relative Local Government management areas of 1) Moray or 2) Aberdeenshire. No problem at all with that. The problem is that some are denying that the County of Banff (Banffshire) exists and that it is "obsolete" which is a slurr on WIKI for putting out false information.

Banffshire is a Land Registration County and all land transactions are recorded in the official Scottish Government Register Office.

Weekly reports of property transactions for Banffshire are published. They are not published under "Moray" or "Aberdeen" but published under "Banffshire".

Also refer to BANFFSHIRE newspaper article

2008 Campaign to have Banffshire road signs marking the county's boundaries

Claire Nancy Russell is a Scottish Landowner, the Lady Laird of Ballindalloch Castle on Speyside and has been Lord Lieutenant of Banffshire since 2002. refer http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page2634 Press Release from Number 10 Downing Street, 20 November 2002

Upon the death of her father in 1983, Russell inherited Ballindalloch Castle and its estate. She has been involved with the National Trust for Scotland, and the Scotland Garden Scheme.

In 1991, she was appointed Deputy Lieutenant for Banffshire, becoming Vice Lord Lieutenant in 1998. She succeeeded J.A.S. McPherson as Lord Lieutenant in 2002, becoming Banffshire's first lady Lord Lieutenant.

Since being appointed Russell has been a " champion of the county".

She led a campaign to have road signs marking the historic county's boundaries reinstated in 2008. refer. http://www.banffshire-journal.co.uk/Home/ (article in http://www.banffshire-journal.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/2681/What_s_in_a_name_.html Banffshire Journal, 29 April 2008).

Road signs erected

From BOB PEDEN, Chairman, Aberchirder and Marnoch Community Council, 18 Causewayend Crescent, Aberchirder. -

" We believe that it is important for the economy of Lower Banffshire, including our community council area, that tourism should be based on its heritage, both coastal and inland.

We also feel that in this age, when many people seem to be unsure of their identity, a knowledge of this heritage has a key role to play in encouraging a community togetherness which is often lacking.

We have written to the Provost and chief executive of Aberdeenshire Council asking their support for our call for further signs to be provided on the following roads: A97 Huntly-Aberchirder (near Yonder Bognie); B9025 Turriff-Aberchirder (at Turriff bridge); A98 Fochabers-Buckie (near Broadley); A98 Fraserburgh-Macduff (near Netherbrae) and B9031 New Aberdour-Gardenstown (near Pennan). Yours etc,...

You can see from the above that the County of Banff DOES exist, and the towns and villages of that country in wikimedia.commons should be catagorized in that County, then they can be categorized into "Towns and villages of Moray" (meaning Moray Council) or "Towns and villages of Aberdeenshire" (meaning Aberdeenshire council). Scotire (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Scotire, please refrain from adjusting section headings. It makes following the discussion painful. Would editors here object if I notify potentially interested parties (eg w:WP:SCOTLAND}? Getting a broader input would be helpful to resolving the underlying dispute.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Nilfanion, please refrain from deleting sections of discussions. It appears similar to "gagging of the press". Scotire (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Scotire, please stop posting mere opinions about what Banffshire should be- it's irrelevant to precedent and consensus about what categories are; Commons isn't a political forum, it's an image library. And arguments about "gagging of the press" aren't going to get people on your side- see here Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I did nothing of the sort. User:O collapsed part of your post - the quotes - which is not the same thing as removal. If anything, O's adjustment increased legibility - as the two paragraphs with your actual logic were easier to read. You basically wrote: Banffshire exists (and looks here's examples to prove it) so Banffshire should be used.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Scottish county categories created years ago

Nilfanion, you are getting away from and fuzzing over the main point of contention. That is, that you said Banffshire was "obsolete". Also it has been stated that Scotland photos should be placed in their Local Government area category, not in to counties. Years ago someone created each category for nearly each Scottish county, for example, Banffshire, years before I started sorting photos. Who made the massive error years ago to create and put photos into counties, and were they paid by wikimedia.commons to make such massive mistakes. For example, there are about 2,500 photos in Inverness county and there were about the same for Nairn county which, according to some should have been only in Highland, along with other counties in the Highland Local Government area. If the photos had not been placed into the counties under Highland, then there would have been tens of thousands of photos in only the one category of Highland. There were notices on the top of some county pages saying that there were too many photos and they had to be sorted into categories, but they were left there unsorted for many long years. It is not at all surprising then that these tens of thousands of photos are left unsorted. Scotire (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

An update

To advise that Scotire has been persistenly making personal attacks against another user (on Wikipedia) on his talk page, and has been persistently reverted by myself and other users. I have now left him what should be a final warning in this matter. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Continued personal attacks after final warning

Here. Would someone take a look at this user please? Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

To add to the above. Scotire has been indef blocked on en.wp after a series of escalating blocks there (for edit warring on same content issue).

As for issues on Commons:

He is continuing to make disruptive edits after feedback. eg While adding Banffshire is ok, stripping other info is NOT (examples [20] [21] [22])
Selectively blanking his user talk page to hide everything but own comments, and asserting ownership ([23] [24]) over that page. After warning not to blank his talk in such a manner.
Exploiting that ownership to soapbox his POV on talk (see this version). Note I firmly rebutted one element here, which has been blanked.
Using his talk page to make attacks. Including edit warring ([25], [26]) to keep the attacks visible, after warnings[27] [28]).

I'd hit the block button myself, but do not feel able to do so as I'm engaged on the underlying content dispute. Ironically I was blanked after giving a warning about blanking. Not sure what to do about the misuse of the talk page, as a block isn't effective against that (unless its indef, and I don't think we are there yet).--Nilfanion (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yet again: here and here. Time this user had a holiday of some sort, I think. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

A note that after the expiry of the block Scotire has resumed with another personal attack here, particularly regarding the title. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Give him a bit more rope to hang himself. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Either that or a final warning, from a neutral, on his talk page that he is carrying on in the way that got him blocked before so there is an inevitable consequence if he doesn't redact and mend his ways in future? (Frankly I doubt it will succeed, particularly being familiar with his behaviour after blocks on Wikipedia, but one lives in hope.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Oops, just clocked you already did this morning. Hell mend him then. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

For the watch list: Category:Penninghame protected (vandalism) of suspected sockpuppet ip. I asked for CU. Some peeps really want to test our patience. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 07:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

CU isn't needed - the connection is obvious. I do not think the use of the IP is malicious socking, it feels more like accidentally forgetting to log in. That said, the edit warring (over something irrelevant) plus the continuing personal attacks (eg last sentence of this), means my patience is almost exhausted now. The IP is something to monitor if/when Scotire is blocked again.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Fastily

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

It would sound like an understatement to say that Fastily seems to take Deletion Requests way too lightly. While getting rid of crap is a very important part of Commons’ work (thanks WMF for the Mobile Uploads, yay!), both for users to flag it and for admins to actually carrying out the deletion, the whole is a meaningless exercise if each case is not evaluated on its merits. Contrary to this perspective, Fastily comes across at some one who’d delete just anything when given the opportunity, which is the wrong way of doing things. I think it would be good for the project if some number crunching is done to Fastily’s deletions and the resulting undeletion requests, as also the highlighting and discussion of example cases. -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

One case that caught my eye recently: Fastily deleted this photo as a copyvio, while it was mentioned as being satisfactorily sourced in this discussion — meaning there was not even a token research (tool «what links here» & «global use») to know about the file before deleting it. Of course, the now deleted file and the others of the same subject should have an OTRS tag and their talk pages should link to the discussion where the photographer explains himself, but that’s not a reason to delete this one as a copyvio and leave the others alone — it is sloppy, even in a deletionist perspective. -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I see you haven't even done Fastily the courtesy of notifying him, let alone trying to clarify the issue with him. If you have a prior history in addition to this problem, please point us to where. Otherwise, this looks like a case of "run off to the noticeboards without bothering to even speak to the offender first" Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I’m not in the courtesy business, as neither is Fastily, and that’s one of the (many) good things about him/her. I assumed that a notification in his talkpage would be automatic upon adding the {{Userlinks}}; I’ll do that manually now. As for prior history, there’s a lot of it: I added that one case above because I noticed it today and it was the straw that broke the camel’s back. I can/will add more particular examples, but I’ll wait for others to add their views. Speaking of which, Magog the Ogre, if you are surprised that someone complains about how Fastily closes DRs, you better have been living under a rock in what concerns Commons, because the alternative doesn’t look so good on you (i.e., that you may be trying to bully me — however courteously, and/or placing turfwar loyalties before the project’s well being). -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

On some projects, a notification is sent automatically if you include a link to the user's user page or talk page. This is handled by mw:Extension:Echo, which isn't available on Commons yet, so automatic notifications do not yet work here. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: If you disagree with a DR closure, raise it at my talk page, and I'll gladly discuss. If we fail to agree, then there's COM:UD. If UD gets hostile, we go to ANU. You seem to have jumped from DR closure straight to ANU. That's all I have to say. -FASTILY 00:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Fastily, the example above is an example. Its own UD is filed and show go its course. A few times in the past I raised matters of DR requests you closed in your talk page to have them “uncourteously” dismissed by other people (saying somethong like «The closing admin is not required to give an explanation») or archived without a reply. I assumed you prefer to deal with matters about each DR in its own talk page, which makes much more sense (instead of having it scattered around in everybody's talkpages), and that’s what I started doing since then. -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment I think that Fastily sometimes deletes things without checking properly, but I suppose that everyone sometimes makes a mistake. See File:Giant Wheel Wildwood NJ.JPG, for example, where the uploader added {{subst:nsd}} after two failed {{speedy|user requests}}. Fastily later deleted the file as having no source, although the file still had a source even after it had been tagged with {{subst:nsd}}. There is also the somewhat dubious deletion of File:Copyright term.svg which Fastily deleted when he closed Commons:Deletion requests/PJ Smit, where the file merely was mentioned somewhere. I don't know whether these are single mistakes or whether they are part of a bigger problem as suggested by User:Tuvalkin. When Fastily keeps or deletes something which I have nominated for deletion, I usually agree with his closure. Fastily's deletions have been discussed here in the past, but he deletes more files than many others, and I don't know whether his error rate is greater than for other people. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Pretty much every comment I've read in support of Fastily for the long time that this has been an issue boils down to more or less this: Fastily's time is much more valuable than that of you peasants. So piss off.

Remedy is long overdue. Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) 23:29, 17 October 2013

Unsurprisingly, this wouldn't be a proper ANU discussion about myself unless the long-time members of my fan club jump in to give supercilious comments utterly unrelated to the matter at hand. I'm already anticipating similar comments from a few others. -FASTILY 00:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Admins sometimes make mistakes regarding DRs, but I haven't seen Fastily do any on purpose and I have always held good faith in Fastily's ability to conduct them. Yes Fastily often takes DRs with a lighter air then some admins, but quite frankly I find it refreshing. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I’m sure there is no malice involved, and certainly people who work a lot will show up as those who make most mistakes if we all err with the same frequency. However:

Making mistakes when closing DRs is much worse than when writing down discriptions for photos or even when filling in categories — deleted files can only be brought back by other admins (while most simpler mistakes can be spotted and corrected by anyone), and the sudden disappearance of the affected files may impact deeply in all projects using them.
Some of the deletions made by Fastily, such as the File:Copyright term.svg mean above, were clearly unintended and seem to imply that the attention and care given to DR closing is (at least some times) much less than such an important task needs. This may be improved by analizing why it happens and how it can be improved — better preview tools or conduct guidelines, maybe?

-- Tuválkin ✉ 01:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's a little perspective. In the last month, the 260 Admins deleted 30,000 files. A year ago we were doing twice that rate so, unless our uploaders are getting better at avoiding problem files (which I doubt), we are falling badly behind. Ten Admins did 70% of that work. Three of those ten are recent additions, one has been with us six months, and the rest are old stalwarts. Fastily has led the list for some time, doing 30% of the last thirty days' deletions -- a little over 10,000 deletions or about 300 each day. On the other hand, we appear to have lost Yann, who was among the top ten for some time and is #8 on the all time list.

The UnDR archive for September has about 140 entries -- or about half of one percent of the deletions. While not all mistaken deletions reach UnDR, most UnDRs are closed as not restored, so I think it is fair to say that the error rate is considerably below one percent. Make no mistake -- with the current level of volunteers, deletions are not carefully considered and researched -- each decision is made in a few seconds. In an ideal world, we would have more active Admins and would be able to reduce the error rate further. Given that we are being overwhelmed with new uploads, I'm happy to accept the current rate.

While we do see Fastily on UnDR from time to time, I don't think it is more often than the rest of us. Even if he had one UnDR every day -- which I don't think he does -- that would be less than 3/10 of one percent. That suggests that his UnDR rate is actually better than the average -- he shows up more often not because he makes more mistakes, but because he does far more deletions. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Fastily is often quick and careless, but the Commons system as it currently exists would grind to a halt without some quick-and-careless admins... AnonMoos (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Well said, AnonMoos. I wouldn't say "careless", but certainly "more concerned about speed than depth of research". I think we all try to be careful, but we know that we must work fast or we'll be overwhelmed. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It happened again — misuse of the ”private image” rationale:

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:SQAY_MARTIAL_ART_OF_KASHMIR_01.jpg

User:Nikswerdhond

I think that this user is editing in violation of wikipedia law. He is sending new images over old ones in the same place.

Special:Contributions/Nikswerdhond

That is not ok, right? Can someone remove those? And oll of those images of his are not neutral addition. --195.34.100.5 21:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

this complaint does not look entirely honest to me. One example is File:UNMIK_map.png which he updated to the 2013 version (only to have it reverted to an outdated version from 2007 which agreed better with the other side's POV). --Dschwen (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Uploading a new version of a map is – in most cases – different from uploading a new photo. It's usually an update of a map and that's okay. This gets a bit complicated when the area that is shown in this map is disputed like the Kosovo. Then it is better to discuss a change of the map before anything is changed. It's often better to upload a new version with a new name. NNW 16:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. If the new version is simply a correction -- that is, if the facts on the ground haven't changed, but something needs fixing, then uploading a new version over the old is not only acceptable, but preferred. If, on the other hand, borders have changed, a river has opened a new channel, or other facts have changed, then the new version must be a new file. The old file should probably be renamed, with a name like "xxx until 2007". There are many uses for maps as of particular dates and we should encourage them, not destroy them. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

User Evillasenor1 (talk · contribs)

All "contributions" from this uploader constitute harassment (or service advertisement, which is equally bad), some include real life information and all are vastly out of scope. Could an admin please check those images and take appropriate action regarding the files and the user? Thanks. GermanJoe (talk) 11:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Update: files have been removed and hidden by User:Bidgee. GermanJoe (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Update: All files and text revisions oversighted, user blocked indef. Raymond 13:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Eleassar

Eleassar is insulting our valued contributors and behaving unprofessionally wrt the complex issue of copyright law regarding radiographic images. He is over confident in his abilities as amateur lawyer. This is a difficult area where the law is unclear and there is a pending request for clarification from the WMF. We have a huge body of such images that may have problematic licenses. Many of these images are widely used on Wikipedia. Our focus should be on efforts to retain such images by providing accurate legal information to uploaders and advice on how to obtain necessary permission.

Original deletion discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Computed tomography of human brain - large.png. This is very long, but can be summed up as "Commons users who don't understand the law use Google to try to invent laws for themselves. Finally a real lawyer is consulted".
RFC on x-rays: Commons:Requests for comment/Xrays. This is also very long, but can be summed up as "Commons users who don't understand the law or Commons policy debate for ages before realising that this is a matter for WMF to sort out"
Detail on new deletion/image tagging: Commons:Requests for comment/Xrays#Deletions begin. Nice and short. Can be summed up as "Eleassar fails to get the point".

The third link above contains the most relevant issue for this AN/U. Eleassar sees nothing wrong with his approach and has requested he be brought to the Administrators noticeboard for his actions to be examined by the community. I believe the latest tagged-for-deletions represent disrupting Commons to make a point. He sees only his own (limited) understanding of the law and his own rigid interpretation of policy and is unable to see the harm he is doing to valued contributors.

I would like

Eleassar reminded that our most valued resource is the contributors, who are human beings that deserve respect and our help. Without them we have no images.
Eleassar is asked to consider when reviewing images, to acknowledge that every image has a real person who spent time to create, upload, categorise and insert into Wikipedia. Thanking such contributors is more important than tagging images.
Eleassar encouraged to work with contributors rather than post templates giving them 7 days to comply or asking them to go into battle with him on the matter of copyright law.
Eleassar, is reminded he is not a lawyer and Google is not an adequate substitute for one.
Eleassar, is asked to refrain from creating deletion requests or tagging images where the copyright law is unclear. This is because Eleassar in particular seems unable to appreciate the limits of his understanding. He is unable to recognise reliable sources, to appreciate when he is synthesising law rather than citing it. If he wishes to get involved with such areas, he should work towards Commons having reliable information from real professionals that have made statements which deal specifically with this area.

I appreciate that some of these issues are not unique to Eleassar and Commons could improve in this regard generally. I also appreciate my own behaviour has been less than ideal at times. However, Eleassar has specifically asked for his own actions to be examined here. Colin (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you under the impression that Commons administrators are going to take an hour or two to comb through hundreds of pages of comments to find what you're talking about? If so, then you are sorely mistaken: the only people who will comment here are people who are familiar with the problem to begin with. If not, then why didn't you include a single quote or single diff showing the so-called problem behavior? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Magog, see the text above "The third link above contains the most relevant issue for this AN/U." If you don't have the attention-span to review the situation properly (which doesn't require "and hour or two"), then the unwatch button can be found at the top of the page. Please, one issue I have with Eleassar is he shows little respect for our content producer users. I expect admins here to show some respect to any users brought here, and to give them a portion of their time -- or else find another place in Commons to be useful. Thank-you. -- Colin (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

See this new DR and his/her comment here. It seems our valuable contributors are become poor victim of his/her immature game to prove he/she is wiser than others. I too like to suggest our contributors to upload in their local wiki where they are trated with respect with a w:Template:Keep local tag. J Kadavoor J e e 02:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow you. I don't see anything wrong with opening a DR after the relevant discussion has shown that these files are not free, and notifying an involved editor about this. Regards, --Eleassar ^(t/p) 06:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Just a short comment: Eleassar opens a lot of DR's (nothing wrong here) but if an Admin decides against him he usually opens it again sooner or later to get the file(s) deleted. His understanding of copyright is sometimes strange and reminds me of copyright paranoia. --Denniss (talk) 06:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not wrong to reopen cases when the rationale is disputed (see also a related discussion here). If the file then gets deleted, it was evidently not free. If you disagree with the deletion, you should take this to COM:UDR. Whether my understanding of the copyright seems strange to you or not is totally irrelevant in regard to user conduct. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 06:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You often tend to re-open those DR without new arguments, just claiming the decision to keep was wrong. That's not constructive work, that's destructive. Imagine what happens to a user taking all your DRs closed as delete to undeletion request with just the argument "the deletion was wrong", this user wouldn't survive very long. --Denniss (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I have never reopened any case solely with the words "the deletion was wrong". I reopen them when the rationale is disputed, and I clearly state why it is disputed.[30][31] --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's consider the three radiography deletions:

CT Scan

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Computed tomography of human brain - large.png

This is a very lengthy discussion and I don't expect people here to re-read it. My issue with Eleassar is that he started the DR when uncertain of the copyright law. There was then a very long and unnecessary discussion with input from lots of editors who know nothing about the law, including Eleassar. Basic mistakes were made in interpreting whatever snippets of documents found on Google. Assumptions were made that Sweden was like Germany. Way too much amateur lawyering which is disrespectful and harmful to Commons. Eventually Eleassar tracked down an expert in Swedish copyright law and the situation was resolved when the uploader got permission. This image is a featured picture and widely used on Wikipedias. This whole DR could have been avoided. Eleassar could have done his homework first, then worked with the uploader to guide them as to where and how to get permission. Colin (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The doubt was significant (a subject of an image usually can't be the copyright holder) and the burden of proof is on the uploader, not on the one who proposes an image for deletion. Therefore, the question is why didn't he do his homework first. In any case, per Commons:Deletion policy: "If there may be the need for discussion (which is in many cases the recommended way especially if you are new to Commons and have concerns about licensing issues), the file/page should be listed as a deletion request." --Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

So Eleassar, you expect all our uploaders to be copyright experts in a subject where there is no written copyright law? We had to get a scholar to give her legal opinion on the situation. Even then, she wasn't at all confident who actually owned the rights. This blaming our good-faith content creators is unacceptable and just indicative of your attitude and why you are a destructive problem for Commons. If the copyright situation isn't clear, then it is our responsibility to make it clear and offer advice. Nearly all our scans are in the same situation as this one, which indicates a fundamental problem with our advice to uploaders. Colin (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I expect uploaders to discuss the matter at Commons:Village pump/Copyright, verify the sources, or contact a lawyer themselves before uploading an image, if they are not sure. Calling a long-term contributor a "destructive problem" tells more about your attitude towards people than about mine; I'm a human, you know, not just some software bug, so please be more careful about your words. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 15:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Tooth

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Teeth molar47 46resection crown premolar45.jpg

Image uploaded in 2004 and used in 32 articles on 19 Wikipedias. Uploader User:Wohlgemuth hasn't edited since 2006. User is not thanked for the great contribution his image has provided to Wikipedias internationally. The deletion template challenges the uploader to argue their case for keeping the image. Such arguments seem unlikely to offer wise or knowledgeable input from any party. The nom simply states "Non-free X-ray from Germany." It doesn't offer any advice, instead, for how to seek permission to licence it properly (should such permission be required). It doesn't cite any Commons policy page that explains why such an x-ray might not be free, or describe (sourced reliably, of course) what the law is in Germany regarding such x-rays.

My issue here with Eleassar is that he is like a dentist who only removes teeth, never does fillings and never gives preventative advice. Here we have the sort of image that Commons/Wikipedia should treasure: it is extremely widely used internationally and highly educational. We don't have other pictures that are as good, nor is the licence situation on any I have looked at any better. So will Eleassar remove all the dental x-rays from Commons, starting with the ones most used? That's just vandalism in my book. Eleassar openly admits (here) that the copyright situation in Germany has not been confirmed by legal scholar -- it is instead the amateur interpretations of Eleassar and Túrelio. The unconfirmed legal situation isn't even documented anywhere on Commons for the uploader to read. Since this picture has been on Commons for nearly 10 years, I think we should do our homework on this. Let's get proper legal scholarship on the issue of such images in Germany. Then why don't we contact some dentists to see if we can get a replacement. I don't think that should be particularly hard.

Eleassar claims he is doing productive work. He's not. He's doing destructive work. He is making Commons and Wikipedia worse. Colin (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This has already been discussed here. Your opinion that I only remove images and don't give preventative advice is not correct.[32] Don't worry, I'm not going to remove all the dental X-rays from Commons. The burden of evidence is again on the uploader or anyone who wishes to keep the image. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Well that's hardly a conclusive community discussion. And your second diff only give more evidence that you post deletion notices without giving advice -- you had to be asked for help. There are areas where copyright law is clear, where we have plenty appropriately licensed images, or where (e.g. FOP) no such licensed images are possible. This is not the area we are discussing here. We are talking about you merely being destructive in an area of uncertainty and where we have a large body of work that may be problematic. The solution isn't to start chucking that body of work in the bin. Please try to get the bigger picture. Colin (talk) 11:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Many many people here post deletion notices without giving advice; just have a look at today's log. We can't discuss the issue with every user individually, because our time is limited, and it would also be inconsistent. However, I have replied to everyone that has asked me for help. The solution in the case of unclear copyright status is to open a deletion request, and discuss it, like we have just done. A significant doubt remains though, supported by several sources, so unfortunately it will not be possible to keep the image. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 15:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Eleassar, would you stick to the topic. We're discussing valued radiographic images, not someone's unused holiday snaps that break FOP laws, or out-of-focus dick pictures. You are completely failing to appreciate that the "benefit" to the project from your zealous mission is outweighed by the harm you are causing to actual Wikipedia articles and to actual good-faith (and often professional) contributors. -- Colin (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I can tell you that the problem with the no-FOP pictures is much more significant and hinders the development of Commons much more than the deletion of two or three non-free radiographic images. In contrast to the latter, where a new free image may be created, there is absolutely no option to reproduce numerous important historical monuments for Commons, because the creator has died and the current copyright holder is unknown or doesn't want to give his permission. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Endoscopy

File:Riesenfaltengastritis Endoskopie 001.jpg, File:Riesenfaltengastritis Endoskopie 002.jpg and File:Riesenfaltengastritis Endoskopie 003.jpg tagged "Missing permission" pending speedy deletion in seven days.

Images uploaded in 2011. The third image is used in two articles on two Wikipedias. User:Hellerhoff has not been given any advice on how to obtain permission. This user has donated thousands of image to Wikipedia. We absolutely must endeavour to give him advice rather than taking pot shots at his uploads, dropping a template on his user talk page, and giving him seven days to sort things out.

My issue here with Eleassar is that he is failing to value our most important resource: content creators. Hellerhoff was given a templated talk page notice that his images were going to be deleted in seven days. Is that not just incredibly rude and insulting? I note that since my post to this page, Eleassar has replaced the posting here with a much better effort. -- Colin (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The tag clearly explains the rules that for any third-party work a permission must be obtained. I'd expect for an experienced Commons user like Hellerhoff to be aware of these things. He should rather thank to me for having brought the problems with these images up now when he can still fix them. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

"He should rather thank me". You know quite well that your initial post to Hellerhoff was more likely to lead to Hellerhoff leaving Commons than to him thanking you. Reality check please. Colin (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

My opinion about these is that we shouldn't use {{subst:nsd}} or {{subst:npd}} for images like this. Those tags do not give a lot information to the uploader. In areas where the law differs quite a lot from country to country (e.g. x-rays and FOP), it is in my opinion more polite to use a standard deletion request as this allows the nominator to type in a clear rationale which the uploader can read. If a file is deleted and you don't have a clue about why it was deleted, then you may be puzzled and might not be able to improve your uploads. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. This has also been brought up yesterday by Túrelio at my talk page,[33] so I've replaced the tags with {{OTRS pending}} and left an explanatory messsage at Hellerhoff's talk page.[34] I appreciate the approach by Túrelio; in contrast to Colin today, he didn't make a fuss about this, but only left me a message at my talk page. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 15:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Eleassar asked me to come so the fuss is his making. And it is necessary because if he is not stopped we will have no radiographic images left on Commons. -- Colin (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't ask you, I only pointed you to the right place after you had started to post complaints about me at the page that has not been created for this. You as a "productive editor" − in contrast to me (a "destructive problem") − yourself decided to create the fuss, so don't be so ashamed of it. You should actually be proud of it, you know. It is really productive and has brought much improvement to the project. As to me deleting all the radiographic images on Commons, have you ever thought that you may have persecutory delusions? Perhaps a visit to the psychiatrist would be in place. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Policy

Eleassar's view on policy can be summed up as "In ignorance delete". It is one thing to delete an image where the copyright position is clear and the specific image has uncertain qualities. But quite another thing to go boldly through our repository deleting highly educational and widely used images, on the basis of his ignorance of the law. We have a huge collection of radiographic images and the copyright/ownership/permission situation with them is still unclear. Our efforts should be to remove that uncertainty either by requesting legal scholarship ourselves or campaigning for WMF to do so. And then we should document such knowledge so it can be cited in any DR. We should be in no rush to trash our collection while ignorant.

Eleassar believes he can do whatever he wants. Well I don't think what he's doing here is good for Commons or Wikipedia. Unless he changes his attitude towards our content creators, our valued content, and works towards respecting both, then I think he should find another hobby. Commons is not the place to play wack-a-mole with images. It is not a game. -- Colin (talk)

Removing non-free images and images about which there is significant doubt is in accordance with COM:EVID and COM:PRP. What you think about being destructive differs from what experienced users think [35]: tagging non-free images and images of dubious copyirght status for review/deletion is constructive, because it helps Commons stay in its scope. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep digging Eleassar. Your comments here are further evidence of a lack of clue about the big picture. Colin (talk) 11:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Or yours. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 15:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Being reasonably cautious

From the examples presented by Colin, as well as based on Eleassar's previous prolific FOP related DR activity, I gather that in part this dispute is about the different interpretations of the Precautionary principle, and what it constitutes "significant doubt". I've been among those who felt deterred from contributing to Commons (beyond the minimum necessary for supporting various Wikipedias), precisely because of this kind of behaviour, which unfortunately has proliferated for years on Commons. While I agree that is a fine thing to be reasonably cautious, the "Precautionary principle" is often applied in ways I find unreasonable, and severely damaging not only to Commons, but also the Wikiprojects it supposed to support. Similarly COM:EVID is often invoked and applied in ways that treats volunteering contributors as "guilty until proven otherwise" and evidence is requested that is not possible to produce, while common sense is ignored. This is in contrast to the presumption of innocence that people would reasonably expect, and contributes to a bad image for Wikimedia. Therefore I support the actions suggested by Colin, and I appeal to Eleassar to take a break and reflect upon the matters raised. Further, I would suggest it is long overdue to review the wording of the two policies mentioned above, with a view to improve them so that they become less likely to be interpreted in ways that are unreasonable and damaging. --ELEKHH^T 02:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Per your opinion, I should take a break and ignore the non-free files like they would belong to a repository of free files. You have all the right to your opinion, but so do I. I can't agree with this. We should tag them as we find them, because they're not in the scope. We can't ignore them and wait that more non-free files accumulate than we can manage. It's better to remove non-free files regularly than take a break and wait and then upset editors with nominating tens of their images, which unfortunately still often has to be done. As to the presumption of innocence, we're judging images, not editors.

Commons:Deletion policy states "If there may be the need for discussion (which is in many cases the recommended way especially if you are new to Commons and have concerns about licensing issues), the file/page should be listed as a deletion request." That's what I'm going to follow, as long as there is no consensus that a different way of action is the correct one and the policy gets changed. Content on Commons must be verifiably free or at least there should be no significant doubt (which usually means reliable sources stating that they may be copyrighted and is a matter of discussion). It's as simple as that. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Try to make a maintenance category and add the doubtful works into it. Making random DRs while the policy is vague is not very helpful. J Kadavoor J e e 07:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

These images are almost certainly not free (we have a lawyer's opinion in regard to radiological images, and photos are not free in any case), so the doubt is very significant, and they can't be kept. However, we can create a similar category like those in Category:FOP-related deletion requests in the case a court case later shows some of them are ok. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there's been disquiet about COM:PRP and COM:EVID for some time, so I think a discussion reviewing both some outcomes that people find troubling and the wording of the policies could well be worthwhile. I don't see DRs over doubtful images as a bad thing, however, even where the doubt arises from an uncertain legal situation. Commons is here to host free images. If we can't establish that an image is probably freely licensed or in the public domain, we shouldn't be hosting it.

Having said that, opinions at the x-ray RFC still seem quite polarised, and starting DRs on x-rays etc while the RFC is running risks rehashing the same arguments with no clear result. Setting up a maintenance category or list for radiological images whose situation is highly disputed could be useful in the meantime. --Avenue (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

We have a RfC which does not support Eleassar's actions.[36] If he continues he may need to be banned from editing Commons. Hopefully he will stop his efforts to delete diagnostic images. James Heilman, MD (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll tell you when I'll stop. I will stop if this discussion gets summarised by an uninvolved administrator as "radiographic images are free in Sweden and in Germany" despite this and this source, the current deletion discussions get closed as 'Kept' and this discussion gets closed as 'radiographic images should not be proposed for deletion, because they're free'; or if the WMF tells us to keep them. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

At some point, Commons may decide to value its content and content creators. Then users playing wak-a-mole with its most educationally valuable and used content, and users templating long-standing contributors, and users who think Google is a substitute for professional legal opinion will have found other hobbies. Too many on Commons don't understand the difference between "can" and "should". Or "productive" and "destructive" for that matter. -- Colin (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Pablo Milano #5

Once again I come to ask you to block another sockpuppet, this time Milanopablogul.43. I took care to nominate for deletion his files. Thank you, Banfield - Amenazas aquí 21:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

blocked Bidgee (talk) 06:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete request for source in Syrian civil war.png

Syrian civil war.png haven`t no one source for data (frontlines). I put in template of original research, but Denniss revert my edits without explanations. Sergoman (talk) 06:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons doesn't have a "no original research" policy as such. You can add a {{Disputed map}} template, but would need to explain your reasons for doing so... AnonMoos (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Sergoman, you are correct on the merits of your point, but incorrect on the specifics of how to enforce them. You are correct that original research is presenting a problem; if there is one thing that both sides in wars are good at, it's at lying through their teeth about the facts on the ground (Arabs are as bad as anyone at this... a cultural thing I've noted, not a racist one).

The proper way to go about things is to ask for the sources to be included on the talk page. We did a very good job with the Libya maps of sourcing every single thing added by talking about things on the talk page if there was any confusion. If you disagree with something specific, then you can also add the disputed map template that AnonMoos linked above. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Taron Saharyan

User Taron Saharyan removes a category from Category:Tabriz school of miniature [37][38][39] without consensus on the talkpage. I tried to explain him that term "Azerbaijani miniature" is also used for "Tabriz miniatures", but he continued his edits. Even in Russian Wikipedia we have a redirect from "Azerbaijani miniature" to Tabriz school of miniature[40] which we reached also with this user. In this article also was mentioned that some art historians call Tabriz miniatures the part of an Azerbaijani miniature. But we doesn't want to understand. Please stop this. --Interfase (talk) 11:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Users are expected to collaborate with others, and once it is known that there is a disagreement should discuss the issues on the relevant talk page rather than repeatedly undoing other users' contributions... (Category protected for three days) --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Tm

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

After three reversals from him and two from me (aptly historied in English, so that more people can chime in), Tm’s version of this filepage File:Passeio de Eletrico.jpg includes now three items I consider useless and which I tried before to expunge from the page (see history):

Two tags ({{SIPA}} and {{IGESPAR}}) marking this photo as pertaining to a national monument. Said monument is a whole downtown city bourough which has its own Category:Baixa Pombalina, and this photo is categorized with a street name category (Category:Rua da Conceição (Lisbon)) which in turn is inside the said area — obviously the relevant category is tagged with those said templates, but Tm argues in this 3rd reversion that «All images of WLM have id of monuments, so stop it». Well, I wont stop it — it is a silly practice and in some cases, such as this one, a misleading one: A photo of a tram on a street should not be tagged with the identifier for a monument that spans a whole city borough — only its category (with its subcats and top level media items, such as maps) should.
Tm insists on plagueing categories such as Category:Buildings in Lisbon with almost irrelevant media items where said buildings are mere incidentals — the image at hand being a good example of that. I understrand and agree that Category:Buildings in Lisbon is much better that just Category:Lisbon when attempting a 1st pass categorization on thousands of city scapes — but when the photo is already categorized with Category:Rua da Conceição (Lisbon) this is useless, especially since this street is 100% built up and any photo taken in it will fatally be depicting said buildings. Category:Buildings in Lisbon should therefore be reserved for media and subcategories depicting primarily the buildings, not for incidental appearences. (Later on, Tm restricted this to Category:Accommodation buildings in Lisbon — this is even worse, as the dozen incidentally depicted buildings in this photo include commercial, residential, and abbandoned spaces: The new categorization is not only misleading and distracting, it is now even false.)

So I brought this here instead of waging an edit war. -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all thank you very much for not warning me.

This image was uploaded in the context of the portuguese part of WLM 2011 and was uploaded as to depict the "Baixa Pombalina", so this templates, as all other WLM images of all countries have templates that id the depicted monument, so this is not what you call WLM garbage.

If an image depicts an buildings in most of its frame, it should be categorized under one of buildings subcategories. In case of Lisbon this takes time as there are several hundread images. About Category:Accommodation buildings in Lisbon, show me one image where there inst one accommodation buildings even if abbandoned. Tm (talk) 11:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Tm, you were warned: In the edit summary of 10:20, 5 November 2013‎, I said: «Beware: This is the 2nd revert. Instead of a 3rd, I'll take it to ANU.» You reverted my reversal, and here we are. Since you seem to overlook edit summaries, pls note also mine of 01:17, 5 November 2013‎: «"Category:Buildings in Lisbon" ⊃ "Category:Rua da Conceição (Lisbon)‎"; SIPA & IGESPAR (404!) @ "Category:Baixa Pombalina".» ^{(Oops, wrong sign corrected!)} Unlike you, I explain why I reverse edits. -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Abuse of administrators rights

On 5 November 2013 04.02 User:Dschwen did abuse his or her rights as an administrator at Wikimedia by deleting an image (File:Anna-Karin Furunes Hani.JPG). The reason given was: "Copyright violation: work of art by living norwegian artist." The deletion was made without any preceding procedure. No information was given that a question about deletion had been raised. No notice was given to me - as the uploader - that there was an issue raised.

In substance, the motivation is nonsense. The question whether a (contemporary) object of art should be accepted on Commons, is related to the law in the country where the pictured object is situated, not to the nationality of the creator of that object.

In this specific case, the work of art "Hani", by the Norwegian artist Anne-Karin Furudal, is PERMANENTLY INSTALLED OUTDOORS AT A PUBLIC PLACE in the town of Borås IN SWEDEN. In Sweden the Freedom of Panorama concept includes such objects of art, which an administrator should either know, or could easily check on Commons/Wikipedia.

Thus, there is no case for deletion, something that would easily have been made clear in a discussion on the relevant Commons page, if User:Dschwen har followed the correct procedure. Alternatively, Use:Dschwen could have read the descripion of the image on the image page on Commons to get the location of the piexe of art, or followed the link to Wikipedia in Norwegian (bokmål) to Anne-Karin Furunes, or followed the link to Wikipedia in Swedish to "Sculptures in Borås", and thus with a minimum of research have found out that there would be no copyright infringement in this case.

Regarding the deletion of the Hani image, I only got to know about it through an email afterwords from the Norwegian guy who did start the deletion process. He sent an email after obviously having had second thoughts about the correctness of the deletion by User:Dschwen

I want the following actions taken:

1. The photo to be restored at Commons.

2. Somebody looking into whether this abuse by User:Dschwen is a one-time issue, or if there is a story of improper interventions, including the absence of following correct deletion procedures.

3. Actions taken regarding administrator rights of User:Dschwen, in case there is a story of abuses.

4. Possibly clearer information and instructions to administrators in order to safeguard the proper way of handling matters of possible deletion of images due to questioned copyright infringement.

Regards.Boberger (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you asked Dschwen (talk · contribs) to restore the image? Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about File:Anna-Karin Furunes Hani.JPG. Looking at User:Dschwen's deletions around the same time, it looks like he was processing content in Category:Copyright violations rather than deleting files at his own initiative. So the file was probably tagged for deletion by someone else, and they're the ones who should have notified you. Based on Google's cache of the file description page, it was not tagged with {{FoP-Sweden}}, which might have prevented this course of events. Luckily, undoing mistakes (and administrators are allowed to make mistakes) and undeleting files is very easy. While I agree that the deletion was probably incorrect, immediately jumping to accusations of vandalism and deliberate abuse seems completely unwarranted. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that the deletion was probably incorrect, immediately jumping to accusations of vandalism and deliberate abuse seems completely unwarranted. +1 --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with the comments above. Some good faith and discussion would have been preferable to an unsubstantiated accusation of abuse.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Restored the image. It was indeed tagged with the {{Copyvio}} template, and from the picture alone it is not clear whether the display is in- or outside of a building. I suggest stating this in the image description to avoid further misunderstandings. --Dschwen (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing the {{Copyvio}} since this has already been considered; and added {{FoP-Sweden}} which can be the subject of a DR if necessary. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I overlooked that because the tears from my hurt feelings impeded my vision :-( --Dschwen (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I would have done exactly what Dschwen did. The image was tagged as a copyvio and does not at all look to be installed outdoors (lighting appears to be from an artificial source - i.e., not sunlight, even if cloudy - and information plaque to the left does not appear weatherized). Whatever the actual status of the image, this whole episode is bad-faith misbehavior by Boberger. Эlcobbola _talk 15:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It's installed outdoors. You can see it in context here (image number 6). —LX (talk, contribs) 15:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I never said in isn't. The point is that the visual cues in the version uploaded could reasonably be interpreted as indoor installation. But this isn't a discussion about the copyright status, but about behavior. Dschwen acted reasonably with the information available. Boberger could have calmly said "Hey Dschwen, I think you made a mistake; here's a link showing outdoor installation." He instead engaged in ridiculous accusations of abuse. Эlcobbola _talk 16:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I just wanted to quickly point out that I don't think we need to have a deletion discussion on top of all this. Cheers, —LX (talk, contribs) 16:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

COM:NPOV on File:Morocco Region Amazigh Languages Speakers.svg

Hello,

Please, can someone explain to user:Dzlinker that COM:NPOV is not required for files on Commons, as he repeatedly modified the map File:Morocco Region Amazigh Languages Speakers.svg per w:WP:NPOV (see Dzlinker's 5 edits on file history)? I tried to explain it to him on his talk page but it seems that he doesn't really want to accept the fact that WP:NPOV is irrelevant on Commons (link to his talk page).

Also, isn't the fact that the file was renamed by an involved user (user:Mouh2jijel) according to his own opinion about the NPOV nature of the map (as it can be seen through Mouh2jijel's 4 edits on file history), is clearly an abuse of his file mover privileges with the aim to impose his own idea of "what the map has to look like" or "what the map has to be about"?

Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Haven't looked at the files, but general Commons policy is that where there is a legitimate dispute between contending views, both receiving support from respectable sources, then images supporting either of the two sides can be uploaded to Commons, and it's up to the individual language Wikipedias to decide. On the other hand, where a graphic with informational purpose is blatantly factually false, it needs to be corrected or deleted... AnonMoos (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It is only a COM:NPOV case: the sole argument used by both users to upload their version is WP:NPOV while the version of the file that has been uploaded by its author is the same until today and its accruacy isn't disputable at all. --Omar-toons (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Uploads by Yatrides

Yatrides has uploaded a huge amount of images of artwork by (I suspect) Georges Yatridès, all of which I would be under copyright. They have already had many of their uploads deleted as copyvios/lacking license. I request an Admin look into this, and possibly nuke all uploades. If all the uploads are deleted as copyvios, it would probably also be prudent to block the user as they continue to upload copyvio files. Liamdavies (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

WTF ? I personnally have deleted some uploads of Yatrides that where copyvios (scans of press articles concerning Georges Yatrides, scans of art catalogues). I also happened to be the only one who tried to explain to Yatrides the concept of copyvio (I think he actually got it).

I am also genuinely convinced that Yatrides IS Georges Yatrides. We could ask him to send a proof on OTRS if you wish, I'm pretty sure he will comply.

I'm quite puzzled by the opening of this thread without any warning or search for an answer from the user. You can see on his talkpage that he answers there, and that I have add discussions with him there. Care to explain yourself ?

Pleclown (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I did post a message on his talk page about this thread. Seeing that they speak French (which I do not) and that they had uploaded many files deleted as copyvios, I felt this the best venue, and preferable to opening 100s of DRs. If the user it's said artist, and permission is gained through OTRS, great. If not, the artists work its protected. I didn't open out of malice, but out of concern. Liamdavies (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Why didn't you tried to speak with the user beforehand ? Or if you were concerned by the langage barrier, to someone with fr-n and en-3 babel boxes, already in touch with the contributor and who was the one nominating most of the files ? Pleclown (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Because of the vast quantity of previously deleted files. It seem to be a user problem, and this the appropriate venue. Liamdavies (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Ovigilante

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

I have read the discussion at File_talk:Forms_of_government.svg#Portugal. The stiff way Fry1989 is defending his own truth, with or without considering arguments, is not constructive and does not lead to consensus. Although his opponents sometimes used bad words, Fry1989 did it as well. No reason for admin action here, not yet. Jcb (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

In the attempt to find proper sources File talk:Forms of government.svg, this user has called me a "troll" and "stupid" (twice). Fry1989 ^eh? 19:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

They have repeated these attacks. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The user has now included even more attacks. I must request they be blocked for several days. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

What you reap is what you've sown. By standing on a very thin line and refusing all attempts by other users (with their own errors), you have escalated this discussion to this point. So yes, Ovigilnate shouldn't have called you stupid and a troll, but take a step back and look a the discussion from an other point of view. You're the only one standing on a position, calling for sources and consensus, when the consensus and the sources are brought by your contradictors.

I will not block Ovigilnate, because if I do, I would fell compelled to block you too.

Pleclown (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"You reap what you sow"?? REALLY? That's your response to someone personally attacking me when I did not such thing to them. Quite often users have disagreements on Commons regarding issues and you know as an admin that personal attacks cross a line. I simply reported this user for PA's the first time, I wasn't asking for a block, and was actually hoping that the report alone might make them consider a more civil manner of discussion. Instead, they attacked me a further two times after I had already informed them on their talk page of this AN report. If you aren't willing to do anything about that (not even a warning on their talk page that further attacks won't be tolerated), then perhaps you should not be an admin because you are abdicating your responsibilities. Also I would be so very delighted to know what you think I would deserve a block for. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"I'm from this country, I know what it is!" is not a source. Scholarly papers which debate and theorize about the subject are not conclusive sources. Insults most definitely are not sources. These are the three things I have received on that talk page, and for having the audacity to request proper sources and not having patience when repeatedly being called a troll and stupid, apparently Pleclown thinks that deserves a block of some sort, as well as nearly complete indifference to the continued personal attacks by another user. I can only imagine how fast I would be blocked if I was the one doing the personal attacks, but this user has the excuse of frustration because they're being asked for real sources. Is there a real admin around today who is willing to address these personal attacks? Fry1989 ^eh? 22:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Nobody supports you. Have a break with kit kat. :) Read what you wrote in the discussion page of that file. You wrote a very nasty thing, do you remember? That's why I called you those names. Ovigilante (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2013

I don't give a fuck if anyone supports the issue regarding the map, that's not why you are being reported here. If there's any admin here who isn't incompetent or indifferent or hypocritical they would block you in an instant. I have not made any personal attacks, YOU have and you repeated them after being warned on your talk page that I had reported you here for them, AND you are absolutely unapologetic about it as well. The fact you aren't blocked is only by luck and not by merit. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

You are a very arrogant person. Your attitude is similar to a kid with nothing better to do. I repeat: You are alone! Don´t buy a war that you cannot win. Ovigilante (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

STOP. Both of you. This is over. Pleclown (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh no no no, I'm not letting this disappear so easily! I want everyone who watches this page to know they can not trust their admins to be truly impartial and active. That if the admins don't like a user, and that user is being attacked, our dear old faithful admins will turn a blind eye and excuse such behaviour when if it was any other user they would block the attacker (at at minimum warn them on their talk page to cease the attacks) in an instant! Fry1989 ^eh? 02:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the Portugal discussion and I have no opinion on you in general. Please drink some water, continue breathing and calm down. Re-opening this again may or may not lead to measures. Jcb (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Шухрат Саъдиев

Шухрат Саъдиев (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
The user is systematically uploading unfree phographs as his own works. --46.211.121.24 06:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I warned him. (Nobody has ever warned him.) Taivo (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Ответ на замечание

Если коллажи фото не имеют право на публикацию, надо удалить. Спасибо за уведомление о нарушении.Больше не повториться. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%D0%A8%D1%83%D1%85%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82_%D0%A1%D0%B0%D1%8A%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2 (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

User issue

This user was reported to en.wp, where the problem began. The user continued on an editor's talk page here. I've been removing the messages, but the user keeps re-posting. We hope (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You may want to rev del these:

Uploads by Harvey Milligan

Harvey Milligan (talk · contribs) has uploaded many photos of ships since the middle of this year, I have massive concerns about them. Many are scans of books or photographs with either no source, or own work stated as the source, and very few have a year. A sample of a couple find them to be copyvios (File:Snaefell unloads motorcycles..jpg from here and File:King Orry approaches Douglas, Isle of Man..jpg from here). A couple of this users uploads have already been deleted, and it appears (from the geotagging) that many are iPhone photos from within the Manx Musuem. I request an Admin look into this, and possibly nuke all of the uploads per COM:PRP. Liamdavies (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Both files tagged as copyvios. They should deleted shortly. Yann (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Effectively, many files uploaded by this user have a wrong license, or are a copyvio, or both. Most files miss a source and a date of publication. Yann (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, all of their uploads look suspicious, hence why I brought it here. What is the procedure from here? Is it a series of DRs? Or is there a mechanism to have all uploads deleted per COM:PRP? Liamdavies (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I am tagging all files which have an obvious problem: either wrong license, no source, no author, or a combination of these. Yann (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I was hoping for an easier procedure, not for you to do so much work, sorry. Liamdavies (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Why this icon was deleted?

~~More information~~
~~I trust in good faith, to the end, you decide not to recover that icon. I'll ask to delete all my icons, a sample list that below~~
Nani icon.svg

Face of woman icon.svg

Closeup prisoner.svg

~~A full list in User talk:Jameslwoodward --The Photographer (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)~~

Note: this was cross-posted at COM:UD -FASTILY 02:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Misattributed uploads

I attributed my last lot of uploads to one source, then realised that some are from Michelin guides of 1919. How do I amend the source? Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

This really is not a user problem, but press the edit button and you can change the attribution. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Denniss

On 7 October administrator User:Denniss deleted an image I had uploaded because the source of the image was a blacklisted Flickr account. I believed that image wasn't a copyright violation and started an discussion on the blacklist's talk page. In the discussion I was told by User:LX , another admin, that the image looked OK to be included in Commons and that I should discuss this with the admin who deleted the image. Therefore I left a message on Denniss's talk page on 27 October requesting that he review his decision to delete the image. I received no reply. I prompted him for a reply on 2 November. I received no reply. I prompted him again on 10 November. I received no reply.

I have been a regular contributor to English Wikipedia for five years and never come across an admin who behaved like Denniss. One of the expectations of being an admin on English Wikipedia is that they are accountable - administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools and administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Commons has no such policy but its guide to adminship states that an admin must always be willing to explain why they have deleted a file and that they should respond promptly and politely to any subsequent user queries that are posted to your talk page. Denniss actions show utter contempt for this advice.

A trawl through Denniss' talk page shows that I am not the first editor to fall foul of his arrogance - see this recent discussion with User:Lobo512. His actions have also been brought Administrators' noticeboard on a number of times: December 2011, December 2011, August 2013, November 2013.

Do other admins believe that Denniss' behaviour is acceptable? If not, why has he been allowed to behave like this for such a long time and what action are they going to take now?--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

1) No doubt, Denniss should have communicated with you. Giving you the impression to be refused a reply, is not o.k. However, please take into account that the vast mayority of the many deletions, which are required on Commons on a daily base, are performed by a very small number of admins (which includes Denniss), who accordingly are often overworked and therefore may show suboptimal communication at the end of the day. So, I don't think that it's "arrogance" or in any way directed at you.

2) Despite coming from a black-listed Flickr account, File:Douglas Devananda 2.jpg seems to be o.k. for me. It was uploaded to Flickr the same day when it was shot, assuming that the EXIF-data weren't forged. According to Google-images the only other URL where it is hosted in full resolution is http://img.readtiger.com/wkp/en/Douglas_Devananda.jpg, which is not dated.(linked at http://kamistad.net/pic-11/kanthi-lanka.html)

--Túrelio (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree with you. He has given three replies to messages that were posted after my message: 1; 2; 3. In each of these three replies he has asserted that he was in the right. He couldn't find any justification to defend his actions in my case so he just ignored my messages. There is a pattern to his communication with other users - when he is in the right he will reply, when he is in the wrong he will ignore. It will be interesting to see if he replies to this case.--Obi2canibe (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was also extremely unhappy with the way Denniss interacted with me (the link to our "discussion" (I could barely call it that) was given above, but here it is again). Denniss deleted 2 of my uploads without any warning, even though I had (and always do) provided clear evidence for the PD status of the images. He then ignored my polite comment on his talk page. When I told him I had readded the images he put "permission" tags on them and claimed I had "failed to provide any proof that these images fall under this exception" and that "one image bears a clear copyright notice" - even though I had provided even more detailed evidence for them being PD (the files are here and here), and the apparent "copyright notice" was just a stamp saying "kindly credit". So that was a slap in the face and, to be honest, suggests he didn't even understand what is required for pre-1978 copyright! He then failed to apologise for his mistake. I considered making a complaint about him at the time, but couldn't really be bothered. But I'm shocked that an admin can act like this. I know he gives a lot of time to the project, but that means little if he's going to be so rude and reckless. Because of his actions, I had to waste my time re-uploading the images (which involved saving front and back scans, making a jpg of both images together, then cropping the image and uploading that one; making a cropped version of the other image...) and re-doing their descriptions. The least I could have got was an apology. Very, very poor conduct for an admin. --Lobo512 (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I also have to say I am a bit disappointed in some recent DR closures by Denniss which do not include summaries, and we have had the discussion many many times that there really should be closure summaries when there isn't a clear consensus to delete. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I note that Denniss is continuing in his usual arrogant way and ignoring this case.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Pablo Milano #6

I'm sorry to come back to present, this time, eight new puppets of Pablo Milano, whose accounts outlined below:

I took care to mark the images for speedy deletion or deletion request, as appropriate. Thank you very much. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 19:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

User:AlbertHerring's uploads & lack of communication

This user (who has been here since at least 2008, and was recently renamed to User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao) has been uploading literally hundreds of non-notable, non-educational images from Flickr (see the recent uploads from Flickr2Commons) over the last few days, and is entirely unwilling to respond to any of the deletion nominations that have been placed on the images, or make any sort of discussion at all. I request that his access to the Flckr2Commons tool be removed, at a minimum. JesseW (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I didn't realize my lack of response on deletion discussions would be considered a problem. I try to vet the accounts that I'm uploading from...sometimes things that shouldn't get by slip through, for which I apologize. (One batch in particular - I tried to tell the uploader to ignore all images with a certain tag. It did not...it's a problem with my computer which I'm trying to work through. That was the source of many of the images in question.) I don't tend to respond to deletion discussions because I don't have an opinion one way or another - if consensus is that something should be deleted, I don't care. I don't see that my opinion one way or the other really matters. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! I'm glad to hear that the recent flood was a mistake -- it certainly looked alarming. If you're working on getting it sorted out, that's good enough for me. Regarding participating in deletion discussions of the images you upload -- I don't think it is necessary, (especially if the intended educational purpose of the image is already clearly stated on the image description page), but I do think it is important to say somewhere what the intended educational purpose of each image one uploads is. It was the lack of that which concerned me about your edits. JesseW (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment JesseW, you do know that when you nominate a file for deletion you are to place a notice of some kind on the uploader's talk page don't you? I have seen no posts from you regarding DRs, only one regarding this AN/U. Liamdavies (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I did not actually nominate any of the uploads for deletion -- I just noticed the flood of uploads, and the lack of response, and was concerned. I do make sure to provide notices when I do make deletion nominations. Thanks for the reminder, in any case. JesseW (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Heather122

This user has uploaded at least two images that I've come across that have nonsensical file names. Additionally, she seems to have engaged in vandalism on the English Wikipedia, given this apparent page blanking. [41] I think we should look into whether a warning or block is necessary. Unless she is clearly a vandal or spammer, I'd say just give a warning that she needs to use proper titles in file names. Inquisitor Ehrenstein (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Herpes666

Probably a vandal, given his odd uploads. One was a meme with "prepare your anus" written on it. Inquisitor Ehrenstein (talk) 05:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked by Fastily. --Túrelio (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Parker Phy

As I am offline for most of the time recently, please take a look at new user Parker Phy (talk · contribs). He had uploaded a batch of (rather hardcore) p*rn images as "own work", which could easily be sourced to other websites. Today, he was blocked for 1 week by Martin H. He left a posting on my talkpage, in which he claims the images to be "my own works for educational and health purposes", but also has send me a lengthy, somewhat confusing email from a gmail account, claiming that his company own the rights. I don't have the time to reply to such emails. In addition, to me the wording of his recent posting on top of his talkpage reads a bit like a legal threat; but I may be mistaken in that. --Túrelio (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Pablo Milano #6

I'm sorry to come back to present, this time, eight new puppets of Pablo Milano, whose accounts outlined below:

I took care to mark the images for speedy deletion or deletion request, as appropriate. Thank you very much. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 19:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Done all blocked forever and tagged accordingly. Taivo (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Fernandezadrian

I don't speak Spanish, but using Google Translate it seems that User:Fernandezadrian may have been created to attack someone, possibly Adrian Fernandez. Two images have been uploaded, one clearly a copyright violation and the other very likely to be (I have nominated both for speedy deletion). The description of "File:Salchichaman.jpg" says "la salchicha de adrian fernandez echa con sus propias manos de mamut" (Google Translate: "adrian fernandez sausage check with your own hands mammoth"), and that of "File:Paloso.jpg" is "este oso es bastante flaco porque lo unico que come son salchichas framfu,r y le sale la lengua porque se tiene alergia asi mismo, es un pringado" ("this bear is quite weak because the only thing you eat are sausages framfu, ry tongue comes out because they are allergic likewise, is a sucker."). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

91.66.153.214

Clarification pending at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism#91.66.153.214. -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Milad Mosapoor

Milad Mosapoor (talk · contribs) appears to me that he's socking and copying images from various websites and uploading them to Commons without permission. In June 2013, Miladir (talk · contribs) claimed to be 20 year old [42] living in Iran and Milad Mosapoor claims to be 21 year old living in Iran. They share the same interests. I think both are one person and there may be other socks. I'm not sure what's the best way to deal with this problem, can someone check to see if there is socking going on?--Officer (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Kyngoaihau new sock of Namkhanh02

I believe this is a new sock. The user is uploading badSVGs of Vietnamese flags, the same as the other socks did. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

User Taron Saharyan

User Taron Saharyan continued removing category from the page without consensus. To avoid edit warring the page was blocked on consensuses version. But after unblocking user continued edit warring. Without discussion and consensus user removes category. --Interfase (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Done I warned him with block. Taivo (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Keete 37: Flickr washing/Falsified Flickr Reviews

Keete 37 (talk · contribs) I only checked his latest uploads, all of them fall under Flickr washing:

File:Freierfall106.jpg
File:Max-riemelt.jpg
File:Max Riemelt und Hanno Koffler (Freier fall).jpg
File:Hanno Koffler.jpg; Keete 37 falsified the Flickreview: [43]
Two more falsified Flickr Reviews: [44] [45]

I've deleted the falsified picture and left a final warning on the user talkpage. Pleclown (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Propaganda

Democrats Are Dumbasses (talk · contribs). Usher should be blocked for propaganda uploads. The username itsself does not fit with the rules. --Jerchel (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Done --Didym (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Since when is the personal attacks allowed?

I'm not the user in question, but since when is this the norm? -- 12:43, 3 December 2013‎ 46.158.44.15

I don't see any personal attack here, just a relevant advice.--Jebulon (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't find this appropriate. Of course we do not need more low quality pictures of human male reproductive systems, but that is not a reason to talk to a user like this, after just one upload. Jcb (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

(You forgot to notify the involved user at his talk page). Jcb (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Jcb on this one, I do not find the tone used to be at all appropriate. The intent behind it is reasonable, but the way it was phrased left me the impression of an old man on the porch with a shotgun. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. What happens next? -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I support the analysis. Should we discuss a sanction ? Pleclown (talk) 08:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary, an admonition is appropriate but nothing further. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for my (bad) english, I meant sanction in a broad sense, starting from a message on his talk page. Pleclown (talk) 11:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't tolerate to any PA; but I have no problem with this. If we stay mellow and allow 7 days DR run for every such cases; people will make benefit from it. Further, I can't see any difference from another case reported here a few months ago, where Mattbuck commented "low quality penis". This is just another humorous way to fight against the vandals. :)

We can educate somebody who don't know the rules; but thjere is not much meaning in lecturing to one who pretend so and make use of it. J Kadavoor J e e 03:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a difference. The "low quality penis" situation was silly simple matter of how Mattbuck worded his DR. In this case, Marcus Cyron went to the uploader's talk page to further harass them akin to "we don't want your kind here!". Fry1989 ^eh? 03:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I just checked the related DR. ~~Why it was DRed twice? Is it undeleted in between?~~ It is clear from Infrogmation's comment that he uploaded similar image neglecting the advice. But no excuse for a PA; I have to agree. J Kadavoor J e e 03:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It amazes me how ridiculous Commons can be with its political correctness. Someone who comes here under a IP or a new account and starts by showing his penis is a vandal. And vandals should not be encouraged. For me, Marcus Cyron's comment on the vandal's page was a mild and humurous one. Something like a mellow guy would say to a teenager coming to his front door and showing his penis. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I have weird sense of humor, but I find this thread overall very funny. Please do not take sanctions against Marcus, I had a proper laugh. Taivo (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I find the comment same way embarassing as the upload. But in MC's homecountry they say "Everybody embarrasses themselves as well as they are able to do". This should actually say everything, imo no sanctions are necessary, but maybe one should consider if someone with similar immature behaviour really should be an admin. --A.Savin 11:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
And this ignorance is neither helpful for a Commons admin. --A.Savin 21:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It is merely a reference to Commons:Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera :-). --PierreSelim (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Should vandals be encouraged? Of course not. But we are also not a torch and pitchfork community chasing them out of town. It was unnecessary to go to their talk page like that. Yes this place can be stupid about political correctness, the Mattbuck "low quality penis" situation is a perfect example, but as I stated above, this is different. One is an actual deletion nomination, this was going to the uploader's talk page to further taunt them. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, we reverted it. Thanks, Túrelio too. J Kadavoor J e e 18:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Bidgee

I am trying to address the copious known errors to File:RomanandHanEmpiresAD1.png. Once he became aware of them through my attempt to move the map to a better location, User:Bidgee has since reverted my improvements (initially) upon no rationale whatsoever and without looking at the nature of the edits. Since I objected on his talk page, he has continued to ignore the content of the edits and fallen back on saying "past changes have been contested". In doing so, he continues to ignore the substance of what the changes actually were and the existing conversation on the file page itself.

I'm sure he is well-meaning enough, but could someone higher up the food chain (y'know, someone he will actually listen to) explain to him that adding Roman control of Britain to a map of the Roman Empire is not "controversial". That, in fact, since Wikipedia pages are using this file, it's more important to fix the changes?

~~Or (in the alternative) where do I go to delete the thing, if it's official policy never to fix grossly erroneous maps because people got into nationalistic fights about it over three years ago?~~ LlywelynII (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Found it. Someone please talk to Bidgee about actually examining the edits he is reverting, though. Even ignoring the comments and conversations on the pages involved (which he shouldn't), rolling back Roman control over Britain is pretty ridiculous. LlywelynII (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

My position on this image is neutral, I hold no point of view for either side. You overwritten an image that had changed it from the original (which already has a past history of contested and controversial changes) and then you tag to rename the file (even though the description says AD. 1) per bad name (which it isn't). As I stated on my talk page, upload your version under a new title (e.g. File:RomanandHanEmpiresAD117.png) and tag File:RomanandHanEmpiresAD1.png with {{Fact disputed}}. Bidgee (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Porshegirl (talk · contribs)

The name of this account appears itself be a deliberate act to inflame drama about a matter of an established inappropriate invasion of privacy. Please see Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy with the associated legal case about the photograph that this account has uploaded as a first edit at File:Chp photo 2013-12-10 02-40.jpg. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Porshegirl is a sockpuppet of Carryalex (talk · contribs):

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I've block Porshegirl (talk · contribs) and delete the file. Pleclown (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice work. Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

For what it is worth, Carcrashes (talk · contribs) is a

technically indistinguishable sockpuppet of Porshegirl and has been blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 03:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Unkownuser123

Unkownuser123 (talk · contribs) upload File:Minimierung des Zementgehalts durch Zugabe von Kalksandstein.jpg, it was deleted [46] (Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing). 5 days later he upload the File again. File is Copyright. Its from here, this file. --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎ 19:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Done User warned. INeverCry 20:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I did the same in parallel. I have verified the terms of use of the University of Darmstadt and can confirm that they don't use a free license and therefore a clear copyright violation rather than COM:NETCOPYRIGHT case. I gave the user a "personalized" last notice Poc o² 20:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Mertensia virginica, the correct species name.

A user called Biopics keeps redirecting and recategorizing wikimedia content from "Mertensia virginica" to "Mertensia pulmonarioides" which is an obscure synonym for Mertensia virginica that seems to appear occasionally in the horticultural trade overseas. In America, where Mertensia virginica is a native species, there is no current controversy over it's name. The accepted scientific binomial name is Mertensia virginica. I only started contributing to wikipedia and wikimedia recently, and I am not sure what the best way to address this issue is. I went through and tried to correct their mistakes, but before I could even finish, they were changing it back again. I'm not sure how to get in contact with this person, or even if they are a real person or a robot. Can someone with more experience please help? Fritzflohrreynolds (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wiki. Biopics is a real person, and it looks like you just found his talk page: User talk:Biopics. That's the right place for this kind of discussion - this noticeboard is for when people start breaking rules and administrator's intervention is required. --99of9 (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Or you can discuss at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants; Commons has no facility for such expert reviews on scientific matters. J e e 03:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Itatch

Vandalism-only account, also strangely claiming authorship on their user page of many many files they had nothing to do with. Has been blocked for one week but is continuing the same actions. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Done Account blocked, userpage deleted. INeverCry 21:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Yann

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

@Yann: Yann behaves abusively and is not an appropriate person to be an administrator. I propose him to step down voluntarily, otherwise he should be taken the rights away by the community. Evidence:

insulting language: [47][48][49][50]
abusive DR closures: [51][52][53][54]
unwarranted one-month block: [55]
refusal to communicate: [56]
vandalism of other users' comments: [57]

I've not left him a message at his talk page, due to his desire that I not post there (he has been pinged though). --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, does anyone know what does 'EC' mean?[58] End of conversation? I'd suggest Yann to not use such a cryptic language, but in any case, the comment is clearly inappropriate. Commons is a public space, not Yann's private site, so the conversation can last as long as needed. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

EC=edit conflict. It happens because you don't use preview and change your comments several times just after posting. --Sporti (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good excuse. The comment is clearly inappropriate, and an apology would be in place instead. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

EC = edit conflict. An accident, has nothing to do with vandalism (for my understanding, vandalism = destruction, bad faith editing). You made this edit, Yann edited shortly after and the previous edit was undone automatically (mediawiki problem, happens to me sometimes either). So, will you consider an apology for unsubstantial vandalism accusation you stated here above and also in this comment? --A.Savin 11:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Btw, most of your complaints from above are old hat, including your block and DR closures, no idea why should we discuss it again and again. --A.Savin 11:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I sincerely apologise to Yann for calling this edit vandalism. We should discuss this again because it is a pervasive pattern that hasn't stopped. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Arf, the thief now complains against the law. No comment. Yann (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Your insults, abusive DR closes, unwarranted blocks that have been reverted by the community and refusals to communicate are not law nor will they ever be. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose This looks more like a personal tit-for-tat then a grievance worthy of de-adminship. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

A tit-for-tat between someone with the ability to block the other, but not the other way around? Hmm, the «Let The Kids Play» approach may be good to solve most personal tit-for-tats, but one of the kids here has a box cutter. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

An ability they have not exercised. Are we to press this on the hypothetical of an abuse of power or the reality of the situation? Eleassar has wasted the time, energy and patience of many users with their half-baked and repetitive DRs, and I find it ironic that they chose to list this as insulting when they themselves simply repeated it back in that schoolyard taunt of "I'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!", which is exactly what I mean by tit-for-tat. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

An ability they have not exercised?! --Eleassar ^(t/p) 22:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Just because an admin has blocked you doesn't mean it was an abuse of their powers. I'll have to review that block in greater detail before I'm willing to call it abusive and punitive. If my conclusion is the opposite, I will apologize. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Eleassar, first listen what people are telling to you. Now you refuse to listen/neglect others; still demand people care you. :( J Kadavoor J e e 02:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

First Eleassar re-opens DRs closed by admins who disagree with him. Now he seeks to remove the admin right from those who disagree with him. Pissing people off and then complaining they lost their cool is a stupid and obvious game to play. I find Tuválkin's "box cutter" comment above to be very distasteful and an apology is due. Choose your analogies with more care. I do think it wise for Yann to avoid exercising admin power over Eleassar. Someone else will press the button soon enough, I have no doubt. -- Colin (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

An one-month block given by the same admin one is envolved in an editorial dispute with is a terrible thing and the analogy is apt. I have been doing some DRs since august, trying to get some clutter^IMO deleted and some worthy^IMO items kept or undeleted, and I must confess that the atmosphere around some admins is frankly intimidating as it is. If month-long blocks is what one gets for «how dare you to disagree with the poor overworked closing admin», then there’s few roads the baseline user can take — one of them being to leave, none of them including abject, unfelt apologies. That said, I should add I don’t have any quarrels with Yann not feel any particular chumminess towards Eleassar and therefore I fancied myself an impartial party in this matter. -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Yann shouldn't have been the one blocking Eleassar in that case. I don't think it worth seeking an apology over that as it would doubtless be grudging if offered at all. Trying to be an impartial party isn't helped by describing one of the defendants as a knife wielding thug. The "box cutter" comment is just inflammatory.

No evidence has been presented of any pattern of admin abuse. The cited diffs are equally as damning of Eleassar, who still fails to get the message. I suggest this section be closed. Colin (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for being inflammatory — it was just a counterpoint to Fry’s dismissal of the matter as a tit-for-tat, made to stress the inherent assimetry of any conflict between and admin and a non-admin. I appologize rather for my derailment, as I was in my mind already making the case of generic admin abuse inspired by this discussion, without having analized this specific case. So, like Fry at 2013.12.09+22:32, I’ll withhold judgement here. -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Colin that Yann should probably refrain from acting as an admin regarding Eleassar for a while, as their conflicts have reached a level where Yann could easily be perceived as being prejudiced. More generally (and without meaning to suggest Yann has done this), I think an admin shouldn't close DRs nominated by someone the admin has ordered off their talk page.

Having said that, I don't think anything here comes close to justifying Yann resigning his adminship. I don't like some of the speedy DR closures, but Yann is not alone in doing this. And if you have to go back to 2010 to find one of four examples of "insulting language" (most of which I would class as more crass than insulting, anyway), that suggests to me that there isn't a big problem there. --Avenue (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this. -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Interaction ban between Eleassar and Yann

I am becoming very tired of Eleassar, and right now I'm of the opinion that he's more concerned with exacting some sort of revenge against Yann than he is about anything productive. I find him manipulative (see my talk page) and distasteful, and find that this entire situation has gone on for far too long.

Since the two of them have been spending so much of their time, and have chewed up so much of our time, sniping at each other, perhaps an interaction ban is the best solution here. That would a) make it impossible for Yann to use admin actions towards Eleassar, and b) get Eleassar to, frankly, shut up about Yann.

If this doesn't happen, and a similar Eleassar/Yann thread crosses my watchlist in a few weeks, my inclination would be towards blocking Eleassar for disruption. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, with the number of DR Eleassar creates, and the number of controversies he gets involved (see the UDR page) it would mean that can't do anything on a big number of places. I don't find this acceptable. Anyway, lately, I didn't intervene in a number of places because of Eleassar alone. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem working with Yann as long as he avoids doing things listed above. These are what is truly disruptive. I have had no such conflict with any other administrator, and this can't be just because of me. You should not see this report as a try at revenge, but as a try of a tired contributor that has been harrassed by another user (who happens to hold administrative rights) to stop this harrassment. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 19:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is a satisfactory solution. It superficially appears balanced but in practice means Eleassar can raise DRs knowing there is one less admin likely to close as keep. And then the next admin loses his cool and gets banned from closing Eleassar's DRs. And the next. I think Yann should, like any admin, think twice before getting involved with a user he has issues with (or seeks a second opinion first). But I also think Eleassar should take a break from DR for, well, for as long as possible really. It hasn't proved a healthy hobby and there are plenty other ways to help Commons. -- Colin (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sven, I can see your good intention, but have to agree with Colin here. Otherwise it will become an encouragement to people like Eleassar who plays similar trick (yes; I see such tricks in COM:FPC and many other places, regularly) to out a user criticizing him/her. We can see many admins disagree with Eleassar's actions, here. So what will we do he target another admin soon? I expect Blackcat as his next target. :) J e e 03:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

If you want to propose that Eleassar be banned from deletion discussions, go ahead. I'll support it. If you want to propose that Eleassar be blocked for a month, go ahead. I'll support it. The longer this goes on, the more I feel that Eleassar is a problem in need of removing, either from the area or from the project. That isn't to say that Yann didn't make a block that was questionable from an 'involved admin' standpoint, but Eleassar's vendetta is petty and a waste of our time. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I still hope he will understand his mistake and refrain from it. But he opens discussions in many places to prove he was/is right. A very childish behavior, indeed. :( J e e 04:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

What mistake? Can someone at least explain to me clearly what was the mistake? To reopen the DRs that have been closed incorrectly (very clearly evident here and here), to open the DRs about files that are clearly non-free (e.g. [59][60]), to post a proposal for a policy change to make it more in line with what is written elsewhere, or what? To post a request to review the actions and comments of an administrator that are not ok and will never be no matter what you state here? How can a proposal to bring this and this page in line be considered "a very childish behavior"? In my opinion, the majority of people here are just up for revenge and of course, you may block me for asking these questions and my opinion (probably qualifies as a mind delict). --Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I mean this; your attempt to justify yourself rather than following some "best practices". Eleassar, you can fine tune yourself and become a good/valuable contributor here. :) J e e 08:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Your mistake, Eleassar? Lots are telling you what is. First you stretch DRs to the limit of our tollerance and abuse our patience: you don't need to reiterate them only to find someone who agree with your deletion motivations. Second you misuse a tool like this for having a revenge against an admin who blocked you. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 17:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
PS Of course I disagree with this "Interaction ban" between Yann and Eleassar. If Eleassar's behaviour has been criticized by many, and since is likely that Eleassar will file another UP to get another interaction ban next time he has a problem with another admin, then it's clear that the problem are not the sysops but Eleassar.

Oppose, this would drastically reduce Yann's abilities to carry out admin duties; it seems overly punitive towards Yann. Liamdavies (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, Yann is not the cause of the problems. Jcb (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Strong Oppose It is very unfortunate that commons be allowed to participate users trolling behaviors. The commons project is doomed if this keeps happening. Trolling, canvassing and puppets. Administrators with testicles are needed and this is not confused with administrators who do not know how to manage their emotions. --The Photographer (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The irony of having The Photographer opiniating in a conflict rooted on claims about serial frivolous DRs is immense. Also, testicles? Sexist, too — this example case keeps on giving. As for the unfortunateness of trolling being allowed, I can only wholeheartedly agree. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I think he meant something like what e.g. in German they call "Arsch in der Hose haben" (~ "to have ass in the trousers"). The equivalent English expression seems to be: "to have the balls". --A.Savin 20:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, A. Savin, I know the expression in several languages, though. No surprise that sexism is pervasive in most cultures and eras. It is however shocking to find it here, especially when so clearly expressed: Not only by uttering unadvertedly the idiomatic reference to male gonads as the evident and exclusive epitome of levelheadedness, but actually explaining what is meant: «how to manage their emotions». (But I shall derail no more.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Same expression in French, and in Spanish too. Available for free by private email. Not sexist, but traditionaly and historicaly stupid.--Jebulon (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

+1. Let's try to avoid having similar expressions leaking onto this noticeboard.

Plums are delightful, but the community should do far more to attract Administrators without them. We want a more mellow and welcoming productive environment, rather than one flooded with testosterone. --Fæ (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Strong Oppose, per Jcb.--Jebulon (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose --A.Savin 20:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Restrict Eleassar's right to relist DRs

I propose that we give Eleassar their en:WP:Boomerang back, and place a community ban on relisting DRs that Eleassar instigated. Under my proposed ban Eleassar would be forbidden from relaunching a DRs on a file within three months of Eleassar's last DR on said file. This would not affect the rights of others to relist said DRs, or from Eleassar from relisting DRs which they did not instigate. This would hopefully settle some of the issues that have been plaguing the drama boards lately. Liamdavies (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why this can't extend to anyone and should be proposed in deletion policy. If you raise a DR, accept the result. Someone else must reopen the DR, and canvassing for such a person should be disallowed. If nobody else reopens the DR, then I guess it can't have been that important. And as we know Eleassar likes to follow rules, so he'll simply reopen all his unsuccessful DRs exactly three months to the day. -- Colin (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree Colin, it stands to reason that the results should be abided by, and does seem an absurd abuse of process to continually reopen discussion until you get the outcome you want. There are however (rare) exceptions, although a healthy dose of IAR is probably sufficient to deal with those exceptions. I agree with your broader proposal, but seeing as that may take a bit longer, still stand be my original proposal. Liamdavies (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Renominating a file may be necessary sometimes. Closing admins may make mistakes. But if you renominate per default, you are abusing procedures. I think users should be allowed to renominate a file once, as long as they use this possibility with care. A user who abuses this possibility should imho be forbidden to renominate the file if there are no new arguments, without 3 month waiting time. I would support such a measure for Eleassar, because I believe he is frustrating the processes at our project with his renominations. Jcb (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I am tempted to oppose this as being needlessly nonrestrictive. Why not just either a) prohibit Eleassar from relisting at DR any file that has already been listed at DR, ever, by anyone, or b) prohibit Eleassar from listing anything at DR under any condition. The whole "three months" thing is an invitation for a problem. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Given the objections and concerns raised here, I amend my proposal. I now propose that an indefinite ban or renominating files for deletion be placed on Eleassar. There is only one exception: Eleassar would be able to renominate a file which they did not originally nominate, but only for a reason other than all preceding nominations. Liamdavies (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I have reopened the DRs due to my belief that this is allowed by the policy (see Commons:Deletion policy#Appeal) as well as directly asking a respected administrator about this and being given the reply "I think it's OK, as do most of the Admins." I have never done so with the intention to cause disruption in the community. Also, before this conversation started at COM:AN a few days ago, I did not receive any warning by an uninvolved administrator that my reopenings would be disruptive. I apologise if I have caused any disruption by reopening the closed DRs, though I still fail to see how. In any case, it is evident to me that the majority of the community considers such reopenings disruptive so I will refrain from them in the future, whether banned or not (I find the first proposal by Liamdavies above sound and would be willing to follow it, without having an intention to game the system). As to this user report, it was truly not my intention to revenge but to stop the violence against me. I find it appalling that (at least some) members of this community see the behaviour I've complained above as an evidence of emotional maturity and the courage. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 16:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

A voluntary decision is enough now; thanks. J e e 16:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

So are you voluntarily offering to not renominate files for deletion? Or not within three months? Because I think the the month restriction is off the table, if how ever you are prepared to not renominate files for deletion I think we can close this. Liamdavies (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I am voluntarily offering to not renominate files within three months and not without a good reason (in the form of new information/evidence). I think it doesn't really matter who initially proposed a file for deletion if new evidence appears; sometimes I'm the only one to actually go to the library to check a fact in the books. Also, given that I'm prepared to voluntarily commit myself to such a limit, it would be fair to assume good faith on my part. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this discussion can be closed per Eleassar's comment above. J e e 05:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

As long as he keeps such commitment, I agree to close here. SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 13:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Closing for now. Let's assume good faith and assume that Eleassar was not sufficiently aware of what he was causing. I think he will be more careful from now. If not, a new thread can be started here. Jcb (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Fae

Native English speaker Fae is requesting "an view [sic]" from an admin regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso (the making of).ogv. S/he has been falsely labeling the profound statements of others as personal attacks, due to her apparent lack of comprehension skills. Please help. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 01:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Pardon, but I haven't understood the issue at all. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 20:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The longstanding tensions over alleged Russavia-commissioned attack artwork, I presume... AnonMoos (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Ordercrazy

Can someone look into the recent edits of this user and may be have a word to him :

Which I suspect are a reaction to these :

LGA _talk^edits 08:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the PA at the DR discussion and warned the user. I think that's enough, for now. --Túrelio (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Question What do I have to do with this? The user posted a comment to my talk page, but I have not participated in any of the mentioned deletion requests, so I can't tell what the user is referring to. It also seems that I haven't written anything on the user's talk page, so I would assume that I haven't nominated any of the user's files for deletion.

Another thing: The three theatre DRs closed differently: two as delete, one as keep. Is this really correct? The one which was closed as "keep" looks like a clear case of de minimis to me: the entire purpose of the photograph is to show the theatre building, and the advertisements are an unavoidable side-effect. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Iwtd44

Hello,

Iwtd44 (talk · contribs) uploaded dozens of copyvios in one day. Do we nuke them all, or do we check them first? Regards, Yann (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Support nuking --High Contrast (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Done Uploads nuked, user blocked. INeverCry 18:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion

Guiyuan (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

obviously block evasion of user:Iwtd44 (see above), regards St1995 21:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, I find another sock 22gecuowu (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user St1995 21:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Done Both blocked. Эlcobbola _talk 22:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

License Reviewer Ramaksoud2000

Hi, I believe that I am being somewhat persecuted by License Reviewer Ramaksoud2000. Please take a look at my talk page, his/her talk page. I don't believe that someone with this kind of personality should be given License Reviewer authority in the commons. Let's all try to be reasonable here... Cheers and thanks, Daderot (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I saw both talk pages and I think, that Ramaksoud has generally done good work, nominating for deletion copyright violations. These copyvios were photographed by Daderot. I do not consider this a personal vendetta or something like that. Simply if somebody has uploaded a copyright violation, then is sensible to look his other uploads also, often there are more copyvios. Please continue good work, Ramaksoud. Taivo (talk) 09:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked user name

I helped out at an editathon for women in Sweden on 28 november. I spent most of my time coaching Simplicitas about general editing, but also on how to upload images. To our great annoyance, we were not able to use her account at Swedish Wikipedia on Commons since it was deemed "too similar" to a different account (an ASCII-rendering of "Simplicitas" which I can't seem to find now). She has recently tried to use a different account (the user name spelled backwards) but then got this message:

Could anyone help us out here? It seems unreasonable that she's being blocked from using an established account due to a mere similarity in user names.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hej Peter! Rather than registering new accounts on each Wikimedia project, she should get a unified account by going to sv:Special:Slå ihop konton. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Tjena, Alex.

We actually tried just that during the editathon, but it just wouldn't work. Commons appeared to refuse to recognize it. Can this be due to a similar-sounding account being perma-banned here at Commons or something like that?

Peter ^Isotalo 23:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hard to say without knowing the exact error message or the other user name, but a bureaucrat should be able to override it. I thought the Single User Login tools might bypass some of the local checks, but I guess not. As for the alternate name, that was blocked by a rule in MediaWiki:Titleblacklist which prevents names with ten or more uppercase characters in a row. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

She tried to log in as User:Simplicitas and got the following error message: "Inga konton kunde bekräftas med det lösenordet." Should I try to contact a bureaucrat?

Peter ^Isotalo 01:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

That would be the expected error message when trying to log in with an account that isn't registered here, which Simplicitas isn't. I was more interested in the error message you get when trying to register the account. But if the account is too similar to another account, you'll probably need a bureaucrat to help. Admins can't really do much about that sort of thing. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Mass delete required

Settai3 is repeatedly uploading copyrighted images of Indian movie stars etc, grabbed from numerous websites & tagged as "own work". I've been reporting them individually but am becoming fed up of it because there appear to be no exceptions. Can we do a mass delete? - Sitush (talk) 12:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Done Yann (talk) 13:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Bhuvan T

Bhuvan T (talk · contribs) keeps on uploading copyrighted photos over and over again (they are all basically the same, and of the same person, en:Richard Slaughter). The user needs to be blocked, I have asked them to refrain from uploading copyrighted pictures here and on English Wikipedia, and they do not wish to stop. küñall (nütramyen) 06:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

blocked on en.wiki as a sockpuppet. küñall (nütramyen) 07:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Done User blocked for a week. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 08:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You should indef it, as I said above it was blocked as a single-purpose sockpuppet on en.wikipedia. küñall (nütramyen) 18:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Done User is a

Confirmed sock of User:Ravindra H K. INeverCry 18:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Request

User Vahram Mekhitaryan repeatedly added wrong categories, and starting edit wars. Please take some action against it.--Δαβίδ (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the histories of files like File:Westarmeniaflag.jpg, it looks to me like both User:Δαβίδ and User:Vahram Mekhitarian need to be blocked again for continuing to edit war even though both users are clearly aware that it's disruptive in and of itself and both users have been previously blocked for edit warring. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Done Both users blocked for 1 week. INeverCry 22:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

My photo

I uploaded the photo File:Tramonto.jpeg some months ago, and I have see now that it has been attributed to a different user with changed geolocalization data. Can yu please control? thanks Susanna --Giaccai (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It might have been deleted (can't see, I'm not an admin). However, you can still upload your picture under a similar name (Sunset at Tramonto, for example). Regards, küñall (nütramyen) 23:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted, I checked the logs. User:Giaccai, you uploaded an image with a certain title (File:Tramonto.jpeg). Before you uploaded that file, another file existed with the same file. Files on Wikimedia Commons must have unique titles - they cannot be identical without replacing the older file. When you uploaded your file, you accidentally overwrote the old file. Another editor reversed your upload and restored the old file. Now, you should upload the file again but with a different title, like "Sunset at Tramonto". That will solve any possible naming conflicts. —Mono 23:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks @Mono and have a happy new year. --Susanna Giaccai (talk) 08:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

How to name svg version

I do some svg work here and I don't understand how to name the svg version of a bitmap.
When I upload the svg version I can't use the same name as the original bitmap so I add *_svg.svg to it. It's not a great way but I don't know what else to do. I have searched and asked but haven't got any answer yet. I hope I can find it here, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Use Special:Upload — it is a known error of the UploadWizard that forces the addition of *_svg to file names if a similar file with another extension exists. I'm told by members of the Wikimedia Foundation mobile team that they will be fixing this soon. odder (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Beleiutz sock to block

Mirciulescu (talk · contribs) is another sockpuppet of Beleiutz (talk · contribs), as confirmed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beleiutz/Archive. It is now being used to upload copyright-infringing photos for use by his other Wikipedia sockpuppets. Could an administrator please block? For further reference see Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beleiutz, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 39#Beleiutz, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 41#Beleiutz sock to block, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beleiutz. —Psychonaut (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Gone and en SPI page added to my watchlist. --Denniss (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

User:ZAOP

ZAOP (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user obviously sock of

Iwtd44 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user /St1995 18:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Done This and one other sock

Confirmed, blocked, and tagged. INeverCry 19:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest and repeated posting of non-free images by Barbarajohnson1

Not sure if this is the right place to post this. I've noticed that User:Barbarajohnson1 has been making many uploads of pictures of w:en:CK Morgan. However, it seems as though this user is posting on behalf of the subject (see the Wikipedia COI posting I created). I already requested that one of this user's images be deleted, but I see that there are about 10 more. More importantly, these images are of questionable value to this project, and furthermore don't seem to be marked to be free on the artist's website (some are even watermarked by a third party). I suspect we need to delete the images, but I'm not sure if a user block is in order. Joe Schmedley (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The first thing is to talk to him, and specially mention that you brought the issue here. Yann (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I nominated his images for deletion. At least some are clear copyvios. Yann (talk) 09:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Murilo Grillo

Just for the record: after consulting with Yann, I have increased Murilo Grillo (talk · contribs)'s block-duration from 2 weeks to 1 year. In addition to the impressive number of deleted uploads from this account, which fills 2 screen pages, and re-uploads of deleted files, he recently seems to have engaged in Flickr-washing by uploading not-own images to his Flickr-account and then transfering them to Commons, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Suzie Zeldin The Narrative 9 de agosto de 2011.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Banda uo.jpg. 1.5 years ago, there was already a short thread about this account at COM:AN/U. As also suggested by User talk:Murilo Grillo this user seems to be rather resistant to learn from earlier mistakes. Thereby a strong warning seems justified. --Túrelio (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Ray Osorio

I have just speedy-deleted a whole lot of copyvio files (see top 23 items in my deletions log) uploaded by Ray Osorio (talk · contribs); several of these were repeat uploads of previously deleted files (see Deletion requests here, from 2 months ago). The only remaining files that I couldn't trace are some selfies, which I left for now though they could be deleted as self-promotion. Given the repeat copyvio uploads after 2 months wait, I think a long (possibly permanent?) block would be in order, but he/she doesn't appear to have been explicitly warned about copyvios before. Although I've been an admin for a while, I've never been active on this side of admin work, so am not sure what should be done. Could someone (preferably fluent in Spanish) more familiar with the proceedure deal with this, please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I warned him, but am not sure, that it is enough. Taivo (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Maybe the note would be better left in Spanish? - MPF (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Done Msg in Spanish + 4 images to DR. --Alan ^(talk) 10:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You might also want to take a look at Special:Nuke/Ray Osorio (or whoever}, which makes it easier to do mass deletions. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

User blocked 2 week per continuing uploading irrelevant images. --Alan ^(talk) 08:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Contributions by User:Manimihan

A few days ago I have nominated one of the files uploaded by User:Manimihan for deletion (File:Mahdi.jpg). Now it seems that all images uploaded by the same user are suspect: some are obvious movie posters, others do not indicate where they were taken and may be in fact film or TV screenshots. (All the user's contributions are summarily marked as "own work".) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Done Uploads nuked. INeverCry 20:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Pymouss (talk · contribs)

I opened a DR related to an image of stuffed animals, which was summarily closed approximately 18 minutes later by Pymouss (talk · contribs). I reverted the closure, and Pymouss entered a comment including "these [sic] RfD is an abusive one." [61] In addition to an astonishing ignorance of copyright, Pymouss made an improper closure (contrary to Commons:Deletion policy) and failed to assume good faith. I don't want or seek any action against Pymouss; I merely wish for the community to confirm that this is not acceptable behavior from an admin. Эlcobbola _talk 16:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Not at all an acceptable behaviour from an admin. But I should say that unacceptable behaviours from admins do not surprise me, and having witnessed in the last few months how easy it is to become a Commons admin ^{(unless your name is Fae)}, I think I know why. Too many people have admin rights without even been asked the proper questions. -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the reaction for a DR I would have described as "meh, not that important". An administrator may have good reason to close a DR early, and if Pymouss has evidence of this DR being part of a pattern of abuse then they should be able to present that case here and should have presented the evidence as part of the DR closure. --Fæ (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I've been administrator on Commons for barely 6 years and I'm quite surprised by this notification, which is the first one. I assumed that I made a technical mistake yesterday by closing this RfD but it was due to the misuse of DelReqHandler. I was about to revert it but elcobbola did it before I had time to do this. So, I don't think that I misused the tools that the community allowed me to use by electing me as an administrator.

I'm also a little bit surprised by the accusation of « astonishing ignorance of copyright ». As an administrator, I created a lot of RfD's on copyright violations due to the lack of FOP in France and other countries. Each time, I'm trying to explain to the uploader the reason of this request and I don't think that this is a proof of an « astonishing ignorance of copyright ». In the RfD that is pointed here, I explained my point of view and I admit that an another one can be right. A RfD is not a trial, it's a debate in the community and the final decision has to be done after this debate. An administrator can't know the laws in every country and I don't think that having a different view is a reason to accuse someone to have an « unacceptable behavior [for] an admin ».

Last point: English is not my mother language, and I may misspell it. I don't think that it's necessary to point each of my mistakes.

Pymouss Let’s talk - 17:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I am content with the explanation that this was a mistaken closure. Could you provide some evidence to support your statement that "Obviously, these RfD [DR] is an abusive one." or did you use the word "abusive" incorrectly?

I think what most readers of your statement would find surprising is that you appear to believe that stuffed toys are not subject to copyright, is that what you intend to say? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a side comment. I find the comments on grammar or vocabulary very prejudicial to the project. Not all contributors here are native english speakers, and pointing their every mistakes is a behavior that is not acceptable, especially from an admin. Pleclown (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that correcting grammar and spelling is a waste of everyone's time and not conducive to a collegiate environment. However if one contributor appears to be making allegations of abuse against another (which may later be used as evidence for blocking an account), or appears to be taking administrative actions based on a mistaken understanding of copyright, then these are valid matters to question and within the scope of this noticeboard should no resolution be forthcoming. --Fæ (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I was refering to the [sic] in those diffs: [62] [63]. I find also pretty ironic that elcobbola didn't COM:AGF on the first edit by Pymouss and came here to complain about a supposed failure to COM:AGF by him. I think this matter could have been settled on their respective talkpages.

As per the abusive term used by Pymouss, may I recall everyone that some terms are false-friends, and that the french abusive doesn't carry the same charge as the english term.

Pleclown (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the context. My sense of this is that there is no case for administrator intervention here, whether Pymouss chooses to say any more or not. --Fæ (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm "complaining" about closing a legitimate discussion 18 minutes after it being opened, in conjecture with with "abusive." The actions, taken as a whole, are the issue; to reduce the concern only to use of "abusive" is to miss the point. Pymouss speaks "advanced English," is clearly quite articulate, and is quick to claim a presence of 6 years. That "abusive" was a false friend given his/her English and experience is not something I find credible. Nor would one expect a rationale of "Not a copyrightable work of art" with a DelReqHandler mistake. Pymouss had to both choose keep and then enter a rationale. Not a simple button slip. There's assuming good faith, and there's naivete. Эlcobbola _talk 15:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I clicked on the keep button and entered a rationale in the box at least once, willing to !vote and not close the discussion. So yes, I believe Pymouss when he says he made a mistake.

Regarding the use of abusive, you can believe me or not, I don't really care. But please, try to understand others, and do not jump to conclusion too fast when they are not using their native langage, whatever babel boxes they may or may not have on their UP.

And an apology for the mistakes' pointing would have been nice.

Pleclown (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Once again, let me tell you that I'm sorry if I used inappropriate terms and I understand that some words can be considered as offensive, especially when you're involved in a very specific subject. The law cases you pointed show that you did a really great job about the subject. So, I want you to understand that I have nothing against your job here and that, thanks to you, I discovered that the thinks were not as clear as I thought concerning the toys.

It's not because it's legitimate to apply the law that I can't think that this law seems, to me, abusive. This is why I used that term, according to the explanations given in COM:TOYS. But I'm sure, that, thanks to your work, this page will soon be as clear and complete that COM:FOP is.

If I prefer to talk to people on their talk pages to explain them why I have a different view than theirs, especially in copyright cases, I don't even blame you on this present notification. It's for me a good think to understand that I have to be very careful before acting on pages, especially on RfD's, and that the "keep" button is not the one to use if I want to give my advice on keeping a file :)

As an administrator here, I mainly use my broom to rename categories or doing maintenance job. I think that the job I'm doing is useful for Commons, even if I think that many administrators here are doing really better job than I.

Pymouss Let’s talk - 16:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Pymouss. I generally believe talk pages are better suited for issues that are more or less interpersonal. Given that I interpreted this as a misuse of the position, I thought a "public" venue would be better (and again, as I stated initially, my objective was not an action against you). I apologize if I misunderstood your intent. Эlcobbola _talk 16:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both of you, and please archive this discussion. J e e 16:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Setanta Saki and file ownership problem

The problem here is with the Irish Air Corps flag. An SVG of the file was originally uploaded under the name File:Flag of Ireland Air Corps.svg. There were a few problems with the file that Setanta Saki uploaded, including the badge and roundel being distorted from their original shape (they are supposed to be circular but were ovoid and bent). I uploaded a correction, but Setanta Saki kept reverting me even after I explained the distortions. Then the user had Fastily delete the file all together under a false reasoning, and they uploaded what is essentially the exact same thing including my work (as it includes all my corrections) under a new name File:Ireland Air Corps Flag.svg. The reason for this I have trouble imagining, except perhaps so they can make it look like this is 100% their work, but this behaviour and abuse of the speedy deletion process is absolutely inappropriate as far as I'm concerned. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This complaint is quite literally bordering on the ludicrous. Firstly I personally spent my time and effort creating the svg flag in question from scratch using the currently used gif file as a guide. I then uploaded my work to assess it (not yet quite ready for use) within minutes fry1989 had tactlessly simply reuploaded it with a different colour without any discussion.

I then politely used this colour but as stated the file was not fully ready for use so i then went on to correct a large number small details which are only apparent on close inspection. Fry1989 then once again uploaded the old version of my file which contained none of my numerous fixes but had two parts that he now said were round, I wasn't exactly sure what he meant as they were round before to the eye and matched the gif overlay, but i realized he meant exactly mathematically "round" but this was only a minor two second fix compared with all the small detailed ones which were once again absent. Due to the reverts and alterations i put in a request to have a history clean up of my created file (I am the author )before he once again reuploaded the old version of my flag. I then decided it might be better to try and resolve the issue before the clean up occurred and so deleted my request, which one can check but it was carried out despite this. I resent fry1989 saying I gave false reasoning for a history clean up of my file. Although i am sure the user in question does a lot of fine work, I think they should be discouraged from what in essence could be seen as hijacking other peoples work within minutes of an upload without at least having the courtesy to discuss any issue with the author. I am sure most Wikipedia authors could find this quite irritating (i was still not ready for it to be used and had not linked it to any page or file it was essentially only moments old and was to be a trial file). My new svg file now contains all my updates and also the perfectly round badge et al. Setanta Saki (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ludicrous? What is ludicrous is that you kept reverting my correction to the roundel and badge which in your version were distorted from their natural shape. What's even more ludicrous is that you would have the file deleted and then just upload it under a new name, which was completely unnecessary when you could have kept uploading your fixes and alterations to the current file and when you're all done it's all one file together with a visible history and attribution of all the relevant changes. The first file had no indication it was temporary, that it was a work in progress that you wanted to have deleted when you were finished with it. That doesn't look good, what am I supposed to assume your reasons for that were without an explanation? And really, I'm hijacking other people's work? I was trying to help you, the least you could do is be thankful. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and removing a DR notice from a file while the DR is still open doesn't make you look any better. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok again i didnt ask for the file to be deleted i asked for a history clean up, secondly i explained to you that your uploaded file which had the mathematically round badge also had none of the previous numerous more detailed fixes. I hadn't explained any of the fixes because they were small detail things that i spotted on inspection, one example was the yellow strip was viably on the eagle badge, the lettering, the claws etc etc but you just were simply uploading my old flag with a perfectly round badge. I do appreciate help but you can seem to be very blunt in your actions its called discussion and compromise. Like i said i don't mind which file of mine is used as long as its the best one and contains fixes, i would like a history clean up of my original as its messy and will load more slowly. Setanta Saki (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You have now twice removed that DR notice from the file while the DR is still open. This is the behaviour of trolls and yet you come to my talk page asking for compromise? All I tried to do was help you and instead I get this mess. Why do I even try anymore. You can NOT remove a DR notice from a file while the DR is open. Wait for an admin to close it and stop disrupting the DR. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You started the complaint thread before even talking to me the author of the flag, then you made up some sort of conspiracy and falsely accused me of requesting a file deletion under pretense and now you are calling me a troll. I simply said your actions on my file and others such as here File:Royal Standard of Ireland (1542–1801).svg could be seen as being slightly intrusive (even if good) by an author who has just uploaded a file he put work into without any prior discussion. I had no issue with you helping out on my file but you were simply uploading an old file with errors but with a badge that was perfectly round. I Apologize for trying to talk to you on your page Setanta Saki (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really keeping track of the details of the back and forth, but Setanta_Saki, it seems that in almost all the file versions you've uploaded (all except the most recent), the triskelion in the corner was not very circular in proportions. I know that Fry1989 can sometimes be annoying, but things might have gone more smoothly if you had graciously accepted correction on that point, at least. That's part of what goes along with exposing your work to public view... AnonMoos (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi AnonMoos ya I understand what you are saying, in retrospect I wish I had copped immediately he meant perfectly round and included it as another fix, but as I said I was just using the gif overlay to gauge the size so at the time it seemed ok. Once I realized what he meant I altered the measurements to be precisely round. I was not intentionally discounting his opinion. However there was a lot of more time consuming issues that I had fixed prior which were not included in that round badge reupload. Fry is a top guy im sure but as I said it can just be a bit of a shock for an author to have his work changed within moments its upload without a quick discussion or message although I had no problem with him helping. Hope that clears things up from my perspective.Setanta Saki (talk) 12:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Caomhan27, do you fall back in old patterns? Please be positive and support other editors. --High Contrast (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year HC, I can only aspire to your perfection ;) Setanta Saki (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You will not reach it :-) Instead of this you are causing problems again. Then, as User:Caomhan27, you made many extreme mistakes here and on the English Wikipedia. After two admins were involved to "handle" with your extreme community time wasting behaviour, you played the purified user "who will never do any bad things again". Now, as User:Setanta Saki, you show that this was a lie again. Sad to see. Support User:Fry1989 instead of putting obstacles in another user's way. It is up to you to change your behaviour in a positive way. This is your last warning. Best regards, High Contrast (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Architectural elements

Hi at all. Please, can an admin look at this little edit war? Thank you. --DenghiùComm (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the problem appears that Category talk:Architectural elements is still a redlink. Considering the number of reverts, that should not be the case. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Technical assistance in filemoves for names that are taken by redirects

This is what we’re talking about here. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
original	renamed
File:Akko.jpg	File:View of Akko from the south.jpg
File:Covent Garden.jpg	File:Musician at Covent Garden.jpg
File:Schelde.jpg	File:Schelde bank in Antwerp.jpg
File:Sunday ease.jpg	File:Sunday at a Café in Budapest.jpg
File:Normandie.jpg	File:Three lambs cross a road at the Normandie.jpg
File:Two men.jpg	File:Two men in Kishon Street, Hadar.jpg
File:Finland.jpg	File:Lake Saimaa region.jpg
File:Philly.jpg	File:Moose of the Washington Monument in Philadelphia.jpg
File:Swedish Hostel.jpg	File:Swedish Hostel in Jerusalem.jpg
File:Sculptures.jpg	File:Sculpture park in Savonia.jpg
File:1st of May.jpg	File:1st of May parade in Paris.jpg
File:Mukta.jpg	File:Brigitte Menon performing.jpg
File:Shoeshine.jpg	File:Nairobi shoeshine 2.jpg
File:Savanna.jpg	File:Savanna between Singida and Tabora.jpg
File:Congo.jpg	File:Familiar hair parlour in Congo.jpg
File:Old City 02.jpg	File:Old City of Accre 02.jpg

I'm very infamiliar with this venue. Furthermore, I'm very uncomfortable using it, given the stated nature being apparently "complaining about specific users". For me, users are equal. I'M NOT HERE TO BE COMPLAINING ABOUT ANY USER. I'm here as one of our admins this morning kindly advised me to post my recent issue here, indicating that it needs to be 'discussed' prior to be technically fulfilled. 16 of my uploads: [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] were renamed last week in a series of multiple identical acts out of nowhere by one of our users, and given that the names which had existed prior to those acts were valid and that the renaming was invalid I naturally need to fix them back as they were. But, alas, since I can't delete the automatically-generated redirect pages for each of the entries, the restoration to the exact names is impossible. I put a lot of care in each of my contributions. Probably no admin actually needs any further proofs of my total commitment to Wikipedia and the enormous improvement of this proj during the intensive last 3 years is transparent. Most of you have intersected me in my plentiful work and have seen my thoughtful and bold job and this is why I'm well-credited. Having mentioned that obvious shiny fact, I'm very concerned that the user who committed that series of renames onto my upload gallery had another agenda than actually truly caring for the Commons media usability. You can easily see that they were further acting in a rude fashion when I rushed addressing their talkpg, but I'm not concerned about this; some people are rude and it's ok. I was weirded as hell by both the rename act, being a display of illiteracy and carelessness, and the allegations on me as if my contributions are careless; but it's OK. I need to only restore the 16 filenames as they were. This task shouldn't be dismissed, I suppose. It's been a week that I'm extremely frustrated due to having 16 files in a corrupt fashion which I can't let basing on both my familiarity with our rules and the care I regularly put into my fine uploads. Including their naming. Please allow this trouble to be repaired as soon as possible. If there's any point that any user wishes to illustrate to me they can openly do so, by talk and not by actions that contrast the guidance of COM:RENAME. Looking forward to getting the filenames restored. Thank you, Orrlingtalk 17:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I was one of the administrators that User:Orrling contacted and who suggested that s/he bring the matter here. Orrling has over 50,000 edits and has contributed images from underrepresented parts of the world.[80] Many of the filenames used by Orrling do not entirely satisfy the criterion, "Titles of media files should be meaningful and helpful in the language chosen" (Commons:File naming). For example, File:Finland.jpg is not very informative and is so generic that it invites overwriting by naive users. However, none of the COM:RENAME seem to apply. While the name given by Orrling is not very helpful, it is not the "meaningless name" of Marcus Cyron's edit summary, either.[81]The relevant criterion of COM:RENAME is, "Change from completely meaningless names into suitable names, according to what the image displays" (my emphasis). Regarding Orrling's request, I am sorry that s/he is unhappy about the file moves. I would encourage Orrling to choose more meaningful and helpful file names in the future. I'd suggest to Marcus Cyron that he follow the guidance of COM:RENAME more carefully, or seek to change that guidance. Also, I think he would be more effective if he were to be more patient, kind and helpful to users that question his actions.[82] None of the files are in use and they are recent uploads (last few months). I see no obstacle to moving them back to the original names, but I think the new names are, for the most part, more meaningful and helpful. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I would oppose moving these back to the original names. I think Marcus's moves were covered by renaming criterion #3: Correct misleading names into accurate ones. INeverCry 20:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The names were simply not usefull. That's all. And - where is the problem? Did Orrling realy need to "sit" on these image names? If he really want his files used (and if not - we don't need the files here), we need useful image nemas, usuful descriptions and Categories. Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC) PS: I never had a problem, when other people here found a better name for my images and moved them.

COM:RENAME is a guideline and it was written vaguely for a reason. Personally, I think the renames were both unnecessary and an improvement. So let's just leave this alone. —Mono 20:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Most renames were «both unnecessary and an improvement» — that is also also my opinion. While User:Marcus Cyron could find much better targets for his file renaming zeal (leaving the suspicion this is a case of harassment), User:Orrling is coming across as someone who doesn’t understand that, once donated, these are not “his files” anymore. The only issue here that matters more than pandering to prickly personalities is the accusation that some of the new name are incorrect in their syntax or grammar or even spelling: Orrling thrown this accusation around, but didn’t substantiate this. Those should be dully rerenamed, if they are indeed faulty. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

If this is something I need to respond to, so shortly said - I appreciate the message to me, my main effort for covering informativeness in filework goes in file's categories, and selecting my filename for Finland.jpg simply meant that no file with this title had existed yet, which I basically come to cover up for, as there must be a "Finland.jpg" in our library. Beside that one all the rest of the Sunday renames are a sad performance of total freaking-out-of-mind and disregarding of don't-do's. No need to attempt to present it in a different way. No need either to try to refer to any clause in our rename guideline because it's irrelevant and many of the renamer's renames are in such a bad English that only this should bring to question their possession of a filemover tool. The renamer had an agenda that is nothing with caring for the actual files' usability. No one will buy that any of the renames was needed. Having said that, as soon as the files retain their previous shape as recommended I will see them as the last upload by me with a "countryname.jpg" naming. However, collaborative and civil terms are not optional here but one of our pillars and I do strongly opt to get the filenames back so I can be whole with contributing them and future ones. Orrlingtalk 21:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Vague, misleading names are a problem. This is why we have criterion 3 of the file naming guidelines. Clear and accurate names are needed and important. The above renames were needed. The new names are a definite improvement. INeverCry 21:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

*Misleading* names? Like what, may I ask ? :) No. You well know that no filename given by me is misleading, and also that our rules don't allow "improving" short and correct names just because they're short. And finally, my sincere desire as the contributor of those files is, simply, to have them with the correct names which I have selected for them, and I'm sure my heartbreak is no gain for any of our clients. Orrlingtalk 21:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

They're not being renamed just because they're short. They're being renamed because they're generic and meaningless. 1st of May, for instance, is a meaningless name that gives no indication of subject. INeverCry 22:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

This reminds me of the old days of the internet, when everybody was trying to catch the best domain names. But that's not the game we should be playing over here. If there really must be a "Finland.jpg" in our library, which I cast doubt on, I'd suggest a national flag, a map, or a satellite view of the whole country rather than a snowy driveway to a random farm house. Even then, "Finland flag.jpg", "Finland map.jpg", or "Finland satellite view 2008.jpg" would be more useful names, since it will be hard to find the one and only picture that symbolizes the whole country better than any other. --Sitacuisses (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Criterion 3 is "Correct misleading names into accurate ones". While I agree that the new names are more meaningful and helpful, for the most part, I question that they are justified by Criterion 3. That said, "Titles of media files should be meaningful and helpful in the language chosen" (Commons:File naming). If users follow that guidance, they should not expect their filenames to be changed. Names like Finland, Akko, Normandie, Congo, Philly, Old City, Shoeshine, etc., are so non-specific as to be unhelpful. However, aggressive renaming should be avoided. "In general, Commons aims to provide stable file names as there might be external file clients and file moving involves significant human and computing resources. Thus renaming should be used with caution." (COM:FR) File:Italy.jpg, uploaded in 2006, is a case similar to File:Finland.jpg, is used multiple times by other projects, and has not been renamed. Orrling says in "selecting my filename for Finland.jpg simply meant that no file with this title had existed yet, which I basically come to cover up for, as there must be a "Finland.jpg" in our library." Please consider redirecting such names to File:Name.jpg, instead of giving your file an imprecise name. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

This is an acceptable and helpful idea for handling filenames in the future. I disagree though that the filenames mentioned by you are unhelpful, for the most. The Finland image is a depiction of a distinctly-Finnish moment. Same with the others, being each a depiction of a reliable, distinct representation of the respective place/existence, the way I as the author experience(d) them. Orrlingtalk 18:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I noticed this conflict/issue before going to my vacation and sad to see it is continuing still. Although I agree with renaming to a more subject identifiable name, I see some license violation problems in renaming neglecting the interest of the contributor. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode 4c: "If You Distribute, or Publicly Perform the Work or any Adaptations or Collections, You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (ii) the title of the Work if supplied;..." So it is better deleting such files than renaming, if we are not willing to host them here with the author accepted names/titles. (It seems to me those files are very low in quality to spend that much efforts here.) J e e 16:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Echoing you sadness that this is still going on, let me reply concerning the wording of 4.c.ii of CC-by-sa 3.0: Provided that the original filename as submitted (which is only argueably «the title of the Work»…) is registered in the file history, the legal prescritions are met. (This, of course, is simply my opinion and IANAL). -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

License info in file history may not be enough, if the author demands aggressively for it. So I just tried to include it in source. I think this is enough we need to care if author has complaints in renaming. J e e 07:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, it's been several inputs here during the past 24hrs and all are appreciated as part of our important talk tradition, also it's been explained to me that this venue is a must-throughway to get the needed name reversal of my contributed files. Now, that this was said and discussed, please allow restoring these names as requested and recommended in the two first comments. Mentioning that Commons is full bottom-to-top with generically-named files will be a waste of time because you all know this fact very well. As much as you probably understand fully that attending just my (brand-recent!) contributed batch last week was a mere channel of spiting me due to reasons that have little with the topical rename routine. I could link right here now dozens of files that have existed for long (and are in use on wikis!) with names that would qualify for the "re-treatment" - ah, but no, it is my uploads, my nurtured voluntary thoughtful and pure-good far-horizoned contributions that happened through the joyful disinfection spree, which some of you are trying to back-up. It should be stressed again, that more important than any renamer's factor are - (1) the illegitimacy of using one's filemover rights in direct contrat with the rename policy, as shown, and (2) the fact that I have shared in multiple ways my personal editorial wish to have back these uploads' names as long or short as they were since they were 100% valid and are important to me. Understanding that the renamer's act was the least necessary Commons task, plus my uttered deep objection to the imposed new "names", I humbly believe the request should now be fulfilled, please. I'm simply asking to undo the unagreed renames without much ado. Once I've asked for it, it is obviously unjustified that I would need to combat for this. I could of course reference criterion #1 - Uploader's request - but I know you don't need it. Policies might be vague, what isn't vague is my very simple, stable and sincere request to reserve my universal right to my fully-correct filenames. I don't have to be under no police's radar while so many areas on Commons are as messy and truly need fixing. Not I. This is clear for each of you glancing at my contriblist. Viewing the improvement seen by all areas of the project, the prolific neat care taken by me daily. None of you really believes the suggestion that fixing the thousands of filenames on Commons should begin with mine.

I am, simply and purely, desiring to not have my filenames modified in the way they just went across. Everything can be said by all kind of users, and I even may be inclined to review some files from that batch and elaborate their names as soon as the set is restored, but no reason can be raised or applied to deprive me as their caring uploader from the naming feature. No reason or argument can be applied to make me devastated. The confidence I have in this environment is critical. Orrlingtalk 15:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to bring the edit history of File:Boy.jpg to everyone's attention.[83] Uploaded by Orrling in February 2012 as File:UrbanBoy.jpg, it was moved by Orrling to File:Boy.jpg in September 2012. Marcus Cyron changed a category in November 2013, but let the name stand. It is not used in the mainspaces of the sister projects. I think the history of this file illustrates the importance of educating our contributors of the importance of choosing meaningful and helpful filenames. Conscientious users like Orrling should be encouraged to redirect vague filenames to File:Name.jpg. I'm sorry that Orrling is unhappy. I think File:Boy.jpg is a good picture no matter its name, but the name, File:UrbanBoy.jpg, is better. That Orrling moved it to File:Boy.jpg suggests to me that s/he doesn't understand or isn't aware that "[t]itles of media files should be meaningful and helpful in the language chosen". I don't think that a request to rename a file to a name that is generally thought to be less meaningful and helpful would be honored under criterion #1. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I am well-encouraged by this comment to adopt the above-proposed guideline in my future uploads. Some images by me need the “seriality” in their names, others are simply of a fine consistence across my contributed gallery and I’ll assimilate into most future ones the need to be more specific or precise. As you see, still no action was taken to fulfill my technical request and I hope that within the next few hours the 16 files will be repaired and I'll be able to implement improvement on a few of them, upon need. Orrlingtalk 18:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

In the course of the past three days no new comment was added as to contrast my argument or to respond topically on the pressing request made by me and to show how it's not applicable, and at the same time, however, no restoration was apparently done yet through my 16 uploads from their unconsented name status to the names given by me as both requested, argued and recommended lengthily above. To remind, this is a technical barrier that needs to be overcome with a one-admin's-simple-click and I was instructed to send it forth here at this page, where I'm vulnerably exposed, for this goal, while I would then naturally expect that this would have been already fulfilled like I asked, showing that my correct-yet-short filenames are my stable and valid contribotor's preference and that neither of the 16 filemoves was necessary while it was, certainly, in contrast with COM:RENAME's criteria and with collaborative spirit. I‘ve mentioned that assimilating some more specificness into filenaming in future uploads could be accepted by me and even applicable onto some of the 16 files that are already present, once restored. I‘ve clarified that I am not in a wrangle here over either a particular user or project guideline and can be addressed with whichever fellowship request regarding my prosperous activity. I believe that the area which was not enough covered yet in my discussion was the alleged renamer‘s motivation in performing his/her batch-act within an hour in the night of December 22nd onto random images contributed by me. I now believe that my conscientious choice to not address the 'personal' dimension in this horrible episode could be wrong, as it leaves unstudied a great visible part that could lead others to understand why my humble request should be fulfilled without a hitch. This is not a request to reprimand or sanction the user. I don't have such need. I'm here since 16 files on Commons were a target of a personally-guided harassment, that had nothing to do with the project's sake, and unlike other types of contested edits, this one technically can't be undone by me. You may rather need to see the questioned process' backround in a clearer and wider view and understand that my cause is the cause of this project's transparent and fellowship-guided tradition and infrastructure. These tradition and infrastructure were now violated abruptly and all I want is to peacefully and quietly undo it, not come against anyone. For this I would need to explain more elaborately why the renamer's act was one that is immediately reversible.

Apart from written policies, there's the well-known and well-practiced plain fact that filenames are totally within the uploader's say (so long as not misleading or offensive). However, there's also this issue: Why should my newly-uploaded works merit being in the focus of a „renamer“, while the identical name-pattern(s) which has just-now attracted the rename fire are introduced and practiced across our media library in plenitude with so-many files that are named similarly but have never been visited by either the renamer or the few ones attempting to support him? Leaving aside sarcasm for a moment, we know the answer. - Some here believe I have been or am a wrongdoer in this place or another, and are, just like when "renaming" those media donated by me, piling-on for that with nil matter context or reason. You all well know however, just like I, that prolific and highly-helpful editors get some figure of respect and consideration. This is probably natural. But when I'm talking about the unusual disrespect flung at me by the renamer, I'm not talking about this kind of expectoration nor this, but about the disrespect simply in the fact that s/he believed that my contributed files are fair subject of skeletal modifications in the name of "meaningfulness" and "usability" while not applied on, say, less-active editors with (far) less-precise filenames. This is hopping over almost every unwritten rule on the way to repress me and "teach me a lesson". Should you support such process and its results? I simply wish to contribute the files with their names as given by me. As I'm not here to educate but to reserve my filenames as long as the files are on Commons, I'll demonstrate in a comparative method why I stand behind my filenames. This is ironic that I need to do so instead of being editing. Each of the files that were renamed, is a direct and clear representation of the subject suggested by the name given by me, hence lengthening it was against our policies and was done with poor motivation. As follows:

How many filenames that are the names of neighbourhoods actually correspond with, let alone cover, the place in their title? West End in London? The Marais in Paris? Lasalle in Montreal? And prominently the Castro in San Francisco. The image File:Covent Garden.jpg is not less characteristic of Covent Garden than File:Plaka.jpg is to Athens' Plaka or File:Red Light District.jpg to Amsterdam's Red Light District, to only mention two examples, and renaming it was not needed; surely not more than would be renaming File:Hampstead.jpg or File:Chelsea.jpg. (Or plenty of others.) In this light, and because Covent Garden.jpg is an on-the-mark name, I would like to retrieve the name back.
An image name can't tell everything about the image. When it shows, for example, two women, I fail to imagine a good reason to modify the apt name. There's similarly also two dogs, three cats and so on, and there's even a man. Some would say that these might be too "meaningless", maybe "generic" or even "unhelpful". The user who renamed my contributions doesn't think like that, I guarantee it. My guess is, he only cares about File:Two men.jpg. What a wonder. Since the only thing which is more absurd than to rename such a file in this way is to have a „renamer“ with substandard English enough to not know even that "in Kishon Street" is a mistake, I can't really say much, and don't actually care much either. I would like to just retrieve my exact name back.
File:Swedish Hostel.jpg, noting the capitalization, is a name of a specific, trademerked business, in a particular address in only one location known to Commons. I had no success looking for other "Swedish Hostel" images, which would invite possible attempts to brace the existing filename, I did however find no end of other fantastic facilities for my next travel, like a hotel, a hostel, a ship, a house, a cemetery, a bar (with a happy hour on Sundays) and a nice campsite. When Hard Rock Cafe.jpg and Japanese restaurant.jpg - although "generic" - are used by sister projects, it is 100% invalid to rename Swedish Hostel.jpg in the light of "usability" nonsense-mumbles (not to mention that the summary "changing from meaningless name" is a straight lie), and I would like to retrieve the name back.
We all love artworks, as much as wiki loves monuments. A statue, a graffiti, how about some dance. Oh, and check out this jewel. None of them, by the way, maybe except the "jewel", needs to be renamed more than a thousand others do. Renaming File:Sculptures.jpg was a part of a mission which was uploader-oriented rather than filename-oriented. (Sculptures.JPG has evaded while Sculptures.jpg was affected.. how "random"?) I would like, and have the right, to retrieve the name back.
In which way is File:4th of July.jpg less "misleading" or "generic" than File:1st of May.jpg? No, 1st of May.jpg is in NO WAY a misleading or generic name for my photo as it is a fronting shot of an existence which is synonimous with the very idea of the title "1st of May" given to the image by me, almost a prototypical representation of that universal holiday. Still why not rename if we can? Renaming File:Sunday ease.jpg, in a similar gross way, indicates that the renamer is either bored out of their mind or is seeking to clash against dedicated contributors, to which sadly I'm not ready. When attending "1st of May.jpg" and "Sunday ease.jpg" s/he probably meant that other occurrences like 25th of July.JPG or Friday.jpg are rather OK, and how about August? Festival? Gay Pride? Christmas? Not that I think that they all need to be renamed. But had he already fixed File:1985.JPG and File:1990.JPG before rushing to save Wikimedia from outrageous anomalies such as "1st of May.jpg" and "Sunday ease.jpg"? No, and it's OK too. I would just like to retrieve both names back.
Sectors: Restaurant yes, sports yes, post yes, even city council yes, shoeshine no. Why? Because I contributed it :) . Shoeshiners yes, but Shoeshine.jpg no. Why? We'll probably never know the answer ;). That my Shoeshine.jpg is most-meaningfully a depiction of a shoeshine activity more than this is transport or this is education seemingly doesn't matter for the "diligent" renamer; I, however, find this rename a near-vandalism, and would like to retrieve the name back.
Images named Countryname.jpg have a wide span of possible content that would still not make it ambiguous. Be it a coat of arms, a satellite shot or a national sports team and even a typifying sample of nature, all are entirely legitimate. While the 22-December renamer "contested" File:Congo.jpg and File:Finland.jpg, with the false suggestion that these filenames were "misleading" and "meaningless"(!), he obviously was less interested in countries like Japan (in fact a festival in Germany but nobody told you) or Russia (a racing horse in Australia), and plenty others such. He is apparently only interested in Congo and Finland, which is beautiful I think, only that in these two cases the names were very correct and unambiguous; also his noble tolerance to Mongolia and Slovakia is remarkable. The thing is that we can always argue about any filename that it isn't enough "meaningful" or specific or long as we would wish. Is this a reason to engage in renaming files that are correct? You know that the answer is no. Congo.jpg and Finland.jpg are, each, a precise, unique and irrecurrent capture of a distilled moment that could only happen in the respective country and in no other place portrayed by my geographically-sensitive camera, they're not at all the cases that justify a rename, once the name was chosen by the author; and nothing can support such acts of raging agressive renaming. Needless to add that each of them covers the named-country better than Israel.jpg or Peru.jpg cover their named-countries, but I don't think any rename should be done when unagreed by an accessible uploader. For the reason that Finland.jpg is indisputably as much Finland as Italy.jpg is Italy, and that my Congo.jpg is as much Congo as Morocco.jpg is Morocco (- and neither of these names is less than perfect for its image), I insist on retrieving both filenames back, having already said that these will be my last uploads with a countryname.jpg titling.
Let's look at some landforms, start with a grassland, continue with a beautiful wetland, walk through some marsh and end in a cold tundra ...Oops. So what about File:Savanna.jpg? Renaming it the way it was done was a near-vandalism, and I would like to retrieve the name back.
Musical groups. We all have listened to Duran Duran, REM, UB40 and The Killers, and we even know that the Beatles had a fifth anonymous member. The blind rename of File:Mukta.jpg qualifies for vandalism, as it is causing the file to no longer be within the direct search when searching for that ensemble; and I would like to retrieve the name back.
File:Chicago.jpg is a panoramic depiction of a town with this name. Eqivalent to several others with this name pattern on Commons, it covers a better notion of the given place than e.g. File:Glasgow.jpg, File:Delhi.jpg and many other cityname.jpg images around here, with no one to argue the names are "too generic"; and it surely is a much more reliable title for the depicted city than what we get with the German town of Ulm (= Oops, a church in Romania) or the French city of Lille. Only few examples. I'm also sure that with a bit of effort we all can find the Empire States Building in File:NYC.jpg. Which makes the rename of File:Akko.jpg and the one of File:Philly.jpg both a near-vandalism, and I would like to retrieve both names back.

The above range of images (all other than mine) dates from 2009 in average, a considerable time that could be utilized to rename all of them, if needed, plus hundreds others, at least the odd ones.. But it hasn't been done. Two-thirds of these images are in use in 'main-space' Wikipedias. We learn from this that there's no problem of usability when the image is good. The title is no factor for this. You all have lived with the files in this overview incredibly well all this time - and I live with most of them quite well too.

Having made this point clear, I'll ask once again to restore the above-bolded 13 filenames; 3 others I can handle myself as the filenames given by me are changeable, File:Old City 02.jpg - I'm not happy with this name, File:Normandie.jpg - deserves a better name, File:Schelde.jpg - I wasn’t happy with the name in Dutch and will turn to English.

Those not handled by my movertool are those which reqire the exact name as it was on 21st December without adaptations, therefore, would you kindly restore them (13 in number).

I know it might be not easy to admit that one was wrong, so no blaming, just be helpful. Thanks. Orrlingtalk 08:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm with User:Mono here: the renaming was unnecessary, but appears to have been an improvement. Orrling: I honestly can't imagine why you are putting effort into arguing with this. Admittedly I didn't read every word you wrote here, but it's because I'm not willing to waste that much of my time on this as well. Perhaps one or two might actually be detrimental; Orrling, if you have a case that some of the new names are inaccurate or misleading, please focus on that. And, Marcus, please in the future focus your renaming efforts on names that are actually misleading or meaningless. As you can see, there are people who are touchy about having their files renamed, and there is no reason to rub people the wrong way to move pictures from adequate names to slightly better names. - Jmabel ! talk 16:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Marcus isn't the problem here. Most of these were clearly inadequate and/or misleading: File:Two men.jpg, File:Finland.jpg, File:Philly.jpg, File:1st of May.jpg, etc, and the others weren't much better. Marcus was justified in renaming most, if not all, of these. If a rename is needed, no user should have to be afraid of another user taking an ownership position and causing problems. Orrling is wrong in this case, so why put the blame on Marcus? INeverCry 16:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I second User:Jmabel's comment above. Personally I've never considered renaming files other than ordinary housekeeping, and have also done some renames similar to those described above. I really don't consider it much different from correcting categories (though I am very well aware that adding/removing categories is something everybody can do, while renaming is a bit more limited) and I have never run into any conflict over it. On a side note I can't help but wondering, if there is more merit in User:Sitacuisses's comment, than otherwise meets the eye here, though one should always be careful about second-guessing other peoples motives. Search engine ranking wise I'm sure that Finland.jpg and Congo.jpg strikes out better than their new names. One a side-side note, I just checked the extended history of those two files (any admin can confirm this): Finland.jpg has been used three times before (all various passport front pages) and 'Congo.jpg four times before (more varied imagery). --heb [T C E] 16:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

INeverCry 16:22, It's OK to think I'm wrong here. But understanding that media contributors have their minimal say – for the example, in the wording of one's uploaded work – definitively can't be optional here, simply for the reason that our media contributors are the flesh of this project, and you might contest this notion and have full right for doing so but reducing arguments to "taking ownership position" is plainly incorrect, and for the following hint about "causing problems" I will better leave uncommented, because, if confronting a clearly-substantiated misconduct of an editor by another –as I did– and pursuing equality and transparency in the auspices of the Wikipedia spirit is "causing problems", we might agree quite little on the essential groundlayer of this workplace. As I'm fervently motivated by the Wiki cause and volunteer for millons of readers, it's less tolerable that I have my sweepingly-valid imagenames revoked in a cynical act and then need to know that I'm the wrongdoer when seeking to quietly undo it and feel right again and go on. You have not shown how my names were inadequate or misleading, while I have shown my stance.

Jmabel ! talk 16:11 No blame on you for not reading every word in my long section. Will appreciate a lot if you find the time to still read. But the thing is that you have indirectly replied to yourself: This issue is very strongly important to me! yes... That it is so badly unbearable for me to have the gross (re)names is the only reason I argue myself here or elsewhere days and nights, no other reason.. Putting this amount of effort should indicate that I indeed have a big-time injustice case needed to be settled backward. I can't help in focusing more on the faultiness of some of the new "names", all of them are faultily worded or scripted and none accepted by me and they're regarded as a batch for a reason; it's not about part of them. You wouldn't quite want to host a file whose title reads "at the Normandie" or "in the street", right? You get further ideas from the examples discussing Mukta and Shoeshine in the subsections above.

--heb [T C E] Oh well. if you're an admin it may seem to you that renames are no different from any other type of editing but this is so wrong, and the reason I'm here is that I can't move back my uploads to their desirable status. This long discussion shouldn't have been developped. Because my matter is so simple. I just want to keep my consistent filenames; moving them was both indisputably unnecessary and dishonored by me, and leaving the sutuation as it is is hurting me and is a damage for some of the files. Orrlingtalk 21:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Orrling, it's time to face up to it -- the original renamings may have been procedurally abrupt, but there's no consensus to rename the files back to their original names. The parallels you've adduced are of images which many would say also have inappropriately vague and generic names. In any case, you've been known to do things in a procedurally abrupt manner (without suitable consultation) yourself... AnonMoos (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, though, Marcus, you sure seem determined to make this so that no one will be on your side. Part of my message (and not ) here was "Marcus, please in the future focus your renaming efforts on names that are actually misleading or meaningless." And now you rename, without consultation a photo of mine that was perfectly well named, moving File:Middletown, CT - 128 Washington St 01.jpg to File:Oddfellows Playhouse, Middletown, Connecticut 01.jpg. There is nothing misleading or meaningless about naming a photo of a building by the address of the building rather than by the name of the business that happens to be currently in the building. As explained in the caption, this building, nearly a century old, was originally an American Legion Hall; it is indeed now the Oddfellows Playhouse, but it's been that for less than a third of its existence. I'm not going to revert you, because the name you used was also OK (though in my opinion less so), but I will repeat, please in the future focus your renaming efforts on names that are actually misleading or meaningless. There is almost always more than one reasonable name for a photo. The idea is not to go around the Commons arbitrarily renaming other people's photos to your personal taste. The idea of renames is to fix misleading or meaningless names. - Jmabel ! talk 05:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I’m having a similar issue with another user (User:Tm) who doesn’t have filemover rights and whose renaming requests of my own immediately previous renamings were done by User:Marcus Cyron on s/his request. I raised the matter in his talk page, but never got a reply. Just like Mabel, I’m not going to re-re-rename these files, life is too short for such drama, but it stings that the new names are worse than my own suggestions while litteral thousands of files with utterly meaningless names this user imported from Flickr remain untouched. To make a long story short, User:Tm’s portfolio includes a gazzillion things named like ABC123456 7890123456789.jpg; I renamed a (camel’s) handful to ThisHereThingySo&so.jpg, and User:Tm less than 1 h later marked them for renaming to More Verbose Yet Less Unique Description (7890123456789).jpg (argueing, i.a., that filenames must have spaces…), and Marcus accepted these renamings. While Orrling above maybe coming across a bit off-kilter over his filenames, it seems that this obsession affects more than one of us. And while Orrling is a regular user with a vast amount of good categorization work done, Marcus is an Admin who’s name shows up (to me, at least) only in problematic non-productive contexts, especially keen on bending rules to have “indecent” media items removed from Commons. Not a pretty sight. -- Tuválkin ✉ 06:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Jmabel. File renaming criterion #5 clearly does not apply to File:Middletown, CT - 128 Washington St 01.jpg. Neither does Criterion 3, "Correct misleading names into accurate ones", apply (invoked by INeverCry above). I agree with Tuválkin (User_talk:Marcus_Cyron#Renaming_trams), also.[84] In the examples cited, the names Tuválkin chose may be a bit opaque to the general reader, but probably not to anyone who is seeking to illustrate a Lisbon tram. I think Tuválkin acted in accordance with the criteria of COM:RENAME in these examples.

Marcus Cyron, please follow the criteria of COM:RENAME. Those who disagree with its guidance may suggest changes at Commons talk:File renaming. The guideline points out: "Commons aims to provide stable file names as there might be external file clients and file moving involves significant human and computing resources. Thus renaming should be used with caution." If in doubt, don't rename. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I need help in moving the 13 files I've discussed above to their names given by me as the author. There's rather not much being asked here. I've specified very elaborately the reasons for leaving my uploads' names as I had named them basing on that they are correct; I can't move back to them myself as they're "taken" by redirs and so, simply, can you please solve this and restore my filenames. This should be only technical, once I've asked for this with the merit of my contribution of those files. I believe I can now expect that the requested simple action be taken and to have these media files with the names I gave them, while I'll then be as much open to hear insights on possible necessary renames in regard with any of them. The names imposed on these 13 files are contested by me. Please reverse the acts. Thanks. Orrlingtalk 03:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No one appears to agree with you that the matter is merely a "technical" one... AnonMoos (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Orrling, what you mean by these types of moves? J e e 10:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding to my morning note- I believe with all honesty that once a move was procedurewise problematic and there happens to be a directly-concerned editor challenging it, it should be reset. I'm in no position of anger toward the renamer, I even respect them; because it's not helpful if one deals with what has been done and obviously his acts can be softly and easily undone without anyone affected; what is problematic is when bad results are left around to ferment. I've shown how my file portfolio was the last reasonable centre of specificness/"helpfulness"-guided re-naming interest, and can't see a reason why this is taking this long to perform what's asked for. I'm being told that we are short of Admins. I honour this possible point but would appreciate if this is now done. I've meanwhile rescued 3 files from the original list of which I did myself contest the original names by me, and as long as the rest 13 are dawdling in this open discussion I'll look for names for any one of them where I can somehow relinquish my original name, and save work. Most, though, (which include but not limited to Shoeshine.jpg, Mukta.jpg and Savanna.jpg) are mandatorily the names I've already given to them. Orrlingtalk 19:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of these renamings are correct, some seem not entirely necessary but are improvements nonetheless. I think you may be right about Mukta.jpg (given it's the band's name), but with generic names such as that there is always a risk of your work being accidentally replaced by another uploader in the future. And the reason we're short on admins is at least partially because of long meaningless AN reports such as this one. Relax, you've donated the work (which is obviously appreciated) but now things will happen to the photos which may be beyond your control. So far I haven't seen anyone supporting your requested moves back, otherwise I'd suggest putting it to a vote. Best, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 12:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to recommend that you begin using more descriptive file names in the future: File:GBG.jpg and File:Tanzania.jpg are obvious candidates for renaming, just looking at your most current uploads. I don't intend to lock horns with you over this, just saying... mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 12:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Long meaningless AN reports or not (whatever this comes about to say, while it's clearly not fulfilling my request), this current issue concerns 16 of my uploads which can't be against my will with the "names" that they were given in the batch act of the 22 Dec, as I have clarified very sincerely, and, with all good will - and I've shown here as much of it as I can display - I don't see how trying to tell that the renames were improvements, as a possible reason to not satisy my humble request, can be helpful. This topic harboured at this desk only after it's been suggested by one of you who was casually addressed with it that the required reversal of the renames would be made possible through sharing it here. That the request is also supported in the second comment is probably not enough to hold back assertions such as these made by the last commenter, which saddens me. Nobody talks here about votes. Uploaders' preference on ground features such as one's filenames (being the careful names of the works donated) is not an optional idea to like-or-not. Everyone knows this. Everyone also knows that nothing truly justified the renames while with them I'm obviously profoundly discontent. However, this matter has been waiting here now with me broken each day that's gone with the images still unreasonably in that status, while it should have been helped over so soon as it was articulated that as the uploader I simply opt and desire to not have any such "names" formatted for my contributed media. Encouraging to use more specific filenames in the future is one thing (that is appreciated), having the alien-imposed (re)names onto the above-listed images (and implying that they should be accepted) is another thing and the two have nothing to do with one another, and I believe it can't be clearer. Oh another thing that's clear: my filenames are not "descriptive"; they are pointy, adequate and correct. I think the last concern is having a file accidentally overwritten.., as such overwrites can probably be so quickly undone. ---I decline the proposed 'improvements' for the reason they were badly and carelessly made, in terrible contrast with any consistency and topically unnecessary. Now that the list of to-reverse files has been hardworkingly cut back to 5-6 - after I've helped the very most of the rest, the files that are left are those who should only bear their precise original names,as minted by me, and no other variation; and my request to delete them is absolutely no expression of drama nor anger. I similarly don't seek to attract anger from anyone, that's definitely not my goal. I just need your assistance. I've asked for it. And I need you to respect it as much as I respect this place. Orrlingtalk 06:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

To be frank: it seems you are wasting everybody's time with some very low quality contributions (sorry, I review File:View of Akko from the south.jpg in 1:1) and ton's of words. Added to my ignore list. (It doesn't mean I agree with Marcus Cyron in every point.) Jee 08:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- The quality of the contributions is beside the point. The question posed is whether the Orrling's original file names should be restored. If you must comment on quality, please use one or more criteria to explain how the contributor could improve his or her work. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  - I already spent a lot of time for him. You can see how people started to neglect his long comments. Sure, you can encourage him to use the "smallest file-names available" as we do in registering new domain names. J e e 17:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Orrling, while I understand that changing the file names upsets you, do you see how others see the names you choose to be too generic, and therefore have a desire to give the files more specific names? I would also ask: if you care so deeply about the names, how would you feel if I were to digitally alter one of your images and then reupload it under any name I wish? I ask this not because I intend to, but to highlight what rights you are releasing your images under when you upload them to Commons with CC licenses. The act of uploading a file to Commons with a CC license gives reusers (in this case the community) the ability to do pretty much what we wish with an piece of media, and use it how we want (as long as we follow the attribution clauses).

It seems to me that if a simple rename causes so much distress, other alterations could be far more concerning to you, and you may wish to reconsider contributing. This is not to say that I wish you to stop contributing, but merely that you should fully think through your contributions, and the repercussion further down the line.

Back to the topic at hand, are you requesting the deletions simply because of the renames? And if so, would you be able to suggest specific (NOT generic) filenames that you would be happy with your images having? This may be a way of solving this impasse without resorting to deletion of contributions over a very small and simple matter. Liamdavies (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

There's probably two parts here. It's perfectly right that the imposed status causes me distress - it's the name of the file, not some hidden category, right? - but it's totally unrelated to other alterations, of any sort (like categories, license etc.). Uploader's valid say about their donated media's name can't be denied. This could encourage me to discontinue contributing media. This is a no-gain situation. If you remake any file here and then upload it with your uploader's account details and thus with any name that you wish that's apparently superfine. This is totally beside the discussion, I'm afraid. The titles one gives to one's works when contributing them (or at any other time), chosen carefully and being an adequately-reliable representation of one's image's content or idea, are the names of these works on Commons, and as long as they are not deceiving, offensive or meaningless it's not reasonable to spend any moment on questioning them. But while questioning (anything) is always legitimate, actually modifying names (which are, as said, not questioned in any COM:RENAME parameter) – when the uploader is clearly within access for the renamer,and the renames are performed on very-newly uploaded works – is obviously as abusive as can be and is a straight violation of WP:POINT, poorly disguised in false arguments of caring for specificness and "helpfulness" in a repository full of much-older files with bashing "generic" names that have never been contested by him or anyone. It's very ridiculous that some responders attempted to portray a reality in which targeting rather the filenames of an uploader who's presently-active, involved, helpful and well-licensed meets any logic. And of course I see how they might find File:Two men.jpg "generic", just that I know (and they do too) that it's a fully valid name while many names by other uploaders are as much or more ambiguous and generic without being attractive enough for even the pettiest change desire. So what upsets me is that I need to be battling to get the new "names" reversed from, that I can't remove them myself as casually as they were inserted, and the unacceptably personalized circumstances in which the rename was actually done. I recently had to put effort on finding alternative names for 8 or 9 of the files, like you're suggesting, to save them from deletion, and after this, the five that are eventually going to deletion are indeed the rather small handful of images that in no reason can bear a variation of names other than (respectively) "Shoeshine.jpg", "Swedish Hostel.jpg", "Savanna.jpg", "Mukta.jpg" and "Akko.jpg" - images that have each no jot of a reason to be hosted with any different name, not that the others had one. If this is, as you rightly call it, a very small and simple matter, I'd guess the files should just simply all get their names back, it's most elementary. No, they aren't any more generic than tons of other Commons filenames. I've shown it in my 08:04, 2 January message. Orrlingtalk 00:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Orrling, the "tons of other Commons filenames" are files which many people think are also poorly-named, so that argument is unfortunately rather weak.... AnonMoos (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 41

User:Gopnik139

Phanlinhhn and File:Flag of Tay Dam.png

User:Hedwig in Washington

User:Friday83260

Atiya567

Beleiutz sock to block

Flow92, likely sockpuppet of Hamburg73 and Invitto

A new puppet of Pablo Milano #4

Scotire (talk · contribs)

Scottish county categories created years ago

Continued personal attacks after final warning

Fastily

User:Nikswerdhond

User Evillasenor1 (talk · contribs)

User:Eleassar

CT Scan

Tooth

Endoscopy

Policy

Being reasonably cautious

Sockpuppet of Pablo Milano #5

Delete request for source in Syrian civil war.png

Taron Saharyan

Tm

Abuse of administrators rights

COM:NPOV on File:Morocco Region Amazigh Languages Speakers.svg

Uploads by Yatrides

Шухрат Саъдиев

Ответ на замечание

User issue

Uploads by Harvey Milligan

Why this icon was deleted?

Misattributed uploads

Sockpuppets of Pablo Milano #6

User:AlbertHerring's uploads & lack of communication

Sockpuppets of Pablo Milano #6

Fernandezadrian

91.66.153.214

Kyngoaihau new sock of Namkhanh02

User Taron Saharyan

Keete 37: Flickr washing/Falsified Flickr Reviews

Propaganda

Since when is the personal attacks allowed?

User:Bidgee

Porshegirl (talk · contribs)

Mertensia virginica, the correct species name.

User:Yann

Proposal: Interaction ban between Eleassar and Yann

Proposal: Restrict Eleassar's right to relist DRs

Fae

Iwtd44

Block evasion

License Reviewer Ramaksoud2000

Blocked user name

Mass delete required

User:Bhuvan T

Request

My photo

How to name svg version

Beleiutz sock to block

User:ZAOP

Conflict of interest and repeated posting of non-free images by Barbarajohnson1

User:Murilo Grillo

User:Ray Osorio

Contributions by User:Manimihan

Pymouss (talk · contribs)

Setanta Saki and file ownership problem

Technical assistance in filemoves for names that are taken by redirects

Navigation menu

Search