Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 50

CHR!S (talk · contribs)

Could someone please investigate historic copyright problems and possible alternate accounts obscuring copyright problems from this account? The more I check uploads I find inconsistencies in EXIF data and authorship claims. A number of uploads include claims from doubtful SPAs, others may be accidental use of apparently Flickrwashed images. I found the overwrite of Al Walser.jpg with edits before and after the overwrite by another account, along with suspect EXIF data, especially difficult to explain. Note that the majority of uploads from this account appear to be perfectly good self uploads.

• Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#2014110110014651_and_related_photographs
• en:User:Monstablokaz, File:Addis aka Raptile.jpg
• User:Blo100 Al Walser.jpg (history), File:Al Walser in Hollywood.jpg has own work claim in 2012, yet EXIF says 2006.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Prcc27

Continues to revert File:State recognition of same-sex relationships (South America).svg and File:World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression.svg without clear consensus after the expiration of a 2-week block. Furthermore their edit summaries and talk page show a battleground mentality. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 3 months. It seems this user doesn't understand. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Uishaki (talk · contribs)

User:Uishaki keep adding category Terrorism and Israel to this category her. I'll appreciate if someone can take care of it. -- Geagea (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverted by A.Savin. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours, massive edit-warring--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

WestCoastMusketeer (talk · contribs)

Uploads public domain images under Creative Commons licenses after deletion request on this matter. Need some explanations from uninvolved administrator. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking into that. These images seem to be {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Geagea

This user keep creating and uploading images in Palestine before 1948 and names it Israel instead, however there was nothing called so before that date. He is also adding History of Israel category to events and images happened before its establishment.--Uishaki (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

From the same logic you can say also that the state of Palestine never exist to this days. Anyway we try to avoid this kind of conversation her. You can add any category that you think is connected to the Palestinian Authority. -- Geagea (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

No, Palestine exist as a historic region since ancient times. You have to move the categories about Palestine to more accurate names.--Uishaki (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this a revenge for User_talk:Uishaki#AN/U? You are blocked in he and arwiki indefinitely. Please don't abuse commons for pushing your POV (see COM:NPOV). --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Why do you insist on involving my blocks in ar and hewiki? Those block are unrelated. Is this a concpiracy against me? Why did you not take any actions against Geagea.--Uishaki (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Israel have history and the Palestinians have a history. We are trying to work her together. Edit waring will bring you only to be blocked. So please avoid from edits like this.

Just for your knowledge Palaestina province was Jewish province that was named before Judea and before that Jewish tetrarchy and before it jewish kingdom and before it another Jewish kingdom. -- Geagea (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't ignore the Jewish history in the Land of Palestine.--Uishaki (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

And now you are edit waring her. Please stop doing it. -- Geagea (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

What's the difference here here? Everybody know's that Gaza Strip are part of the Palestinian territories.--Uishaki (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

 Comment Regardless of other issues, what's the rationale behind including the geography of the Gaza strip, a territory that has never been part of the modern Israel, into the geography of Israel? I can't see it --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 20:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the categorization within Israel. The rationale is in the edition comment: The category Israel deals with the modern Israel ("a country in the Middle East"). The Gaza Strip hasn't been ever a part of such a state. Therefore, the inclusion of the strip's geography in Israel's is pointless. BR --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 13:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a related matter with the user at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Geagea.

changing my username Arwen0913 to Aillen0913

just want to ask help how to change my username from Arwen0913 to Aillen0913, for uniformity. Kindly email me the instructions on how to do it at aillenduero@gmail.com.

thanks for the prompt reply and help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arwen0913 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 23 February 2015‎ (UTC)

Arwen0913, you have to make this request at Meta-Wiki because this is done globally by stewards or global renamers. You can use this form unless there is a problem with your account. Green Giant (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

ChelseaFunNumberOne

Greetings. ChelseaFunNumberOne (talk · contribs) has uploaded several copyvio images. I tagged a handful for speedy deletion, and asked him (over on en.wp) to review his past contributions here for compliance with our licencing policies. He persists in claiming that File:Almaty_Panorama.jpg is his own work, when it is obviously not.

After this, I have no confidence that any of their contributions are actually freely licensed. Could an administrator kindly nuke their contributions, or any editor provide some guidance about how I can best go about cleaning this up? HiDrNick! 19:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done User blocked for a week, all files claimed as self in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ChelseaFunNumberOne. Yann (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Tm

• edit warring (lastest of many, many instances: File:Lisboa - Rua da Conceição (2678274068).jpg)
• issues about file ownership (although user is pretty oblivious of s/his files, concerning their categorization, naming, duplicates, scope, quality, and copyright status, and rarely following up after upload to improve that, user will swiftly undo others’ attempts of improving the situation in any way)

-- Tuválkin ✉ 10:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to let you admins know as well that I reverted the user's latest edit to the above linked file. I'll come back if I see my edit reverted. DLindsley ^{Need something?} 22:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@DLindsley: +1 that revert, FYI. (though you misspelled tilted, :P) Revent (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I just saw the user revert my edit again. I have asked him to comment on this case (P.S. @Revent: Thanks for noticing that). His talk page has something set that causes my sig to skew, which is why my comments there don't have sigs. DLindsley ^{Need something?} 01:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@DLindsley: You are apparently misinterpretating something here, AN/U participation isn't required to "win" an edit war; instead, talk pages (is that a red link?) should be used to discuss content disputes. And, by the way, your signature is violating our signatures policy.    FDMS  4    01:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@FDMS4: Is this better? DLindsley ^{Place your order here.} 13:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@DLindsley: Yes, that's compliant, thanks.    FDMS  4    13:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@FDMS4: Alright. Thanks. DLindsley ^{Place your order here.} 13:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

For some reason, the 'borders' were not apparent to me in the rotated image at the lower resolution, but are in the full-scale image, and it's correct that they are bad. I'm not going to get into a debate, but if people want I can do a 'true' rotation (and crop) of the image if pinged after discussion. Revent (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It is a good thing that said “borders” are not apparent, as that’s the whole idea. If you just want to say that they are «bad» and be done with it, that’s good; if you want to discuss why they may be less bad than any alternative, please join this discussion. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: After some pondering on how to phrase a reply, I would just say that a modification of an image using 'cloned' or blurred filler pixels should be uploaded as a new image, and not an overwrite of the original. The same applies to any crop that is not 'obvious', and in the case of a revert of an overwrite it should not be warred about, but instead simply uploaded as a new version with the appropriate templates on both images (extracted image, extracted from, etc). This maintains the ability of a reuser (on a wikipedia or not) to choose what version they want. There is no real excuse to edit war. Revent (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Your reply pertains two different matters — neither of them is the one in discussion in this page. -- Tuválkin ✉ 13:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

User warned. If they do it again, make another report here or let me know and I'll block them -FASTILY 08:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The matter of this report and discussion is not this single issue of edit warring. It was merely produced to illustrate a trait in this user’s behaviour. (And was meanwhile sort of solved, as the rotated image was uploaded, after insistence, as a separate file.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

One more datapoint about User:Tm’s behaviour: Upon reverting Fastily’s archival of his talk page, he explains it thusly: «My own talk page i archive it when i see as fit». As a result, the breaking of {{Autotranslate}} transclusion, that User:Fastily had fixed, is now again making Tm’s talk page unreadable down from the entry dated 05:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC). This example neatly shows how this user eschews communication, assumes bad faith, and has innapropriate feelings of ownership — as reported. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

As i said the usertalkpage is for use to comunicate between me and others and so i can archive when i want, not when you or others want. If there is a technical limitation of the templates or the site, it is not my fault, that is why the Wikimedia Foundation has a tech team. About the image, you Mrs Tuvalkin, conveniently hide the fact that the disputed version was uploaded before you opened this thread, by mine iniciative and without your imput. You Mrs Tuvalkin (as in senhor and you=senhor and not you=tu as i said before you dont know me and i didnt went to school with you) know perfectly well that i dont want to speak or have anithing with you, as your attitude with others is arrogant and condescendent and the fact that you cropped several of the images that i uploaded and i didnt reverted them. But your version have ugly borders making it almost unusable and detracts of the subject and you know that policy dictates that if a version might be reverted, it is best to upload under a new version. About your accusations of "user is pretty oblivious of s/his files, concerning their categorization, naming, duplicates, scope, quality, and copyright status, and rarely following up after upload to improve that" i challenge you ti show my lack in quality control in scope, quality, duplicates, and manly copyright, as in the almost 350 000 editions and almost 100 000 images uploaded there are almost none that have problems in scope, quality, duplicates, and manly copyright. About categorization, just to show you of around 10 000 images that i uploaded of Lisbon i didnt categorized lower than Category:Lisbon or improved the categorization of around 1500 images. Tm (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(Mrs. Tuvalkin(a) é a minha sogra e não é p’ra aqui chamada.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I undid the user's revert on his talk page for the reasons mentioned by Tuvalkin. DLindsley ^{Place your order here.} 22:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Now the user wants to edit war on his own talk page. DLindsley ^{Place your order here.} 22:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I not edit warring in (as you say) my talpage, as its is mine to use to comunicate or be contacted with others, so dont archive mine talkpage as i dont archive yours. Even your talk page has "Also, here are a few rules.", mine rule in mine talkpage is one and only "Do not archive it without my consent and imput". Tm (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, you are refusing to stop reverting. @Jkadavoor: Didn't you archive his talk page for a reason? 71.64.197.17 22:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Who are you 71.64.197.17? Are you DLindsley? If so the user talkpage says that a user can use its talkpage as the user can use his talkpage as he see fit, so i am not edit warring it is you by archiving my talkpage against my will and without my consent. Tm (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Tm: Why are you so adverse to archiving your talk page? You do realize that you're hitting the template transclusion limit, no? -FASTILY 22:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Fastily, I am not adverse to me archive my talkpage, i am adverse to others archive it. Are you so adverse to others archiving your talk page? About the template transclusion limit, i not a technician to answer you, but if the Wikimedia Foundation has budget and tech team they should fix, not us trying to come around. So i will archive my talkpage when i see fit, per Commons:Talk_page_guidelines#User_talk_pages. Tm (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Tm: Thanks for your reply. Since the WMF never fixes anything, perhaps you would consider archiving your talk page? From the same section you linked: "keep in mind that your user talk page has the important function of allowing other editors to communicate with you. People will get upset if they cannot use it for that purpose." It would make it easier for us to read your talk page and make it easier to leave you messages. Regards, FASTILY 23:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but do to an urgent work related matter, i can only re-reply by about 1H30M utc, so please have a little patience. Tm (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Got a ping from here. Yes; It was me who archived it without involving in this issue. I was fairly neutral and still. I followed the same archive preference followed by Tm. If he reverted it; it is perfectly OK for me. :) Ps: I had archived many other busy people's talk too as bots like FPC Bot, QIC Bot etc. fail when page is very big. Jee 02:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

 FYI: User talk:DLindsley#Sockpuppetry --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Wee Curry Monster

Wee Curry Monster seems to be very interested in deleting a particular file this one on the grounds of a very particular interpretation of commons principles (see here). A DR was opened by me instead (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Times - Argentine Capture of the Falkland Islands 1820.jpg) and while the discussion is ongoing, he's trying again to remove the file (see here). The user does not seem to understand (or willing to understand) commons policies, following a long track of disagreements (see here). Would it be possible to let him know that he must wait for the result of the DR and the closing decision of the admin? Best regards --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 00:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes I did indeed stop contributing to Commons in 2011, after a really stupid deletion discussion. Surprise they do happen, why mention it now since I withdrew that notice more than a year ago? And I still don't tend to upload my images on Commons because the individual above in this disguise and formerly as Ecemaml and anyone of a number of sockpuppets on es.wikipedia has been stalking and wikihounding me for years. What he has omitted to mention is that the OP had inadvertently posted a fake and has since found and posted the original. The above user has chosen to re-impose the fake and is actually edit warring to keep it as the fake version. If I have technically violated a policy on Commons I was not aware of and which the poster of this message has failed to notify me about I apologise. However, the above message and his conduct in general seems more designed to use a superior knowledge of process on Commons to manipulate another editor into inadvertently crossing a line. This editor is permanently banned on es.wikipedia for harassment, trolling and abuse of his admin priveliges to pursue a grudge against other editors.

Oh and for information I'm not trying to remove the file, a blatant and knowingly false accusation since I've already indicated that I am willing to withdraw the nomination after the OP posted the genuine version. See [1] and see my comment against the none fake version.

Are there boomerangs on Commons? WCM_email 15:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

WCM, saying any thing again and again doesn't make it true. You lie, as usual, when you claim that you didn't try to remove the file. That's just a sample of your bunch of lies above (which I won't comment further as they're laughable). As told you in the DR, read carefully Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion, COM:OVERWRITE and Commons:Deletion policy. Best regards --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 23:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

Doni Vëntersenz (talk · contribs) - cleans up talk page without archiving. − Meiræ 16:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Archiving is not a must. Everything is still available under history. Jee 16:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

But it is by far the better option although, as with many user talk pages, they are usually full of deletion notices (a sad reflection of the quality of uploads) which is just digital detritus that does not need to be filed. Alan Liefting (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that deletion warnings are actually often the most useful user talkpage content, as they help users who frequently NPD/NSD/NLD-tag or nominate for deletion asserting whether or not the uploader has a (basic) understanding of copyright. See also {{Dont remove warnings}}; I'd support changing our talk page guidelines to reflect this.    FDMS  4    17:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I also support a more prescriptive talk page policy even though I dislike rules that are needed to keep rogue editors in check. Alan Liefting (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• I maintain well organised archives for DR warnings, etc. But unfortunately, we don't have a policy to compel it. Some people quickly remove any notices they receive on their talk pages, without any edit notes. It gives the sender a feeling of being offended. A simple edit note like "noted" may enough. The fact is that, how to behave is upto a user as far as it will not exceed the limits. Recently I tried to re insert a "no permission warning" on a user's talk page which was instantly removed without any action or comment and not sent by me. But an experienced user reverted me stating a user can remove such things from their talk page. I read the related policies and it is true. See the huge disagreement at Template talk:Dont remove warnings too.

Again, we can't develop policies here; VPP is the right place for it. Jee 03:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the mere 'removal' of a notice is implicitly stating that the recipient has read it. It's not really 'wrong', though arguably somewhat rude and against the spirit of 'wiki'-type consensual work, but complaints about it are rather off topic here. Revent (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Geagea

User:Geagea uploads files and adds them to Category:Israel rather than a more appropriate subcategory per COM:Categories. I had cleared it out as part of a clean up but the user protested. See Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2015/02#Removal_of_a_category_so_the_file_left_uncategorized. A solution was offered but the user does not want to use it, even though it is a good idea. See User_talk:Fæ/2015#Help_needed. In the past few months Category:Israel has gone from about 1500 up to about 2000. This is unacceptale for a country category since they should contain few, if any, files.

User:Geagea thinks that that she/he is doing the categorisation correctly yet it is patently obvious that it is in contravention to COM:CAT

See also User_talk:Geagea#Category:Israel where the user suggests bringing the issue here and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Geagea for a related matter. Alan Liefting (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not see any problem with my batch uploads. When I mass upload from Flickr I add the appropriate as possible. If all of them are Tel Aviv then I add Tel aviv category but if the mass upload is mixed places in Israel or I know it is Israel but don't know the exact place the it comes with the category of Israel. That is the way it works her. After the long thread in the village pump I can't explain in other ways. -- Geagea (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It is best practice for batch uploads to avoid adding large numbers of images into a diffusion category unless they have a plan for how to ensure they are diffused. This is doubly true for mass Flickr uploads where we often see doubtful metadata. If any batch uploader persists with ignoring complaints, then they should not be surprised if it escalates.

I doubt this is cause for administrator action, but I would hope that anyone with sysop rights understands how being seen to adapt their actions to community feedback, is fundamental to their continuing to hold the trust of the community. --Fæ (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I strongly agree on both those points. Alan Liefting (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Geagea, I will reiterate: please read and understand COM:CAT. Have a look at the category help pages on Wikipedia for more extensive information. As Fæ has pointed out you cannot rely on Flickr metadata so you MUST review every image that you upload and then find the best categories for it. If you don't you are further contributing to the utter mess that Common is in. Don't concentrate on mass uploads, try and fix what we have already got. Alan Liefting (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I warned user Alan Liefting in his talk page as he developed/developing some kind of obsession to the category Israel and keep bothering me with the same subject even though I already told him to stop to do so. After the long thread it the village pump regarding to the category of Israel it is time that user Alan leave this obsession and move on.

I am categorize the files of Israel and all the related with that in a regular basis. I want more then you that all files have the correct categories. Bach uploading mixed files with the category of Israel is the correct way as working for years. -- Geagea (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I am taken aback that an administrator in dispute with other contributors because of their own poor practice of adding a diffusion category to their own batch uploads is now using their sysop rights to "win" their argument. Geagea, diffusion categories are marked by the community, this is not a simple dispute with Alan. Your actions are flaunting best practice for batch uploads and now appear to be a misuse of your sysop rights.

I would appreciate views from experienced administrators. Thanks. --Fæ (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The category is for diffusion not to be blanked. Adding warninnig to talk page is not misuse of my rights. As he already blanked the category and seems that he developed/developing some kind of obsession to this category I warned him not to beck the same act. Instead of bringing his case to AN/U I opened deisscusion in the village pump to explain to him this. This drama is a waste of time. -- Geagea (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

THere are a few points that need replying to in turn:

1. I know the Category:Israel is a category that need diffusion and I know the contents should not be "blanked" but I did the initial mass uncategorisation because with 1000 files it was way out of control and my action was, on balance, the best alternative.
2. This warning that you left on my talk page may be within your powers but it is not the sort of behaviour that is expected of an administrator, and as Fæ points out it is an abuse of your power.
3. I do not have an "obsession" with Category:Israel. I am working on it because of all of the country categories, as seen from Commons:Categories_requiring_diffusion#Countries which I have already referred you to, is in the most dire need for diffusion.
4. THe thread that I started at User_talk:Fæ#Can_you_pull_out_some_user_contrib_data_for_me is not a "drama", but it is a simple request from me to get data on some of your mass uploads of which I have doubts about their suitability. It may prove to be a waste of time but that will be for the community to decide.

Your editing with respect to categorisation is complete at odds to that done by the majority of editors both here and on Wikipedia. Also,based on your recent editing behaviour, you appear to be claiming ownership of Category:Israel. THis is another black mark against you. Alan Liefting (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Note after a lot of discussion on VP, the consensus on VP was that your action in blanking Category:Israel, on balance, was not the best alternative.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

An fresh example of volunteer time of others being used to tidy up Geagea's uploads can be found at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Israel.

Independent opinions from experienced administrators on whether it is appropriate for Geagea to give an administrative warning against the person creating this thread about Geagea, would be appreciated. --Fæ (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm of course not an admin, but, in my opinion it is quite inappropriate for an administrator to issue an 'or you will be blocked' warning to an editor with whom they have been recently engaged in a content dispute, or who has recently complained about their behavior. Regardless of if such a warning was needed, or who was 'right' in the content dispute, such an act gives a strong impression (even if unintended) that the administrator was using their ability to issue a block as a way to stifle disagreement or criticism. There is no reason that another administrator could not have taken such an action if they felt the need to do so. Sorry Gaegea, but you were way out of line to issue an admin warning to someone who had started a AN/U thread about you less than two days previously. Revent (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I would call this a storm in a teacup. The good thing about volunteer time is that everyone can use it the way he/she wants to. It is not like there is a copyright issue involved, only scope based "dilemma's". I can remember we have more people doing mass uploads who cleaned up way less that Geagea does. This seems to be some kind of selective indignantly. When it comes to the cat, Geagea told that he cleans up the cat on a regular basis so the number of files in the main cat will go down eventually. If that doesn't happen, perhaps it is time for a more general discussion about this particular topic.

This discussion is at the point where the emotions are going to win it from the ration and that is always a recipe for disaster. The outcome would likely be a stale. Isn't it a solution to wait for a month or three if the number of files in the cat go down? This way it is likely solved without all the drama and without all the fighting and it will safe Fae his precious volunteer time since he doesn't have to spend his time to give updates at this noticeboard. I understand and respect Alan Liefting's arguments but it worries me that both he and Geagea ended up in some viscous cortex when it comes to the arguments. Would it be a solution of batch uploads are temp "Stored" in a cat file uploaded by Geagea (clean-up) of something like that? Of course this is not mandatory or something like that but it might help taking away some of the hostility. If the current batch upload is okay could be decided in the already started deletions request so there is no need to discuss those files here or anywhere else right?

Now for the warning. First of all, I consider the word abuse a very strong word that should not be used lightly. There much grey tints between a excellent action and abuse like a bad judgement call, a honest mistake or stupidity. In this case I believe - correct me if I'm wrong - that the warning was placed because the situation was getting more frustrating by the day and nobody stepped in between right? Not something I would call abuse as an isolated incident but I wouldn't call this a excellent action as well and I certainly don't agree with this. But hey, we are all human and sometimes emotion get the better of our self and we make actions that are less handy and we regret afterwards.

If this was the real world I would suggest that we all take a drink together in a local bar of pub but tis isn't the real world so my suggestion would be to ignore each other for some days. After that the both (or three if Fae want's to join) can make a list about what made you angry about the situation and what you believe that you should have done differently. Trust me, that works really great :). This issue is not work fighting over. Natuur12 (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

First, I do not have any problem with nomination of my uploads for DR. I even thank you for doing it so. This nomination was as a continuation to the obsession of this user to the category of Israel. Proper DR is welcome, DR that says hey there are files in this category that should be deleted is not welcome by me.

Second, the warning is a privilege that given to any user. As I have seen his escalation regarding to the category I didn't want him to be blocked and warned him that it might happen if he'll remove all the files from this category which I succeeded. This is not the first time I succeeded to prevent this user's block was when he removed the category of Israel from all the files. I opend a discussion in the village pump insted of bringing this to AN/U which might caused to his block. But after a long discussion which a lot Commons try to explain to him in many ways that his action was wrong he did not agree. So my action prevent him to be blocked in the first case and also in the second case.

Third, I am not the only one that make mass uploads from Flickr. This specific upload was a trip during the visit of the Pope in Israel, which does not visit Israel very often. It include some photos of the Pope himself. So if I upload some files are out of scope I'm sorry about that but the correct way is to check every file manually, make a DR if necessary, move to other category or crop. Mass deletion of all the files or Just removing all the files from the category, are incorrect. -- Geagea (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Replies:

1. It is interesting to note that you say that you do not have a problem with a DR for your uploaded files. I did ask on you talk page to check them yet you dismissed my concerns and said to do a DR. You then deleted all of the files in the DR and closed it. You are making us waste our time here. As for my so called obsession with Category:Isreal I have repeatedly stated that I am working on it because it is the most cluttered of the country categories. This is in a large part due mass uploads that you are not reviewing for quality, accuracy, or suitability, and not categorising correctly.
2. You say "the warning is a privilege that given to any user" yet the warning you gave me was a falsely worded statement that I suspect was done to get me to butt out of Category:Israel. As for the rest of the rubbish that you are making in this second point I will have to ask you to point to a policy or guideline that says files should not have categories removed so that it is left uncategorised. THe block that I was given may not be based on any community wide consensus.
3. It is completely irrelevant that you are not the only one doing mass uploads. The issue here with respect mass uploads is the quality. You go on to say that mass uploads of are ok even if only some of them are suitable for Commons and the rest can go through to a DR. That is a ridiculous idea. Why should others clean up after the mess made by an admin? So you wanted some pictures of the Pope in Israel. THat all well and good but you did not have to upload hundreds of holiday snapshots just to get a few useful files. Whether you like it or not you should be checking ALL of the files manually. You otherwise make Commons more of a mess that it already is. Alan Liefting (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Natuur12: , it is not a storm in a teacup. There are serious issues here. I will document them separately. Alan Liefting (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Alan Liefting, this is a generic issue in Batch uploading however you worded it. Batch uploading has several issues. A few I noticed: 1. Useless and lengthy file names. Most people programmed their bots to put all the description in file names. 2. Out of scope file descriptions. In many cases, the description available in a page like Flickr has no relation to the media content. They may be some personal messages like greetings etc. The bots crawl them as they are not intelligent. 3. Crawl a lot of out of scope contents along with the useful ones. 4. Add inappropriate categories.

I'm open to see a discussion how to improve it; but AN/U is not the best place for it. Jee 02:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I realise that the batch uploading issue is not specific to Geagea but the quality of material that is being uploaded by him/her is really poor. And yes, this is not the place for batch loading issues in general. I am also open to discussing it. Alan Liefting (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Доцент Белый

Доцент Белый (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
The user manipulates dates in template {{No permission since}} and makes personal attack. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done User warned. Yann (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Isle of Man flag

Comparison of both centering methods

Starting a month ago, and apparently resuming today, Fry1989 is for a third time replacing File:Flag of the Isle of Man.svg with his own preferred version across all Wikimedia projects, this time as stealthily as possible (without GlobalReplace, with no edit summary at all and marked as minor). This is in spite of an RfC that was closed in August with consensus to generally use the former file, a consensus which Fry denies exists or at least refuses to accept.

Since Fry appears to prefer mass editing against an RfC over formally challenging it or its closure, I'm starting a thread here to help genuinely resolve the issue, as opposed to escalating it into a global edit war. (Some previous discussions: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].) SiBr₄ (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the third time, I believe, that you have brought this issue here to complain, and both previous times no action was found to be warranted. I find the "consensus" on that talk page to be invalid and constructed, and ignorant of fact. You have yet to provide any official construction sheet to support the off-centering via the method of imaginary circle, but you parade around like you have absolute proof which you most certainly do not. Secondly, the original file did not use your method, but you edit warred to force yourself onto it and constructed that fake consensus to keep it that way, when it should have been reverted to the last stable version before the disagreement. That is policy. Third, any evidence I have been able to find since then supports centering the triskelion by itself instead of by an imaginary circle around the legs, including by not limited to the British Flag Protocol document (of which I have a PDF with encapsulated SVG files) prepared by the Flag Institute in collaboration with the Flags & Heraldry Committee which is a non-partisan group of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, therefore making it an official document. Lastly, even if I accepted the consensus on the file's talk page, that only pertains to that file, and is not enforceable on any other projects or precludes Commons from hosting other versions. There is no sanction you can seek against me, making this a waste of time. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I also should say that I greatly resent your accusations of "sneakiness", and "stealth", something that has never been my intent and shows both a claim of understanding my state of mind and a gross lack of good faith even in disagreement. The exact centering of the triskelion was how the file was constructed for 8 years before you altered it, and that is the version that should have been kept until you proved otherwise instead of edit warring which is exactly what you did. If you want this disagreement resolved, there is only one option to convince me: Find an official construction sheet and prove me wrong. So far, your evidence is very unconvincing. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the second time I started a section here on the issue, and the first was just to ask for closure of the RfC. All before that was the AN/UP thread that you started, and that by the same logic found no action necessary against me (so for the nth time, drop the edit warring accusations). There is also a reason I went to AN rather than AN/UP for this thread.

Regarding the RfC, the question asked was "which file to use across the Wikimedia projects". Of course a local consensus for a wiki or article overrides it, though absent that, I think that it's perfectly possible for a Commons RfC to serve as a guideline for what to use on other projects (if not, I'd like an admin to clarify), and that mass editing against it by the sole opposer and uploader of the competing file is unacceptable.

The Flag Institute's image you link to is actually clearly not rectangularly centered – the distance from the lowest point of the triskelion to the bottom edge of the flag is 14 pixels, while the distance above the triskelion is 22 pixels. In fact, the triskelion on this image is centered in a way that is closer to circular than rectangular centering (3.5 vs. 4.7 px). I've drawn the same conclusion from several other images from reputable sources (including a higher-resolution image from the Flag Institute, and the UK Ministry of Defence), and the versions of the file that have been "live" for seven years before your first upload. I can show you how I did those measurements if you don't believe them, but please don't assert that any of these sources (or the previous file) support your version without counterproof. I've even proposed a version with the placement of the triskelion in between yours and mine, in accordance with the mentioned sources, which you were given 2.5 months to reply to but didn't.

What was the reason for marking your obviously controversial edits as minor and omitting an edit summary, if it wasn't sneakiness? SiBr₄ (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I have never once claimed any subterfuge, that is your accusation. I have always made it clear that I intend to replace your unsourced circling with the long-standing image as should have been done until you found an official construction sheet, which you still have yet to do. Even if on these other sources the triskelion is not vertically exactly centered, it has always been horizontally exactly centered, and I have explained several times why doing the imaginary circle method is unacceptable. I have a feeling the only reason you hold on so firmly is due to pride more than truth. Find a construction sheet, or I stand by my position. Fry1989 ^eh? 15:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

(sigh) A war over centering? Grow up. There are two versions, stop warring. Local usage is not within the scope of Commons admins, and needs to be dealt with on the specific projects. Revent (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

To make what I said more 'explicit', it is not within the 'remit' of Commons to adjudicate the 'correct' version, it's a fairly trivial content dispute. It would be far out of line for Commons administrators to 'mandate' what is correct, in the context of local image usage. We provide hosting for images that are used on other projects, but warring about what version to use on a particular wiki is not in the scope of Commons. Local users should be able to choose between disparate versions, all hosted on Commons. It is only the war about revising what is under a particular filename is disruptive to Commons itself, not usage on other wikis. Provide multiple versions, and let them decide. Revent (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Revent: If it would be only usage outside Commons but an edit by Fry1989 just popped up yesterday in my watchlist. I guess you have never seen the wars about which the correct colour tone in a flag is. Or whether an insignia should have a 1px or 2px border and similar important matters. Well, often-times it's hard to say what is right because there are very few official sources. Reasonable contemporary humans wouldn't (edit) war, however I doubt … -- Rillke^(q?) 16:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to remind you that many users (including admins) have argued over the correct colour tones and such things on Commons' flag files. It happens organically, and usually it is resolved by an official construction sheet which is something I have asked for over and over but SiBr4 has failed to provide in over a year and a half. So quite frankly, I don't care what you think. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"So quite frankly, I don't care what you think." Nice, well stated. (sigh) Revent (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep your sighs to yourself! Rillke's comment was such an obvious attempt to defame my character in this disagreement by bringing up my past arguments from years ago. Yes, I did get in quite a few disagreements about these sorts of things that Rillke finds unimportant, but so did/do many other users. I've actually stayed out of trouble for quite some time, so I mean exactly what I said: I don't care what Rillke thinks because they were trying to make this look like it's my fault when the fact is SiBr4 STILL has no official construction sheet and edit warred to force their preferred version. This is SiBr4's fault and SiBr4's fault alone. Commons policy, had it actually been followed, would have required the file to be protected in its last stable version and SiBr4 having to have gained a proper consensus for their change (preferably with reliable sources), which they didn't do. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The close of an RFC on the talk page of the file (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Flag_of_the_Isle_of_Man.svg#Request_for_comment) disagreed with you, you continued to edit war and forum shop for support of your position. Give it up already, you are begging for a block. Give multiple versions, and take your edit war to the local projects. It's out of scope here. Revent (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I did no such thing! You don't even know what you're talking about. I'm the one who uploaded the alternative file, and I'm the one who has taken this disagreement to local project discussion pages to get a consensus there, which is what you keep saying should be done. I'M THE ONE who has done that, not SiBr4 so stop talking about something you don't even understand. Also, I can't be blocked on Commons for edits on other project which is exactly what SiBr4 started this AN to whine about. And considering you agree that this disagreement has no position on Commons, your self-admittedly baseless (and powerless I might add since you are not an admin) threat of a block means nothing. I re-iterate my demand for an official construction sheet, until that happens I won't change my position on the matter: END OF STORY. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Not a 'threat' at all, I don't claim to have that authority. Sorry if I was not clear, it's begging for a block on both sides from what I see, "I don't care what you think" was just a bit egregious. Revent (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

And what should I be blocked for, exactly? I haven't raised this issue on Commons since the closure of that RfC, and since I haven't edit warred on Commons with replacements and I can't be blocked on Commons for my edits on other projects, WHAT have I done that begs for a block? SiBr4 brought this up here where nothing is actionable, I simply responded. Is that a crime now? Fry1989 ^eh? 18:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

'Battleground behavior'... again, not a threat, just a note that you are heading that direction. (your opponent is as well, probably more than you) Step back, calm down, you are fighting about what... a 5% difference in the position of the center of a flag? It's fairly trivial,and doubtful that anyone else cares, tbh. Revent (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"Battelground behaviour"? And what battleground behaviour have I exhibited? Have I constantly brought up this issue campaigning for attention? No. Have I edit warred on the file reverting it over and over? No. Have I edit warred on Commons replacing it on pages over and over and over? No. My crime is apparently defending myself against spurious accusations of "sneaking" and "stealth" when I've never made it any secret my intentions, and describing Commons policy as it should have been followed regarding the disagreement during it's initial stage, and from YOU who keeps saying "take it to local project talk pages" when that is exactly what I had done and I don't see any examples of where SiBr4 did the same. I'm done here, contact me when SiBr4 finds a construction sheet! Fry1989 ^eh? 19:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, a 'non-admin' observation that you should probably back away and cool down, the actual argument is rather trivial. Your opponent should take the same advice. Revent (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Rillke: I've seen such arguments... my point was that, absent 'authoritative' evidence, such arguments are not really in the scope of Commons. Give multiple versions, let the the local wikis argue. Don't edit war here, it's pointless. Admins can be wrong as well, and most readers would never notice the difference. Revent (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Revent for the advice; I'll stop arguing over the many accusations and denials since it's clear that that only results in a lot of repetition. Some notes, though.

• "Even if on these other sources the triskelion is not vertically exactly centered, it has always been horizontally exactly centered" – My measurements count both x and y directions. The sources' images may happen to be closer to rectangular in horizontal placement, but they're closer to circular overall.
• "I have always made it clear that I intend to replace...until you found an official construction sheet" / "...it is resolved by an official construction sheet which is something I have asked for over and over" – You only started doing that in this very thread. I didn't find any explicit, specific demands for an official construction sheet in any of the previous discussions (please give links/diffs if you think otherwise).

I sent a message to the IoM government some days ago. Hopefully that will result in some clarification about the official rules on the flag. SiBr₄ (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the demands for an 'official construction sheet', from what I see of the history of this argument, are a bit out of line. While authoritative evidence can prove that one position is right, demanding that the other party 'produce' evidence to prove that you are wrong (and don't take 'you' to be a poke at you, SiBr4, a generic you) is unreasonable when you don't have evidence either. A 'I'm right unless you prove me wrong' position is not compatible with collaboration. Glad you found my comments useful tho, thanks. :) Revent (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually I have found your comments to be completely ignorant and useless. I have provided evidence for my position (or did you just choose not to read my links, you seem to enjoy pretending I haven't done things I have in fact done), SiBr4 has provided evidence for their position, but neither is solid. Calling for an official construction sheet, which is the ONLY thing that can settle this for sure, is not unreasonable when quite often we use official construction sheets for our flag files. I could link many files where official construction sheets have been found and used to make our files as accurate as possible, often against the objections of users who disagree with what is "standard". Find one, and this could all be ended in a heartbeat, don't find one and this remains two users who do not have authoritative evidence one way or the other and are unable to reconcile. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

"Enjoy"? Um, no, you are now attacking my motivations when I was just trying to give some third party input? You really need to back off and calm down about what is, after all, a really minor dispute. Yes, basing the flag on a construction sheet is perfect.... but claims that the other party must prove you wrong when you don't have a construction sheet either are far out of line. Reading the history, you have a tendency of being quite argumentative, and discounting the opinions of anyone who tried to come in as a third party.. really, calm the hell down, it's a trivial difference in the centering of a flag, and you have been arguing with multiple people for months now. it is not legitimate to claim that you are right without evidence unless other people prove you wrong, and that is what you seem to be doing. Revent (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It may have something to do with your manner of addressing me. You have repeatedly said I should do things I have already done, ignored it when I point out that I have, and accuse me of things I haven't done and become silent or dismissive when I call you out on it. By all counts I would say you're deliberately trying to egg me on. As for getting an official construction sheet, it is up to both sides to prove their point and I have never denied my responsibility in doing the same. However, I am not obligated to prove my opponent's point of view any more than they are required to prove mine. If they want to prove they are right then they have to find their own supporting evidence and for me the only conclusive and definitive evidence that will end this is an official construction sheet. I do not absolve myself of my own efforts in finding supporting evidence for my view, as you seem to imply I have done, and I would most certainly notify all parties involved instantly were I to find one myself. But because I have so far failed to find a construction sheet does not absolve SiBr4 of putting in the same effort. Stop acting like you know me or the state of my mind, you're terrible at it. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I have never commented about this outside of this particular thread. Anyone is welcome to read this and form their own opinion about the reasonableness of various parties to the dispute. Revent (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Where did I say you commented anywhere else regarding this issue but here????? Nowhere did I say any such thing. That's what is pissing me off, you keep saying things that aren't true and seem to be based on (false) assumption about my intended meaning of my statements. You think it is unreasonable to expect an official construction sheet to be the only real document that can end a dispute between two users who so far have shown an absolute inability to reconcile? Or do you just think I'm unreasonable because I won't capitulate without solid official evidence one way or the other? I'd really love to know what you do think is reasonable. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I was just pointing out for the sake of other that I am not a 'party' to the dispute about the flag itself, I'm only talking about behavior. It is not unreasonable for either side to want the dispute resolved by some kind of official evidence.. it is quite unreasonable for one side or the other in such a dispute to insist that 'they' should win by default unless the other person proves them wrong, when there seems to be a lack of the requested proof (a construction sheet) for either side. You might be upset my me seeing it that way, but that is how the history of the argument reads, and you are seem to be deliberately ignoring the result of an RfC that was closed (IMO correctly) as 'overwhelmingly' in support of the version you don't like. If you don't like the way an RfC was run, you don't simply ignore it. It is worth noting that every single person that contributed to the RfC disagreed with you, and several people strongly criticized your behavior at the time. I strongly agree at this point that you are not inclined to listen to anyone. Revent (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't give a damn if the entire world disagrees with me. Unless there is an official construction sheet, nobody knows for sure what the truth is. Do I have one? No. Do you have one? No. Does SiBr4 have one? NO! So either find one, or get off your high and mighty horse that "everyone else disagrees" but without any actual proof to back up their belief. Just because you have a differing view does not give your opinion equal weighting when the facts contradict. So find one, or don't, but until one appears and shows that I am mistaken I will NEVER change my stance on the matter. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Request some admin shut this down, it's reduced to squabbling at this point. Revent (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Никита1976

This user uploaded photos from a family album (with unknown photographer), scans of newspapers and photos from the web. Those were deleted after a deletion request or after informing the user of a speedy deletion request. After that the user wrote me an email asking to restore the pictures, started an undeletion request, and added some text to the former file pages. I explained on the talk page why this is not possible at the moment and steps to take for the user to prove permission, including links to Russian language policy pages. The the user send me another email despite being asked not to saying that they are not a lawyer and find legal terms hard to understand. I then tried to explain the rules in as simple terms as possible and asked to discuss that matter on the user's talk page. The user proceeded to recreate the pages, mostly with a copy of the text from Template:PD-Russia or the information that the user is related to the depicted person. I warned the user to not recreate the pages again, especially without discussion. However they did.

I'm unsure how to proceed. A user block feels excessive, as this situation seems like genuine confusion. Blocking the file pages for recreation however seems warranted. —Wuzur 14:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Removing DR tag before closing delete nomination

Hi, an user Hawaiifive0 has removed (twice) the DR tag of this file File:Limon Costa Rica - Railroad Workers Monument.png before delete nomination is closed. Can any administrator take a close look. Regards. --— D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 09:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done user warned (final), page protected. Next time block. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Poor categorisation by a bot

User:Shizhao operates User:Panoramio upload bot and the bot adds all sorts of categories that files should not be in. I have asked for the categorisation to be reviewed (see User_talk:Shizhao#Categories) to no avail. As an example File:Finke River Gorge - panoramio.jpg was in Category:Landscapes and Category:2006. Both of these are high level categories that should contain few, if any files. Alan Liefting (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is another example. Alan Liefting (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Alan, we are all in this together. Bot writers usually do the best they can, but proper categorization is often not possible without human review (hence his bot applies {{Check categories}}), especially given the limitations of Panoramio "tags". Those of us who do not code bots can help with this, and I see that you do, congratulations. If you can suggest a better automated procedure, go ahead, but complaining alone is near useless. Some bot authors take it upon themselves to later fully categorize all their files manually, but others prefer to concentrate on the programming side, and relying on crowdsourced help. If they have done the best automated job they can, it's not reasonable to expect them to also do the manual work on thousands of files. --99of9 (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I would have thought that it would be very simple to program the bot to have a black list of categories that should not be added. It would include all of the meta categories. Alan Liefting (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

By "all of the meta categories", do you mean those in Category:Categories requiring temporary diffusion? --99of9 (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I mean Category:Meta categories. Alan Liefting (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

In that case, it would not have picked up either of the two categories you complained about, Category:2006 or Category:Landscapes, because neither is (currently or at the time of upload) a Meta Category. Fae's code would have caught one of the two if I'm reading it right. But I agree this is a useful ideal. The fact that Fae considers it "easy enough" should be read as coming from someone who has a lot of experience and expertise in bulk upload categorization, which most bulk uploaders do not yet have. A code sharing page may be of help here. --99of9 (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I previously offered to help with workshops for bot-writers, but local chapter politics have made this unlikely to ever happen now.

Based on the example categories of concern, I have changed the generic diffusion check to:

re.search(r"\{\{(categori[zs]e|catdiffuse|metacat|catcat|yearcategory)\}\}", cat_page, flags=re.IGNORECASE)

It's probably the sort of tip that should go on a best practices for batch uploaders page, especially considering what might happen if the powerful GLAMwiki toolset starts to be used by lots of less experienced contributors. --Fæ (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if stuff like this is built into GLAMWiki Toolset (@Multichill: ), because by design it is intended to primarily help less experienced contributors. PS Please don't take this as chapter politics: for a distributed global project good documentation is probably better than workshops anyway. Please go ahead and share whatever code snippets you think are helpful.--99of9 (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

As I was on the Steering Committee, I can give a good answer. No, the GWT has no automated category checking or finding. The presumption is that the user does this when they prepare the XML input files. Hence the need for training materials and manuals (which are already quite reasonable, but are not intended to provide a generic guide to Commons best practices). --Fæ (talk) 06:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is easy enough. Any bot writer can add a category check. As an example I am currently uploading some files from the Miami University Libraries Flickrstream and I use the Flickr tags to automatically provide a potential list of Commons categories. There are two types of category check, against a "hand maintained" array and by the bot double checking each prospective category for diffusion notices (it then remembers the check so that the category wiki-source only has to be read once, effectively an on-the-fly white list and black list).

My example "manual black list" array looks like:

nocats=['India', 'England', 'Africa', 'Europe', 'France',
		'Great Britain', 'China', 'Germany', 'Economics', 'Journalism',
		'Authors', 'Teachers', 'Digital', 'University',
		'Family', 'Families', 'Events',
		'Organisations', 'Students', 'Reading',
		]

The general "diffusion" check looks like this.

cat_page = wikipedia.Page(site, "Category:" + cat).get()
if re.search(r"\{\{([Cc](ategorize|atDiffuse)|MetaCat|CatCat)\}\}", cat_page):
  nocats.append(cat)
  print "Category check of", cat, "showed diffusion category so ignoring suggestion."

Working out how to do this for different bot scripting languages is not rocket science. bot-writers should be willing responsibly to improve their bot uploads and invest some time doing their homework, I am not surprised that they get flak back from other members of the community. Saying this, I agree there are mass uploads where categorization is itself such a tricky debate that bucket categories are unavoidable (I often used them, it can help when semi-automating later housekeeping such as mass categorization/recategorization; e.g. Category:Images from DoD uploaded by Fæ), however this is not the same as dumping thousands of files in a high level parent category and walking away. --Fæ (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that Fæ. Alan Liefting (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

If you would like to quote a simple real example of this in action, you may wish to try File:Pathway and stone bridge on Western College Campus n.d. (3195981597).jpg. This was a Flickr upload and the Flickr tags that match Commons categories included Trees, Roads, Nature and Landscapes. These all failed the automated diffusion category check but the category of Bridges got through. Not perfect, but a lot better than category dumping or no categories at all for a batch upload of thousands of images. By the way, I have done generic testing for parent-child category relationships when category matching, most notably for my HABS batch upload, it's a nightmare and massively processor/transaction expensive so would not expect this of a batch uploader unless the types of category made it simple to solve. --Fæ (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons has declining editor numbers yet there is a rising number of uploaded files. Obviously with this situation the backlog will only get worse. Editors must keep this in mind, especially if they do mass uploads. Alan Liefting (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually that's not a foregone conclusion, exactly because of automated tools. Many Bot requests we receive are to help with the admin of one or more of the backlog items. --99of9 (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Point taken that bots can help with the backlog but careless uploading by a bot creates extra, unneeded work. As well as the poor categorisation in this case there are also numerous files that have been put up for deletion. Alan Liefting (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

 Comment In general, I have never understood, why Commons needs the mass upload of almost bad categorized photos in bad quality from Panoramio and Flickr. Instead of raising the quality of Commons it is watering the content. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more! Ten million good to excellent images is far better than 24 million piss poor to excellent ones. Alan Liefting (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons? Commons surely doesn't. The only ones who need it, are the uploaders of such stuff, because they can easily jack up their upload count this way. --A.Savin 16:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

So if no serious Commoners likes this behaviour, why does Commons facilitate this with authorizing tools like Flickr-to-Commons or FlickreviewR? --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

They are useful if people use them wisely for a limited range of uploads and do all home works like meaningful filenames, categories, etc. So it is ultimately not the problem of tools; but people who use them carelessly. Jee 17:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. The tools can be useful but just use them correctly. Quality not quantity. Alan Liefting (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You can obviously have both. However, one’s notion of quality may not be another’s. You may think that this particular locomotive or insect or whatever is best covered in Commons by one or two excellent photographs that made it to QI/FP/VI/etc, but I would not be content with less than a few hundred images of each, covering all possible aspects of the subject — and ready to accept as good even grainy misframed amateur shots. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

+5. :) Jee 16:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Alan Liefting: why you don't ask Shizhao on his talkpage before reporting here (COM:DISPUTE)? --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I have. See the opening post. Alan Liefting (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh. True :-). - And of course Shizhao should try to fix this bot issue. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not so much in dispute with the editor. I just want to get his/her editing improved. Alan Liefting (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Should we ban mass uploads? Each image needs to be carefully reviewed. Alan Liefting (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No, we should not. Yes, it does. (And how can you carefully review an image before uploading it?) -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, let me guess... Maybe by having a look at the image and considering if it can be in scope for Commons/Wikipedia? --A.Savin 20:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

How is «having a look», especially a look had by a single user, the prospective uploader, is anything like a careful review, which in a wiki environment is also expected to be done by multiple users? -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I already fixed year and meta categories problem in script--shizhao (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:AntanO ignoring COM:Renaming

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon. Looking at AntanO's current contribs, I don't see any systematical against-the-policy renames of files here. Time to move on. Thanks --A.Savin 21:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

For the record, when I started typing my additions submitted on 21:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC), this closing note was not yet inserted. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

---

I warned him, yet he refuses to acknowledge, insisting that the new name is better than the old one — which is exactly against policy: The old name needs to be wrong for a renaming to be acceptable, and simple improvement from acceptable to smashing-brilliant (if it could be agreed upon) is explicitly listed as not enough to rename. (Yes, it is a bit counter-intuitive — that’s probably why there’s a policy in the first place).

The matter here is not this one renaming, again, but the prospect that this user has a flawed view on the relevant policy, and yet he has file-mover rights.

-- Tuválkin ✉ 17:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

 Comment If user Tuválkin could assume good faith of the fellow participants in this project, many edit wars created by user Tuválkin could be avoided. This is another of same. File was not described in Esperanto, there was no indication that upload name was anything other than letters and numbers. That is not the real problem. The real problem is that Tuválkin went instantly to claims of "ignoring" and other name calling instead of patiently working with the other editors to solve the situation. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I’m frankly disappointed, Ellin Beltz. Your assessment of the situation seems to me to be off in most accounts. I hesitate about listing and rebutting them all to defend my position. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

 Comment I do not understand why Tuválkin take it as serious issue and bring here. Please look at my user’s talk page and see the weight of issue and the “temper”. I cannot accept false blame which is not my intension to breach the policy. I would like to ask admins to warn him for accusing me like “user has a flawed view on the relevant policy” and creating unnecessary issue here and in my talk page. Still he comes to my talk page and disrupting me while reporting here. --Anton^Talk 18:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Bulleted replies, to make it swift:

• That one renaming itself is not very important, as said, and I never asked you to undo it. Yet the matter of file renaming, in general, is serious (there is a policy about it, after all), and the response I expected from you (something like «Oh, I see. Okay, notice taken.») never come — instead you kept explaining why the new filename is better, defending a concept (file renaming for filename improvement, instead of for filename correction only) that is contrary to the policy. That’s why I brought the matter to AN/U. It is serious and necessary.
• Temper? Well, you repeatedly characterized the filename of my choice as meanigless and incorrect, even after its meaning was explained. That ruffled my feathers. I was not impolite, though, I think — or was I?
• You would like admins to bully me so that I just accept your renaming action against official policy? That doesn’t sound too good.
• «Unnecessary issue», you complain, both here and in your talk page. Well, should I have come here first, instead? (I don’t think so.) Should I have kept quiet about the matter, even though I felt (and feel) this is important and should be addressed? (I don’t think so either.)

-- Tuválkin ✉ 18:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

 Comment I leave it to Admin. I don’t want to waste the time to give one by one answer. If admin ask for more clarification, I can. Tuválkin forcibly and logically tries to accuse me regarding to policy. I never say a single word against policy. Do I? If so, where? No logic please! Again I request admins to give him a warning or block for false accuse.--Anton^Talk 19:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting developments meanwhile on User:AntanO’s talk page, where this user, encouraged by the apparent fruitlessness of my complaint here, now gloats and tries to insult me («Circular reasoning, hur hur!»). I expect that he’ll now feel emboldened to further overlook COM:Renaming; sooner or later he’ll affect filenames chosen by someone with more clout than me, and then we’ll see how it goes down. -- Tuválkin ✉ 06:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Admin needs to take action as the user continues his arbitrary talk on my talk page while complaining here. You may check "logs". I never attack anyone, false complain, etc. --Anton^Talk 07:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Anton, just ignore and move on. An admin already commented above and this thread only needs a speedy close now. :) Jee 07:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Is that post on AntanO's talk page some kind of early April Fool? Tuválkin uploads a file he names "4volboj4krucoj.jpg", taken from another website. To everyone here that doesn't speak the constructed language Esperanto, those look like random letters and numbers. The photographer himself (who presumably doesn't speak that language either) requests a rename to something sensible. That might help the file be used, which it currently isn't on any Wikimedia project. That request is granted and the person who does it gets a heap of policy shit dumped on him by Tuválkin -- who doesn't explain that the filename is actually meaningful (to him). Our rename policy has a measure of sense to it but at the same time we really need to apply an ounce of common sense. Why is Tuválkin uploading other people's files in Esperanto? Does this personal quirk serve Commons in any way? How does it come about that some random uploader has a greater say in deciding the Commons filename than the photographer himself? Tuválkin doesn't own the file and nether does Commons. I can appreciate that a file in-use on dozens of Wikimedia projects can be disruptive if changed without very strong reason, but I don't see any good reason here to disrespect the photographer's wishes. Nor do I see any purpose for Commons users to use constructed languages, especially written with random numbers and no spaces, that appear for all the world like a secure password, when uploading other people's images. If he wants to do that with his own images, that's up to him. That, combined with an over-rigid application of policy that discourages any change to the original name, seems here to be little more than a game where Tuválkin can choose deeply unhelpful names that please him in some way, and then bully other editors into retaining that madness. I request he stops this silliness now and gets a clue. -- Colin (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for recentering the issue, Colin, and speaking clearly. I will ASAP offer my answers to your questions (to the actual ones, not to your rhethorics). -- Tuválkin ✉ 09:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• I almost never use spaces in filenames (in any language), because I think they are more trouble than help (especially when used in wikitext). To split words I favour brackets, dashes, camel case, or digits, as in this case. It is debatable, I concede, but there’s nothing against it in COM:Renaming nor in COM:File naming. -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• When I uploaded those 600-something CC-BY and CC-BY-SA images from Fotopedia, that artistic photography website was about to close down in a few days. I could not clog the uploading pipeline (I used Vicuña) with try-again errors caused by duplicated filenames, so I chose exceptionally whimsical filenames, to be sure they were not yet in use. -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

There’s an unteresting exception to this: Somewhene between the 300th and 400th upload I was franticly pumping through into Commons from Fotopedia’s siking ship, Yann (an admin) found cause to change one (or several, I don’t remember) of my filenames to something more to his liking; discussion ensued (pretty much like this one, minus the drama) and I saw that I’d either waste hours argueing about the merits of Portuguese vs. English and camel case vs. spaces, or I’d use that time to upload more. So I dropped the matter and let about 100 photos come to Commons with filenames like Fotopedia-3mP7RD8ys1o.jpg or Fotopedia-79f280d3d6652b57fa201215f225e38a.jpg — which are clearly against policy. These however apparently pleased Yann, as they were left alone, and some are still unrenamed… -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Tuvalkin, your interpretation is nowhere near the reality. I wanted to help reviewing and renaming these files, but I left after your invocated spurious arguments. So you are plainly wrong here, and I agree 100% with Colin. Yann (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Yann. The reality can be ascertained in logs and diffs, if necessary, and I don’t remember every detail of what was discussed in August — but the gist of the matter is that you end up improving (according to your opinion) one of my “whimsical” filenames, and none of the ~100 "Fotopedia-gobbledygook" filenames I felt forced to generate instead (seven months later there are still 50 of those filenames; I think all the renaming action that reduced that number was made by me — and reinciding in my favourite filenaming style, I’m afraid: whimsical, no spaces, no-default-English).

I’m sorry if my riposting back then chased you away from license reviewing the images I was uploading from dying Fotopedia, risking their later deletion over a 404 source, but I’m glad your opposition to my filenaming did not chase me away from uploading the rest: The current stash of mostly useful photos is something we all can enjoy, and I hope some time soon the announced total of 22 thousand photos with acceptable license is extracted from “purgatory” and joins those here in Commons.

-- Tuválkin ✉ 23:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Fotopedia had a po-mo / hipster / artiste outlook and things like «Look at the pretty waterfall!» could not be “ruined” by mundane data like location and date — so in most cases I had to come up for a filename with whatever the image suggested and be done with it: There was not much time to think a lot about each — the faster I’d upload, the more I could save. (Some may want to read the photographer’s opinion about my role in uploading from Fotopedia to Commons.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• To stress again that I never asked for the renaming to be undone, just for policy to be upheld futurely. Colin, Ellin, Jkadavoor, and AntanO need to pay attention to this fine distinction. -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• Upon re-reading Colin’s comment carefully I see about half of it is dedicated to criticize COM:Renaming: «a heap of policy shit» ^{(elegant word choice, by the way!)}, «over-rigid application of policy» (admitting that I was right in my original criticism of AntanO), «policy has a measure of sense to it but» (…), etc. In short, Colin doesn’t like COM:Renaming. That’s cool, but it is still a mandatory policy — changes to it should be discussed and maybe approved after vote, not sneaked in. -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• I’m accused of bullying AntanO, because I brought him to AN/U — yet I did so after a long discussion in his talk page, and I’m the one against whom «admin action» is being called for, while all I am saying is: Respect the Renaming policy. -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• We also learn from Colin’s comment that he doesn’t like the fact that Esperanto is used in Commons, and also that he is very, very angry — to the point of using some vulgar expressions (in English, of course). Two things about Colin that are utterly irrelevant to this discussion, though, and which I’d prefer never to have learned. -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sick and tired of "it isn't against policy" being used as an argument to do something unhelpful/unpleasant. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. When will this sink in on Commons? The fact that we have no policy against hard2readf1len@mes doesn't mean it's a good idea. And people deliberately choosing filenames that disobey the standard rules of language construction (spaces between words being fundamental) then they should certainly not go around telling off people that they have done something wrong, let alone go to this noticeboard, because they didn't recognise the gibberish was actually meaninful.
• I accept the initial upload was done in haste and don't wish to detract from your efforts to save those images. All reasonable people would concede that temporary filenames might be justified in that situation, whether random Photopedia names or "exceptionally whimsical filenames". However, those names should not then be set in stone. If that guideline page needs updated because a few Commons Admins have no clue and are unable to recognise exceptions to the rules, then I guess we need to do that. Seriously, one shouldn't have to write policy/guidlines to prevent idiocy. Those should be regarded as temporary names. It does not serve Commons to retain them rigidly. Note that that Commons:File renaming is a guideline which "most editors agree with in principle and generally follow" -- that means that only the principles count, not the rigid application of the words if they harm Commons, and that there is scope to disregard the words if the result is a benefit to Commons. In the case of this file-rename, one can be absolutely sure that Commons is better off with the new name.
• You went to tell AntanO that he did something against policy, something wrong. The fact is, he didn't break any policy, only a guideline that mostly applies. That's a big difference from thinking "mandatory policy" whatever that means. It doesn't make sense to apply it here, for your temporary "whimsical filename". This is a vital point. It means you were wrong and AntanO was right (even if the photographer picked the wrong "rename reason", who cares). Not only should AntanO not need to revert his change but should be free to do such a rename again when faced with "whimsical filenames" chosen in haste. Doing so is not against any guideline because our guidelines do not say they must be obeyed without exception.
• The "a heap of policy shit" is not Commons:File renaming which is a mostly reasonable guideline but what you dumped on AntanO's page. That was unnecessary and makes obeying rules more important than improving Commons. Perhaps Wikipedia's "Ignore all rules" needs to be copied here, thought that is a much misunderstood rule. Which of you two was improving Commons at that point? You need to get the idea of "mandatory policy" out of your head and think of the bigger picture - you're not a computer program.
• You say "all I am saying is: Respect the Renaming policy". This is exactly where you are going wrong. You are over-rigidly applying a guildeline and claiming it is more forceful and more powerful than it is. Really, instead of arguing with AntanO and taking him here, you should be saying (in a mellow voice) "Yea that was a whimsical name I chose in haste. Thanks for making it more useful to Commons and our re-users. Btw, it does mean something in Esperanto :-)".
• I don't have a problem with you using Esperanto but I do with you enforcing its use on other people's images. Perhaps you've only used it for your hasty Fotopedia work, but if you are regularly using it for uploading other people's images, I suggest you are more interested in proving some point than about serving Commons. I'm angry about your attitude towards guideline/policy enforcement and this leading you to rebuke other other people's perfectly sensible actions.
• Let me repeat: COM:Renaming is just a guideline. Grasp that essential point and this whole storm would have never have happened. -- Colin (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

(Colin, I notice you replied the same number of bulleted points as I had above; I presume that’s a one-to-one reply, yes? Do you mind if your replies are signed and date-stamped individually and interspersed into mine, to enblable clear subthreading. Me or others may want to reply in turn to some of those points. Thanks you in advance.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no wish to continue this conversation. You clearly aren't getting it. -- Colin (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

One more example

One more example, this time with nothing to do with me (phew!): Not a file I “dared” to upload, nor a filename I chose, nor even in a language I know: In this edit, user AntanO decides that a photo showing two Hungarian high school badges is better named with English File:Fonyod, high school badge.jpg instead of the original Hungarian File:Karikas-kituzo.jpg — from Karikás kitűzők, given by the uloader/photographer also as the file description. Note that this time nobody else requested the renaming — this is 100% AntanO’s abuse of the renaming tool, clearly against policy («2. Files should NOT be renamed only because the filename is not English»). Am I being over-rigid again? Colin, Ellin Beltz, Jkadavoor — your take on this?… -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC) ^{(redacted: -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC))}

If the original filename is sensible in Hungarian, then I agree it should not have been renamed and would consider changing back if that is allowed. But before you call this "abuse" please consider that he just didn't know about the guideline. Hanlon's razor. A friendly post on a clearly applicable image would be fine, unlike the above nonsense. -- Colin (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hanlon’s razor applies to User:Globetrotter19, who requested the rename (I was wrong about it having been AntanO’s initiative), as he may not know the relevant policy, but there’s no such exemption for AntanO: When he was given the file mover’s right by User:Alan, he should have deep knowledge of both Commons:File renaming and Commons:File naming. A friendly post on his talk page is how this started, a simple call to pay more attention next time — and it mutated into this shrieking fest. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Having read the article en:Hanlon's razor, I find most of its specific wordings unncessarily offensive — I’ll assume Colin here meant, instead of stupidity, mere ignorance or just unawareness. -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. -- Colin (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, Tuválkin, why are you pinging me again and again? I just incidentally saw your preach on his talk page while processing one of his friendly request. Nothing personal here other than we all are volunteers working together for something good. Not a self declared warrior. ;) Jee 12:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I will stop pinging Jkadavoor, then. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, false claim by Tuválkin. Even a kid would tell by looking at the file history that who requested for renaming. If Tuválkin digging the record of me, I can do the same too. But, it would not damage me. As Jeevan told me to ignore and move on, I request Colin. Please, don’t stress by taking your valuable time. It’s better to silent to those who say earth is flat. I respect your righteousness for standing against false claim. Even though, you do not know me. I urge admin again to deal with Tuválkin who already condemn four editors. Tuválkin should get strong warning for false claim, unfaithful behavior and using AN/U to threatening users. Please make a full stop to move on. I don’t like to be in mess. --Anton^Talk 12:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the claim that this rename is 100% User:AntanO’s work is wrong: He merely accepted a request from User:Globetrotter19 — I should have been more careful in my record digging and I apologize to AntanO for this mistake. It is still however against policy and possibly problematic: The old filename, which AntanO replaced, was "Karikas-kituzo.jpg" matching the file’s «Description : Magyar: Karikás kitűzők» (minus diacriticals and plural ending), yet both AntanO and Globetrotter19 found Hungarian language to be worth of §2 under file renaming policy: «completely meaningless». This may have been caused either by haste or by misguided anglophilia, but either way it is problematic and requires, at least, a reassurement from AntanO that he will pay more attention to these renaming requests in the future. (For the rest of AntanO’s comment above, devoided of any justification as it is, I have no further replies.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jeevan for your input and constructive approach. I am sorry that you are caught by crossfire :) This issue should stop rather than affecting others too. Therefore I ping a few administrators here. (I hope it is not against the policy.) @Hedwig in Washington: , @EugeneZelenko: , @Fastily: --Anton^Talk 13:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Unless the hitherto uninvolved admins you pinged are fluent in Hungarian ^{(which are not, trusting the Babel boxes in their user pages)} or have any other specific interest in this matter (such as Yann and Alan, which I pinged above), it is called canvassing. Considering that one of the three pinged admins is the one who ever blocked me it looks pretty much like canvassing alright. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, Tuválkin, perhaps before you reprimand others for not having a "deep knowledge" of our guidelines, and make a fool of yourself on this noticeboard, you might want to first familiarise yourself with the purpose and limitations of what a "guideline" is. Less "mandatory policy" and more "generally good advice". To me, that is the most outrageous mistake, and not whether someone knows #2 or #5 of our renaming guideline off-by-heart. -- Colin (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, Colin, speaking as someone who was once sternly warned by an admin for canvassing (a notion I had never before encountered, to be honest, and which now I admit is one of those counter-intuitive good things that needs to be covered by policy — pretty much like improvement-renaming, really), I replied to AntanO’s parenthetical wondering whether his pinging is against policy. I refrained to classify it as mandatory or not: just linked to the relevant page. As for making a fool of myself, I’m out of fingers toes counting your insults in this thread — I’m sure there’s a policy against that? Or is it just a guideline? -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Tuválkin, it appears there is no policy against making a fool of yourself. I won't be continuing this conversation, though, as it the key point has been made quite clearly and it is obvious you aren't getting it. -- Colin (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

You’re really, really pushing hard on that insult shtick, aren’t you? Trying to egg me on to reply in kind and end up blocked? That’s cute. -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No, just having a little joke. After all, this whole post rather boomeranged on you. Lighten up! :-) -- Colin (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing? Another joke? See: Commons:Offsite discussion Trying all the logic? I would like stay cool as I described on my user page @ en.wiki w:User:AntanO --Anton^Talk 03:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, I once did what you did above, I pinged a handful of uninvolved editors to ask their opinion about something, and I was sternly scolded by an admin (user:Beria, if I recall correctly) for something that, I learned, is called canvassing. You wondered if that kind of pinging is against policy and I shared my insight with you. If you cannot be cool even with that, well, then be uncool. -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't care what you say. --Anton^Talk 21:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

User uploads files without a category.

L.s.

Mudangel (talk · contribs) uploads a lot of files and does not (as far as I know) give the file a category. I once asked it very friendly and the second time also friendly with a little warning. But I see only new files from him or her, without a category. Can a moderator take some action. Maybe a final warning or a short block or a good conversation (if it helps, I doubt it).. Kind regards, - Richardkw (talk) (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Last activity on 21 October 2014. I'm really curious, what should a message or even a user block bring us? --A.Savin 20:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Let me stress this again: Although i.m.o. categorization is the most important feature of Commons, there should no requirement for any uploader to add categories to file pages, let alone penalties for not doing so. This user’s files are now tagged for being uncategorized and will eventually be categorized by other users — as the filenames, description, source, and (for some) usage provide enough information about the subject to allow proper categorization. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree. No categorisation is better than bad categorisation, and we get plenty of the latter. Alan Liefting (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I said this because I sometimes work on this pages: Category:Media needing categories requiring human attention and there are thousands and thousands of files there without a category. If I work there it can take 5-10 minutes for only one file, to find a good category (sometimes quicker if I know what it is). Someone who uploads a lot and for a longer time, i.m.o knows more about that file than just some other user. So for him it's easier to add a category, because he knows what it is. I upload files here for years, not daily, but there were weeks that I uploaded a lot in the past, from 2010 until now with this account and from 2008-2010 with two other accounts. And I always try to find the category. I never leave a file without a good category. If this is how you 'guys' think about that, then I consider to stop working on that pages, because then it is carrying water to the sea, although the last time I already did not do much there, because of an other project I work on. Kind regards, - Richardkw (talk) (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, no reason for that, I think, speaking as someone who also often pokes at Category:Media needing categories requiring human attention (it is in my to-do list) but mantaining what I said above. I do know that often (and I hope that, eventually, always) a file which was left uncategorized for years suddenly, after the addition of a single category (even of a not very exact one) cascades down to rapid full categorization and some times even use in projects. And therefore I fully agree that if/when uploaders add even one or two not-too-bad categories that is much more useful and interesting than when they add none.

What I cannot agree is whether there should be any sanction for those who do not add categories upon uploading. It seems pointless: A creator of phine and phancy photography who sees Commons only as a vehicle for promotion of their art will likely not add a category — too busy sumitting to QI/FP/VI/whatever. What would Commons gain by driving away or blocking such a contributer? Nothing, and we’d lose good photos. So, I say, no penalties. (Should good categorization be a requirement for QI/FP/VI nomination? Maybe…)

-- Tuválkin ✉ 22:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a general wiki principle that users are not sanctioned for failure to act, but only for disruptive action. An exception exists where a user frequently creates deletable content, in which case balance may be considered, i.e., positive value vs. harm in wasted time by other users. Uploading good photos without categories is not a harm, it creates an opportunity for others to also contribute value by categorizing. Users and uploaders are not slaves nor even employees, to be punished for not completing work. If Richardkw dislikes adding categories for photos uploaded by others, I'd suggest he not do it (which he threatened). He won't be punished for not categorizing, i.e., for not doing what everyone else has also not done. And we can still thank him for what he did, as we can thank the uploader. --Abd (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Please help with correcting the proper author of a pic

By accident the following pic was uploaded on my account: File:Die letzten Zeugen Ffm 6516 Michelides.jpg. The author of the pic is user:Christian Michelides, as mentioned in the name of the pic. Can you please correct this error.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hereby I certify that I'm the author of this pic and that I agree with its publication on WikiCommons under: Diese Datei ist lizenziert unter der Creative-Commons-Lizenz „Namensnennung – Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 4.0 international“.--Christian Michelides (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done You can do it yourself next time. ;oD Yann (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

User:ForwardGWR

I think this user has been uploading copyrighted screenshots of Iglesia ni Cristo produced videos to the commons. Most of his images have been deleted based on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ForwardGWR, but he's beginning to add new PNG-based files to the commons. Could someone look into this? --w^{L <speak·creatively>} 18:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Wee Curry Monster

Hi all, I brought this user here some week ago. Unfortunately, no action was considered and, therefore, his behavior escalated. To summarize, this user seems to be very disturbed about images that do not comply with his opinions on the Falkland question (he's been repeatedly topic banned in the English Wikipedia in issues related to the remnants of the British Empire, such as Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands, and in spite of that, seems to believe that he's the only neutral editor in the world). He started by spuriously attempting to make a file deleted. Instead, I opened a regular DR. During the discussion, he tried to remove the file again, by overwriting it. In my report here, I explicitly warned him about COM:OVERWRITE. In spite of that, and after the DR was closed with a 'keep' result, he's tried to remove again the file by overwriting it. I've tried to warn him, but he simply removes the messages, without any acknowledgement about it. Best regards --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 17:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's see if a three day block helps. Natuur12 (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

In short, the user continued his behaviour after the last report, his only responces are ad hominem, the user is unwilling to show any self reflection and he/she disrespects policy while he/she should know better. Natuur12 (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Editor after editor (both at the DR and since) has said that we at least need a description that accurately describes what the image is - a composite of a number of different parts that were put together with the express intention of misleading the viewer. Commons policy requires that descriptions be as neutral as possible.

We're now apparently to have a description - brought in at the last minute by Discasto as he drafted the above message over a neutral version whose fundamentals had been stable for five days - that both denies the composite nature of the image and that openly espouses the Argentine point of view on the subject matter. Enforced by admins. Is that what Commons wants to be - a propaganda outlet for one side in a political dispute? Because right now, on that image, it's acting like one.

Does WCM believe he is the only neutral editor in the world? Certainly not. Does he believe that he is more neutral than a bunch of pro-Argentine POV pushers, who between them for at least the past decade have imposed and enforced es.wiki's strongly pro-Argentine editorial line so thoroughly that at a quick read it would probably strike the Argentine government as a bit OTT, who now use the image on es.wiki with an entirely misleading and strongly biased caption? Yes, almost certainly. And he would be right to believe that. Kahastok talk 22:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Kahastok, you seem unclear on something. Commons hosts files. It make no decision about the truthfulness of what files might show. Assessment of that is up to those who use the files, and others. It is not the job of Commons to be an encyclopedic source, just a repository of images that may or may not be used. My opinion, if the text accompanying a file is considered by any good-faith user to be misleading, it should be reduced to neutrality, which means that there is no significant opposition. If it's reduced to no description at all other than accurate description of source, that's fine. In this case, it appears clear that the file was copy-and-paste, put together from two parts of the original page, by someone, perhaps with the Argentine embassy, or it may be older than that. That was not necessarily misleading, it was an attempt to show the article and the source in the image. Its being called "fake" was POV. It was modified, and in a way that nobody who knows what newspapers look like would think was the "front page." Above, you are clearly taking a partisan position. That does not mean "wrong." However, I see that you are involved in conflict on en.wiki over this very issue. Please do not bring that conflict to Commons. I'm blocked on enwiki and have substantial disagreements with factions in the community there. I would not dream of using Commons as a forum to address any of that. --Abd (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, I find it fascinating that WCM was blocked less than an hour after the complaint without even the suggestion that it might be a good idea to hear his side of the story. That would seem to me to be pretty dreadful practice, all told. What if he'd said, I'm done reverting? Bear in mind that no admin or other uninvolved person has tried to speak to him about this image - he and Discasto (under the latter's former account) have a long history - and that he did not revert after seeing Discasto's message on his talk. So it's not like there's anything to suggest that there might be an ongoing problem here that could not be resolved without a block. Kahastok talk 22:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of blocks without violated clear User talk page warnings, and there wasn't one here. However, I would not encourage this user to tell "his side of the story." He was already doing way too much of that.

Rather, I would encourage the blocking admin to look at the behavior of one or more others here, which wasn't exactly civil either. At least, warnings should be issued. As to the block itself, it was within discretion, not excessive. I was inclined to join the protest, until I looked at WCM's behavior on his own Talk page, as did Natuur12, I'm sure. --Abd (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by WCM's behaviour on his own talk page. Perhaps this may be a cultural difference between commons and en.wiki? On en.wiki, WCM is given the right both to remove messages from his talk page and to ask people not to edit his talk page. He did ask Discasto (under his previous name) not to contact him some time ago, and Discasto's persistly ignoring this request would be considered poor behaviour.

On en.wiki we have w:WP:BITE, which is a good rule to follow regardless of whether it's written down on Commons or not (I haven't found it). WCM has less than 100 edits on Commons and almost certainly hasn't come across this issue before. He can hardly be the only one who comes here in that situation. The best response would surely be for an uninvolved editor, without any form of axe to grind re: the Falklands or es.wiki, and certainly not somebody with whom he's had years of dealings like Discasto, to explain to him what people think he is doing wrong here. Nobody's tried to do that yet. Kahastok talk 23:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Users may ask anyone to not edit their talk page. It should be done politely. Users may also generally remove messages, provided they do not alter them. I saw nothing like that. What I saw is standing on the talk page now.[9]. In that discussion, WCM treated an editor who clearly was trying to help, though a bit clumsily, as an enemy, failing to understand the very first message, which was the essential compromise. Everything was interpreted as I've seen a thousand times from dedicated POV-pushers.
• Since you mentioned removals, I looked to see what he removed, and what I see confirms my sense of a highly disruptive user. I also looked at his editing, which was utterly unacceptable.
• There was a conflict of principles. So perhaps in the past he requested Discasto to not edit his talk page. He did not request that here, by the way. He only implied it. Discasto had filed a request here, and properly warned him and notified him of an AN/U filing, as a courtesy. His removal of that notice was purely and gratuitously continuing a conflict from elsewhere. Discasto did not respond well, either.
• WCM is not a newbie. He's been engaged in the Falkland issue since his first edits roughly eight years ago.
• So if you think he needs advice, why don't you provide it? Explain to him what he did here to get blocked. Do understand that what you've been saying, though, would just inflame the situation. And you could easily end up blocked yourself, if you keep it up, and unable to help him. WCM probably needs help, or he will end up blocked here. Right now it's for three days, and that was decided by someone neutral, with no axe to grind. --Abd (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

If I knew what WCM did that got him blocked, I would be able to tell him. So far as I can tell he got blocked for disagreeing with an editor who knew the system better and was thus better at playing it, and for getting irritated at being repeatedly accused of editing in bad faith when he was trying to improve Wikipedia. Kahastok talk 09:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Please, stop spreading downright lies. I had an issue with you and WCM years ago. WCM was topic banned. I wasn't (exactly in 2010, see en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar). Since then, WCM has been topic banned several times. I simply stayed away of his whereabouts. It was him the one that tried to spuriously speedy delete a file with no problem at all, just because he (and you) don't like it (it's called censorship). As a result, he's devoted to spread the same lies as you. You've tried by any means have me blocked in the English Wikipedia... I've simply tried to make you understand that commons is not the same battleground you're used to in the English Wikipedia, that this is a truly multinational and multilingual project, that the description of a file is just a description and therefore must simply describe it in the most neutral way, without inventing or guessing anything... without success. You were asked to explain your changes before introducing them. Without success. You were asked to follow exactly the same en:WP:BRD policy as in the English Wikipedia... without success. You were asked not to overwrite files... without success. Please, stop. --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 00:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC) PS: on the other hand, I'd appreciate you that you'd follow the same advice (The best response would surely be for an uninvolved editor, not somebody with whom he's had years of dealings like Pfainuk, to explain to him what people think he is doing wrong here. Nobody's tried to do that yet.) in the English Wikipedia with regard to me. You can't come here asking for something and do exactly the opposite when you have the opportunity.

• I request that Kahastok and Discasto both be administratively warned about carrying on these disputes here, and blocked if this continues. Discasto has a point about the description, but then disrupts the discussion with claims of "lies" and references to Wikipedia disputes that are none of our business. --Abd (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it in order to point out that I have asked Discasto both here and elsewhere, within the past few days, not to continue to refer to me by my old user name. My change in user name, three years ago, is perfectly transparent and was fully propagated through in all relevant projects, including the Commons. This is unlike Discasto, who has changed his user name repeatedly (as documented on his meta user page) to evade his indefinite block on es.wiki.

The image, as I said before, was not previously (and is not currently) described "in the most neutral way". But we got a new description. It was stable for five days, during which time Discasto was very active and cannot have been unaware of it. He only reverted to the non-neutral version when he came here to get the page protected.

And it was Discasto who turned the Commons into a battleground mentality at the DR by continually accusing editors of trying "censor" the commons for political reasons - which was manifestly not true and a total failure to assume good faith. Shoot, one of the first things he did in the DR was bring up a 5-year-old en.wiki Arbcom case, and his user page on en.wiki still accuses multiple editors here of "politically motivated censorship". The response may not have been exactly helpful, but it can hardly have been surprising. Kahastok talk 09:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

We are not talking about a rookie editor but about an editor who knows that he has to stay civil and that edit wars are a no go. No matter who's right or wrong. The reason why I didn't gave him a fair warning is because of the behaviour he showed at his talk page. That makes it rather impossible to discuss properly with him and in cases like that a wake -up slap can be highly effective to make it clear that someone crossed the line. I believe that Abd explained pretty well why WMC got blocked.

Saying this the behaviour of the other two persons involved in this conflict is troublesome as well. I suggest that Kahastok and Discasto stop importing this en-wiki and es-wiki conflict and stop being uncivil or they will be blocked from editing as well. I have a pretty low tolerance for pots telling that the kettle is black. Time to walk away everyone, the file has been protected and if someone disagrees with this file, just fork it and use that version in the article of your choice instead. It is not up to Commons to tell local community's which files they can or cannot use. While Discasto is correct when it comes to the "right" version of the file his way of discussion this issue hasn't been helpful either.

I haven't dealt with the users involved before, not with es-wiki and neither with this particular conflict and frankly I don’t care who is right or wrong, just stop this pointless dispute before everyone involved end up blocked for disrupting Commons with disputes from other projects and using ad hominem after ad hominem in the discussions. And yes, I know who Discasto is and what he has done but that isn't an argument here. Natuur12 (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to put a few things on the record here.

1. The diff above [10] was misleading. Seconds later I withdrew the comment [11]. If I'd had a chance to respond here I would have commented that I didn't wish to be drawn into a conflict and had taken the decision to walk away for a few days. I'd like it to be noted that I'd recognised in myself that I was responding badly, I'd self-reverted and I'd walked away.
2. I've had a long term message on my talk page on en.wikipedia that I tend to delete messages after I've read them, its been that way since September 2009. Discasto is well aware of my policy on talk page messages. I don't archive routine messages.
3. Discasto, as one of his many pseudonyms Ecemaml, was politely asked not to post on my talk page in September 2009.
4. I would ask if someone could do something to stop the constant accusations of bad faith, I didn't come here with a spurious reason to recommend the deletion of that file. I set out why I thought so in the deletion discussion. The constant repetition of bad faith accusations like this can only lead to rather heated discussions.

Please note I'm only putting these notes here as a record so my position is noted, I'm not looking to perpetuate anything. However, I do ask that Discasto's original message be reviewed in the light of this information. And I'd repeat my thanks for the unblock and my promise to Natuur12. Regards, WCM_email 21:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Too much drama, I think and I don't want to escalate it more. Just to contextualize (and hopefully finish) this report:

1. 13:17, 27 February 2015‎: @Gastón Cuello: asked for help in the Spanish-speaking Village Pump. A file he'd uploaded had been tagged as {{Speedydeletion}}
2. 13:35, 27 February 2015. As it was not properly carried out, I turned the wrong speedy deletion tag into a regular DR (see here). Note the wording of the deletion request.
3. 13:59, 27 February 2015, 14:00, 27 February 2015. After a brief exchange of opinions and without any kind of provocation, WCM started his usual row of personal attacks: Ah Ecemaml still following me around, still trying to push nationalist agendas of one sort or another, I should have known. Just to add, the user who mentioned me is well known to me, is clearly involved and has been stalking my edits for years

I don't want to bring any conflict from other wikipedias here. I stopped active participation in the English Wikipedia years ago (as I have better things to do than dealing with people like WCM). However, I don't think I have to tolerate these kinds of personal attacks against me here. I could go on providing more diffs, but I'm really tired and don't like drama. Best regards --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 22:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The rather obvious question, is why did you choose to respond yourself and not request someone uninvolved to comment? That would be the action of someone who sought to avoid drama. But then again, I shouldn't have allowed myself to respond in irritation and provide you with the ammunition to present diffs in a misleading manner. May I take this opportunity to repeat my polite request that you refrain from posting on my talk page. WCM_email 22:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, I warned WCM about his disruptive behavior and his reply was: [12] Please feel free to report this to adminstrator, pretty please, with sugar on top. I would like this to be reported thanks. --· Favalli ⟡ 23:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Wee Curry Monster, please do not abuse this noticeboard to establish a record, this is not the place for it, your Talk page could be, but I recommend you let the wiki history be the record, instead of trying to explain it, you just make things worse. This matter was closed with respect to you, but if you keep posting here, you perpetuate it. I recommend you stop. As to your talk page, I recommend you simply drop that request. It will do you no good, it only makes it more difficult for someone to negotiate with you, and it makes you look bad. If someone abuses you on your Talk page, that can be addressed. This is a community, and we need to deal with all participants, not just the ones we like.
• Discasto, please stop poking the bear. WCM was off the wall and was blocked for it. That's over. Let it be, your explanation here was unnecessary and provocative.
• ProfesorFavalli, I have warned you for incivility with respect to WCM already today. "Just for the record" adds nothing to the record, it duplicates it and pushes it and provokes. Please stop. I'm proposing a game: the loser: the last user to comment here. The winners: all the rest of us. I hope I lose. It's easy to be a winner. Just stop. Do something actually useful. Some of us are working on the subject page, to find consensus. It's possible, we may almost be there. But all the incivility inhibits it, puts it off, and creates useless edit conflicts, etc., because as people get hot, they edit furiously and quickly, trying to be right or "win" as fast as possible. --Abd (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

English is not my native language. If that sound rude, I apologize. That was not my intention. --· Favalli ⟡ 02:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I cros off the comment and I leave the discussion --· Favalli ⟡ 02:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Marcus Cyron & Renaming

I requested moves/renames of several images of tombs in Category:Kerepesi Cemetery to reflect the name on the tomb (rather than just the name of the cemetery). See history of File:Gottermayer-tomb-Kerepesi.jpg for one example. In my requests, I noted a number, but left the (optional) rationale blank. User:Marcus Cyron refused the request, adding "No valid reason stated, see the rename guidelines" in the edit description. I re-added the move request, this time filling out the optional rationale section to indicate why I thought a move was valid. This time, User:Wieralee (who has moving rights) proceeded with the renaming. This apparently angered User:Marcus Cyron who wrote rather hostile comments on my talk page and not particularly friendly comments on Wieralee's talk page. I can accept that there might be a difference of opinion over the validity of my request, but that doesn't legitimize his response. As you can see from my response on my talk page (and on Skeezix's talk page), I find this user's behaviour and comments to be totally unacceptable, certainly not becoming of an administrator. I have tried to engage with him about the issue, but he is rather slow to respond to my concerns. As an experienced wikimedia user, I'm finding this experience incredibly frustrating, so I can only imagine how it would affect a new user trying to participate in the project. I hope some action will be taken. Thank you. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

In this project administrators were elected to make decisions. Admins can of course make mistakes. Then we talk to those people. Or you can turn to another admin or a corresponding function page. Unfortunately, the bad habit has developed lately, easy to revert these administrative decisions. This project can not work in this way. If Everyone does what suits him just prevails here soon total anarchy. Actually, anyone who behaves so should you block immediately. But ofcourse we do not so. Although one might expect from "an experienced wikimedia user" more than such an destructive behaviour. Nevertheless, one must make those employees working this way it clear that the it does not work in such a project and that such actions are to be regarded as vandalism. And vandalism brings normally consequences. We better not talk about, how a behaviour as this Themightyquill shows "would affect a new user". Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Marcus,

1. What do you mean by "anarchy"? You found that the proposed move was lacking a valid rationale (although I note that Themightyquill had cited criterion 2), and in response Themightyquill provided additional rationale. Wieralee was entitled to assess that rationale when deciding whether or not to move the file as requested. That's how Commons is supposed to work - collaboratively. There was no anarchy, or even disrespect to you.
2. I'm perplexed by your reference to "destructive behaviour" and "vandalism". Themightyquill responded to your comments with additional information. He followed the process set out at Commons:File renaming. There is nothing in the applicable guideline which suggests that you held some sort of veto on subsequent requests for these files, or that he needed to engage in additional dialogue with you (beyond responding to your initial comments with more information).
3. Even if Themightyquill had behaved inappropriately, your response to him was uncivil and belligerent.

Themightyquill initially wanted to file a complaint here, and I suggested on his talk page that he hold off. At the time, I suggested that language issues on a multilingual project can sometimes lead to misunderstandings over tone and intent, and I also suggested that we all sometimes can get frustrated when we believe (as Marcus seemed to) that our work is being taken for granted or ignored. Unfortunately, Marcus seems to holding firm on the anarchy/destructive behaviour/vandalism front, which is very disappointing conduct for an Admin. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

If there is a disagreement it should be discussed on the talkpage and when consensus moving the file. But resisting {{Rename}} is not okay. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "resisting rename"? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly :-). Sorry for the typo. (Reverting is always bad, if there is a disagreement it should be discussed - of course with a lot of AGF and mellowness from both sides.) --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

There was no reversion here. Marcus took issue with lack of rationale, TMQ provided a rationale, and Wieralee assessed the rationale and moved the pages. Wholeheartedly agree with the AGF and mellow comments, which had been the case until immediately after the pages had been moved. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

No valid reason stated, see the rename guidelines is the default decline comment, I guess Marcus Cyron used it because he thought the provided criterion didn't apply, not because he didn't see it.    FDMS  4    15:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if one uses the default, one can't be upset when another editor directly responds to what the default message says. Interestingly, Marcus' subsequent comments focus entirely on process (what he deems to be anarchy and destructive behaviour) - I'm not aware of any comments he has made on the substance of the moves. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm; "No valid reason stated, see the rename guidelines" is not very meaningful. What about changing it to "Invalid/unacceptable reason stated, see the rename guidelines"? Jee 16:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. That might help avoid some situations such as this. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed too (with the last three comments), ping User:Rillke. I'd personally prefer something universal like just rename request declined: does not comply with our renaming guideline.    FDMS  4    17:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. All we need is to properly convey the message that the new name suggested is not acceptable; not just the reason specified. Otherwise people come back with the same proposed name with a new argument. Jee 07:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done by Rillke.    FDMS  4    10:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Irrespective of where a discussion about the rename should have taken place, Marcus Cyron's response was disgraceful. Threatening to block a user for elucidating a rename request is egregious. Marcus Cyron: admins are not elected by the Commons community to make decisions for our greater good, admins are entrusted by the Commons community to carry make decisions that represent our values. You denied Themightyquill's rename request for not having a valid request, they responded by explaining why it should have been moved; that seems fair enough to me, your response was heavy handed and disproportionate. ColonialGrid (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Although the requests followed the process at Commons:File renaming and were appropriate at that time, the insertion of some additional guidance at that guideline as to what to do in situations such as this would not go amiss. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I've no idea how much language/communication problem affected this issue. While reading the links I saw the comment by Marcus Cyron: "I made administrative decisions about these renaming requests. Themightyquill, you have undo them. You don't have the right to to this." This is wrong as there is no need of any "administrative decision" in file moves. Although "rename files" is listed at Commons:Administrators#Technical, it is just a shared right among admins and file movers. Further there is no "undo" when the user make another request with more clear rational. Note that the file was not protected from moves at that time which is certainly an "administrative decision". I assume there is either communication or understanding problem about the admin role. Jee 15:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

My comment about language and misunderstandings had more to do with the belligerence of Marcus' response, rather than on his views on process. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Skeezix1000: All this drama (not only here on AN/U) because of one file is ridiculous. Please read COM:AGF and COM:MELLOW. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, for an admin to berate an editor for elucidating a move request and include a threat to block them, is completely ridiculous, shows no good faith and is not in the least mellow. This discussion is because of Marcus Cyron's over-reaction to a user having the audacity to re-request a file be moved (this time supported with a clear rational). ColonialGrid (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: As I thought I made clear (as did Skeezix), the issue is less to do with the filename itself (though that still needs to be resolved) and far more to do with the ensuing comments on my talk page and that of User:Wieralee, and now, the additional negative comments that Marcus has directed at me above. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Seriously, @Steinsplitter: ? I didn't initiate this discussion, or for that matter any of the others. I tried to discuss it on the talk pages of the individuals involved. I initially gave Marcus the benefit of the doubt, suggesting that perhaps this was all a language issue or a simple case of frustration. Marcus left some belligerent comments on two talk pages, threatening one individual as a vandal, and Themightyquill is entitled to raise that as an issue and I am entitled to comment. You don't need to agree with me, but you should heed your own advice about AGF and MELLOW, since your comment exhibits neither. So far, the consensus (except possible for you) is that Marcus's comments were inappropriate, described among other terms as "disgraceful". Why you would feel a need to come by and belittle my concerns as "drama", and lecture me on AGF (when you do not appear to have the courtesy to assume good faith with respect to me) is beyond me. Being patronizing ≠ mellow, and is unlikely to generate mellow responses from those to whom the patronizing comments are directed. If you would like to have a civil discussion about my comments, or anyone else's, I would be happy to do so, but I am not interested in you condescending to me. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

If Everyone does what suits him just prevails here soon total anarchy. Actually, anyone who behaves so should you block immediately - it is very poor English which I don't understand. Can anyone decrypt this comment, especially the second sentence? Should Marcus Cyron really mean that Themightyquill should be blocked because they wanted to give a file with such a name a widely more readable and meaningful name like this one, then it is indeed a very poor behaviour for an admin. --A.Savin 20:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That is my understanding. This coupled with Marcus Cyron's post: "So you will undo this. Your request was not valid. You gave no valid reason and the new names are terrible. If you don't do it by yourself, I will do it and I have to treat you as a vandal." Really can have only one meaning, I fail to see how that could not be read as a threat, to me the meaning is clear: if you revert any of my actions I will consider it vandalism, and act appropriately. This is beyond poor, it is completely unacceptable. Marcus Cyron if this is the meaning of your words you need to explain yourself, if not you need to explain what you meant, either way Themightyquill deserves an apology. ColonialGrid (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, for my part I doubt he will apologize. There were several issues in the past with M.C.'s arrogant treatment of other users. He's an extremely productive writer in German wiki, but that is perhaps the reason for his high opinion about himself and what he's allowed to do. --A.Savin 10:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

User talk:DoraliseMRM

Creates out of scope text to his talk page--Motopark (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Reverted. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Blocked - user does not stop. talkpage reverted again, and the out of scope pages deleted. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

User:FDMS4

I have some problems with that guy above, because he doesn't want to work (as I have done the whole day). I wouldn't complain, but he is disturbing the renaming of some files by reverting the proposals. So I have to wait for another users, who are more interested in this work (only one example!!). I suggest to cancel FDMS4's right to rename files. Regards 37.5.4.60 15:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• 60 minutes later: No admin interested in this case? Should I better start this topic on meta? 37.5.4.60 16:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the renaming guidelines before complaining, the reverts are correct and your edit warring is a reason for blocking you. --Didym (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

In fact I'm working for some months with these guidelines. TOP 2: To change from a meaningless or ambiguous name to a name that describes what the image displays is exactly what I have proposed (after I had found out who is this guy from Sydney Category:Ben Britton. 37.5.4.60 16:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The example you provide of renaming File:Nickelodeon Choice Awards (6219758361).jpg to File:Ben Britton 2011 (5).jpg does not meet criterion #2, because the original name is not "completely meaningless." The photo was taken at the Nickelodeon Choice Awards, and the name reflects that. The name is not in line with any of the examples listed for criterion #2. The footnote for criterion #2 explicitly states that the criterion does not apply to file names that identify a specific event. That said, please do continue to improve file descriptions and categories – that's much appreciated. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

And I do realise that those details were added today, but if anything, the criterion has become more permissive. The old examples of what is considered completely meaningless only included "File:22785u9ob807b3c4f4.jpg" and "File:DSC_1342.jpg". That's quite different from a name that identifies the event at which the photo was taken. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You never have worked with such meaningless categories, isn't it? It's a pity that it's too late for Category:Nickelodeon Australian Kids' Choice Awards (currently 180 files) because most of the meaningless files have been renamed in the last week (according to ...describes what the image displays...).

But I can present a more or less unworked category for you: Category:2011 TV Week Logie Awards with currently 43 meaningless file names, beginning behind Rebecca Breeds.

And please: Which is the best place on meta to place my complaint about User:FDMS4? Thanks 37.5.4.60 19:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

As has now been explained to you repeatedly, those files do not meet the Commons:File renaming definition of "completely meaningless." You do not have a legitimate complaint here. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@37.5.4.60 Meta is not the right place to complain.... But this intimidating and ad hominem-likish comments should stop. You asked an admin to look into this, an admin did so and you can agree with that or not but that is not a reason to be rude. Natuur12 (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The fundamental aspect of COM:FR (not altered with the recent changes) which everybody needs to understand — from the most anonymous IP user to the haughtiest admin — is that file renaming should only be used to correct, never to improve. I fully agree that JohnDoe@MardiGras1989.jpg is better than MardiGras1989(54987).jpg, but such “embetterment” is not allowed by the policy official guideline. The reasons for that should be clear after some thought experiment. -- Tuválkin ✉ 07:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

user:Meidmanna

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon. The reported user was blocked, so no user problem anymore. The rest of the discussion is going nowhere. --A.Savin 13:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

---

I noticed this user uploading lot's of airplane photos reminding me of the banned user User:Russavia. I just noticed File:5 Jul 2010 (4770279001).jpg. Sockpuppet? Multichill (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I see Meidmanna (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has been blocked by @INeverCry: for "Violating WMF ban". Could someone explain how this was determined, and why this was not an Office action?

Please keep in mind that the community has been told nothing of why the original Office action was taken, and there is no instruction from the WMF, nor expectation that community elected trusted users should take responsibility for performing actions on behalf of the WMF Office when they have had no Commons policy based evidence for taking action. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Fæ -- Please don't say that you have no idea why Russavia was expelled, because I don't think I would believe that... AnonMoos (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why Russavia was "expelled". As far as I am aware, even Russavia has not been given a reason, nor any evidence, for why this happened. --Fæ (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Fae. Did a CU take place? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

My thought exactly. INeverCry is a checkuser, so I assumed it took place, but it is costumary to report the result of a CU-action (with those nifty icons!), and that didn’t happend in this thread. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@INeverCry: Pinging again on the presumption that the last one might have been overlooked. I strongly doubt that any secret information was used to take this action, so it is reasonable to be able to put basic public questions about blocks and expect replies from blocking administrators. --Fæ (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

[13]. INeverCry 08:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. This tells me that:

• "15:18, 12 March 2015 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:Meidmanna@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (account operated by WMF banned user)"

Which is puzzling as I had expected global locks to propagate automatically to all projects, including Commons. No local administrator action is thus required when WMF Office takes actions like this. Do I misunderstand how this works?

There is a second apparent problem with this response as the date and time of the WMF Office action at 15:18 12 March appears to be after 07:24, 12 March, which is what appears on my screen for the Commons admin block. If this is the order of events, the the WMF Office action is not a reason for the Commons block, even if policy were to be changed to accommodate Commons admins acting on behalf of WMF Office.

@INeverCry: could you please correct me if I'm getting this wrong? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

As it is now more than a day later, I'm presuming that silence means these details are correct.

In summary, WMF Office blocked the account globally after the Commons block. There has been no explanation from the blocking admin as to what evidence was used, whether CU rights were used for undocumented reasons, or whether the WMF were involved or contacted. --Fæ (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this is a naïve question, but is there any public evidence that the user called Meidmanna is controlled by the same person who was previously known here as Russavia? Meidmanna has been blocked as someone banned by the WMF and this seems to be confirmed by the fact that the WMF have locked the account, but Russavia is not the only person banned by the WMF. Fæ do you have personal knowledge that Meidmanna is Russavia or is this merely an assumption? Are the other accounts recently blocked by INeverCry for the same reason also Russavian? Should we assume that the 21 accounts globally locked by the WMF Office account since Meidmanna are also Russavian? It seems hard to believe that a formerly respected Commons admin would act in such a way. Mr Muffler (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It is naive. This is a WMF global ban, and they don't explain them, by policy. We cannot tell if a globally banned account is any particular person, unless they tell us in some way. I have opposed the WMF taking on this task, it is a huge can of worms, and, for the first time, opens them to legal liability, my opinion. They are now finding out how powerless central authority is when it comes to wikis that "anyone can edit." They may cause collateral damage. But they made that choice.

As to how a "formerly respected Commons admin" might act, Russavia was known to be heavily socking on en.wikipedia before the ban. He was taunting the checkusers, trolling them in the user agent string. That, globally banned, he would act like this, was totally predictable. I have with previous global bans argued that disallowing the user from editing on any wiki (with explicit local consensus permitting it) would make enforcement more difficult. But apparently the WMF is willing to pay the price. We do not know what offense Russavia committed that was considered so serious as to merit a global ban. That's part of the problem. Not knowing, we will guess, and we have plenty of guesses that don't make the WMF look so good! I know three of the banned users, including Russavia, from prior contact; and with extensive contact with the other two, and I know that one of them, for sure, wasn't violating the TOS, so I know in that case, at least, that something is off about the WMF claim. The other case also claimed no violation, but I'm simply less sure. Jee is claiming that Russavia threatened him, but lots of users have threatened other users without being globally banned. Without knowing the facts, we worry. --Abd (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are worried about. You are volunteering your time to work on a repository of images. The worst that can happen is that the owner of this site asks you to stop. This isn't government sanctioned torture or extra-judicial assassination. I can't figure out what the problem is here. A new user was identified as a possible sock of a banned user. The new user was blocked. The WMF locked the account. The only issue that I can see is if the new user was blocked in error, but I trust that the blocking admin and the WMF are satisfied that the block was correct. Where's the problem? Mr Muffler (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Your comment is threaded as an answer to me, but seems to be, instead, a response to Multichill who asked the question here. There are long-standing WMF users who are concerned about the loss of community autonomy, that was traditionally accorded the individual wikis (and for strong legal reasons). WMF bans are declared by the WMF, privately, with little or no public information provided. They are, then, routinely enforced by the WMF through global locks, which disallow all access to an account. The question here was about a local block. Local blocks by local administrators are under the purview of the community, Commons functionaries here are elected by and are responsible to the community, not specifically to the WMF. There is an assumption here that Meidmanna is Russavia. Russavia was not blocked or banned on Commons. He is "WMF banned," and WMF ban violation is WMF business, not our administrator's business.

The timing here supports this conclusion: INeverCry, a commons checkuser, identified Meidmanna as a globally banned user (Russavia from contributions, but it could have been someone carrying water for Russavia, which is not contrary to policy, but is also unlikely). INeverCry accordingly blocked at 07:24, 12 March 2015. INeverCry may have informed the WMF, or they may have seen this block, or they may have independently come to the same conclusion; the WMF globally locked the user, 15:18, 12 March 2015, perhaps confirming the checkuser identification. The global lock makes the local block moot, for if the user is unblocked here, the user still cannot edit, access their watchlist, user preferences, or anything requiring log-in.

The block was technically improper. Russavia is not banned or blocked on Commons, as such. To avoid controversy here, over something that cannot be resolved here without major disruption, I would suggest that local admins not block users because of "global ban evasion," unless the user is blocked or banned here, and thus evading local sanction. I also suggest that this block be removed, because now, Meidmanna is blocked and any Meidmanna sock would then be "block evading." The block is useless except for creating disruption and controversy.

This is not an argument against the global ban. It is WMF business, and enforcement of it should be up to the WMF. So if a user suspects "global ban evasion," nothing stops that user from communicating this to the WMF, and had this been done, instead of using local tools, there would not have been this filing.

One more point: Meidmanna was blocked on en.wiki, with two edits there, to a Russavia Favorite Topic. The block was issued at 20:59, 11 March 2015, so it was before the block here, and was explicit: (Russavia sock). Meidmanna revert warred on that page, first by open proxy, then as Meidmanna. As I might expect from Russavia, he may have been "right," though disruptive. But he's banned there, and was evading the ban, so that block is completely proper. What is remarkable here is how long it took the WMF to notice!

See also User:Walesslaps. Vintage Russavia. Not blocked here. Globally locked. He got in over 500 edits in about 12 hours. My guess: all of them good edits. Offensive account name, though. --Abd (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion outside of action for Meidmanna

INeverCry is much trustworthy than any banned user here. BTW, do we need prior permissions from every Joe and John for a communty selected CU/Admin to do his day to day jobs to protect this project and its volunteers from ToU violations against them? Do you need evidence of brutal attack against me from this very banned user? Not that I had forwarded it to the respective authorities. So no banned user MUST NOT HAVE edited here because it will affect the safety of the users here. Jee 13:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Nobody has said a dicky-bird about INeverCry being trustworthy or not, apart from you, and this thread is not about whether Russavia made a "brutal attack" against you. You have a track record of making serious allegations and then not doing anything about it or the allegations being demonstrably false on investigation. If you wish to make a complaint to "respective authorities" then get on with it, rather than using Wikimedia Commons as a platform for you to publish defamatory allegations to create pointless drama, attack other good faith contributors and repeatedly take discussions off-topic.

"Good faith" and being mellow, is more than wrapping attacks with smilies or making an apology afterwards. Defamatory public allegations are damaging and stick in the memories of our community members, even if there are apologies afterwards when they turn out to be built on hearsay and opinions rather than verifiable facts. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, Fae, our Commons:Blocking policy says "User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block may and should also be blocked." It doesn't say whether the block being evaded is a temporary one, indefinite one, being used to enforce a site ban, a global ban or a WMF global ban. It doesn't say the admin, in enforcing the block, has to agree with the original block or care who applied it. A block is a block and our policy says admins "should" block any account or IP used to evade that. Time to move on from the dead horse. We're all here to make, collect and organise great free media files for educational uses, and to do so in a collaborative environment free from those who harass, bully or threaten our safety. @INeverCry: has my support. -- Colin (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

As a general statement, I have worked happily and collegiately with Russavia for around 3 years on Wikimedia Commons upload projects, as have several other long term unpaid volunteers. In that entire time, both on-wiki and in private correspondence, I have never seen any hint of Russavia making plans to commit a crime or to "threaten our safety". Neither has anyone within the WMF or outside of it, provided me with any reason to doubt that Russavia has ever done anything worse than wind up a WMF board member. This is not a crime, it is just rather stupid to wind up rich Americans who have powerful friends and seem to lack a sense of humour. Commons should not be used to make malicious defamatory allegations, nor even implications of the same, particularly when the target of this grave-dancing deliberate nastiness is now unable to refute them.

Anyone, including me, should be free to raise questions about unexplained or unclear administrative actions without it being twisted around to make it appear that to ask questions and expect transparency is an evil thing to do. --Fæ (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad I was able to help you understand our current blocking policy, how it doesn't need changed in order to support and encourage INeverCry's actions, and to answer your questions on issues you are unclear about. Be sure to declare your strong support for our beleaguered admins who enforce this policy on block evaders next time you apply for adminship yourself. -- Colin (talk)

Blatant trolling. I have no idea why you feel the need to be so personal, unpleasant, and keep it up for so long. You certainly are successful in turning Commons into a hostile environment for me, if that is your objective rather than collegiate working, you met your goal a long time ago. I thought you might have understood this when I carefully explained that I had avoided any interaction with you for so long. --Fæ (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

"I have no idea why you feel the need to be so personal, unpleasant, and keep it up for so long.". For once, Fae, you accurately put the words right into my mouth. Do you take us all for complete fools? -- Colin (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

As I have been avoiding interaction with you of any kind for around 18 months, I have no idea why you are so hurt. If you have evidence of me hounding you, harassing you or whatever else you want to say about me, please, please, please raise a thread on AN/U and I can respond to the evidence and beg your apology, if that is what is needed for you move on. --Fæ (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I am immensely relieved that Fae is taking trouble to avoid personally spreading misinformation about me (it was your cuddly friend Russavia who took up the mantle of casting unfounded allegations of anti-LGBT-bias in my direction). By personal I mean your attack above and below on Jee. If anyone needs to know what Fae is up to, one only has to look at what he's accusing others of. Misinformation is your middle name. Your initial post in this thread (which opened with a request for admin response to sockpuppet evading a block) is to claim we have no expectation that admins should take responsibility for dealing with that block evasion. This is not true. Our policy requires it, in as much as anything can be required of volunteers. Misinformation. You then claim that blocking this sockpuppet block-evader by a Commons admin would require a change to Commons policy. This is not true. Our policy permits admins to block any account or IP used to evade another block. Misinformation. You then, twice now, try to make us believe Jee's claim of bullying and threats is untrustworthy, or that Jee has a "track record". I can find one situation where Jee appears to have misjudged the evidence when under attack and concluded you broke some rules to obtain information -- which you then ridiculously, farcically even, escalated into a supposed allegation of criminal activity requiring an immediate WMF global ban for breach of the site terms-of-use. That was hardly your finest hour. It is this that I regard as personal unpleasantness. And deeply ironic when it is plain to see your purpose on this Admin notice board is to spread misinformation about policy or community feelings wrt Russavia's block. I don't actually disbelieve your personal experience of Russavia. But it's irrelevant to this noticeboard. "User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block may and should also be blocked.". That's all that should have been said. And the response to INeverCry's block should have been "thank-you for doing your job". -- Colin (talk) 08:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Factual corrections, ignoring the on-going sniping comments:

1. Russavia has an WMF Office block. Non-employees such as Commons admins or checkusers, have no responsibility for blocks of this type, nor have any special access to the reasons for an Office action. Russavia has no Commons block that has been justified against Commons policies.
2. I have made no claims here about "community feelings", I make no claim to represent a consensus established elsewhere.
3. I have made no claims about INeverCry, in fact INeverCry has been very helpful to me in the past. Anyone should be able to ask for clarification for an administrative action, without it being twisted into a personal accusation.

--Fæ (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

On point 1 you are correct insofar as the original block on User:Russavia. It's been applied; complain to WMF rather than telling us about how lovable Russavia is when you get to know him -- makes no difference as none of us here can do anything about it. But for his many sockpuppets and IP block-evasion accounts, our Blocking policy does not distinguish. Sockpuppets accounts or IP used for evading blocks should be blocked by our admins. On point 2, I'm glad you've confirmed that you are quite alone in your opinions and beliefs and that your comments made above in no way represent any authoritative comment or community view on what Admins should or should not do, but are your own personal interpretations of policy. On point 3, your posts above made several statements of fact, rather than mere "ask for clarification", statements that don't actually hold any water when examined by reading our policy. Fae, the request for admin intervention has been dealt with according to our policy. Move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin (talk • contribs) -- 12:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Factual correction:

* I have made no statement with regard to "confirmed that you are quite alone in your opinions and beliefs".

--Fæ (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"In that entire time, both on-wiki and in private correspondence, I have never seen any hint of Russavia making plans to commit a crime or to "threaten our safety"." - I repeat; I forwarded the evidence of threat against me. Due to your repeated arguments, I forwarded it to a neutral CU too. You may check with them. But note that you are noway authorized to see any such contents; so I can't present such things in front of you. Jee 01:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I am sure you are upset about something, however this is literally hearsay and has no bearing on whether questions can be asked about how the block on the Meidmanna occurred. Considering my recent experience of being your previous target of a couple of serious and defamatory false public allegations, I hope readers understand why I would not be in a rush to accept allegations about others at face value, without substantial and unequivocal evidence. Hopefully if the CU has something helpful to add at some point in relation to Russavia's block, they will do so publicly, however it seems logical that this can only be relevant if Russavia were to be unblocked. --Fæ (talk) 05:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Russavia is not locally blocked, and Commons administrators properly use local tools to enforce local policies. Commons has no local policy about WMF ban evasion. If a user here believes that Russavia should be locally banned, which would be represented by a local block, that process could be begun as with a complaint about any user. I'd expect it to be an ugly mess, and don't recommend it. Hence, my suggestion is that WMF bans, which are based on private WMF information and analysis, not privy to us, be left for the WMF to enforce, that we focus on Commons behavior. If we have any requests of Russavia, such as avoiding this or that, they should be made on Russavia talk. However, it appears that the WMF has shut down incoming email (not just outgoing) for all (?) globally banned users, which could make communication much more difficult. (They would use developer access.) Because of their action, we have no way of notifying Russavia (except for those who have his private email address.) He will not get email notifications of edits to his user page. --Abd (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

So according to your arguments, a user who is banned by WMF is protected from any sanction by community admins and so he can do anything here? Nonsense. And we have no precedent for making an AN/U for an already banned user as this is first and hopefully last time going to happen here. The only thing I can agree with some people here is that admins are not compelled to take action against a particular user here. They can step back and let others who are willing to do that job. But this is quite applicable for all cases irrespective of WMF banned or community banned users. Jee 02:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I have not argued that and I don't see how Jee could derive it from what I wrote. Rather, my suggestion is that Commons administrators handle violations of Commons policy and not take on the task of enforcing WMF global bans. Russavia is not banned here. He was banned by the WMF, for reasons not disclosed to us. What I'm aware of and what Jee might not be aware of his the history of global bans in general. It's ugly, and a protection against abuse was local autonomy. The WMF bans are new, and the WMF takes full responsibility for them, and that is where it can and should stand. As can be seen here, local action against Russavia for what amounts to constructive editing here is likely to create unnecessary disruption. If the WMF chooses to lock accounts, that is their choice and responsibility, and, unless we want to fork, or threaten forking, which I doubt, it is also their right and power.

If a user is disruptive here, the user may be warned and blocked completely without regard to status on other wikis. Decisions about that are ordinary, and if administrators disagree, there is process for consulting the community. There is, below, a suggestion that Russavia be blocked. It would be, at least, consistent, but would also be blocking a user without disruptive editing. Unless his contributions here are considered disruptive to Commons. Do we want to ask him to stop? If so, have we tried, like asked nicely and with appreciation for what he has done for this wiki? I'm not saying we should. I'm too new at Commons at this level. --Abd (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

1. WMF didn't disclose exact reasons; but this much, ie, "because of violations of the Terms of Use" which points to wmf:Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities.

2. I agree; I don't know the history of global bans. But it is not making me nervous as I know this particular user in general. He was on the edge of a block in many occasions and survived only because he was an admin here. He lost his crats bits. He was warned at least two times recently by other admins. I agree he had a lot of good contributions here. But we will not keep a productive user who is too disruptive here. There are plenty of examples.

3. I'm not a blind supporter of WMF actions. I didn't support "super protect" or similar actions. But I see nothing wrong in AGF here as a ToU violation is not easy to discuss in public. Revealing it in public may force the accuser and victim to legal consequences even if it may be a very mild one. We have plenty of examples here where our CUs and Oversighters take actions without revealing much to public or even to our admins. We need a lot of secrecy in some delicate areas; that why we select a few people to handle such things. And I believe the three community elected BoT members know all information about this ban. Isn't it enough? Jee 04:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Factual corrections:

1. There is no evidence that "elected [Wikimedia Foundation Board trustees] know all information about this ban", or have been involved in any other way with this WMF Office action.
   • It is normal to provide a board of trustees with an accurate and fair summary of legal issues as part of top level risk management, but it would be both impractical and potentially unwise to share all details with trustees. Trustees are obliged to act in the interests of the organization, however they should not enter into a confidentiality agreement as they should be free to act ethically, including blowing the whistle if they have been unable to resolve issues any other way. If an Office ban involves specific private data or potentially damaging allegations, I could not imagine this being distributed to trustees, neither would they want to view it.
2. There is no evidence that the WMF Office action on Russavia involves an "accuser" or a "victim".

--Fæ (talk) 07:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on #1. Jee 07:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Request that Russavia be locally blocked

I believe that INeverCry is acting in good faith to reduce troubles here on Commons. Others disagree. If this will happen every time a sockpuppet gets blocked it will waste all of our time. In light of fact that there is no Commons policy about how WMF bans should be handled on Commons I request that Russavia is blocked here on Commons to remove the ambiguity that surrounds this issue. Perhaps Abd and Fæ can work together to draft a policy on how Commons admins can deal with WMF bans. Mr Muffler (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I want to make it very clear that I have not questioned the good faith of INeverCry, and I think that is also true for Fæ. I do think that a policy may be needed, or at least some community consensus, or disruption may continue. In the Old Days, when the Earth was Young, wikis were independent and what you did on one wiki was not relevant to how you were treated on another. If you were blocked, banned, and they stomped on all your contributions and salted them on Wikipedia, you could go to Commons or another wiki and become a constructive contributor. Then the global community ban was invented, and it made what had been completely clear into a muddy mess. Only one user ever was "globally banned" by the community, and that was before the policy was written, and the process did not follow the later-written policy, and the whole thing probably created more disruption than it prevented. For whatever reason, unknown to us, the WMF decided to start globally banning users, whereas, with very little exception, they had stayed out of the global ban business.

This is the problem: who runs Commons? The WMF? Or the Commons user community? Of late, confrontations over authority have been escalating, I could give several examples from the last year. The WMF formally exists to "empower the community," not to disempower it. However, legally, they own the wikis. They have been protected from liability by the principle that the communities make content decisions and the rest. It is unknown to me why they are moving in this new direction, it seems quite risky to me, with little benefit.

However, Commons has no obligation to enforce the bans. It can simply carry on with what it usually does. Commons administrators have tools at the consent of the Commons community, and use them on behalf of the community, not pursuant to their own opinions. If Commons administrators are to take on global ban enforcement, it should be by consent of the community, not as a wildcat move. Does Commons want to enforce the bans?

None of this restricts individual Commons users from assisting the WMF if they want, by identifying socking, for example.

Mr Muffler has here requested that Russavia be blocked. If Russavia is blocked, then socking here becomes a violation of Commons policy. Otherwise the new accounts are additional accounts, created because of some inability to use the original account. Of course, he's not disclosing them. Is that enough of a violation to justify blocking him? Under the circumstances, I don't think so. To my knowledge, we have never warned Russavia, we have not requested he stop editing here, and we have no rigor or clarity. Let's ask the community! --Abd (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocking policy is sufficient as is and an encouraging community policy compared to the panoply on the English Wikipedia that police that community. Bad cases make bad law, so this would be a poor foundation to start drafting extensions. --Fæ (talk) 07:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• I completely agree with FaE (diff, just in case more is added) that our blocking policy is sufficient and bad cases make bad law. This case is so politically and personally charged that no rational policy could be drafted.
• I also fundamentally oppose that Abd be involved in drafting any proposals for the simple reason that I would rather stick forks in my eyes than be required to read any more of his voluminous drivel. This is a user who took essentially no in interest in Commons prior to the recent round of WMF global blocks. This comes as no surprise as Abd is banned from Wikipedia and engaged in persistent sockpuppetry which led to a permanent site ban. See Arbcom discussion. During that discussion a global ban was suggested. User:MastCell noted "Abd clearly has a great deal of prose of which he needs to unburden himself on a daily basis, and it doesn't seem to matter to him whether anyone is actually listening. So Wikiversity is actually sort of a good fit.". It is with regret I note that he's moved to Commons. This is bad news because his ban on Wikipedia notes: "Abd has been a disruptive presence on this wiki for several years now. This disruption is characterized by attempts to influence project governance in ways orthogonal to accepted modes ". Ring any bells? -- Colin (talk) 08:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • One nice thing about Abd is that they consistently avoid using hostile personal attacks to make their point. I doubt many readers would say that "I would rather stick forks in my eyes than be required to read any more of his voluminous drivel" is intended to create a collegiate environment. --Fæ (talk) 10:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm a straight talking kinda guy, which I much prefer to the underhand + feign innocence approach taken by some. Both of you fill the community notice boards with lectures and "questions" on Commons/WMF/Policy/Admins that sound superficially like a voice of authority and experience but when examined turn out to be ignorant and misleading. At least your misinformation is generally short and to the point, whereas Abd can fill screenfulls of the stuff. I'd like an environment where users who conduct behaviour serious enough that a WMF global block becomes necessary are dealt with and the block enforced. Where unnecessary and pointless drama is not continually provoked (He ain't coming back; deal with it). Your cuddly friend, according to Abd, socks heavily, taunts and trolls checkusers, which doesn't to me sound like a complimentary statement, but carry on telling us how lovable he is if you like. -- Colin (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.