This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I found categories about current and former fleet of airlines. I thought that it's mistake and just delete some, but next time I found that Ardfern create these categories. Are they reasonable?
Discussion about them starts there and not finished yet. Now Ardfern remade categories (example) which I delete, and undo my edits (example). --DS28 (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
You're in the wrong forum, unless you have a problem with an editor. From what I can see you have a question regarding categories, which should be raised at Village Pump. Bidgee (talk) 05:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Ardfern often nominates categories for former and current fleet of airlines for speedy deletion. I would let him/her to act like (s)he wants, but asking formal decision in VP would be good. Taivo (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for an answer, probably I posted in wrong forum, but I just don't understand how should I work with aviation categories. So, I'll try to ask at Village Pump. --DS28 (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand what the problem is here. There are now 517 airline cats with current and former fleets, in which every individual aircraft has full history. You surely can't be wanting to dismantle all this work. Ardfern (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
No matter how much work is done. Since administrators approve of your work, I can only offer such a compromise: Just check Category:ASL_Airlines_Belgium: Aircraft of ASL Airlines Belgium - full of current/former fleet [1]; near - TNT Airways - much better [2]. May be will be better if all categories current/former fleet will be include in (yellow marked categories) at least? --DS28 (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Info I have removed his rollbacker flag, as this time it clearly was abused. Regarding his other recent edits, such as this one, may an other admin decide, I'm really fed-up. --A.Savin14:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
You will see above that I am involved, so you should probably take my words with a grain of salt: I get the impression that Iruka13 (Ирука) has put an eye or both on Ralf’s images, and it could be a good idea of Iruka13 to avoid adding rename requests on Ralf’s files (Ralf definitly feels like hunted by a rename troll, cf. Special:Diff/404265922/404341124).
Thank you for reminding: edit wars (the file I indicated is not the only battlefield) + repeated insults (see links above + User talk:Marcus Cyron#Umbenennungstroll) + Cat-a-lot (also @Uli Elch: ) + unreasonable by rules multiple cancellation of requests for renaming in "other people's files" (for example: diff1 and diff2) + change of rights from December 9, 2018. — Ирука1308:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Since I've been mentioned here, some excerpts of the bombardments he gave me on my talk page (translated):
"Refrain from moving files which are usefully named. There is neither a reason nor a consensus to do that. "
"I am going to name files with kyrillic letters. Then Trolls (!) like you will leave me alone." This referred to his 52 files with exactly the same file name ("fotofluege-cux-allg", plus numbers) but all showing completely different subjects. --Uli Elch (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
File renaming is always an issue. Some think we should leave things as they are and other users like to make things "pretty". If you ask me I think we rename way too much. Rolf clearly wanted the name to be as it is so to him it makes sense. In my opinion the original name was not meaningless. It was just not as detailed as the new one. But details should be in description and the structured data so they can be internationalized. So if there is a problem it is the user who requested the move and the one that did the move. In fact I think only admins should have the right to move files. There is plenty of useful work to do like and renaming files is in most cases a waste of time. --MGA73 (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I see that Ralf Roletschek is the original author. Maybe it's better to change the name(s) back to what it was (the original name), but I have to mention that Ralf is playing a sort of 'owner role'. He gave the pictures free under a license here. / I agree that there are a lot of requesters that want to rename a lot of things, that's a little too much. I don't agree to only let moderators rename. A moderator is not 'a better user' or something, just has more rights and they are busy enough. The rename criteria could be a little more strict, so that someone cannot rename hundreds of files. There are also users who are not satisfied with their chosen names of their own pictures and put the rename section full with 50 or 100 files and the day after 100 more, etc. That's not where rename requests are for. For changing the policy, the community must decide by voting, but I have no idea how to do this here, I'm from the NL-Wikipedia and am filemover here, patroller, etc. For now: let's see how it goes. I will try to be a little more strict. Some users get mad if you don't rename a file and they revert it (or revert it and change it). That's not how it has to go. / Also I saw there are 450 (or more?) file movers who do almost nothing. Maybe it should be reduced to 100 users (excl. moderators, who are 'automaticly' file mover). Greetings from the Netherlands (very quiet here, but in many countries). - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment It is a little depressing to observe that those who resist arbitrary and unnecessary file name renaming are punished, while the initiator of these unnecessary renaming is not even made aware of the existing rules. This is disgusting and makes the victim the perpetrator. --Smial (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
This doesn't answer the question why R.R. is abusing Cat-a-lot to remove hundreds of pictures with really meaningless / purely numeric titles from the "bad file names" category. Cat-a-lot is for simplifying category work, certainly not for editcount-pushing. --A.Savin13:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Und was hat das Ganze mit Rollback zu tun? Herr Savin möchte doch nur seine Macht mittels Adminknöpfen beweisen. Bitteschön, der Laden stinkt mir schon lange. Und solange Trolle hier sinnlose Umbenennungen veranlassen dürfen, ist Commons kein Ort mehr für mich. Schreibt mal fleißig weiter ganze Romane in Dateinamen, das ist ja sooooo wichtig. Wen interessieren schon die blöden Fotografen? Die haben nur die Klappe zu halten und müssen sich alles gefallen lassen. Trollige Massenbearbeiter, die selbst nichts beitragen, dürfen sich natürlich alles erlauben. Déu sense saludar --Ralf Roletschek15:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
A remark regarding Smial’s “while the initiator of these unnecessary renaming is not even made aware of the existing rules”: The sad thing is Iruka13has been pointed before to COM:FR and the regarding phrase, cf. Commons:Help desk#file renaming. AFBorchert wrote about this on 11th March and I on 12th and on 13th March, I even pointed to the Russian translation! Nethertheless Iruka requested in Special:Diff/376413296/404092450 on 14th March the renaming of the file in question here ignoring Ralf’s filename scheme. This was an unnecessary escalation. — Speravir– 21:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Nebenbemerkung @Uli Elch and Michael.Kramer: Wir sind Menschen und machen Fehler. Bitte in Zukunft beim Umbenennen darauf achten, ob dabei evtl. ein potentielles Namensschema zerstört wird. Wie man sieht, gibt es Leute (übrigens nicht nur Ralf), die darauf Wert legen! — Speravir– 21:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Hallo Speravir, kannst du mal erklären, warum du dich hier ausschließlich auf Ralf Roletschek's Dateien beziehst? Obwohl eigentlich offensichtlich ist, dass Ralf Roletschek das Cat-a-lot Tool missbraucht, um eine Umbenennung Hunderter von nicht seinen Fotos zu verhindern? Und wieso stellst du ihn ununterbrochen als Opfer, obwohl er mich hier beleidigt und nicht ich ihn? Danke. --A.Savin22:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, the name change was okay and not a mistake Speravir. from the rules there was not mistake. to change the name to a name explaining the picture is was okay by commons rules. please, take care of this. a lot of my pictures have been changed, where is the problem? I'm taking care of every renaming request to make the name explaining the picture. please, using english is better than switching to german for international use. meaningless names for pictures have to be prohibited. --Michael (talk) 06:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
meaningless names for pictures have to be prohibited: Maybe, but presently they are not prohibited. So, you are changing from one allowed title to another one, against the uploader's intention. This is not o.k., and I can understand his anger.--Chief tin cloud (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Of course that's true, but the function of renaming is existing. presently it is not prohibited. You are welcome to make a change requiring the uploader's approval. Feel free. everything conforms to the rules here. I cannot understand the problem.--Michael (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that changes need agreement, which your changes obviously don't meet. So, you can't execute the changes and ignore the protest. That's a very basic principle on Wikipedia. Yes, I change titles, too, but only when I see that it contains an obvious error or it is misleading. I can't know the system on which an uploader names his/her files.--Chief tin cloud (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Er macht weiter [3] und keiner sagt irgendwas dazu. Soll er sich doch an den POTY 2018 und 2017 vergreifen, da wäre es vielleicht angebracht. Er scheint zu viel Zeit und Langeweile zu haben. --Ralf Roletschek15:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Ralf, soweit ich das sehe, ist hier aber dein Namensschema beibehalten, und damit ist die Anfrage von den Regeln gedeckt. — Speravir– 18:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
A.Savin, (in English) I simply wanted point to the unnecessary escalation part. I am still convinced it would be wiser by Iruka13 for a while not to request renaming files of Ralf, or at very least to respect the filename scheme. I did not contradict you in regards to possible misuse of tools by Ralf. Actually, I did not check this. — Speravir– 18:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Once again in other words: I do not disagree with for this part. I meanwhile have noticed Uli Elch’s answer below. — Speravir– 19:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I answered Michael in German on his talk page, but: It’s not about the renaming in itself if the name is ambiguous (and Ralf’s images are unfortunately often very ambiguous …), it’s about respecting the filename scheme. This would help for deescalation. As told above, Ralf is not the only one who insists on the scheme, others just do not oppose, but are angry and in worst case disappear from Commons. — Speravir– 18:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
As per A.Savin for a part of the files hit by his mass removals of >300 files (not all) of Category:Images of aircraft with bad file names this cat has been re-added. Files with "titles" like "499dg", "A really good looking bird!" or dozens of "2014Kleine-Brogel-12345 etc" really do not fulfil Commons:File naming: "Names should be descriptive, chosen according to what the image displays or contents portray".
The Wikipedia rules have been installed after long discussions and final consensus. It is intolerable that an individual user who had publicly stated that he is "not interested in any rules and regulations" uses mass-editing tools for removing truly applicable and correct categories from files with which he had absolutely nothing to do; it is a form of vandalism. I wonder why this has been mostly tolerated by sysops during at least five years. --Uli Elch (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry if this has already been suggested somewhere, but when I come across a bad filename that may nonetheless be important to the uploader, I usually tack a description to the beginning or end of the filename to ensure it's retained. So in this case it would be, for example, File:11-09-fotofluege-cux-allg-04 - Hubschrauber Bell 407.jpg. It makes for long filenames, but satisfies all requirements. Is this not agreeable here? — Rhododendritestalk | 13:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Das von Rhododendrites vorgeschlagene Verfahren ist ein Vorgehen, das ich in der Vergangenheit bereits bei Umbenennungswünschen meiner Dateien akzeptiert, und das ich bei Umbenennungswünschen bei fremden Dateien selber so praktiziert habe. Der Antragssteller in diesem Verfahren hier jedoch kopiert schlicht Teile der Bildbeschreibung in den Umbenennungswunsch hinein und hängt eine Jahreszahl dran, Informationen also, die redundant sind und bereits durch die Suchfunktion gefunden werden, also keine wirkliche Verbesserungen sind. Gleichzeitig zerstört er Bildnummern oder andere Ordnungsschemata, die für den Uploader oder Fotografen essentiell sind, und die, da sie nicht in die Bildbeschreibung gehören, gerne im Dateinamen untergebracht werden, und zwar keineswegs nur von Ralf oder von mir. Das wird von sehr vielen Fotografen auf commons so gehandhabt. Knuffigerweise verzichtet er auf einen Umbenennungsantrag, wenn der Dateiname bereits im wesentlichen die komplette Bildbeschreibung enthält und beschränkt sich dann darauf, diese "bad filenames" Kategorie reinzuknallen. Weiterhin knuffig ist, daß der Antragsteller, mit dem ich noch nie zuvor irgendwelche Überschneidungen bei irgendwelchen Themenkreisen oder Diskussionen hatte, rein zufällig über drei meiner Dateien "gestolpert" ist und die Umbenennung für dringend erforderlich hielt, beinahe unmittelbar, nachdem ich hier weiter oben meinen Kommentar abgab. Ein Schelm, der böses dabei denkt. --Smial (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, to everybody: make a change to the existing rule to take care of the existing name when doing a rename. feel free. nevertheless, the renaming back to the first version is still ignoring the commons rules and has to be denied. the uploader himself has to take take of it and offer a good naming for everybody. ignoring all rules is not acceteptable. there has to be a possible naming for everybody. --Michael (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I would also welcome it if Ralf would give his files a little more meaningful names in the future, but the limitation to the name of a place or event plus file number or similar identification does not contradict any rule on commons. The renaming of such sparsely labeled files, for example by copy&paste from the image description while simultaneously destroying the uploader's order schema, does indeed contradict rules on commons. The introduction of a new rule is not necessary, because it already exists. --Smial (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
What is the meaning of any other renaming request? And what is the meaning of your answer here, and not on your discussion page? — Ирука1306:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
my discussion page is not a place for a renaming requests. I found it provocative to place something with me. and since you talk so much here, it suited the topic here. please, delete it from my site.--Michael (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I see a part of the house in the image. Do you see the whole town "Alte Kolonie Eving"? Maybe in the images with one tree you also see the forest? И почему вы вырываете слово "meaningless" из контекста всего предложения, в котором также присутствуют "ambiguous" и "particularly"; а также 4 пункт сноски "Only information is the location"? — Ирука1316:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Der User fährt mit offensichtlich provokativer Absicht mit seinen Umbenennungsanträgen fort. Überflüssige Umbenennung, Zerstörung meines Ordnungsschemas, obendrein Einbau eines Grammatikfehlers in den Dateinamen. --Smial (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC) (The user continues with his renaming requests with obviously provocative intent. Unnecessary renaming, destruction of my order scheme, and on top of that, inclusion of a grammar error in the file name. translation by deepl.com)
Dear User:pandakekok9, surely it escaped your esteemed attention that the renaming request you reset to violates the rule in [10]: "Not of less importance is the purpose the filename is believed to have; contributors frequently categorizing files have different demands from those who create, process, manage and upload them. Uploaders often have schemas naming their files; moving files might break them. If possible, language and schema should be preserved, as well as the camera or catalogue number.". I would very much prefer to see an administrative decision in this case instead of being dragged into an editwar by more users who have been completely uninvolved so far. --Smial (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I flagged User:KnowledgeIndiaOnline at EN wiki ANI board, with some edits that are unambiguous hoax (and possibly with intent of fraud). Essentially he hijacked the articles on some organizations (TUCC, HMS, UTUC, TUCI), and steered the external links to social media accounts under his control. For the purpose he also uploaded images at Commons. Apart from the fraudulent purpose, these are also copyright violations. File:TUCC Logo.jpg is adapted from copyrighted https://www.designcrowd.ch/design/2406553 , etc, etc.. --Soman (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay. Some of the uploads from the instant account deleted. Went through the socks. Some gone. Some DR. Can we confirm whether the remaining uploads from the instant account are also hoaxes, and also these from various socks?
Ah to heck with it. All deleted. I don't know that I see a compelling rationale for why its worth community time to give the benefit of the doubt that one or two of these logos actually aren't hoaxes, when the remainder clearly are. GMGtalk10:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
So this is case #3 within a few days where Iruka13 trolls long term contributors. I would really appreciate a countermeasure by the Admins against this. --Smial (talk) 12:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
+1 Seit Tagen trollt er auf Commons herum und versucht, soviel wie möglich anzuecken. Er versucht erst gar nicht, zu verstehen, was andere ihm mitteilen wollen. Seine Umbenennungsanträge sind weitgehend Vandalismus. --Ralf Roletschek13:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Translation in english: +1 He's been trolling on Commons for days, trying to do as much as possible. He doesn't even try to understand what others want to tell him. His applications for renaming are largely vandalism --Ralf Roletschek (translated by Richardkiwi)
@Iruka13: While your former attempts to rename files were justified, you are now going way too far. It is pretty obvious that it's now less about renaming pictures, but much more about seeking conflicts and generating drama. So, I hereby request you to stop these activities for the time being and to read Commons guidelines more thoroughly. There is no rule on Commons that prohibits to remove comments from the own user talkpage. So once again: please STOP, this is an administrative warning and next time there will be a block without any further announcements. Thanks --A.Savin15:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@A.Savin: For violation of which rule do you issue an administrative warning to me and report a possible blockage? — Ирука1315:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
First, refrain from pinging me, as I'm of course watchlisting this page. To your question: I already stated that some of your rename requests are not in compliance with COM:RENAME, especially regarding files which names already sufficiently describe the topic (and no guideline in the world require Commons files to describe the topic as precisely as you wish). Second, it's obvious that you are misusing your rename activities to inflame existing conflicts. This may be welcome on Russian WP where you are coming from, but it is not welcome here on Commons and may cause blocks of users who practice it. I hope I could answer your question now, and next time don't say I had not warned you. Thanks --A.Savin15:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
According to the instructions for administrators (COM:PB), you should tell the person who violates the rules as accurately as possible exactly what his violation is "to help the blocked user understand why they have been blocked" (because at the moment I have a negligible number of rejected requests for renaming from more than 400 requests, and I can not understand your claims). At the moment, you have given only general words about the violation of COM:FR. Please be so kind as to provide my specific edits that violate this rule. As for the second part of your message, you did not even bother to point out the rule. — Ирука1315:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
No, I'm not going to search for all the difflinks now to show the mess you produced. I have more important things to do. And the fact that you did a number of successfull rename requests does not automatically make you an expert in renaming and above all rules and Common sense. EOD from my part. --A.Savin15:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
And I'm not going to read your mind and listen to the threats. This is not a Russian-language Wikipedia, where administrators cover each other. Block, and see who will be without rights. — Ирука1316:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
OK thanks for referring to Russian WP -- I just checked your contribs there and see that you have been indef'ed there due to sockpupperty. This, of course, will make it much easier than usually to do the same here, so what you are doing now is dancing on thin ice. Take care. --A.Savin16:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@Iruka13: & A.Savin: Iruka13, I do not see anything such as you described in your note on my talk page (which will autoarchive one of these days). I do however see an experienced administrator and a user indef'ed at Russian WP for cause. I see other users complaining about talk page drama. I am not at all amused that you changed your Signature so you don't look like the same account. LOL, some of us had Cyrillic in school. General announcement, if someone else doesn't drop a metaphorical rock on this account soon, I might - for cause. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: Please state this “cause” in the form of links to my specific edits that violate specific points of specific project rules, as the COM:PB#Instructions for administrators#When blocking requires. — Ирука1306:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
COM:BP states that you can be blocked for harassment and disruptive editing. If I were you, I would move on to other tasks instead of continuing this nonsense. pandakekok909:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Has uploaded collections of obviously unfree stock images today, despite block and long history of warnings already.--BevinKacon (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Uploads by user:ReconnectBalkanMed carry a variety of watermarks indicating different photographers. These do not match the uploader's username, and there is no evidence of permission being granted.
I came to this after deleting ReconnectBalkanMed's userpage on Wikispecies as a copyvio, at which time I saw that it included the text "The copyrights for all the photos which were used for the following wiki pages belong to the AP Marine Environmental Consultancy Ltd, as well as to the company’s employees. AP Marine Ltd is the external expert of the Department of Biological Sciences, of the University of Cyprus, in RECONNECT project. For all the used photos a consent document was signed by all the photos owners, allowing RECONNECT project to use it for the wiki pages.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits11:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
What unfinished discussion. You come to my talk page, just for harresement. I delete what I want on my talk page, especially if someone is not listening - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC) PS (I have seen no warning) - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC) (update)
Ok, this is getting ridiculous. We don't follow enwiki's policies and guidelines here. Heck, the enwiki links you provided are not even policies and guidelines. Nowhere in the Commons:Talk page guidelines state that removing messages from your own user talk page is prohibited. pandakekok911:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
"When a talk page's content has become extremely large or the discussion of the issue in hand has simply died down and no one has a reasonable chance of adding to it, create a new page and move the content there. (See Help:Contents and w:Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page for details.)" COM:ARCHIVE. — Ирука1311:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
He didn't attempt to archive his talk page. He deleted an uncivil message by you, and that's perfectly acceptable. pandakekok911:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Iruka13 only does this request because I did one above. He/she doesn't listen and the same information is on Iruka 13's talkpage. He digs into my files to see if something can be renamed, while I'm a filemover myself. Iruka13 needs to read COM:FR again and don't bother file movers who don't agree, because that's what this is all about.. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Since you took these pictures, will it not be difficult for you to give them more precise names? — Ирука13 12:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, you are to busy with giving files a better name. That's not allowed in renaming (see decline criteria). If I want to change the names above, I will do it. Now there is no need to do that. There are many other things to do on Commons. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
What does the word "Hong" mean in the file name? — Ирука13 10:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Mind your own business, please.. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
And stay away from files I made, like Gemaal. If they need a rename, I can do it myself, otherwise I will report it to a moderator. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
First, the user declares that the files cannot be renamed according to the decline criteria. The next day, he renames them. Further, under the threat of contacting administrators, hi prevents to renaming other "own" files. — Ирука1307:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
It's not usual to suggest to file movers to change the name of their 'own' (picture taken) files. Because you started to request other files of me from years ago, without letting me know, I renamed a few of the files to satisfie you, because I felt uncomfortable. You didn't stop, so I had to use some power words to convince you, but that wasn't enough. You started to troll on your talk page with edits I made on my own talkpage, you copied it to yours and you didn't allow me to answer it or touch it and started an editwar. You can't respond now, but I never have problems here with user (maybe once), you already had a few warnings from a moderator regarding this renaming and other things, where you didn't follow the rules, so I hope you make a better start in april. If you stay away at all, I wouldn't mind, but I cannot deceide that. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
And same for all other categories. Seems C.Suthorn doesn't care about categories and connectivity at all, but is only pushing up their editcount, as often. And then this abusive report. --A.Savin17:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
It's not so good. What is the difference between the virus in Hamburg and the rest of Germany? At least, however, they are properly categorized and with WD infobox. --A.Savin23:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
You might have missed the fact that all 16 states of Germany are treating the virus crisis somewhat differently in terms of curfews, closing of public venues, etc., and people are reacting differently, too. Therefore it is quite alright imho to categorise the effects in various areas of Germany. And missing WD infoboxes are not a quality sign for categories either. So deleting the Frankfurt category was a poor decision. It could at least have been moved to a name that clarifies whether it's FF/Main or FF/Oder. De728631 (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Since these regulations are the responsibility of the individual federal states, the category tree should correspond to the corresponding hierarchies. Hamburg as a city-state would thus belong directly under something like "./corona in germany", while the two Frankfurts would belong under "./corona_germany/hesse" and "./corona_germany/brandenburg". I'm too lazy at the moment to check whether such a sub-sub-sub-categorization is worthwhile at all, but I recommend A.Savin to be a bit more relaxed. Overzealous categorizers have in the past hidden photos of mine in such deep category branches where nobody would look for them and where they are sometimes the only file at all. At first I was upset about this too, but in the meantime I'm taking note of such things with a shrug of the shoulders. This is not a case for administrators' noticeboard/user problems, but a case for more serenity on both sides. Stay healthy, everyone. --Smial (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Do not forget that this category is not only categorized in the corona categories the category is also in the "2020 events in" category and maybe some others. --GPSLeo (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Wrong. The only content of the category "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in [Frankfurt/Eberswalde/Braunschweig/...]" created by C.Suthorn was "Category:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in Germany". So this is just splitting in "micro-categories", nothng more. That's not what COM:Categories are for. --A.Savin14:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
A.Savin - Maybe it would be better to undelete this and send it to CFD?, Given other subcats exist I feel it's rather bad judgement to delete this one when others still exist, FWIW I'm undecided on whether these should be kept or deleted but that's really a discussion for cfd :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk00:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
No. CSuthorn is free to create properly named and properly categorized categories. And if they have a problem with me, they should talk to me first. --A.Savin00:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Savin, is this your way to beg for pardon, that you deleted the categories without seeking prior discussion first? --C.Suthorn (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
A.Savin, What did he do wrong first tho ? ... Creating a category isn't doing some wrong in this circumstance, Can't you end this discussion by simply undeleting it and taking it to CFD, I'm not saying you're right or wrong I'm saying it would better to discuss this at the correct venue and plus it would put an end to this discussion here. –Davey2010Talk01:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
You miss the point -- I did not deletion, but maintenance (I usually do maintenance and rarely deletion), which means everyone is free to re-create the content in accordance with COM:Categories -- neither undeletion nor CfD is necessary. --A.Savin03:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Maintainance
Categories are still deleted. Looks espcially strange with Braunschweig, that would have 48 files, if an admin had not removed one.
Maintainance is moving a cat from Frankfurt to Frankfurt/Main
Deleting is deleting a cat Frankfurt
I do not even know the number of my edits and it does not matter. It does obviously matter for an admin. What I do know, is that I uploaded more than 21000 images and videos many from events, that have not been covered by anyone else (Dyke Marches outside of the Americas, IWD events, OBR events, brexit events, pro choice and pro life events, first german same sex marriage, smaller pride parades, long distance runners, ...) I basically only mingle with categories if I contribute own content in the area.
If you create a page (category) you as the creator get notified if the page is linked. Therefore it does matter, who has created a page (and i have the pages i created on my watchlist), and it cannot created again by someone else without destroying this info.
If a deletion is controversial then it should go to CFD for community discussion. Per the above, this seems to be controversial, though I don't really have any strong opinion on the merits of the category one way or the other. @A.Savin: Would you mind starting that discussion yourself? It seems like it may save face and community time all around, and we can close this and have the discussion there instead. GMGtalk13:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
@A.Savin: I'm just trying to find the best solution that lets up wrap this up and get back to work. No big deal. Kick it over to CFD and we can close this and everyone can feel like the issue was treated fairly. GMGtalk13:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, OK. You seriously mean it's to be discussed for Braunschweig only? But anyway, this thread is to be closed. --A.Savin16:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Iruka13 (2)
Iruka13(talk·contributions·Statistics·Recent activity·block log·User rights log·uploads·Global account information) (assign permissions) - Trolling on his own talk page. Iruka13 places talk from my talk page (that I deleted as a light form of harrasment) without mentioning it's from my page. Then I give an answer and he/she deletes it, now several times already. See: [12]. Also if I know something better and revert it, Iruka13 cannot stand it and comes to my talk page immediately. It must be over now. Also the section above, you can see Iruka13 is trolling and should not change English categories with only 'en-1' (babel). The same with renaming, I didn't see anymore, but Iruka13 can still do requests. An infinite ban (or permanent) or a final warning is needed. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC) Now I write it, my talk (from my talk page, that is now (unwanted) on Iruka13's talk page) is reverted again on Iruka13's talk page and if I answer it, it gets deleted... PS there are a lot of people sick here because of COVID-19, I cannot use extra stress when I'm here on Commons
Hi. May someone calm down CatCafe by reviewing and deleting his/her two files File:Judy Wilyman.jpg and File:Malcolm Roberts.png from which he/she is removing the deletion templates despite warnings not to do so and explainations in Talk page in his/her own language? Moreover it will be fine he/she is remindinded what "vandalism" is because he/she accuses me of it in his/her reverts résumés as well as in my Talk page. Thanks, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes about time, if some tagger such as Patrick wants them deleted then see it through. Don't leave editors such as me hanging. Patrick I consider tag after tag after tag as harassment. It would be better if you discussed calmly rather than leave big red warnings on my talk. CatCafe (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
@CatCafe: To see if you're getting the way we work here. But I don't see it. Calling perfectly valid tags vandalism just shows your inexperience. The answer is not to whine or shout, but fix the problem in the tag and learn. If you can't do that, your files must go. If you persist, you must go. And expecting an answer to a post here after only seven minutes is just laughably naive. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: common courtesy from you would be appreciated. Patrick Rogel had no support for his tagging, so it just hung there with nothing to fix. And he also could not articulate his issue. Don't threaten me please, you are being hostile. CatCafe (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: please articulate your concerns in detail if you wish to discuss on my talk. I assume you know how to articulate your concerns in writing if you have concerns with an image. Leaving big red warning tags is quite naff and shows little in the way of civil discussion. CatCafe (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
@CatCafe: There seems to be little point trying to engage on your talk page when you delete everything, which is, incidentally taken as evidence that you've read and understood the notices. Those notifications have been the standard shorthand way of alerting users to possible problems with their uploads for longer even than I've been here and I see no reason for that to change. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
@CatCafe: What you are calling "comments" were accusations of vandalism in résumés of unauthorized reverts. Besides you have asked me as well as Administrator @Rodhullandemu: to get away from your Talk page and have erased our messages. Adding your same agressives comments again on reverts résumés on English Wikipedia (you have received a warning for a block and have been reported to the Administrators' noticeboard there too 3 days ago) doesn't help your case... --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Patrick I sincerely apologies as you are deeply hurt, I retract those comments. But you seem to be threatening me again. that's hostile, and isn't it recommended not to BITE the newbies? My talk page is mine I believe. And please explain how you work around here as the admin said - it's a vague comment with little context. Are you here to help the newbies or harass them with unsupported tags? CatCafe (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
You continue! Now I'm "harassing" you! Tags I put on your two images have been supported by the Administrator above who has deleted the files. Tags are made for your information and to make you improve your uploads and instead of that you delete them (though it has been told erasing messages on your talk page was not recommended). Do you ever read them? Moreover how do you explain that the same behaviour is reported here as well as on Wikipedia in a few days interval? Because for a "newbie" you are very keen of attacking other contributors (January 2020 and a last warning in this month) or reverting other users (December 2019 and December 2019 again and so on). If I were you I'll quickly considering changing my attitude because if you are not blocked this time on Wikipedia or here, next time will be the good one. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Patrick I think you're the one attacking now and quite agressive. I apologised and put it behind, can you?. But please let's take this up on your Wikipedia talk page now. Where you can explain in full detail to me about the image you dislike. You may be less animated there as you are here. CatCafe (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
It's amusing the facility you switch from your behaviour problems to a simple issue with an image. This report has nothing to do with an image problem but is about your recurrent behaviour. For an image issue please contact the deleting Administrator. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Pot, kettle, black. Patrick Rogel why will you not discuss the image issue on your wp talk page? Pls explain your rationale there - or were you in the wrong and cant explain?. You also need to have a good read of WP:DRRC,[13] it will explain why your irrational repetitive behaviour on my talk page was seen as unreasonable and harassment. You were out of line in reverting my edits 7 times on my talk, that's breaching that protocol 7 times. That's inappropriate. CatCafe (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The admin has now created a new Braunschweig cat in place of the deleted Braunschweig cat, even though I pointed out in == A.Savin == 5) why there is a difference between a new cat and undeleting thw original one. That is hijacking of my work. In the meantime a bot has moved two Illingen files from one germany cat to another germany cat, which would simply not have been needed, if the files had stayed int the original Illingen cat or if the Illingen cat had been undeleted in time. --C.Suthorn (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Now this is nothing but harassment by C.Suthorn. I hereby ask sysop colleagues to do something about it. --A.Savin14:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@LoMit: Done Next time just tag it with {{G7}} to signal that the uploader would like it deleted. That is valid if the file is not in use and it is within 7 days of upload. --Majora (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Mißbrauch der Adminrechte, A.Savin benennt eine Datei um und löscht die Weiterleitung, obwohl er selbst zugibt, die Sprache nicht zu sprechen. Seit Jahren haben meine Dateien auch mal russische, finnische, katalanische, spanische oder tschechische Dateinamen, ohne daß sich je jemand daran gestört hätte. Ebenso seit Jahren versucht A.Savin, mir eins reinzuwürgen. Als Dateiname "in Berlin laufen nicht mehr viele Menschen auf der Straße herum" ist kein Buchstabensalat. --Ralf Roletschek12:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC) Ich hatte keinen BK
Denken Sie wirklich, ich kenne den Google-Translator nicht und kann nicht nachschauen, ob es sich um einen sprachlich nachvollziehbaren Ausdruck handelt? --A.Savin13:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Since Ralf is a native German speaker, and the file is a photo of Berlin, there seems no rational reason to use a filename in a language other than German. It is pretty obvious that Ralf is being disruptive. I see also their statement: "This file is only available in the local resolution under CC-BY-SA. The full resolution is here on Flickr and can be used under the GFDL 1.2 or CC-BY-NC-ND" is also disruptive, as well as legally nonsense. Ralf is clearly only here to upload for Wikipedia and does not believe in an Open Content project where media are freely shared and usable by others, such as using appropriate filenames. -- Colin (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The file names do not have any meaning in any of the numerous languages that GoogleTranslate is able to detect. --A.Savin13:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
For pictures showing a square in Berlin and a shop in Eberswalde? Well, this is as ridiculous as probably only Ralf Roletschek can manage. --A.Savin21:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Bilder von mir aus Spanien und Israel haben russische Dateinamen, daran hat sich nie jemand gestört. Es gibt keine Regel, die die Sprache der Dateinamen vorschreibt. --Ralf Roletschek21:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
You're right, there isn't any rule that specifies file names should be in a particular language, but if you're going to write the titles in something as esoteric as Yucatec Maya, then the file page descriptions should contain that same information in a more common language, or at least they should be more informative than "Regal" or "Berlin". clpo13(talk)22:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Nein. Hier sind zahlreiche Beiträge, die bestätigen, daß die Dateibeschreibung in den Dateinamen gehört und nicht in die Dateibeschreibung. Ich werde ab Herbst auf Yucatan sein, werden meine Dateien dann auch umbenannt, wenn sie Orte der Maya zeigen? Chinesische, japanische oder grönländische Dateinamen werden nicht umbenannt, nur meine Namen stören A.Savin und er schafft Fakten mittels seiner Adminmöglichkeiten. Maya t'aan hat fast eine Million Sprecher, es gibt keinen Grund, diese Sprache hier auszuschließen. --Ralf Roletschek22:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
This isn't one of those cases where Commons needs to write some stricter rules. We all recognise disruptive behaviour without having to define it. We don't write rules because one person is trolling us, and Ralf is clearly trolling and attention seeking for his ego. Time for a block and a long one. --Colin (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Ralf basically isn't a troll, he's a long-time contributor of very valuable content, and lots of it. For example, the first file discussed here, now named File:20-03-14-Hamsterkaufe Deutschland.jpg, is a good illustration of panic buying in Germany, and it's in use in de:COVID-19-Pandemie in Deutschland. But he has also a bit of a temper and may react with "trolling" behavior in conflicts. Of course there's no good reason, if you're not a native Maya speaker, to give a picture from Berlin a file name in Maya, of all languages. If the uploader were a Maya speaker, it would be different, of course. It's fine to name images in your own language. If you make photographs in South America but are a German speaker, for example, you can use German file names. But I can only interpret choosing Maya in this particular case as a misguided act of defiance. Still, it's not a huge deal. I would hardly call that vandalism; after all, the contribution itself is valid. Another issue is the licensing, however. It seems that Ralf is still using {{GFDL-1.2|migration=opt-out}} for recent uploads though {{GFDL-1.2}} states that GFDL 1.2 is no longer an option effective 15 October 2018. So I'm not sure whether we should keep images by Ralf uploaded after 15 October 2018 with this license no longer accepted for new uploads, as the other offered license (CC-BY-NC-ND) isn't accepted without a Commons-compatible free license. Also, the flickr template ("This file is only available in the local resolution under CC-BY-SA") refers to a license (CC-BY-SA) which isn't actually offered with the image. Gestumblindi (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
He's a long-time contributor of very valuable content is no justification for trolling, because we all are -- to some extend and maybe in different topics -- contributors of valuable content. The difference is just, that some are deeming themselves kind of special and above community rules and sometimes also above Common sense. --A.Savin11:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Looks like Ralf didn't get the memo, or chose to ignore it, that GFDL 1.2 is no longer acceptable. @Alexis Jazz: . Those file licences need to be changed, or the files put up for deletion. This is exactly the sort of "not sharing my files outside of Wikipedia" that Commons rejected. -- Colin (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
{{Template:Resolution restricted-by-sa}} ist eine gültige Lizenz. Es ist exakt das Vorgehen von Bundesarchiv und Fotothek. --Ralf Roletschek19:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Es ist eine gültige Lizenz, ich habe die nicht erfunden. BA und Fotothek haben ihre Bilder 800x600 freigegeben und halten sie auf ihren Seiten in höherer Auflösung bereit. Ich nutze nur eine der gültigen CC-Lizenzen von Commons. --Ralf Roletschek01:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
An aside: you can't prevent trolling with rules. Trolls love things to be very rules-based, because they can spend a career finding edge cases. Trolling is almost always a violation of the spirit, not the letter, of the law.
We can't reasonably make rules on what languages people use in file names, because we want to accommodate the photographer/uploader's native language. I title nearly all of my files in English, but I've been known to use Romanian for a picture in Bucharest if I know just how to title it in Romanian; similarly Spanish for somewhere in Spain, and (come to think of it) I've probably titled some Berlin photos in German. A native German speaker using Maya for a perfectly ordinary photograph taken in Germany is obviously being, at best, willfully contrary, trying to create difficulties that need not be there. - Jmabel ! talk03:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User moves pages of royals without any discussion, mistranslates from potuguese to english (the term "Grã-Cruzes da Ordem de Nossa Senhora da Conceição de Vila Viçosa" badly translated to english as "Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Immaculate Conception of Vila Viçosa") and insists in this error even after being called to reason, accuses me of vandalism in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism, keeps reverting proper editions. For someone that started editing on 9 of March he shows to be more than a new user and is using a sock in Wikidata as between two hours ago and now he was logged in in Commons and logged out in Wikidata, so hidden his tracks as he was removing valid statements from Wikidata, and given the weak excuse of being logged out. As others have called it this is a vandal or SPA and user of socks. Tm (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment AshFriday, given that you almost edit on deletion requests about sexual imagery and by your own words are "Fighting a never-ending battle against copyright vios and smut" and given that your edits resume almost to something in the region of "Out of scope, poor quality and educationally worthless", what is your experience of what should be a action or not. I´am felling that you are you mad that several times i (and others) have pointed this and you are merely trying to take revenge against my votes and pointing your purpose of moral crusade in Commons. This is pretty low and will be taken into to account in future interactions. Tm (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
@TheCommonsCorrecteur and Tm: I’m not sure what is going on here but I have protected several categories and files to prevent any further warring. Where I am, it is late at night, so I will look into this in the morning. In the meantime please avoid doing anything which might be construed as edit warring. Anyone who does edit war will be likely to be blocked from editing. -Green Giant (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
It seems one of these users has gone from about a hundred edits a day to zero. If there is a need to reopen this, we can do it but for now let’s keep an eye on things. -Green Giant (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Abuse of sysop privileges/desysop discussion - Zhuyifei1999
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I can't believe I'm doing this.
In the ongoing saga over the checkuser block of Alexis Jazz, Zhuyifei1999 has unilaterally unblocked them against policy. For abusing their blocking/unblocking privileges and refusing to reverse their actions per COM:AN#Notice of Block Reversion I regretfully launch this desysop proceeding against Zhuyifei1999. Per our blocking policy, Unblock requests for blocks marked with {{Checkuserblock}} will be reviewed by a checkuser. Zhuyifei unilaterally undid a checkuser block without authorization from the checkuser team. This is as clear cut abuse of that ability as our policy provides. Second, they unblocked the individual without community consensus to do so. Again against the blocking policy: To avoid wheel warring, another administrator should lift a block only if there is consensus to do so, even if there is no clear consensus in favor of the original block.
This is one of the gravest actions I have to take here on Commons and I don't take it lightly. I regret having to do this but I don't see any choice and Zhuyifei has not left me with any. I must do what I believe is right and I believe that all administrators should be held accountable for their actions. In that light, I formally launch a desysop discussion against Zhuyifei1999 per our requirements. --Majora (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Again, Will, not must. An indication of expectance, not an declaration of requirement. Words mean exactly what they mean, not what they imply. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
An administrator on any project who undoes a CheckUser block not only violates policy, but is not competent enough to be a sysop anywhere. It’s simple: you do not know everything a CU does. Full stop. You cannot know everything a CU does. Unblocking without knowing what you’re unblocking or what you are doing is something that should require a desysop and a new RfA to have access to the tools. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the opening of an de-adminiship request. The blocking policy is clear when forbids the unblock taken by "Zhuyifei1999": "Unblock requests for blocks marked with {{checkuserblock}} will be reviewed by a checkuser". In no way this rule can be more clear. The fact that the administrator continues to defend his actions (including on this page) only makes the request more necessary and urgent. Érico(talk)00:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Note As Zhuyifel1999 has reversed their unblock I believe that this discussion is now moot. As others have responded I don't want to close this myself. But I do believe that this discussion is now moot. --Majora (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. The abuse of tools is quite severe and the overall behavior during this affair has been far from optimal. The community should have a chance to either state they trust Zhuyifei1999 with the tools, or not. Natuur12 (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm more of the mind that, as humans are oft to do, mistakes happen. Emotions run high and people do things that are not the wisest of actions when looked at in hindsight. Yes. Zhuyifei made a mistake when they unblocked Alexis. They also said some things that were inappropriate for an administrator to say. But I don't see a pattern of that, at least not that I'm aware of, and I can forgive people for making mistakes if they admit to those mistakes which Zhuyifei did when they reversed their action. The only reason for this desysop request was for the out of process unblock of a checkuser block without community consensus. That unblock is no longer in play so in my mind I can chalk this up to "a mistake was made, a mistake was rectified (after it got to the point of opening this thread sure but the mistake has been rectified), time to move on". I know that others may not feel that way which is why I left this thread open but that is where I stand at this moment. --Majora (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Zhuyifei had recognized their blunder. AFAIK this is their first major mistake ever done as an admin, therefore I don't believe a de-admin is necessary here. Personally I believe the block of Alexis' main account is unjust and overkill. Zhuyifei's action wasn't malicious because he felt that there was no other choice. If you would see the talk page of Alexis, no CU ever responded there. If even just one CU assured us that the block is being reconsidered, it wouldn't go down like this. But it seems they will never do that, because as Magog says, "period, end of discussion." This is a very disappointing and ignorant response. They never even asked Alexis to clarify their words, instead they immediately threw off all AGF and dropped the indef block hammer. To be honest, I have been thinking of initiating a de-checkuser request of the whole CU team, but this will probably just crank up the temperature higher than it should be. pandakekok903:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Zhuyifei1999 is a victim here, not an admin maliciously using his tools. His unblock was wrong yes (I believe he is right in interpreting CheckUser blocks that it is not a requirement, because it clearly states "will", not "must". But there was no consensus to unblock Alexis. That's the only problem), but he is not the only one to blame here. If Zhuyifei ever changes his mind and wants to retain his admin privileges, I will strongly support it. pandakekok903:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Magog is abusive in this whole incident. He thinks he is above everyone else and can stop discussion whenever he wants Special:Diff/406773015Special:Diff/406978786, even declaring "bans" (doesn't this need an RFC?). This is the worst unprofessional move I've seen in a while.
The idea that only CUs may reverse CU bans is wrong. If everything that is relevant for the CU decision is known to available to the general admins there there is absolutely no reason a general admin may not reverse a CU decision. It's not like CUs are above admins in terms of block hammer power. Also, likely not applicable to this incident, but other confidential groups like OS, WMF-NDA, T&S may hold information that CUs don't. It's not like CUs are god.
Anyways. Too much talking for no good. I've been wanting to leave for a really long time, but Brian pushed me away from that direction for a while. I'm sorry, but the last straw was just pulled. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Useless. Just useless. Start the de-sysop vote now and you will see that users will show up with Keep votes. Common sense is above these poorly-written policy pages. It is obvious to any rational mind that Zhuyifei1999 acted out of goodness and that is something that resonates with people. Ouote me on that. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
No, especially after them reverting their action. Zhuyifei1999 is, in my opinion, one of our best administrators. They made a decision, they reverted a CU block. I don't think of this as something that can always remove the bit. Of course, sometimes this can be an immediate bit remover, but in this case? I don't think so. Now that they have reverted their action (and, on a side note, admitted that it was a "mistake"), I don't think a desysop request is needed. Ahmadtalk12:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement from Zhuyifei1999
I'm terribly tired of this political game. Yes, I made a mistake. Emotions were extremely high and I did not consider, which Majora pointed out on IRC, that there are people who still want Alexis back. I felt someone was abused and I had to act. I also did not wait for more time, unlike INC L2013 case which I was thinking of when I did the action.
And no, I did not read the wikisource post before doing so. I don't want to have any involvement on wikisource.
That said, I have lost all confidence on the Commons CU team and lost most of my last remaining interest in Commons. Resignation is inevitable. The tools to me are just... tools. I don't want any more involvement in politics. Can someone just take my stuffs so I can leave?
On IRC, I said, when I resign I shall stop all involvement on any bots or tools I maintain, including stopping bots, it wasn't a threat -- I would be constantly pinged to fix stuffs. I've handcuffed myself to Commons. Please let me go.
You need to stop helping commons NOW. Sometimes people don't understand your worth until you leave, maybe {{Retired}} would have been better IMO but I think semi retired is also a nice start. And you will prove yourself wrong "there is little one could affect the project". What will be affected includes : No-POTY-2019-R2, maybe then Flickr-reviewer, then sign-bot, delinker, V2C will never upload anything directly from YouTube ... then everything else. And don't forget to change the preferences, nobody likes spam emails from an unwanted websites. I Support Zhuyifei1999 stop helping commons anymore. A more appropriate title would be "Kill useful bots and tools on commons" instead of "Abuse of sysop privileges/desysop discussion - Zhuyifei1999". I don't care about hat's ; I have the courage to speak free, but I can assure you there are many others who think that what's happening with you is unacceptable. // Eatcha (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, but I will ask revi to make sure R2 happens. POTY is too dear to me :), but yes, if it breaks I won't do anything. Delinker is still steiny's, similarly, it's just if it breaks don't ping me. v2c chico is helping (maybe? I hope? probably gonna rot though). quarry if for framawiki. The rest are stopped (mostly a few bots). --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Zhuyifei You can add me, but I am not going to fix anything until they don't realise the problem with harassing away talented developers, who is working for free. This also applies to being disrespectful to WMF developers, it doesn't help. Many users just write "this feature is shit", "crap tool", "incompetent developers", and everything else required to kill their motivation. I don't know how these users react to their subordinates, maybe they are either students or don't have a job.// Eatcha (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I really hate the idea prohibiting ordinary administrator to undo a CheckUser block without consent in small wikis with only two CheckUsers (though CheckUsers should still be consulted), just like INVOLVED is meaningless for wikis with only one administrator; but it should be prohibited in Commons (as {{Checkuserblock}} said). Therefore this is not a correct use of admin tool. However I don't think a desysop is really required.--GZWDer (talk) 06:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I would reccomend closing now that the block has been reversed by the unblocking admin, I 110% support unblocking however gaining a consensus for it is better than unlatterely just unblocking someone. –Davey2010Talk13:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Bad idea, the closing part. I haven't decided if I would support a desysop or not but if there isn't room for properly discussing the abuse, an administrator loses part of their legitimacy, regardless of the outcome imho. Natuur12 (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Moral support to Zhuyifei1999. I really don't want to see you go, but I respect that you wish to withdraw. I too feel that way sometimes, moreso recently, but it ebbs just as it flows. I do hope to see you back in the future. — Huntster (t@c)17:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's even handed to say that a sysop can be baited into wheel warring in a way that absolved them of responsibility for their own actions, but closing a ongoing discussion by unilaterally claiming to rewrite site-wide policy is pretty darn close to daring someone to undo your admin action. GMGtalk18:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
stop the user from gaming the system either by a block or a stern final warning. It should also be noted that the user is currently blocked at the English Wikipedia and has history of blocks on Commons and the Persian Wikipedia. Their talk page on Commons is full of copyright warnings.
Pandakekok9 already reverted the file to the previous version requested by you, and I have now protected it for a week. Also, GTVM92 has received a warning that other such actions will lead to a block. De728631 (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@Praveenp: I'm afraid I'm not familiar with this master. You may have to idiot-proof things a bit more here, or consider filing at COM:SPI. There's a lot of information in the links you provided, and it's not clear behaviorally exactly what it is the key thing that is supposed to be giving this new account away. GMGtalk19:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what the problem is. They apparently speak perfectly good English. I dunno. But there's not much that can be done giving warnings after warnings that don't do anything. GMGtalk19:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Reuploads here already deleted files on Vietnamese Wikipedia (File:A Hoàng1.jpg) and reuiploads now here files deleted here (File:A Hoàng.jpg, at least 3 times and File:Nhà rông Kon Klor.jpg, 3 times too). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Someone is doing it right... Relaxing!A Richardson ground squirrel enjoying life, near Drumheller, Alberta, Canada
I see that a lot of shit is going on right now. I suggest all admins take a deep breath and stay calm! Many are frustrated atm because of Corona and other stuff. We don't need stressed admins blocking eachother! --MGA73 (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Pretty bold closure you performed today, in which does not address at all the disruptive actions performed by this admin + checkuser, but sweeps them under the rug. Their response to the actions was essentially “I don’t care, desysop me”. Not only is that problematic, but some of their actions that was discussed is still in effect right now. I do not agree with the closure at all, and recommend you undo it, please. 1989 (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
It has not been even been a full day since I opened it. Do you really expect everyone to jump it to form an opinion? Like I said, bad closure, please undo, thanks. 1989 (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
true you did not start this, at least not alone, but you contributed widely to start the climbing of the conflict (see AJ talk page), and for the part "maintain the fire" the evidence is the current discussion. Christian Ferrer(talk)21:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I made three edits on that page. One supporting a duration reduction, one asking for clarification on something, and another thanking them for clarifying. I have no idea what you’re on about... 1989 (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Insisting on accountability, obviously! Everything will be fine and dandy if we just come together and sing Kumbaya. (Insert unnecessary link to COM:MELLOW as an excuse to ignore bad behavior.) clpo13(talk)20:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Let's be clear about some things here. I have violated no policies and I take it seriously when others do. I do not appreciate the condescension inherent in closing this discussion prematurely by recommending we all not worry our pretty little heads so much. GMGtalk21:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I have nothing against you Christian or Ymblanter. I've worked with you both across projects. But we are a community governed by consensus and policy or we are not. GMGtalk21:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
and the consensus at that time is much more to calm down than the opposiste. We, you are administrators, and you are not administrator to say "I don't like vegetables" ("I do not appreciate the condescension inherent in closing .."). Christian Ferrer(talk)21:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
That does not appear to be an assessment of consensus supported by the content of the discussion itself. GMGtalk21:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
One of the major causes of turmoil the last days undoubtedly is forcefully and prematurely closing discussions. I wonder why people still believe that cutting yet another discussion short, instead of letting it either bleed out or let it reach it's conclusion is a good idea. Natuur12 (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, the previous discussion which was let go cost us an administrator, and this one had a potential to take one or two more.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causality in this case. Though I'm really sad to see Majora leave. @Ymblanter: thanks for further explaining your closure. Natuur12 (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Moreover, the previous resignation was for "wheel warring" against a user who tried to invent a banning policy. So it's difficult to tick that one on the side of policy. GMGtalk22:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
All of you, go and do something the else. Be kind to someone. The irony of folk continuing to post "you did a bad thing, resign now!" messages under a "Stay calm - relax" section!! Log off. Goodnight. -- Colin (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
If we don't solve this in the proper way, it is likely to happen again in the future, and it's most probably going to cost us, again. This, *forcing* people to stop and calm down, is not the proper way to solve the problem. The closure has created more drama, and, if I need to remind, the second resignation wouldn't happen without the premature closure. We need to negotiate and come to an agreement that truly calms things down and solves the real problem. I don't see how stopping this right now, right away can help the project, and how it can solve the problem. Not to mention that we are almost forgetting the main point: it was actually a block review. Ahmadtalk23:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Block review is a review. In that topic, a checkuser was indefblocked in the fourth message of the topic, unblocked later by a different administrator, and there were suggestions to desysop at least five administrators, some of them just for dissenting opinions. It is not even a discussion. It is a completely unnecessary drama and bludgeoning. Well, if it is not going to stop, it would be a pity, but this was absolutely not the way to discuss things.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
All those blocks and reverts were, in my opinion, unnecessary. However, the main subject of the thread was Magog the Ogre and their actions. If the thread was in the wrong direction, I think it's a better approach to ask everyone to focus on the main subject. I understand that you did it in good faith, and I appreciate that. But I think there is a better way to do it. The community either accepts or rejects the idea of desysoping Magog the Ogre. That's not my point. The point is that the community should be allowed to have the discussion. You see, a huge part of drama is there because of unnecessary, highly controversial administrative actions, such as administrators being involved in edit wars and blocking each other while being involved. I think we should all stop using the bit around this case for a while, except for obvious cases (e.g. vandalism in related threads), and perhaps propose our ideas before taking action. This, not performing administrative actions, could save us a lot of drama in recent days. Ahmadtalk00:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't mean to be so frank, but is there really no one here who gives a damn about policy more than they do about politics? Are we going to keep doing this or are we going to come to terms with the fact that policy was not followed and moreover policy was egregiously disregarded. I don't want to hear your argument that people are heated. I don't want to hear your argument that people should calm down.
Is there a single person here who would disagree in good faith that policy was egregiously violated? That's the only question I care about. GMGtalk00:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Judging by the number of likes I got, yes, there are people who think my closure (which is btw not an admin action) is not an egregious violation of policy. And they are not in any way involved. They are just not vocal and do not want to go into this shit.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
That is a very weak statement given that you received 3 likes so far after making this closure (based on information from the public like-log). --Schlurcher (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Three is not equal zero, no? For me, "a singlke person" would mean "at least one"? Anyway, if there is such a huge majority around thinking I abused my administrator privileges, start a desysop proposal discussion. I am already prettu fucked up with all thjis anyway. I wish I would have left the thread go and you guys just blocked e4ach other indefinitely and be done with that. Commons would hardly lose anything at his point.-Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
+1 "Go and continue fucking yourself if you can not behave" would get most contributors blocked as it 100% meets COM:BP as a reason to block abusive accounts. As an administrator, apparently, you get a free pass to tell others to go fuck themselves and you are accountable to nobody. --Fæ (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I overreacted and now crossed out my comment. Still, I find harassment in this thread against me unacceptable. I will reduce my administrator activity to a minimum. At this point, I am not interested in serving the Commons community. I will continue uploading files because I rely on them in my real life. I will not edit any village pumps anymore until at least June 1.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
The other day I proposed a cooking videos theme for the monthly challenge, inspired by the pandemic and also by the current FPC to the right by W.carter. I don't know if it'll actually become the monthly challenge, but here's an offer: I will award a nice shiny barnstar of good humor to anyone in this thread (or the related threads) who takes a picture of your home cooking/baking and uploads it to Commons. This isn't a call to stop talking -- there's no easy fix to any of this. I just think more sharing food (online as it may be) couldn't hurt. Let me know if you take me up on it. — Rhododendritestalk | 12:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I think this person is crazy. He protests all the images.He also insulted me that I would never forgive him.I object . Is this encyclopedia really free or is it a dictatorship site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PBSR\QCRSDBSR0199 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
When I reverted the user's Revision #407670395, overwriting File:Judit con la cabeza de Holofernes (Nicolas Régnier).jpg, I noticed that the original version was from the Prado's older website (until December 2015), with bigger size and resolution. This precise file wasn't saved by Internet Archive, but lots of similar examples can be found here. However, he has nominated the file for deletion, stating that "the source information is false" (accusing me therefore of having lied), and that the "real" Prado image is another one, when it's not the "real" one, but just the "present" (and worse) one.--Outisnn (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
`Then, at least you know that he/she has noticed the message. Anyway, as I've asked Breskit directly at the DR page, we should wait for his reply. --Túrelio (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok, but take into account that my revision was precisely a reversion of a revision of him, so in this case he was for sure notified of the message, no need therefore for another notification, I think.--Outisnn (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I stand by my view that this very ugly image is not a Prado pic. In any event the uploader's argument which he made on Spanish wiki would then be that the Prado would have replaced a better quality image (the supposedly earlier one which he alleges to have uploaded from Prado) with a lower quality image (the one that I uploaded directly from Prado where it can be traced). That is nonsensical. Why would Prado do that. His aggressive replacement on Spanish wiki (and my immediate blocking by him/her/their on Spanish wiki) of a better quality image with a poorer quality one gives me the suspicion that this is possibly his own pic or from someone else's website. There are questions regarding the uploader, not meBreskit (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Your view just shows you know very little (even more, nothing at all) about Prado's website. I've provided an Internet Archive link where there are available lots of files from the older website. Just compare with the ones of the current one. By the way, in fact the image's url,s of the former website were all the same, the difference was just the accession number. Nonsensical? Just reality. Moreover, you lied once, stating the source was false, with no proof at all, as you haven't got and cannot have, since it was the real one. And now, you lie twice. You say I blocked you on Spanish wiki. When? I'm not administrator, neither on es.wiki nor in Commons, and have not reported anything on the Administrator's noticeboard of that Wiki, just here. The only aggressive, and slander, behaviour, is yours. One more thing. You say the former image is "ugly". I see you don't realize, but it's clear that in fact the new one is the same image, with lower resolution and size, and even more, overcoloured and too reddish (I suppose that's why it "pleases" you more). I've seen personally that painting (have you?), it's not usually on view but sometimes when others are sent to temporary exhibitions it has been hung (Room 4, precisely). And I can witness that the most faithfull reproduction is the one from the older website, the newer one just doesn't correspond to reality.--Outisnn (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment Neither Outisnn nor Breskit has acquitted themselves well in this dispute. Outisnn for overreacting here instead of simply responding to Breskit's DR notification on the Talk page, and Breskit for taking it to DR saying it may be a copyvio, when in fact both are reproductions of PD-Art. As well, it falls a bit short of COM:AGF to assume that the file source provided by Outisnn in 2015 was deliberately misleading. After all, it is not unheard-of for a five year old link to go dead.
Indeed, the Prado Museum's
current source file states, "Fecha de actualización: 25-07-2019 | Registro creado el 28-04-2015" (that is, the registry was created on April 28, 2015 and updated on July 25, 2019).
The question of which reproduction is "better" or "ugly" is a matter of taste and personal preference. Some commercial publications, for example, may prefer Outisnn's original 2015 upload version because of its much higher resolution. Others may prefer Breskit's version from the Prado's current website, which has now been uploaded to Commons as File:Nicolas Régnier - Judith with the head of Holofernes.jpg. The choice of which one to use is not something ANU decides and the DR should be closed as Speedy Keep. JGHowes talk04:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
@JGHowes: I have not overreacted as I had already explained in the summary of my revision that the original image was from the older website. If he calls me a liar (he didn't even say "may be", he said "is" false) and acts against any good faith taking as granted, with absolutely no proof, that the source was not real, what can I do? Setting apart the question of the keeping of the file, his behaviour is absolutely unacceptable, he cannot calumniate other users when he has absolutely no evidence.--Outisnn (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I see. But this is not fair. If I state that the source was from the older website, and he, without providing any kind of evidence (even when another administrator requested him to do it), assures that it "is false", that's a frontal violation of COM:AGF. And it should not be permitted.--Outisnn (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Done. Due to large number of copyvios I blocked him/her for a month. Thank you for nominating the copyvios for deletion! Taivo (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
User is also doing nonsense edits on their files by switching back and forth the caption from "Main data" to "Main data info". pandakekok908:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah well... There are things I'm not keen on on en wp however the phrase "not here to help build an encyclopedia" is one I've always liked and covers this well enough. One account indef'd and one blocked for a months. If someone adds the other image to the DR I'll stop by later and atttend to that. Thanks folks --Herbytalk thyme09:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
It is not acceptable that an admin spending time closing DRs get insulted by a frustrated user. I pinged Mattbuck that participated in the discussion, but any fellow admin can act on the matter (I'm directly involved, so I prefer not to block the user myself). --Ruthven(msg)16:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I am not frustrated and I did not insult Ruthven. I merely noted the objective facts in the matter - there was no indicated the items in question were published before the cutoff date at all (they would have to have been published before 1 January 1946 in order to be PD in both Russia and the US per Russian copyright law and the URAA). But the admin closed it with the extremely vague comment choosing to keep them, saying only "PD-Russia", despite the fact that it was pointed out in the deletion nomination that there was no evidence of early enough publication for the files to be PD-Russia. I have no idea why they decided that. No user, admin or not, has the right no unilaterally override Russian copyright law and decide that items do not have to be legally published before the cut-off date in order to be PD in Russia. This case very clear. We have policies that the burden of proof is on the uploader to provide proof that an item is PD (ie, publication dates when copyright law of the country of origin is based on publication date, not creation date). There is also consensus that photos created before a cut-off date cannot be assumed to have been published before such cutoff date. Only the duma can amend Russian copyright law and change the requirement about publication date to the creation date. No Wikimedia users have the right to ignore the clearly outlined terms and conditions of publication requirements under Russian law. If an admin wrongly keeps files that lack proof of being in the public domain, they are morally obligated for correct their mistakes upon being informed of the details of copyright law that they were previously ignorant of. Dodging the issue at hand by complaining of perceived tone/attitude issues does nothing to address those fundamental problems. Also, I did post on the admins userpage before renominating the deletion and I did my best to explain the copyright issue in details. But the admin that replied clearly must have posted that comment without seeing my explanation. So far, Ruthven has yet to explain themselves for their "keep" ruling in blatant opposition to the terms and conditions outlined by the template and mentioned in the deletion nomination, and as of yet they have failed to respond to my comments on their talkpage, only responding with complaints of personal attacks without addressing any concerns about copyright matters mentioned in the follow-up deletion nomination.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Also, the fact that you seem to be requesting a block for someone bringing legitimate copyright issues to attention is very questionable. (given your comment "I'm directly involved, so I prefer not to block the user myself") Blocking me will not change the fact that you chose to keep files that clearly lacked any indication of publication before the cutoff date contrary to the provisions of Russian copyright law clearly outlined in the template you cited in your ruling.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
(sorry, google-translate) At least in the second picture it is completely unclear where it comes from. Source is a forum and Google doesn't deliver anything better either[21]. Soviet copyright law is very complicated, you can't just write "PD-Russia" on it. For World War II participants, 74 years of pma apply, just as an example. The release date is completely irrelevant. --Ralf Roletschek16:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC) I see here: File:Sergey Vladimirovich Ilyushin.jpg also a problem.
File:Sergey Vladimirovich Ilyushin.jpg is fine beacuse I found a 1945 publication of the photo without attribution. Russia is 70 years pma for photos with no attribution (it was 50 years PMA at the time of the URAA so the item was PD on the URAA date, then re-copyrighted after the extension, then PD again after the 20 year extension expired) The 74 years pma is for photos with KNOWN authors that participated in WWII. The photos I nominated for deletion had NO indication of a pre-1946 publication date, which is required for the item to be PD in both the US and Russia per PD-Russia-1996 (because of the URAA). There is no evidence that the two photos I nominated for deletion were published before 1 Janaury 1946, and because the uploader did not provide such information, those two will have to be deleted. The publication date(s) is the crucial matter here. Files published before 1 January 1946 lack ing attribution are safe. If is is unknown if the file was published before the cut-off date, the image will have to be deleted. It is unaccepatble to slap a PD-Russia tag on an old Soviet photo just because it looks like it was taken before 1946, there must be a pre-1946 publication found, and the author must remain unknown.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Such important people were not photographed by "anyone". If the photographer was Евгений Халдей, the photo would be protected until 2072. The Soviet army had only a few photographers, we don't know it. --Ralf Roletschek17:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
The Red Army actually had MANY photographers. MANY photographers (and that's just a tiny fraction of the list). And many photos actually weren't taken by high-profile photographers, but ordinary people. But legally speaking, because there was no attribution in the publication, and the photographer remained unknown after the cut-off date, it is public domain. Even if the photo was hypothetically taken by Khaldei or someone we know of, it would still be public domain right now becuase he was not known as the photographer before the cut-off date. Because the photo was published in 1945 AND photographer of the photo remained unknown to the public on 1 January 2016, it is public domain. We are not obligated to assume who a photo "could" have been by when there is no attribution just because the person is famous. Works by unknown photographers do not have the same rights as those by known photographers, not matter how famous the subject of the photo is or how likely it is that some famous photographer took it. Unless photographer of the photo was credited in a source available to the public before 1 January 2016, it is public domain. That's because works by unknown authors, regardless of who is in the photo or when it was taken, are not subject to the additional 4 years pma.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree that these two files ought to be deleted per the current state of information. While it is justified to ask for reconsideration of the DR, there is no necessity for personal attacks: “You clearly do not understand the requirements of PD-Russia in order to be an admin” ([22]), “demonstrated incompetence” ([23]). In addition, I agree with Mattbuck that it would have been appropriate to contact the closing admin first on his talk page ([24]) and wait for a response. PlanespotterA320 contacted Ruthven ([25]) but re-opened the DR three minutes later ([26]) without waiting for a response within some reasonable timeframe. And the talk page message included personal attacks and remarks like “Either you were willfully ignorant and are completely unaware of the difference between creation date and lawful publication date, or you are willing to turn a blind eye to such copyright violations unilaterally despite no evidence of public domain status”. Why this outburst of bad faith without the least bit of wikiquette? It is always possible that a DR is closed incorrectly because something was overlooked or misunderstood. It is better to ask in friendly terms and wait for a response before jumping to conclusions. Ruthven is working hard to reduce the backlogs of the deletion requests. Mistakes happen and should not be the cause for drama. Staying mellow would be helpful here. PlanespotterA320, could you agree to that? --AFBorchert (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
also noted that I did not expect an admin to understand Russian copyright law - as long as they are not making rulings in deletion requests regarding it on Commons. Russian copyright law is probably the most complicated copyright law in the world because of the multiple retroactive re-applications of copyright and other complicated things. I brought the issue to the talkpage and the new deletion request, but instead of answering me directly there, Ruthven went here and got another admin involved (and completed disregarded the copyright issues at hand). If they have time to come here, they have time to explain their rationale for saying "PD-Russia" after it was pointed out how those images were not. As for some of the things I said - it's not personal! This is a problem with the entire Wikimedia community. It is not just a problem with Ruthven. Lots of people (including myself in the past) uploaded photos with the PD-Russia tag hoping that everyone would conflate creation date with publication date. It is not "assuming bad faith" to think that many users, including one here, don't want to delete the many copyright violations in the PD-Russia category. All this could have been avoided (including creating a second deletion request) if Ruthven simply acknowledged that the files contain no evidence of being public domain and that the keep ruling was a mistake once given a detailed explanation of Russian copyright law. But instead of trying to correct the error of keeping copyright violations, we here are only worrying about tone used at an admin who ignored the terms and conditions of copyright. Maybe I need to be more mellow. But my attitude does not alter the civil code of the Russian Federation (no matter how much we wish the retroactive extensions were revoked). I propose that Ruthven volunttarily refrain from closing deletion requests involving copyright law of CIS countries given his demonstrated confusion at what constitutes PD here.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
You are going on with your attacks: “given his demonstrated confusion”. Given the timeline, Ruthven had no opportunity to reconsider the closure of the DR. We surely all agree that we want to take care of copyright even in challenging variants of PD-Russia claims. You are writing “we here are only worrying about tone used” but forgetting that we are volunteers. The least we can do to support each other in working through the huge backlogs of Commons is to stay mellow. Otherwise, you will find less admins willing to work through the backlogs. PlanespotterA320, you need to reconsider your approach here. Ongoing violations of netiquette will not be tolerated. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Ruthven did have time to reconsider the closure of the DR. He posted here quite prompty, but still hasn't done anything about fixing his mistake in the DR. Given his repsonse at the DR complaining about my attitude, it is clear he is now aware of the issue, and has been for many hours. But his response in the DR, which was entirely about my attitude, lacked any indication of an attempt to rememdy the copyright issue at stake. It is not an insult or attack that the admin in question doesn't understand Russian copyright law. Most people don't. Like I said before - I do not expect every admin, or even most admins, to understand it. Only those who participate in DRs involving Russian copyright law. It is perfectly reasonable to expect people who participate in a DR to understand the copyright law at hand. Telling them that they are wrong, clearly misunderstand, and should not handle DRs related to copyright laws that don't understand is not meant to be insulting or demeaning. It is about basic sense. I am not an expert in French or Italian copyright law (which seems to be Ruthven's area of expertise), so I do not get involved in DRs involving it. It is an objective fact that I know little about the copyright laws of those countries. I am sure Ruthven would be rather dismayed if the situation here were reversed. Nettiquite is not something to hide behind to deflect from the fact that one ruled wrongly in a DR, saw text explaining that the ruling was wrong, and failed to correct the problem. Frankly I am rather surpised that this small and straightforward matter was taken here. I have received a variety of very plesant remarks from other users over the years, but I pushed forward with supporting the case for or against deletion using facts instead of dropping everything and trying to get them blocked for nettiquite. If we tried to enforce the strict netiquite standards insisted by some admins here, Russian wikipedia would not exist. Remember, Commons is an international project, and not everyone is accustomed to such high friendlyness standards that discourage blunt, truthful, straight-to-the-point discourse needed for a project like this.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) We’re all volunteers here, yeah. Both admins and regular users are, be reminded, though. Yet admins can block users (and even other admins, but I digress), while the opposite is trivially false: There is an asymmetry in power, here, that should be accompanied by a matching asymmetry in accountability and behaviour. But when, in the context of a copyvio discussion, sentences such as «Is that a personal attack that I read above?» are uttered and are soon followed by an AN/U case, while there’s no reason to presume bad faith — then for sure we have a… “user problem” indeed: Regular users, I think, are feeling ever increasingly anxious with this kind of unchecked admin disciplining, where even a minor slip can lead to disproportionate consequences at a blink of an eye, at the drop of a hat. To paraphrase the above, «you need to reconsider your approach here» and «stay mellow. Otherwise, you will find less» and less regular users willing to be tossed around in what often feels like discretionary treatment, due less to the merits of each case and more to thin skin and random, momentary grumpiness. -- Tuválkin✉✇02:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I saw the original reopening of the DR and commented there about the tone which was used. PlanespotterA320's language to me was needlessly inflammatory, and the reopening of the DR was inappropriate without talking to the closing admin and asking - politely - for them to reconsider.
Regarding the opening of this discussion, I can understand Ruthven's method here - the personal attacks (intentional or not) have created a situation where either acting to delete the files or refusing to delete them is inappropriate, and I can understand why they would want further eyes on both the files and the situation as a whole. Blocking would be inappropriate for an involved admin, and quite possibly not warranted anyway. If you make personal attacks, then having your name brought to this noticeboard is not itself an attack, it is a sensible response.
My thoughts on all this: PlaneSpotter, be calm, be mellow, be clear in why things need to be deleted. No one here wants copyright violations on Commons, but in a complex situation perhaps more than a sentence of explanation should be used when requesting deletion. I understand the frustration that both users feel (and this pervading environment makes everything worse), and everything could be resolved if we just communicated in a civil manner. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The question here has never been about Russian copyright, but about the aggressive behaviour and the immediate reopening of a DR done by a user that cannot content his anger (for what? for a file? this is ridiculous!). As said above, we are all volunteers here, this is why no one has to be insulted or abused. If a regular admin task - like closing DRs is - becomes burdensome, then no admin will be willing to perform it. The result will be that copyvios will accumulate, as well as DRs opened with no ground. And this would harm the Project as a whole. Thus, it is mandatory to protect admins (because they're in the first line usually), and any other user, from such angry attacks. Many users wrote that Commons' is becoming toxic: having ill-mannered users free to edit around is surely one of the causes. --Ruthven(msg)15:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Admins are protected by their high status and great power. With that power comes inevitable responsiblity. Let's flip the situation here. Right now, filing deletion requests on blatant copyright violations is already incredibly burdensome, something I take no pleasue in doing. Having to constantly deal with admins who do not understand the copyright laws in question further deters people like me from doing what needs to be done. Admins are not superior to regular users, and are flaiable, flawed, and often miskaten as much as the everyday user. Going on a power trip against a low-ranking user because they pointed out your lack of understanding of the issue at hand further demonstrates why people are leaving commons. Admins are growing in power, questioning their authority leads to this mess, expectations for them are low, and it is harder and harder for low-ranking users to become admins even if they are highly competent. Did I flip out to much? Sure. Was it wrong to reopen the deletion discussion ASAP? No. I posted about the issue on your talkpage, gave a detailed explaination about copyright and why early enough publication is needed (which was lacking in this case). There is no minimum waiting period for correcting a mistake like this. The sooner they are deleted, the better. It's not low-ranking users keeping admins in check that makes Commons toxic. Commons is toxic for the same reason other Wikiprojects are toxic - high-ranking users go on power trips against those who question them; toxic nationalism is concentrated in niches; a vast majority of users are non-minority males (and the few female and minority editors who exist are blocked or wiki-stalked into retirement) who create their own little echo chambers and play by their own rules. If I were feeling "by-the-books" I could start a whole entire user problems/de-adminship discussion for you calling me names (like "ill-mannered", a rather subjective phrase) and still failing to correct the copyright problem (or even acknowledge that the ruling was incorrect). But I'm not. All I want is for either pre-1946 publication info to be found for those files, or for them to be deleted. Not unreasonable. But you are asking for me to be blocked after pointing out you made a serious mistake about copyright. You do realize what that looks like? Other users will be intimidated into not informing admins like you about copyright law for fear of being blocked all in the name of not being "burdensome" to admins who are supposed to serve the community.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) That admins “are protected by their high status and great power” is a myth. Not long ago a very prolific admin lost his bit. Among the reasons for removing his bit were his handling of deletion requests. Of course, admins are not superior to regular users – they have just been entrusted by the community with an additional toolset. You are still expecting that the closure of the deletion request is revised by the admin who closed it? This window of just three minutes was closed very early by yourself. If you re-open a deletion request, you are asking for another admin to review a case. That this deletion request will now wait for another week is not Ruthven's fault. PlanespotterA320, I want you to remind you to one of the pillars of the Terms of Use: You support a civil environment and do not harass other users. The term “other users” includes indeed all users along those with an admin bit. It is quite simple, if you follow these terms you will be more than welcomed in your undertaking to look for invalid claims of PD-Russia. This work is much appreciated. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Please understand that most of your DRs have nothing to do with your alleged competence, with incompetence of admins, or with Russian copyright. You demand deletion of old images because of general lack of publication details, i.e., strict enforcement of COM:PCP, and you do it by brute force, ignoring everyone and everything. You've just filed this DR, right after it was declined twice, and is still being discussed here. Materialscientist (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
In light of the DR pointed out by Materialscientist this user should probably be blocked per en:WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, There are plenty of ways of dealing with a disputed DR and creating multiple DRs is not one of them. –Davey2010Talk17:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
My deletion nominations are exactly about the copyright status of the files. Yes, I do ignore people who think time a photo was created = time of legal publication, because they're not the same. I go by the official commons-wide policies, such as Precautionary principle, Evidence, and Commons:Licensing. Not the arbitrary opinions of users who vote keep based on desires to prevent deleting probable copyright violations because they "might" be public domain (although no required publication is found). The lack of enforcement of PCP and Evidence in certains niches of Commons is a problem and the reason for the deleion nominations, that's just commons policy. There will always be users who think Commons permits fair use, or that all old photos are PD by default, or that it's safe to assume a photo was published before a specific date without finding any such publication. Yes, I reopended the DRs, becuase they did not address the fundamental problem at hand - the lack of early enough publication information required by Commons. The first one was closed with the strangest comment (just saying "PD-Russia", even though the nomination was because there was no evidence they were) and the second one was closed despite the copyright issues at hand - rather because the closing admin did not like my tone. None of that changes the fact that there is no evidence as required by Commons that they meet the requirements to be public domain in Russia. As for "WP:IDONTHEARTHAT" - nobody is addressing the lack of known pre-1946 publication of the photos. The first deletion nomination was closed without sufficeient explanation. The second one was closed with a note basically saying that the copyright status of them was irrelevent because of my "tone". But somebody must address the fact they do not meet the requirements of PD-Russia (whatever certain admins may thing) by deleting them, finding early enough publication, or getting OTRS (which is unlikely since the Russian government rarely releases historic photos under CC licences). Just because an few admins close a deletion request (for whatever reason) doesn't magically change the fact that the earliest publication I could find for any of them was 1982. Remember, en:Wikipedia:Competence is required. --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
PlanespotterA320, there is no question that conditions like work was originally published anonymously or under a pseudonym before January 1, 1943 require a proof, i.e. a bibliographic reference to such a publication. Everything else is obviously in conflict with COM:PRP. We do not need to discuss this here. We could focus on this if there weren't civility issues which distract us from your interest in taking care of invalid PD-Russia claims. If you notice a large number of DRs ignoring this, open a civil discussion (i.e. without blame games) at COM:VPC and we will see what can be done to resolve this. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
In case it wasn't obvious, I really don't want to get more "love letters" from Russian users by posting there and starting a whirlwind of people upset that I'm "ruining" Russian Commons, deleting Russian history, etc. Dragging me here has already gotten me more than enough unwanted attention. Now - hopefully we all agree that claims like "work was originally published anonymously or under a pseudonym before January 1, 1943/1945" require substantiation, but many people oppose having such requirement (contrary to Wikipedia policy) and prefer the unofficial policy of turning a blind eye to photos tagged with unsubstantiated PD-Russia claims. I will continue to file my deletion nominations case by case, and I expect admins to know that PD claims require substantiation (and not select "keep" on files with unsupported PD claims). I would like to be more civil. But my perceived lack of civility (relatively speaking) does not change the copyright status of anything. I apologize for using harsh words at that admin, but I stand by my decision to nominate copyright violations for deletion and I will never apologize for filing a deletion nomination on a file that lacks sufficient publication information, no matter what any other users think about a particular case or if it has been previously kept, because publication info requirements are a Commons-wide policy, and nobody has the right to decide a few files get exceptions.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I have looked into this complaint and reached the conclusion that User:Rereader1996 made their request against User:Tm in bad faith (see the following section). I have blocked User:Rereader1996 for a month for harassment of User:Tm by repeatedly reverting the latter's user talk page, 18 times in four hours. I have also declined their request for unblock because they have not addressed the block reason. Parallel to this I have also blocked User:TheCommonsCorrecteur for continuing to edit war and unilaterally rename categories despite warnings. This is when I looked into the canvassing by User:Rereader1996 on the talk page of User:TheCommonsCorrecteur. After a thorough search of contributions I believe these two users and User:ImperialArchivesRU may be related, quite possibly the same person. I have requested a check user, which User:Tm has linked to at the foot of this section. There is nothing further to be done unless the check user shows anything. --Green Giant (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persists in move categories without source, keeps reverting sourced edits, and possible sockpupettry.
"Ordinul Coroana Romaniei are cinci grade: Cavaler, Ofiter, Comandor, Mare Ofiter si Mare Cruce.
Membrii Ordinului sunt numiti pe viata. Numarul lor este limitat astfel, pe grade:
Mare Cruce: 50 membri
Mare Ofiter: 160 membri
Comandor: 300 membri
Ofiter: 600 membri
Cavaler: 1,200 membri"
I reverted his edits as, per source, there is not such a thing as a "Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Crown (Romania)" or "Cavaler Mare Cruce", but there are "Mare Cruce" or "Grand Cross" and "Cavaler" or Knight. After i asked for sources his only answer was "Oh please, cut the crap! The order is a dynastic order of a knighthood, hence the prefixes of Knight/Dame. Your edits will be reverted" but zero sources.
This user started editing since 6 November 2019, but has the same pattern of edits in the same categories as user:TheCommonsCorrecteur (active between 9 March 2020 and 2 April 2020) and user:ImperialArchivesRU (active between 27 September 2019 and 20 October 2019). This users have several warnings about their moves without discussion and errors.
Comment My last comment in this thread, but for full disclosure, that after i warned Green Giant about the last edits of TheCommonsCorrecteur, that, after previous warnings, has blocked this user for "Edit warring after warnings" for 1 month and blocked Rereader1996 also for 1 month but for Intimidation/harassment and with the.
User:Tm has been harassed by User:Rereader1996. I have blocked the latter for a month, with the comment in [[Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Vandalism#Tm], that "User:Tm has been harassed by User:Rereader1996. I have blocked the latter for a month because I’m increasingly inclined to agree with User:Tm that this may be a case of sockpuppetry". Tm (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment He was blocked for Intimidation/harassment, so your statement that "Tm is very clearly in the wrong here" is, in fact, what is "very clearly in the wrong here". Tm (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Constantly vandalising factual categories by reverting and undoing by abusing their rights as mover as well as also repeatedly removes vandalism template from their page as seen here, unless of course they have something to hide which may be the reason for removing the template after my having undid that more than thrice and as it seems, I’m not the only user who has had issues with this individual in the past few days, their talk page as well as history of block logs should provide history of this troublemaker/vandal who refuses to use discussion pages but instead opts to mass vandalism and when questioned, delivers their approach in hostile manners; I understand that this user has also created a user problem about myself of which I have no issue with and am fully compliant as I would rather resolve this issue as soon as. Rereader1996 (talk) 15:38, 03 April 2020 (UTC)
The only problem that i had in the last few days was with one of your socks, as can be seen in the thread above, and your repeting the same exact words (instead of "factual and accurate ones" as said by TheCommonsCorrecteur, your now using "factual categories". And telling someone that edits for almost 14 years and has more than 3 million edits i´am do not "have something to hide", is repeting what as TheCommonsCorrecteur said of me having "obviously some sort of an agenda". Tm (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
As i show above the same pattern of edits, on the same subjects, the same obsessions, the same refusal to listen to other users, the same attempts to hide said edits, the use of the same pattern of language, the same vandalism on other user talkpages, editions on the same categories and files, the disapereance of one user and the appearence of other with the same edits, as you admit being from the same country, etc, etc, etc, you can see why you dont hide well your footprints.
Add the fact that you persist in making move without sources or even against sources that where shown to you, shows that your obsession in creating categories like "Knights Grand Crosses" (in your three accounts), is just that, like i´ve showed in previous interactions- Tm (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment We now recorre to vote canvassingusers that have previously asked for my banishment? How nice. Why then you dont give the all picture? Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism/Archive_13#Tm is clear when it says "My interim conclusion is that @Tm: was acting correctly in trying to minimise disruption to Commons. @TheCommonsCorrecteur: has not answered my question, nor those of other users. If there is further disruption of this nature, I shall not hesitate to act accordingly. -Green Giant (Discussão) 20:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)". I´ll repeat again "Tm: was acting correctly in trying to minimise disruption to Commons". Enough said as there will not be an lynching move as you want. Tm (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Not just one user, but you left an attempt of vote canvassing, after i warned him about this discussion. Just classy. Tm (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@Tm: In no way do I mean any disrespect or anything, but it’s got to the point of me saying what delusions are you even going through? Your malicious assumptions and accusations are becoming ridiculous to the point where they now do not deserve a response! And I quote from yourself “ the same obsessions, the same refusal to listen to other users, the same attempts to hide said edits, the use of the same pattern of language, the same vandalism on other user talkpages, editions on the same categories and files, the disapereance of one user and the appearence of other with the same edits, as you admit being from the same country, etc, etc, etc”; first of all I would love to know your assumption of ‘obsessions’ as well as refusal to listen to others, as all my prior discussions have ended in agreement and closed discussion and never reached this stage like now with the constant hostility and lies of yours...also I would like to know which talkpages I have vandalised? And by saying that, I in no sense mean by adding warning topics, I mean actual vandalism so please provide sources for this or take back your lies and to be honest, for all I and others know, you could be the alleged sockpuppeteer behind TheCommonsCorrecteur if they are indeed a sockpuppet and if not, no disrespect intended to them, but I will absolutely not adhere or tolerate your malicious lies, bullying and hostility as well as stalking my every edit and undoing them based on your assumptions or whatever personal deep rooted issues you have to harass users! Pathetic. Rereader1996 (talk) 18:23, 03 April 2020 (UTC)
What talkpages were vandalized?????? Mine before and after you wrote this last text. What you call "delusions" are well sourced, besides what i´ve said above, me and other user is the fact (see talkpage of TheCommonsCorrecteur), of how this three accounts seem to know the inside out of Commons since what is supossed to be their edit an delusion? What you call as "refusal to listen to others" is called asking for sources, sources that you always failed to provide ever. As to the allegation that i "could be the alleged sockpuppeteer behind TheCommonsCorrecteur", please open an Checkuser, if you have the courage, one for me, another for you. and please, quote me in that aspect. I´ve nothing to hide nor i use any sockpuppet. Now it is me to say that "the point where they now do not deserve a response" has arrived. Tm (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment My last comment in this thread, but for full disclosure, that after i warned Green Giant about the last edits of TheCommonsCorrecteur, that, after previous warnings, has blocked this user for "Edit warring after warnings" for 1 month and blocked Rereader1996 also for 1 month but for Intimidation/harassment, with the comment in [[Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Vandalism#Tm], that "User:Tm has been harassed by User:Rereader1996. I have blocked the latter for a month because I’m increasingly inclined to agree with User:Tm that this may be a case of sockpuppetry". Also if anyone thinks the same that Rereader1996, that i "could be the alleged sockpuppeteer behind TheCommonsCorrecteur", i would gladly support opening a checkuser against me. Tm (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment Why? For your information it was not me that was blocked and, for your information, i´am not the single user that suspects of sockpuppetry in this case. Tm (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Dr.Editorias
User:Dr.Editorias's only contributions have been to upload copyrighted images. They have not responded to any warnings that I can see. Their last warning given in February stated "Consider this your last warning. Continuing to upload copyright violations will result in your account being blocked." They have now continued to upload clearly non-free images and claim them as their own work. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Please check the discussion on this nomination. I have several files that were nominated to be deleted due to personal opinion. I made several arguments that merit the dismissal of the nomination and retention of the files.
I have one administrator who sided with my presentation. Please check and dismiss the nomination for deletion if warranted.
Done. I hoped, that a checkuser pops up and investigates, but no. I blocked the user myself purely by behavior due to block evasion. I encourage checkusers to review my block. Taivo (talk) 09:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely. I had first blocked them for a week, but then I saw that they had removed this thread from the AN board. This was the straw that broke the Camel's back. It should also be noted that Alexismata had contacted me on my talk page before, where I pointed them at an existing Commons category for their work, so they would not need to upload non-free images. [27]De728631 (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Continues to re-upload personal photos, despite pages of warnings. No constructive contributions on any other wikis. All uploads meet speedy F10 criteria.--BevinKacon (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Done. Now the account is globally locked as spam-only account. I deleted the last remaining upload (selfies of globally locked users are out of scope). Taivo (talk) 08:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Long-term disruptive deletion requests have been made with insufficient understanding on the Hong Kong copyright laws. ΣανμοσαThe Trve Lawe of free Monarchies09:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, While some deletion requests are debatable, I see no reason to report this user here. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Have a look here at user:Geraki's contributions. Geraki has used an unauthorized bot account. It has been proven in Greek Wikipedia that Geraki had used an unauthorized bot with user:Geraki account for welcoming new users when he was caught welcoming vandals too (links can be provided upon request). In this case the bot also made a "mistake" that was corrected by hand afterwards.--ManosHacker (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Are VFC mass edits, which are visible in watchlists, under the 5 seconds per edit general restriction for non-urgent tasks, applied for bots? In Wikipedia "Bot policy covers the operation of all bots and automated scripts". I count 79 edits in one minute (22:18, 6 April 2020). If this practice is commonly accepted in Wikimedia Commons, I withdraw.--ManosHacker (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
VFC is okay, as long as you are responsible when using it. I nominated like 700 files for deletion in VFC sometime using my main account. pandakekok901:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I suppose then it should be ok to add to the policy that it is ok to use scripts for up to 500 edits without the 5 second per edit restriction. Thank you.--ManosHacker (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure if I should be flattered or annoyed by ManosHacker once more stalking my edits, but there is no unauthorized bot here, only edits with acceptable tools. -GerakiTLG07:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
This user keeps reverting edits to this file and will not use the Rojava article's talk page which uses the map to discuss the issue of the 50/50 paint he has added to the file as I urged him to do in the edit summary, and not to throw around unfounded vandalism claims. I have left three warnings on his talk pageAntonSamuel (talk) 09:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
User vandalized the referenced map to an unreferenced version, THEN called a discussion - simultaneously edit warring to the version he instated. Bill497 (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I would point out that I haven't broken the three-revert rule and have given three warnings before reporting the issue as is standard, while you have made 4 consecutive reverts to the file. You also keep using the word "vandalism" to describe my edits. Please learn how vandalism is defined here before throwing around the term in bad faith. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Again, user added unreferenced version, and discussions are made TO make a change, not to DEFEND the change you've already made. So AntonSamuel is attempting to game the system and have me blocked so that he can publish his unreferenced file. For that reason alone he deserves a block. Bill497 (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm following the rules to the best of my ability and knowledge. This file was not created by you originally, and the "unreferenced" changes you're referring were to restore the map to a state before the 50/50 paint was added by you, there have been no controversial changes made otherwise. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
50/50 change added by me is referenced. While the change you are adding is not. You have violated 3RR yourself as well. Meanwhile you did not attempt to discuss before making the unreferenced change, rather made it then battle grounded by accusing me several times of being disruptive then opened this notice. Its possible you will be warned here and perhaps blocked. Bill497 (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The first user (WeHKer) has attempted to upload twice the same image based on this one found on instagram. The second (Ejjhk) didn't even bother to crop the image before uploading. Furthermore, the second user uses a username which is based on the name of a Hong Kong based jewelry company/store, images of which (including a copy of the logo and a photo of a store front) the first has uploaded (i.e. possible violation of the Username policy).
It is a bit suspicious that immediately after the image was uploaded on Commons by the second user, the first user added the image to the article on Chinese Wikipeda zh:Special:Diff/58996352/prev (literally 2 mins apart from uploading to adding).
Done OTRS confirms that these accounts are linked. Blocking latter account due to using multiple accounts and the username concern, and directing user to only use WeHKer. Thanks for reporting this, Nat. ~riley(talk)07:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Done Blocked based on crosswiki CU data and suspected sock blocked per behavioural evidence (It looks like a duck to me). Great work, as always, Minorax~riley(talk)07:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
User:QueerEcofeminist has recently made renames to a few books which had English language titles to either a mixture of English and Marathi or to Marathi Language. An example can be found on File:गणितातल्या_गमतीजमती.pdf where the title was completely changed from English to Marathi Language. This has made a huge issue on the 96 paged where this book was used on Marathi Wikisource and these moves have made many pages on that wiki disrupted. Some renames has been even requested by user:सुबोध कुलकर्णी who is a CIS programme officer and being accepted by QueerEcofeminist who seems to be close to this user. In the rename of File:Gangajal cropped.pdf the user gives reason Number 2 (meaningless or ambiguous name) with a move comment The book is in Marathi language, hence the file name should be in Devanagari script as well as in Roman for better searchability. Was this should be ever discussed or it's just own decisions taken? Does these actions goes against COM:RENAME and if so kindly take necessary actions to stop and ask the user to reverse this mass vandalism caused on Marathi Wikisource due to these renames and abuse of Filemover user rights on Wikimedia commons. Regards --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ17:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I renamed all those files in the spirit of making them "Devanagari script as well as in Roman for better searchability" We have been facing the same issue for long now and many files. Today only I renamed few more files.
For me renaming the pdf file shouldn't have disrupted the further flow of wikisource, which had done so. I am aware now that, it was my mistake, I hope it can be undone? or repaired. Sorry for the inconvenience caused.
Many of those files were in need of renaming as per our community discussions locally at multiple real life events and online discussions.
Ahmad252, I won't be able to provide any diffs or links as those discussions happened in real life events in Pune or otherwise, that I have said earlier. I request you or any admin to revert these renames which were proposed by the above mentioned user, so that it won't disrupt the Wikisource flow, We would rename it(according to renaming policies!) sometime later when we have a local admin or capacities to deal with local moves. I am extremely sorry for the inconvenience caused to admins here. I will take care of these things from next time onwards. This gave me two learnings, have all the discussions onwiki and wikisource files should not be renamed directly. thanks QueerEcofeminist"cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 06:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Still, an explanation why those renames are compliant with out rename policy is lacking. And I don't care about back chamber consensuses. That's not how we work here. You can either properly motivate why the changes are compliant with policy, find an consensus at Wikimedia Commons or stop the renaming. Natuur12 (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Natuur12, I have said it already, that we tried to make filenames more harmonised/searchable/ as there are no phonetic standards available/established to write Marathi names in roman script, additionally not all renaming was not under this reason, some files had completely different names than actual name of the book.
Like, E-Book 100 Common Birds in Maharashtra Marathi (2).pdf was renamed as महाराष्ट्रातील १०० सामान्य पक्षी (Maharashtratil 100 Samanya Pakshi) which is actual name of the book, Yoga Vasishtha Part 01.djvu was renamed as बृहद्योगवासिष्ठसार भाग १ ला (Bruhdyogavasishthsar Part 1).djvu which is actual name of the book, Kubhram Nirnay-Vishwanath Bapu Dhopeshwarkar.pdf was renamed as कुभ्रम निर्णय (Kubhram Nirnay). All of which were actual names of the books, (Reason 2)
And File:Arth shastrachi multatve cropped.pdf, Gangajal cropped.pdf and File:Sanskruti1 cropped.pdf were renamed to अर्थशास्त्राचीं मुलतत्वें (Arthashastrachi Mulatatwe).pdf, गंगाजल (Gangajal).pdf and संस्कृती (Sanskruti).pdf respectively. Which is very much under reason three obvious errors/reason two actual description of the file.
And Ganitachya sopya wata.pdf was renamed to गणिताच्या सोप्या वाटा (Ganitachya Sopya Wata) as per uploaders their own request/reason first.
With all of it, All other files fall under harmonize the names of a set of books under one style so that one can search the original file on commons, we needed both the scripts in the names so that it becomes searchable easily. So they were renamed in the format of Devnagari name (Roman phonetic transcription). (reason 4).
I still believe that these moves are against Wikimedia commons renaming policies as we cannot feature one language over other. Commons is a multilingual project with more than 300 languages. There are many texts in other languages too but they were never renamed such. Also about the discussions that have be taken off wiki were they ever consulted on Wikimedia commons or even in the Marathi Wikisource or Wikipedia community? I believe that a concensus was necessary even before renaming these files which failed. Also I don't understand the rationale behind the renaming them to Marathi titles, dosent description or captions/structured data work well with the search engines crawlers? --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ18:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
This is a resumption of Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_83#Wikipedia_sock_turning_to_Commons from February this year. Sockmaster User:Hopeful2014 was banned from Wikipedia for disruptive editing, in part for socking over an extended period to rewrite East London articles to match their own personal opinions which area a particular street or building was in, refusing discussion and creating new accounts to restore edits. As in February they're trying to apply similar alterations indirectly by renaming Commons photos and changing their descriptions and categories instead.
Laytar is renaming and recategorising pubs out of Mile End and into "Globe Town", a category that was edited by the Commons user User:Globetowner1 in February before they were blocked as part of the administrator noticeboard case above.
The Laytar1 account was blocked on Wikipedia in 2018 (before anyone had linked it to User:Hopeful2014). Hopeful2014 is fully banned from editing Wikipedia. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
2 days after their block expired, they don't seem to get why they have been blocked from the File: namespace and removed deletion templates again. See this and this. pandakekok902:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Please remove the following image that I uploaded a while ago. It is now searchable if someone types in my username on google and is a privacy issue. If possible, please remove the image, the page, or any reference to my username if you can. I'm sure you understand.
This user keeps reverting edits to this file and will not use the Rojava article's talk page which uses the map to discuss the issue of the 50/50 paint he has added to the file as I urged him to do in the edit summary, and not to throw around unfounded vandalism claims. I have left three warnings on his talk pageAntonSamuel (talk) 09:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
User vandalized the referenced map to an unreferenced version, THEN called a discussion - simultaneously edit warring to the version he instated. Bill497 (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I would point out that I haven't broken the three-revert rule and have given three warnings before reporting the issue as is standard, while you have made 4 consecutive reverts to the file. You also keep using the word "vandalism" to describe my edits. Please learn how vandalism is defined here before throwing around the term in bad faith. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Again, user added unreferenced version, and discussions are made TO make a change, not to DEFEND the change you've already made. So AntonSamuel is attempting to game the system and have me blocked so that he can publish his unreferenced file. For that reason alone he deserves a block. Bill497 (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm following the rules to the best of my ability and knowledge. This file was not created by you originally, and the "unreferenced" changes you're referring were to restore the map to a state before the 50/50 paint was added by you, there have been no controversial changes made otherwise. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
50/50 change added by me is referenced. While the change you are adding is not. You have violated 3RR yourself as well. Meanwhile you did not attempt to discuss before making the unreferenced change, rather made it then battle grounded by accusing me several times of being disruptive then opened this notice. Its possible you will be warned here and perhaps blocked. Bill497 (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Restoring topic as it wasn't dealt with and was archived automatically. It might also be relevant for the discussion to state that the user has been blocked indefinitely on Wikipedia after a string of disruptive edits and being a suspected sockpuppet. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
TexWiller131 has also been blocked for 2 weeks. This may be extended to indef if other such uploads occur in the future. De728631 (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Most of their uploads were deleted due missing permission or copyvio. They reuploaded few again, I've tagged them again. Please check their other uploads. Best regards, Bencemac (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Otgo sock puppets
Just putting this here for community review per suggestion by @Ankry: . Following a ping at en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otgo I blocked a number of confirmed sockpuppets that were active on Commons. Per that discussion and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Otgo, it looks like this farm has been uploading a range of images with contradictory or misleading information/attribution. The master is not currently blocked. If anyone feels that any of this was improper, feel free to reverse the blocks without needing to consult me. GMGtalk12:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Since the file seems obviously simple enough not to be copyrightable, and DRs can be closed by non-admins provided that it's an uncontroversial close (which I think it is), I've gone ahead and fixed the source, PD tag, and closed the DR as kept. We should use COM:AN/U as a last resort. This could have been resolved without escalating it. pandakekok902:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Not done. As Pandakekok said, the logo is too simple for copyright protection and sometimes non-admins can close deletion requests. But Baokhang does not understand yet copyright well and I say: Baokhang, please do not close deletion requests in the future, until you become administrator yourself, especially for your own uploads. I encourage you to participate in deletion request discussions to learn copyright. Taivo (talk) 08:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@Taivo: Even if non-admins apparently can close DRs, it's not appropriate to do it on files the user uploaded themselves, right? Which was the case here.Jonteemil (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
You are correct. Baokhang did not act appropriately and this thread can be taken as official warning to Baokhang. Taivo (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
How? This wasn't my first resort. I did warn them first, whereupon they did the same thing again. What should be the next step?Jonteemil (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@Pandakekok9: Please enlighten me. I will probably bump into, according to me, problematic users again, and when I have warned them, whereupon they do the same thing as what I previously warned them about, what should I do? I can't block them. Only admins can. This place seems to be the most rational place to go if you ask me.Jonteemil (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Jonteemil: Sorry for the very late reply. Seems like Echo failed to notify me on the first ping, or maybe I marked all notifs as read without reading all of them. As said earlier, you could have closed the DR as kept, and the user wouldn't try to close the DR themselves again. But you didn't know that closing DRs as a non-admin is acceptable, as long as it's uncontroversial. Not having to resort to AN/U is possible, that is my point. Don't worry though, I'm not blaming you for not knowing. :) pandakekok901:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
@Pandakekok9: I see. Say if it instead would have been about something else. For example constant violations of COM:OVERWRITE despite warnings on the user page. Should you then report the user here? I didn't seem to get your ping either btw, perhaps this page is weird.Jonteemil (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
They are all stale in regard to CU but were apparently well-known to Pólux who blocked Berlinvito on 26 September 2019 in es:wp. This user focuses on scenic pictures of Honduras and uses IP addresses to insert his previously uploaded copyvios in Wikipedia articles (examples: [31], [32]). Perhaps it is best to indef the entire zoo and to be aware of possible future socks. Thoughts? --AFBorchert (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I've now blocked & tagged the additional set of socks. All uploads are either already deleted or nominated for deletion. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Capricious change of a file.
User:Urbanuntil has been imposing a version of his on the File:Flag of Honduras (Pantone).svg for no good reason. Apparently he finds the flag to dark for his taste. When asked for further explanation he just told me (in Spanish) to "stop whining, move over and be careful". That file is precicely the result of an attemp to have a real representation of the flag of my country in Wikipedia. Been backed up for sources, my version of the file has gained space across all Wikipedias, and now Urbanuntil is trying to change that out of nowhere. -Kes47[REPORT AN ERROR]21:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Darker version isn't a good choice, Pantone is more near to Honduran flag and flags in these Honduran Government events links. Thanks. --Urbanuntil (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Nat, I didn't know that guideline. Discussions about the color of that flag come from long time ago. With no real consensus achieved then, I had to upload a new file that many other Wikipedians found acurate and started using.
I'm admin in uk.wikipedia.org and yesterday took admin action to restrict disruptive editing by this user. As a vendetta this user nominated 3 uploads of mine on Commons. Please, take action on this user. Thanks in advance.--Brunei (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
(ec) Well, I think it's quite a legitimate issue. Iruka13 is known for consequent nomination for deletion of uploads by users they recently had dispute/conflict with. For this kind of disruption, they already had been blocked 2 weeks on Commons. And this particular RfD on a photo by Brunei is not even sufficiently substantiated. Given that, suggest a new block for harassment, at least 1 month. --A.Savin14:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I honestly cannot assume good faith here, as there is no good reason to upload a file from another wiki to nominate it for deletion right after. This is clearly a form of harassment against Ukrainian Wikipedia users.
Iruka13 is also actively tagging Ukrainian files being unreasonably picky and unreasonably unwilling to check before tagging:
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Володимирська гірка 0.jpg. A picture of a monument built in 1853, well described on Commons and well categorised by authors (the latest of them died in 1881). If a user knows what freedom of panorama is I would expect them to know {{PD-RusEmpire}} as well, but they must definitely know that a picture of a work made in 1853 and whose authors died by 1881 cannot be a FOP violation at all.
Thus I think the user is not here to improve Commons and instead is here for some harassment, and thus should be banned. Thanks — NickK (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
That's really odd. It seems they wanted to have the pictures locally deleted on Ukrainian Wiki, didn't succeed, and now are giving it a new try by exporting on Commons and subsequently nominating for deletion here.
The user seems interested in cross-wiki conflicts, neither in contributing content nor in maintenance (en:WP:NOTHERE). I think, as the real final warning, they are to be blocked 3 months now, reserving the option of an indef block should this behaviour continue after that. --A.Savin14:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I admit that two and a half (maybe three or four (out of how many dozens?)) files handed down for removal by mistake. The remaining claims against me are unfounded until a verdict is issued upon my requests. If I nominated several user files for deletion, it means that he demonstrated ignorance of some features of licensing, but not my negative attitude/harassment towards him. — Ирука1316:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
If you do it a day before or a month after administrative action on other Wiki I would believe you. Unfortunately, it is obviously not the case. And I was harassed here before the same way by another user earlier so my uploads are in rather good license conditions.--Brunei (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Yours - maybe. But you gave the "go-ahead" to transfer non-free files to Wikimedia Commons. At least twice. — Ирука1318:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
@Iruka13: Can you explain why you transfer files to Commons and nominate them for deletion minutes after transfer? — NickK (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC) No answer needed anymore — NickK (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Files? From Commons? The second time in a day I warn you about the inadmissibility of slanderous statements. — Ирука1319:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Done indef, because this is just getting worse and worse. This user clearly isn't here to contribute freely licensed content but yet this user deliberately uploads files of which he believes that violate Commons policy, over something that is going on at UK-wiki. This is utterly disgusting behavior and and a blatant abuse of the system. But also, the DR's against Brunei are in bad taste and done in bad faith. I agree with the analyse that NickK provides us with, this user merely uses Commons as a battleground. And Commons doesn't facility such behavior. Natuur12 (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
@Brunei and NickK: Well, but FileExporter does not allow to export non-free images. So this is not Commons problem, it is ukwiki problem as it has such waste as so called 'free-licensed' images which are really not free. And every user can move it to Commons and then it may be deleted in both wikis. This user selected such way to clear ukwiki from such waste. As ukwiki sysops' you should thank him instead of ask blocking.--Anatoliy (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ahonc: It is a problem that the user uploaded files to Commons with the only goal of getting them deleted from Commons, and knowingly harassed users here with a clear pattern of following users whom they had conflicts with elsewhere. A correct way of addressing licensing problems at Ukrainian Wikipedia was discussing them locally. Looks like Iruka13 failed to do it properly and harassed users instead. I cannot thank anyone for harassment, and I don't think a Commons administrator like you should — NickK (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
In case Iruka13 is a re-incarnation of the globally locked User:Sergkarman (I don't want to claim anything like that, but some of the behavioural issues realy would pass the DUCK test; especially both accounts' well-known preference for revenge RfD's), Iruka13 is to be locked as well. --A.Savin16:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Regardless if the files should or shouldn't be deleted at uk.Wikipedia, that's no excuse for their behavior and hardly any mitigating circumstance. Natuur12 (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Info I have removed his rollbacker flag, as this time it clearly was abused. Regarding his other recent edits, such as this one, may an other admin decide, I'm really fed-up. --A.Savin 14:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment It is a little depressing to observe that those who resist arbitrary and unnecessary file name renaming are punished, while the initiator of these unnecessary renaming is not even made aware of the existing rules. This is disgusting and makes the victim the perpetrator. --Smial (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done Both files you referred to, have sufficiently meaningful names. --A.Savin 14:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Done 1 week. Thank you. --Mhhossein talk 05:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 
Oppose any action against User:TheCommonsCorrecteur. User:Tm is clearly in the wrong, not Correcteur. AshFriday (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep votes. Common sense is above these poorly-written policy pages. It is obvious to any rational mind that Zhuyifei1999 acted out of goodness and that is something that resonates with people. Ouote me on that. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Support Zhuyifei1999 stop helping commons anymore. A more appropriate title would be "Kill useful bots and tools on commons" instead of "Abuse of sysop privileges/desysop discussion - Zhuyifei1999". I don't care about hat's ; I have the courage to speak free, but I can assure you there are many others who think that what's happening with you is unacceptable. // Eatcha (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Pandakekok9
Pandakekok9
Colin
Alexis Jazz
4nn1l2
Half done MywifiextsSeo indef blocked and uploads deleted. JGHowes talk 22:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
It looks like a duck to me Xayahrainie43's sockpuppet. They upload similar image. --SCP-2000 14:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=404319425){kind=link}
_%D0%B2_2019_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%83.jpg&diff=403375940){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:13-05-22-wien-61.jpg&diff=404767413&oldid=350311219){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:2013KleineBrogel-5675.jpg&curid=76625075&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=405590027&oldid=395250478){kind=link}
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ANayyere_Ebtehaj_Samiei_1354.jpeg&type=revision&diff=407194605&oldid=407192338){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[28]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:F2112050364.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=411909518){kind=link}
![[29]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:F2111779277.jpg&diff=411909696&oldid=411879327){kind=link}
![[30]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:F2111523829.jpg&diff=411910036&oldid=411879355){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
