Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 33

Transferring a rename request from a user for admin support

I've declined the renaming of File:John_Cena_Five_Knuckle_Shuffle.jpg with our own policy quote "Rename declined: If a filename in a local project conflicts with a filename at Commons, the file in the local project should be renamed. Renaming it at Commons would mean changing it in 500+ projects instead of just one." in response to User:Starship.paint's request "Requesting renaming this file to File:John Cena Five Knuckle Shuffle 1.jpg; Reason: EN:Wiki has another file with the original name". He's posted a message on my talk page for help.

I understand w:File:John_Cena_Five_Knuckle_Shuffle.jpg is a candidate to be copied to Wikimedia Commons. If it meets the criteria, plz move it with a new file name or rename the Commons files, whichever.

I'm basically residing on Commons most of the time, hence I request an admin having access to both Wikis to help User:Starship.paint. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC).

I've moved both the original and this cropped version to Commons. The original is at File:John Cena Five Knuckle Shuffle 1.jpg; the crop is at File:John Cena Five Knuckle Shuffle 2.jpg. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

That's great, Philosopher. If only I could do the movement myself, I would've had the pleasure of being helpful to a fellow Wikimedian in this situation. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC).

Actually you should have been able to. If you take a look at en:Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons (which was on those files), you should see a link to use CommonsHelper to transfer the files. You'd have to add {{subst:ncd}} to the en.wikipedia pages afterwards instead of deleting them, though. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

 Thank you. for the valuable piece of info. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC).

User:Gyabogazer

Only not-currently-deleted "contribution" is to upload racist image File:Delicia cara.jpg/File:Vector Jew Flag.png and add it to the "Israel" article in multiple Wikipedias... AnonMoos (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

 Blocked indef. All files deleted. Only copyvios, out of scope, attack images. Yann (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Donaldduck100 once again back as User:Piggy58

Some of the edits by this user indicate that this multiple accounts abuser Donaldduck100 is once again back as Piggy58. Cf: rename request of File:Mahabharata06ramauoft 1155.jpg uploaded by Donaldduck100.

Also, once again some of the edits of this user are strange as the case of File:Poojah Puja of Hunooman Hanuman ..jpg file- there's no need for Poojah Puja when even one Puja conveys the meaning and similarly "Hunooman Hanuman" when "Hanuman" says it all. Similar, in the description of the file, other than the title there's no mention "Hanuman" - quite illogical. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC).

One can find his last part statement here. Has the self-stated assertion been overlooked? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC).

User:Fry1989 on references

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This dispute is closed on the lines of a similar discussion

---

The point is here, he makes many of file postprocessing after his own personal idea against 100% sure references. Sorry but I'm really annoying on him, I can't discuss with him anymore (my English is also not the best). Moreover this user make thousands of useless file edits to existing images (for example pixel cropbot edits with resulting thumb disfigurement, color changing and this he can't handle simple SVG really after several years of vector-editing activity here:[1] He is saying not to blow up file size on SVG editing, but he does it all the time...). Such reactions are only understandable. Here are only my personal conflicts with reverts. He has repeatedly shown that he overwrites/reverts original pixel images with user-made SVG rendering versions (clear against Commons rules).my case and ignore governments sources: File:Coat of arms of Brazil.svg, File:P05 CZ.svg... His arguments are only "nothing" or "nonsense" or "absolute nonsense" (as we can see for example on the linked files). When I coincide on him, it's always a unserious conflict (I don't know any other). Please someone taken a third decision, at least on the three linked files. -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 14:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to say so, but i have to back Perhelions' sight 100%ly. Usertr:Fry is violating common use of credits and license permanently. --maxxl2   - talk 14:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhelion, some edits may not change the image appearance, but they appear to change the file size and loading time. Optimising files so they load and display faster is common on commons. Some people don't know everything, he asks at the lab, you can ask at the lab also, this is ok.

Maxxl2, after the last heated discussion the changes were made. If you have trouble to interact with Fry1989, maybe you can leave him to someone else ? Does he follow your work, or do you follow his work ? Perhaps whichever one of you is following can find something else to do, with more agreeable friends. Penyulap ☏ 16:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhelion and Maxx12, the both of you need to get over yourselves. Perhelion is just bitter and filing this because I reverted him on File:Coat of arms of Brazil.svg because his change makes the file absolutely hideous, and the fact is that the official source in question does not mention those hideous strokes at all. They were not part of the original file and they have not been since, nor do they have any place being part of it. I have a right to edit files here, and I'm not the only one who does it, other users do it all day long! As for Maxx12, I made it clear to you that I am tired of your lies about me, expect a AN/U about you momentarily. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Fry, how many times do you have to be reminded to not make uncivil comments? This is your final warning, you will be blocked next time you comment on editors and not their contributions. Bidgee (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh! I'm the one who is uncivil, not Maxx12 who has repeatedly attacked and lied about my actions and intentions as shown in the below AN/U I have listed for him, and Perhelion who at minimum isn't telling the full truth about what really happened on File:Coat of Brasil.png, but instead is trying to mislead you all into thinking I'm the one who over-wrote it. I'm sorry I'm so mistaken. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Fry, you don't seem to realise how close you're to a block. "Perhelion and Maxx12, the both of you need to get over yourselves" and "Perhelion is just bitter and filing this because I reverted him" are totally uncalled for and uncivil. I'm starting to think that an interaction ban, between yourself and Maxxl2, maybe needed if it keeps up. Bidgee (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that telling someone to "get over themselves" is a lot more "civil" than lying about them and making false accusations on their character. However, I will retract it as a measure of good faith. As for an interaction ban between me and Maxx12, I have no objection if all he's going to do here is accuse me of false intentions and attempted thievery. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Now let me elaborate more on Perhelion's ridiculous statements here.

He first says I make thousands of "useless edits" Not true, every edit I do has a reason, from colour correction, to shape correction, to any other number of reasons. Look at my most recent uploads for example, all those red and blue ensigns of the UK. Why did I edit them? Because they didn't have their colours standardized, so I made them all use the same red and blue as File:Civil Ensign of the United Kingdom.svg and File:Government Ensign of the United Kingdom.svg which is what they are all based off of. What is wrong and so "useless" about that??? I'm not obligated to tell him every single reason why I'm going to edit something.

Then he links one of my requests in the graphic lab claiming I said I can't handle basic SVGs. Not true, I use inkscape, the file in question was created in Adobe, and the two programs don't play nice together, so I needed a little help. I never said I "can't handle basic SVGs", and my work here in 3 years has proven the reverse.

Then he says I blow up file size all the time while telling others not to. NOT true, I have never to9ld another user their edit blows up the file size too much to validate whatever change they made, what I have done is said that about myself at times when I have made a change and then reverted myself. And there's so many examples where I haven't blown up the file size at all, so his claim is facetious. Did I blow up this file's size? Nope, doesn't look like I did. What about this one? Nope! Or what about this one? WOW, I "blew it up" by an amazing one KB!

Now let's talk about how he says I over-write original pixel images with user-made SVG rendering versions. To source that, he links File:Coat of Brasil.png. What he doesn't tell you is that User:Tonyjeff is the one who overwrote the file with a copy of the SVG, he did so on November 7th 2010. Perhelion didn't revert to the original state of the file, he reverted back to Tonyjeff's over-write, and I don't see him complaining about Tonyjeff's actions! Hypocrisy at it's finest. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

IB

Propose 12 months interaction ban in File namespace between maxxl2 and Fry1989, the first on to work on a file may continue to work on it.

Penyulap ☏ 06:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Really all I want is an apology for his scurilous lies and accusations about me. But if I can't get that, I'll take this. I would say though that 12 months is a long period, the user and I just "met" a few days ago, 6 months would feel more natural. Fry1989 ^eh? 08:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Lazy admins ignoring this isn't going to make it go away, it will only delay the problem. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

---

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

User:Ego.zapatatorres, copyvios

Hi, I'm afraid this user has recently uploaded tons of copyright violations to ilustrate the Wikipedia in Spanish. I left him a final warning in Spanish, and I would be very gratefull if someone can delete all his copyvios (mostly anime images). Thanks--Ileana n (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Эlcobbola _talk 22:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

126.118.79.162

Reporting here, because cleanup might be slightly non-trivial as I'm not sure how policy (specifically the enwiki concepts of speedy keep and non admin closures) works yet on some areas of DR, but an IP nominated {{Delete/ja}} for deletion, which was completely screwing up today's Deletion request log. I removed the line from the log, but have left everything else alone. Storkk (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

In this case, I would just revert. Yann (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Čtenář (talk · contribs)

Hello,

Čtenář created several malformed deletion requests. It seems he didn't understand my message. Probably a language issue. Could anyone help? Yann (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Ssire edit warring on File:Coat of arms of Abkhazia.svg

Ssire will not stop uploading a new version of the file with heavy outlines. He uses this page as a source. However, an official Abkhazian Government source was provided by User:Пакко back in May 20, 2010, in which these outlines did not exist. That source link is [5], and while that link is now dead, it was seen by myself and others including Ssire because he edited the file during the time the link was still accessible, and it remains valid and overriding of FOTW which is an amateur website. Please revert the file and block Ssire for edit warring. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

La source est non seulement inaccessible, mais de plus serait une source primaire, donc susceptible de droits d'auteurs. Celle que je mets est une copie qui comporte son propre caractère "Wikipedien" et dont le caractère héraldique est plus conforme. Je pense que c'est plutôt Fry1989 qui devrait être bloqué. --Ssire (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact the source is no longer accessible does not change the fact it existed and you were well aware of it. You are edit warring against it despite repeated warnings, and need a block. Your claim that you're adding "character" to the image and changing it from a copyrighted one to a non-copyrighted one is irrelevant, because you didn't re-draw anything, all you did was take the file and add strokes to everything. Aside from that, the Government of Abkhazia doesn't recognize it's symbols as copyrightable. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

He has a semi-point, in that an image which is closely derivative of an image on an outside copyrighted website has a problematic copyright status for Commons (as opposed to constructing an image from scratch based on the textual blazon, which is always copyright-safe). However, I don't see that omitting or including such edge outlines would make much difference (and Wikipedia "no primary source" rules don't really apply to Commons)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Not when the image is from it's respective authority, which deems their symbols ineligible for copyright. And as I said, Ssire did nothing to change the copyright, he didn't redraw anything at all he just took the image and added some stroke outlines. So if it was copyrighted, even with his change it would still have to go, the point is completely moot. I on the other hand am working on a re-draw to correct some symmetry problems with the image as is. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Fry, you edit warred as well and both of you should be blocked but being hours old, there is no point. Regardless if your image is correct or not, when someone has reverted your overwrite of the file, upload it under a new title, add the disputed template and discuss it on the talk page. I'm watching the file and if there is any more edit warring, the file could be protected or both of you will be blocked. Bidgee (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I was maintaining the file according to an official government source, I reiterated the source 3 times and then brought it here and haven't edited it since. Call it what you want, I'm not the one trying to force something against a government source and then bullshit my way through here with excuses saying I'm "giving it character" and solving a non-existent copyright problem. You say that when one over-writes a file and it is reverted, that person should go to the talk page. Tell me Bidgee, which one here is over-writing? Which one changed it from how it has been for nearly 3 years??? Not me! Ssire did, four times he did it instead of going to the talk page as he is supposed to, and you want to try and equally divide the blame as if I'm doing something wrong? Ridiculous, you don't care about facts or else you wouldn't say to us equally that if we over-write and are reverted, we should go to the talk page, you would direct it to Ssire who is the only one here doing any over-writing. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I hate to break it to yall but the drawings that yall fight over are both incorrect. While yes the original image didn't show any outlines of any kind, the Parliament of Abkhazia and her passports show there is a black outline on all aspects of the symbols on the arms. Plus, if you look at each of the stars, there is a lot of details we have missed and I will work on a way to get these fixed asap. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 00:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Both sources we didn't have until just now, they don't retroactively change the fact that the file was based off of *http://www.abkhaziagov.org/ru/state/sovereignty/gerb_b.jpg* and remained that way for nearly 3 years until Ssire tried to impose stroke outlines, supposedly according to FOTW, but based on his first edit summary "or/ag : traits nécessaires" more likely out of some sense of obsession that several heraldic trolls I've encountered here have. They think that just because they have versed themselves in the ancient rules of heraldry, they have the right to impose those rules to modern symbols whether or not they're really applicable. That happened with the Kenyan SVG coat of arms, where Xavigivax insisted on grey to represent silver/argent, even though the Kenyan Government explicitly said "white" instead of the heraldic term "argent", and there's several others here who do the same thing. They all think the ancient rules of heraldry are absolute and when government sources don't follow them, they are "disobedient" and "unreliable". Fry1989 ^eh? 00:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, but the issue is that every week or so, I need to mediate some dispute about emblems of some kind of which you are a party of. I done my fair share of that, but if I can give some advice, not everything has to fought or argued over. However, one thing I must say is that we have constantly told Fry1989 that he must not overwrite files with brand new images, yet when he does what he has been told and have the new person upload their files at other places, he gets accused of edit warring and breaking other rules. This double standard, indeed, does need to be stopped. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 01:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!! Finally an admin to point of the hypocrisy I've been subjected to. And yes it is true that I call upon your help extremely often, and you do assist me for which I am extremely thankful, but I would also say that "every other week or so" is a bit of an exaggeration, most of my requests for assistance are minor problems that don't include edit wars and things like this. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I know, but I am trying to make a point that you end up here a lot and it just needs to stop. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 01:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If it matters at all, I don't end up here because of intention. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Pour moi, c'est tout bon maintenant. --Ssire (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Ivanimedio

Ivanimedio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) came back with more copyvios after block. — mantis [religiosa] — 14:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 1 week--Morning ☼ (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Foh1998 repeatedly recreating deleted logos

Foh1998 (talk · contribs) seems to be recreating deleted copyrighted logos on Commons. An admin should look into this. Mono 02:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Since blocked by Beria (talk · contribs), I will alert if this continues after the block expires. Mono 00:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Andreapaiva22 (talk · contribs) uploading copyvios

Andreapaiva22 (talk · contribs) is continually uploading copyvios. Please block. Mono 02:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Three days. Come back if they don't get the hint. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

PANONIAN

Another case of an enWiki dispute spilling-over to Commons. User:PANONIAN, who's been topic banned for POV-pushing on this subject (and blocked for avoiding his ban [6]), is now continuing his "war" over here. To put it in the user's own words, he maintains that there was this "Serbia" that existed during World War II. After much wailing and gnashing of teeth, the user was handed his walking papers over on enWiki, and told to keep away from Serbian history articles of that sort. The article in question was reorganized, in accordance with sources, from "Serbia (1941-1944)" to Government of National Salvation. Now of course its time to start the whole thing over on Commons with the flag and coat of arms of the thing. The misleading implication that a state called "Serbia" existed at that time has all sorts of highly biased Balkans-style connotations that PANONIAN would like to convey to our dear readers.

There are four relevant files. Two are flags of the Government of National Salvation, and two are coats of arms. The issues at hand are #1 their names and #2 their accuracy with regard to source material.

• File:Flag of Serbia (1941-1944).svg. This file sports the actual sourced colour schemes from the scanned source, and, until recently, was named "File:S Flag.svg", as a sort of silly "compromise". Recently it has been inappropriately renamed into "Flag of Serbia (1941-1944)". This POV should be amended, and the flag should be renamed to "Flag of the Government of National Salvation.svg". Otherwise the flag is accurate.
  Since, until recently, this file was not named "Flag of Serbia", it was systematically removed from all projects and replaced with the below file.
• File:Flag of Serbia (1941-1944).svg. Somehow the name of this file appears exactly the same as the above, but its not the same file (probably the dash?). The name of this file is misleading POV and it uses incorrect colour shade from the modern-day flag of Serbia. Basically it just ought to be deleted. Its a redundant propaganda piece created a while back to "counter" the file just above, which at the time was not named "Flag of Serbia".

The coats of arms are:

• File:GNS CoA.svg. The name of this file isn't exactly accurate (it ought to be "Coat of Arms of the Government of National Salvation.svg"), but at least it isn't a misleading nationalist-POV concoction. Its colour shades are also derived from the the sources, not the modern-say flag of Serbia, so its accurate in that respect as well.
  Since this file is not named "Coat of Arms of Serbia", it was systematically removed from all projects and replaced with the below file.
• File:Coat of arms of Serbia (1941–1944).svg is a nationalist-POV "counter flag" which sports a misleading name and inaccurate, modern-day colours. It ought to simply be deleted.

The crux of the story is that, believe it or not, PANONIAN and his "alter-ego" Сербијана (talk · contribs) (his sock beyond a shadow of a doubt) have been parading about the projects replacing the two accurate files with their nonsense POV-named, a-historical images. And generally doing everything to sideline the two accurate files for the sake of their name(!), (and I guess having nonsense colour shades from the modern-day Serbian flag is in-line with the weird POV and/or is just a "nice" aesthetic choice for the user).

Requesting assistance in finally bringing this matter into order. There should be two files for the flag and coat of arms of the . They ought to named "Flag of the Government of National Salvation.svg" and "Coat of Arms of the Government of National Salvation.svg". Otherwise the disruptive user will never ever drop his campaign to have the file names he's pushing for used all over the projects. Again: yes, the user has instigated edit-wars on projects over the actual names of the files.

No doubt the user will arrive soon to elaborate in immense detail how he's been "wronged" over on enWiki. Please don't be "daunted" by the massive posts (its been known to happen :)) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• 
  File:Flag of Serbia (1941-1944).svg
  POV name (recently introduced), accurate colours. Needs a-renaming.
• 
  File:Flag of Serbia (1941–1944).svg
  POV name, inaccurate colours. Redundant and ought to be deleted.
• 
  File:GNS CoA.svg
  Ok name (could be better), accurate colours. Needs renaming.. maybe.
• 
  File:Coat of arms of Serbia (1941–1944).svg
  Nonsense name, inaccurate colours. Redundant and ought to be deleted.

images and captions inserted by DIREKTOR

May I suggest 'bird with two heads.svg' not so much to make people wonder what happens when both heads want to eat the same crust of bread and the antics which ensue, rather because it is what is pictured in the image. Penyulap ☏ 22:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hah, love it :). I suggested something of the sort myself months back. The problem is that, to avoid the issue in such a manner, all four files would need to be renamed to such titles. While I would prefer an accurate name, anything is better than the POV versions ("Coat of Arms/Flag of SERBIAA!" :)) that cause trouble on a dozen projects. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The images are visibly different, so there is not any need to delete them is there ? Penyulap ☏ 22:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I was just about to add.. Imo yes there is. The colours themselves are likely to cause conflict, they apparently carry some kind of POV significance, judging from the campaigns to introduce them everyhwere. Probably PANONIAN perceives them as "more Serbian" or the "true Serbian colours", demonstrating that this was in fact "Serbia"... In my opinion only the two sourced files should remain, the ones with darker colours derived from the actual source (rather than those from the present day File:Flag of Serbia.svg). Renamed to non-controversial names they should solve the problem. Though again, I myself would prefer an accurate name ("Flag/Coa of the Government of National Salvation"). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I think it's fair to give each head of the bird it's own cricket to eat, like two toddlers, you wouldn't give them one lollypop would you ? I figure let people have a lovely choice of colours like coloured pencils in a big wooden box and they can work it out in each article according to the aesthetics of the particular article and the other images there. One image just invokes the spirit of compromise in which nobody is happy with the result. Besides, commons and wikipedia aren't sources, I have it on good authority that any idiot can edit. (they even let me sometimes) Penyulap ☏ 22:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This is an obvious personal attack. It is true that I was topic baned in English Wikipedia, but I do not work in English Wikipedia any more. I now work in Serbian Wikipeda only, where User:DIREKTOR is a persona non-grata. I am not "continuing any war" over here, but I am only concerned about files which are used in Serbian Wikipedia. Today, I saw on my watchlist that DIREKTOR proposed for renaming one of the files that I uploaded: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Serbia_(1941-1944).svg I think that commons rules are allowing to file uploaders to oppose POV proposals for renaming of files that they upload. Let me elaborate source for this file. I scaned image of that flag from book named "Grbovi, zastave i himne u istoriji Srbije" (in English: Coats, flags and anthems in the history of Serbia, author Nenad M. Jovanović, published in Beograd (Belgrade), in 2010): http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_serbia_1941_1944.JPG Book says that this was flag of Serbia. User:DIREKTOR who is known for his anti-Serbia POV in English Wikipedia now claims that this was not flag of Serbia, but flag of Government of Serbia. There is no source to support that. File "Flag_of_Serbia_(1941-1944).svg" is a derivative version of "Flag_of_serbia_1941_1944.JPG" and is used in articles in Serbian Wikipedia. Note that User:Сербијана is not my "alter-ego" or "sock" (or what ever). I have not cooperated with User:Сербијана about anything and one who look the history of edits of this user in Serbian Wikipedia will see that editing pattern of this user is not even similar to my own. If DIREKTOR have any problem with User:Сербијана, they should solve their dispute without my involvement. Now about WW2 Serbia: there are articles about this country in both, Serbian and Croatian Wikipedia: [7], [8]. I also have information that User:DIREKTOR is an persona non-grata in both Wikipedias because of his POV pishing in Balkan-related articles. He himself is a Croat, but he is banned in Croatian Wikipedia. What that says about him. I also suspect that he is sockpuppeter and that he operates as much as 3 accounts in English Wikipedia: DIREKTOR, PRODUCER and Peacemaker67. Here I even collected list of his suspected sockpuppets in both, Engflish Wikipedia and Commons: http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Корисник:PANONIAN/Suspected_sockpuppets_of_user_DIREKTOR (since he accused me for sockpuppetry, I have no reason not to say this). In any case, administrators should say how this dispute should be solved in accordance with commons rules. Basic dispute here is the name of this file: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Serbia_(1941-1944).svg DIREKTOR wants to rename that file to "Flag of the Government of National Salvation.svg" I am uploader of that file and I oppose renaming proposal because source from which this flag come says that this was flag of Serbia and file is widely used in Serbian Wikipedia where POV of User:DIREKTOR about WW2 Serbia is not accepted by the community. PANONIAN (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, why not leave the file as it was uploaded, and if there is a need to have another shade of deeper red, then it can be in another file. How does that suit everyone ? PANONIAN are you cool with that ? Penyulap ☏ 22:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Color of file is not important to me. I just do not want that file which I uploaded have POV and misleading name which contradicts to info in articles in Serbian Wikipedia where this file is used. Perhaps DIREKTOR can upload another version of that file with different filename either in commons or in his home Wikipedia? PANONIAN (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. Penyulap ☏ 23:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Wait, how does all this solve anything? Unless we're agreed to have the files named in an unrelated way.. are we? (I'm sorry, after months I can't bring myself to read PANONIAN's blocks anymore). I myself don't really care what the files are named as long as its NOT "Flag/Coa of Serbia" or any variation on that theme.

Furthermore, if PANONIAN doesn't care about the colour, why not delete the redundant unsourced files? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Two files is great, because they can be tailored to the different articles. Think of it like that lipstick on a pig thing with the ENG:VAR, where US and UK editors will kill each other and any bystanders to get their own version of english spelling. This just puts a complete stop to it because there is one for you and one for him. You can't have both crickets you know, that would be impolite. There is one each for each article. Unless of course you'd rather he just do the titles and descriptions on one file and that is that, would that be acceptable to you ? Penyulap ☏ 23:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, first of all, its not about "me" having "my" images. The way I see it, its about accuracy and NPOV. Secondly as things are now there aren't any files named according to "my tastes", if you will. Three of four are named "Flag/Coa of Serbia".

Finally, the main problem, the reason why I posted this, is PANONIAN and his socks scouring all the projects to replace the accurately named and coloured insignia with their own (or his own, rather). Except enWiki, of course, wherein is my lair. Its in the interest of Commons and the projects to have accurate insignia, with accurate, non-Serbian-nationalist names. I'm willing to agree that the names are not that important, but as long as there are these "pro-Serbian-POV" alternative files to be edit-warred over - the problem is still here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, find someone else to play your games. Why would I delete some files that I neither uploaded or used anywhere? I suggest that you check who uploaded which file and to discuss with these users about files which they uploaded. I will discuss only about files which I uploaded, and I have right to oppose your proposal for renaming. This is not English Wikipedia. Here, problems are solved differently: if you have problem with some file you should upload another version of that file under another filename. In Serbian Wikipedia we trying to have accurate articles and files, so why you want to force us to have file with POV name there? Do you suggest that file that uploaded should be renamed to fit your POV and that then I should upload another version of that file with different filename for usage in Serbian Wikipedia? I think that by commons rules you should upload another file version, not original uploader. Also, please stop accusing me for "socks". If you think that user Serbijana is my sock you can ask for ckeckuser investigation. I would certainly ask that checkuser investigate your relation with PRODUCER and Peacemaker67, but currently I have no hard evidence. PANONIAN (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

File names don't matter to anyone but you, neither on enWiki nor on Serbian Wiki. You're the problem. Lets delete the unsourced files (with the wrong colour shades), and have one coa and one flag named in some generic fashion that upsets noone and pushes no POV. That solves both the problem of the POV names and the problem of the wrong shades. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it, PANONIAN's priority is to have files named "Flag of SERBIA" and "CoA of SERBIA", so that he can push his "This is SERBIA" POV. He doesn't care about the colours as such, but as long as different colours get him his POV names he doesn't mind. Then, he can edit-war throughout the projects to insert said distorted files. Again. The end result is inaccurate insignia, misleadingly named, across two dozen projects. I don't like that. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I repeat, this is not English Wikipedia and you should discuss your en-wiki articles with your "friends" there. Does anybody force you that you use disputed file in English Wikipedia? No. In Serbian Wikipedia, file name perfectly fits article name. PANONIAN (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Getting essentially kicked out of enWiki doesn't make you King of srWiki, PANONIAN. This has nothing to do with enWiki articles, which are thankfully kept accurate anyway in spite of periodic sweeps by your thinly-disguised sockpuppet(s). And like I said - file names don't matter to anyone but you, neither on enWiki nor srWiki. This is another one of the problems created by your "unique" personal preferences. I can't stand by with you edit-warring to push distorted, misleading images across half the Wikimedia projects for the sake of them having file names(!) in-line with nonsense POV. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I was just thinking that we should have meet-ups with those mud-wrestling pits. I don't know why that popped into my head... Penyulap ☏ 23:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, DIREKTOR. I was not "kicked out of enWiki". I LEFT. There is difference. I was only temporarily banned from one topic for 6 months, but administrators would abolish my ban if I asked them. However, I have no intention to do such thing, I have pride. As for sockpuppet accusations, I told you: you are free to open investigation about "my socks" wherever you wish. This is probably your counter-attack because I stated that I suspect that you have sockpuppets, but I was told that I should not accuse others for sockpuppetry without evidence, so I will just shut up. I will repeat that you should discuss this with user Serbijana because I have no connection to his actions. I just want that file which I uploaded have accurate name and that it is used under accurate name in articles in Serbian Wikipedia. You are free to remove this file from any other Wikipedia if you think that it does not belong there. PANONIAN (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

As I always say, I'm not the guy that creates socks - I'm the guy that hunts 'em down. In my seven years on Wiki I never created a single sockpuppet; I did uncover dozens of them, however.

PANONIAN, its weird to me that you care about the file name more than the accuracy of the file. Why not call them simply "Flag 1941-1944" and "Coat of Arms 1941-1944"? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Why not just have 2 files DIREKTOR ? why are you so greedy for someone else's when you can have your own ? You can't ride two horses with one arse. Penyulap ☏ 07:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, we both know that you have no a single source to support your opinion that it was flag of the government. Do you think that people are obligated to accept your opinions only because you want that? The worst thing is that if people do not accept what you want, they usually become victims of personal harassment and this post against me here is just a nice example. Please, leave me alone, I exhausted my energy, my health is currently not best, and I do not need this. You should read Commons rules and try to behave in accordance with rules. PANONIAN (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It's like those little islands in the south china sea, maybe for Japanese wikipedia it needs a map with the islands as part of Japan, and for Chinese wikipedia it needs the map showing the islands are China. Who cares to make the war on commons? just have lots of maps. A map for every point of view. A map for every country in every language. A map the way each editor likes it. Easy editing, calm, quiet. Penyulap ☏ 09:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap, how's this for an idea? The next one out of DIREKTOR and PANONIAN to post in relation to these images anywhere on Commons, and which in the least bit seems to continue this petty imported dispute, will earn a week block for both of them. I started reaching for the block button about half way through their diatribe, so I my mind boggles what is written in the second half. russavia (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Spring juere

Spring juere (talk · contribs) Hi, he upload every time the same picture, for example File:Jürg Neuenschwander 2012.jpg. Its deleted two times before. Cheers --217.246.214.4 20:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Orrling and mass renaming of vehicle categories

Orrling (talk · contribs) A major multi-category move, renaming the many "Vehicles of ..." categories to "Vehicles built in ..." and probably followed (given the comments added) by moving "Vehicles in ..." to "Vehicles registered in ..."

No attempt to discuss this beforehand, just tagging the cats for a suggested move, saying "I support" on the talk and then starting to move them anyway.

• Category talk:Vehicles of the United States
• Category talk:Vehicles of Germany
• Category talk:Vehicles by country (past discussion of the same issue a couple of years ago)

Talk page discussion has been 'unproductive' so far, merely responding with "What is your problem". As this editor has evidently just finished seven weeks of blocking for uncooperative behaviour, I'm concerned about this. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the first time this particular user has engaged in such childish and disruptive activity. Since the last block failed to teach this user anything, a new longer one seems appropriate -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This account I have blocked for 1 month due to continued edit-warring after several recent blocks for similar behaviour. I suggest to undo the changes made in the vehicle categories so far, and, if necessary, to discuss this issue at COM:CFD. --A.Savin 08:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. While Orrling is a problem for me and takes me about one hour of extra work per day to check and correct his changes, this time he didn't really something wrong, besides poor communication with which he has clearly a problem. It looks as if the moves requests have been made by user:ŠJů which likes to break in with renames in the middle of a category tree. This vehicle discussion should be centralised indeed. --Foroa (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this rollback even going to be possible? When it involves redirected categories, then the 'bots tend to kick in afterwards and start emptying those categories. That's very hard to find and reverse. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I came here to ask the administrator to block Orrling, and I saw that he is already was blocked. There is no way to reason with Orrling. I have a lot of experience with him in he:wiki, and in the end he was declared as a troll by administrators vote. He thinks that he is the only one that understand and all others are stupid. I tried to discuss with him here. He ignored my arguments totally and keep pushing his political agenda. I realy think that to block him for 1 month is not enough, It should be at least 3 months. Hanay (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This might be WP practice more than Commons, but it sounds like either a 1 day or an indef block is what is needed, not the progressively increasing blocks for simple vandals. He either needs to learn the need for consensus (which might be immediate), or if he can't do that then he wouldn't be any better after a month in the cooler. We need change, not merely deferring the return of the same problems. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

From my experience, in the end he will be blocked indefinitely, but I am not sure that the administrators can do it without increasing the blocked period progressively. When an administrator makes a decision he should look at the user behavior history, and even if the case is simple vandalism, it can not be isolated from his history. Orrling in the past was blocked for short time, and he could not care less. Maybe if he wiil be blocked for 3 months he will pay attention. in the meantime other users can edit without wasting there time by trying to reason with him. I thanks User:A.Savin that he blocked him for a month, but I think it would be better if the period was longer. Hanay (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

welcome to Russia

File:Asteroids sml.gif is an illustration I made for the 2013 Russian meteor event, if someone has time to give a 3rd opinion as to whether this image might one day be useful to people illustrating articles on that subject I'd appreciate it. I thought there was a possibility, so I added it to Category:2013 Russian meteor event. User:Itu is determined that it should not be possible to find this image in that category, and the file history shows Itu is very determined. The discussion on the talkpage and the exhaustive tutorial in the description on how the image may one day be used has been to no avail. A third, fourth. fifth opinion would be appreciated as it is currently just 1:1. I have no particular care for the image, the other one I did with the car is more popular and being taken up and used faster, but I figure if the image is on commons it may as well HAVE a category in case one day it is useful to someone, or they'll never find it. Penyulap ☏ 13:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

*sigh* --Itu (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps for those editors who don't subscribe to the 'because Itu said so' school of thought, you might like to articulate the reasons for you edit warring ? My reasoning is all over the file description and file talkpage for anyone interested. Penyulap ☏ 12:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

He is still at it today, without a word of explanation. Penyulap ☏ 23:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Lachie 001

Lachie 001 (talk · contribs) has just received a warning for several copyios. But it something to upload images because one doesn't understand what's copyright, and entirely another one to lie in the description to back up false free license claims. What do you think? Yann (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. The first few might have been a misunderstanding but the later ones clearly claim that he took them with his own camera when that is apparently simply not true. I say "apparently" only because it is barely possible that he is actually the photographer, but I would give odds of 100 to 1 against that. All the uploads were on January 28 so maybe he has learned his lesson -- I suggest seeing if he does anything more and then give him a week's block if it is another copyvio. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

  Yeah, maybe he changed his last name from Kolbe[9] to Dadswell[10] between 4 May and 11 May last year... :-) —LX (talk, contribs) 17:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I am very reluctant to flatly state that "X is a liar" when I don't have absolute proof. Saying "X is apparently a liar" seems much better to me. I did say that it was a long shot. As far as the name change goes, people do use pseudonyms for a number of reasons, so it is not absolutely impossible that he is the photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

"false bullshit free license claims" - can our admins please not restrict to the point by saying just "false free license claims"? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC).

OK, fine. Corrected. I have probably watched too many American movies lately. ;o) Yann (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

केवल भाषा के प्रयोग पर टिपण्णी आधारित थी, कोई व्यक्तिगत हमला नहीं था। Hindustanilanguage (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC).

Thanks for doing that Yann, it's a good gesture of mellowness. --Fæ (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Inside joke: actually, as movies are censored in India, bad words are removed from the sound track and subtitles. So it goes a bit like: ***!, I can't *** your ***? ;o) Yann (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

so shall be our strategy !!! (Joking) Hindustanilanguage (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC).

Fry1989, and general CommonsDelinker discussion

There is an report about this user because he is changing Spanish swords without consensus. Due to his previous behaviour I am looking for consensus here to remove his filemover flag --Ezarateesteban 12:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that what the filemover flag is for ? so you can do it yourself WITHOUT bothering anyone else ? Penyulap ☏ 12:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

That's just the problem, to act without consensus, I don't grant the flag to the user so I need consensus for remove it Ezarateesteban 12:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

But that's just the purpose, to act without consensus. He's granted the flag to USE the flag. If he didn't use it, then there'd be a reason to take it. Maybe you can show us him acting AGAINST consensus, rather than WITHOUT consensus, as that would show misbehaviour wouldn't it ? So far, looking at the links you've given I can't see anything. Penyulap ☏ 13:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, and there is prima facie evidence of a problem.

The change ordered by Fry1989 was not the result of a file move, but to switch from one version of a set of COAs to a different set (from File:Escudo d'Aragón.svg to File:Official Coat of Arms of Aragon.svg). That is a potential misuse of the filemover flag (which is allow people to move files, not assert an editorial preference for one version of an image over another). The User_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/filemovers#I_revert_this_please reequested reversion is also inappropriate, as all places that Fry1989's preferred version before his request would be inappropriately moved to the other version - not just the ones that his command changed.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Oooh, that does sound serious, so, has anyone mentioned this to him on his talkpage ? Penyulap ☏ 13:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The link inside the discussion which Ezarate pointed out does seem quite unacceptable, after a quick look. Fry1989 (talk · contribs) has requested large bunches of old files to be mass replaced. The files that I went through are NOT identical versions, hence I don't think this is uncontroversial. A fellow Wikimedian asked me to have a look, but I don't have time right now to go in-depth. Could someone kindly look at this please? Rehman 13:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking into it, I can't see this mentioned anywhere on his talkpage, I guess it must be some kind of surprise or something. Don't worry everyone, I won't say a word to him, so what's the plan ? are we having a vote to take the filemover flag away without telling him why until afterwards, so he cannot address the problem unless he's one of those lucky chaps with ESP ? I vote remove. That'll teach him to be normal ! Penyulap ☏ 13:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The appropriate links are those ones: one, two and three. Although Russavia explicitly stated that no further requests should be done without sorting out any problem there could be (User:Miguillen has questioned these -- before problems are created with files on other projects, please discuss these), Fry went on with his requests. Next, Morning Sunshine processed the request and passed it to CommonsDelinker. Although we haven't got a explicit policy stating when and when not CommonsDelinker can be used, it seems pretty obvious that, as Nilfanion has pointed out above, the tool is not for assert an editorial preference for one version of an image over another, but to carry out uncontroversial replacements.

On the other hand, I've reviewed the CommonsDelinker contributions in the English wikipedia and they don't seem to be done. Regardless of what to do with Fry, what should be more important is to clearly establish what can be done (and what can't be) with the Filemover tool. It should be as simple as adding Nilfanion's statement quoted above. Best regards --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 13:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This indicates to me that Fry has used delinker as a means to 1) sidestep discussion on another project and 2) to force his version on all other projects whilst there is obviously a dispute. For that reason alone, I would be removing file mover rights for at least an extended period. Unless, of course, he can come up with a good reason for using delinker in such a way. russavia (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

In fact it seems as if Fry1989 has been playing with CommonsDelinker for long (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Canada 1921.svg and here) --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 16:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so according to you, my file mover (renaming) rights should be taken away because I use CommonsDelinker alot?? You're not even aware of why I use the tool. You give a link to this DR. Do you not realize that File:Canadian Red Ensign 1921-1957.svg is the original file and was under that name, but then renamed by myself (uncontroversially and for the right reasons), and then a user re-uploaded the same image back under to old name because there is a problem with redirects that is affecting a tonne of users? So I put in a CommonsDelinker request to try and re-replace it under the new name. That's how things work here, if files are renamed they are supposed to be automatically replaced by CommonsDelinker to the new file name. User:Zscout370, who happens to be an admin, is helping me with this problem because CommonsDelinker isn't working. Also, you can't claim I have abused CommonsDelinker and that removing my file-mover right would stop that, because that's simply impossible. ANYBODY can add requests to CommonsDelinker, it is up to admins to process or deny them. Just because I have file mover rights, doesn't give me the ability to process CD requests, it only gives me the ability to rename files. Can you show me anywhere that I have actually abused my file mover rights and wrongly renamed a file? This is a stupid retaliatory effort by someone who doesn't even have the facts right. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Russavia yes, I put in a CommonsDelinker request to replace a bunch of Spanish files. Some of them having to do with a dispute but also several of them did not. You can call it muddled but whatever, it's what I did. However, I actually put them in on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands, where any user can put in requests. However, if you're a file mover and you do that, it's automatically put on to the special file movers page. So I didn't actually abuse the file movers page, it's just how the system works. But in any case, fine I'll admit my intentions in requesting these replacements were less than pure and that it was wrong. That doesn't make removing my file mover rights a proper and proportionate punishment, because first of all, this is the first time I've done this, and second the two things don't even directly effect each other. The file mover right is the ability to rename files. It does not give me the ability to use and abuse CommonsDelinker any more than a normal user because an admin must still accept and process any CommonsDelinker request I put in. The only reason my file mover right should be removed is if this was a repetitive problem, or I have abused the right and wrongly renamed files. Can someone list where I have made bad or motivated renames which would be an abuse of the ability and warrant it's removal? I dare anybody to list even one because every single rename I have ever made myself under this ability has been under the accepted rules and with the best of intentions. A proportionate punishment would be for me to not be allowed to make CommonsDelinker requests for a period of time (excluding ones automatically placed by the renaming tool when renaming a file). Fry1989 ^eh? 19:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If you permit me, if I leave a contribution may be worth. The theme with has been discussed on many occasions both Commons and in the English Wikipedia more than one year but so far only had conflict with one image File: File:Wikiproyecto Navarra.svg => File:Flag map of Navarre.svg, Which seeks to destroy with templates. [11] but now the conflict has spread to the symbols of Autonomous Communities of Spain and the decision to ask Commonsdelinker [12] and see how it has taken.

• Discussions of the theme:
  • Article Discussion Navarra in the English Wikipedia
  • Discussion Coats of arms of Autonomous Communities of Spain in the English Wikipedia
  • Administrator Noticeboard of English Wikipedia
  • Fry1989 discussion page of Commons

Regards.--Miguillen (discursión) 19:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The ONLY reason I made these CommonsDelinekr requests is because you came along to English Wikipedia for the first time in 6 months to completely change all the files on an article from how it has been for 2 1/2 years. You replaced all those images without a proper reason. I reverted you and asked for sources on the talk page, and you gave none while reverting back to your preferred versions again. People here want to accuse me of trying to force my "preferred versions", but YOU'RE the one who was edit warring on that article to force preferred versions because you don't like the ones that had been there for 2 1/2 years, long before I had anything to do with the article. I made the requests to undo your edit warring. It may not have been the right way to go about it, but I didn't do it to just force things I like, i did it to undo your edit warring and forcing of new files on an article without any consensus for the change. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If the problem was on en.wp, it should have be handled using the appropriate dispute resolution process on en.wp. There was no reason to involve Commons processes for that.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to summarize my points, removing my file mover right for placing a bunch of CommonsDelinker requests is not a proper and proportionate punishment, and a complete over-reaction for the following reasons.

• The File Mover right and CommonsDelinker are not clearly attached. File Mover gives a user the ability to rename files by themselves. They must still make requests for name replacement on CommonsDelinker, subject to approval of an admin. File Mover does NOT give a user the ability to process CommonsDelinker requests.
• In the year or so that I have had this right, I have not once renamed a file for a bad or motivated reason, something that would be abusive and warrant removal of the right. Every rename I have made followed at least one of the 7 points for renaming, and held the best of intentions.
• I made a bunch of file replacement requests on CommonsDelinker yesterday that were motivated by a dispute. Removing my File Mover right does not remove my ability to make further requests for file replacement (under any number of reasonings), so it is a punitive rather then proportionate response to a one-time example of a bad request.
• If an admin made a mistake, you don't automatically go to de-adminship proceedings, there has to be a history of bad behaviour and abuse of the tools that adminship provides. There is no such history of me abusing the File Mover right, which again only allows me to rename files, not process CommonsDelinker requests.

If what I did, which is essentially make a bunch of bad requests that weren't even processed, requires a response, it's certainly not a punitive and disproportionate response which would not directly affect what it's supposed to. Removing my File Mover right would be a revenge action, it wouldn't gain anything because it wouldn't stop my ability to make CommonsDelinker requests like any other user, which is what this whole thing is about. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I take back my remove vote, it's no fun now Fry knows about the whole thing and gets to have a say. It's like Willie Wonka says, the best kind of prize is a SURprize. Plus there is that whole reasonable explanation thing going on that ruins the whole effect, where it looks like half of the accusations at least are probably not really actual things that are really actually wrong, and the other half is just TLDR, so with my complete lack of attention span I'll never know unless I ask someone. But I can still help 'glare' at Fry, and we can all mention it in any further discussion as if there were lots of valid misdeeds instead of maybe none but I don't actually know.

Post explanation, is there anything like a consensus in one place and a violation in another place that even I could understand ? or is it all settled (but not in a way that clears the air of course, of course) Penyulap ☏ 20:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I simply quote myself: Although we haven't got a explicit policy stating when and when not CommonsDelinker can be used, it seems pretty obvious that, as Nilfanion has pointed out above, the tool is not for assert an editorial preference for one version of an image over another, but to carry out uncontroversial replacements. [..] Regardless of what to do with Fry, what should be more important is to clearly establish what can be done (and what can't be) with the Filemover tool. It should be as simple as adding Nilfanion's statement quoted above

No need to punish anyone, but to clarify what can and what can't be done. --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 21:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds quite reasonable, where would the discussion go ? is there a guideline/doc page or some such ? Penyulap ☏ 22:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If filemovers make requests at User:CommonsDelinker/commands/filemovers, and these are then copied across by an admin to be processed at User:CommonsDelinker/commands then we need a clear guideline that states one or both of the following:

1. Filemovers are to use User:CommonsDelinker/commands/filemovers only for requests related to renamed files. All other requests must be added to the manual queue at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands.
2. Admins processing requests at User:CommonsDelinker/commands/filemovers must ensure only requests related to renamed files are immediately processed. Others should be copied to the manual queue and handled appropriately.

The first is easy as there is already a message at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Image replacement requests saying "filemovers use the filemover page for file moves only". That should be placed directly onto User:CommonsDelinker/commands/filemovers.

The whole reason for the separate page is to allow fast processing of file moves from users trusted with filemover flag, and removing a bad request from that page significantly slows the process for the admin. If filemovers cannot be trusted to use that page correctly, we shouldn't have it at all. If a filemover misuses that page by placing a bad request they should be sanctioned. Sanction meaning: Warning the filemover "don't do that again or you might lose flag", and if misuse continues removal of the flag.

I see no need for further action here and now, but if Fry1989 does misuse that page again in future removal of the flag should be considered.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

So to sum up, this is basically Ezarate would like files one way and Fry would like them another, and there is nobody to give a third opinion on the matter ?

To add spice to the mix, there is a suggestion that the tools shouldn't be used to do work even though that is what they are for, and maybe at some point there'll be something decided on how to use the tools if one person and one other person disagree, is that right ?

To say 'if Fry1989 does misuse that page again in future' is to assume he did, but how was it misused, was it misused at all ? I'd love a simple answer to that, so it can be written down as a guide. Penyulap ☏ 22:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Read the message at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Image replacement requests. The filemover command page, that Fry1989 added his request to, is "not for non-filemovers" and "not replacement [that] is not part of your work as a filemover".--Nilfanion (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool, that makes sense, maybe Fry can help with better wording or placement if he thinks it would help, or we could look at how much mess it makes if it's not done that way and make it a proper rule. Still, if there was a third opinion on any of the moves that would help too, as it seems just 1 to 1 and that appears to cause the harassed feeling Fry obviously has. I mean, you're meant to bring things here if you need a third opinion, but it doesn't mean you'll get one to settle the matter, like me and Itu, it'll go round in circles for days with no third opinion. Meh.

I guess I should follow my own advice and give an opinion on the matter, I think the rule should have a mention of "it's not ok if there is a consensus against a move." That way there won't be situations like this where nobody knows if one or the other is wrong because it's just one to one, and nobody has helped with a 3rd. One person wants the files one way and another wants them another way. Generally people call that uncontroversial or no consensus. Penyulap ☏ 23:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Nilfanion, As I tried to explain before, the difference between User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands and User:CommonsDelinker/commands/filemovers is muddled, and not at my fault. The first set of replacement requests I made, I actually made on /commands. But because I have the File Mover tag on my account, anything I do there is automatically transferred on to /commands/filemovers, and no record is left on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. That's just how the system works right now. So actually whether you like why I made the requests or not, I did the right thing and put them on the normal requests page. I didn't try and abuse my access to User:CommonsDelinker/commands/filemovers. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

we should add a note under that warning box, saying what the bot does. Maybe it's like a Fry / Bender sort of thing, he shoves your head in the meat grinder, you switch his arms and legs while he's sleeping. Penyulap ☏ 23:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw Nilfanion's part saying that requests which aren't part of my work renaming files should be put in the manual queue. The reason I didn't put them there was because it has a header explicitly saying "List here requests that cannot be undertaken by CommonsDelinker", which makes no sense to me. I'm trying to make a request to get a file replaced by CommonsDelinker, why would I put it in a section that says it's for moves that CommonsDelinker can't deal with???? It's this site's shoddy and contradictory choice of wording that has me confused, not my intentions. I thought I was putting it in the right place. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Time to make it make sense, or the whole annoying discussion will be in vain. Penyulap ☏ 00:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmph, there is no clear place on the bot's pages to make a discussion of changes. No wonder this is a mess, there is not really a definite person to deal with these kinds of things. Penyulap ☏ 00:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

In this case not were better quality files. Different versions only. The versions that have better quality Fry1989 says only employ a relief effect (with different color tone spaces giving an effect similar to pixel) that gives a more artistic but that's far from reality. In addition it was substitutions eliminate official designs that were clearly different. I believe you should never try to remove any version valid unless it is an exact duplicate which does not happen in this case and since each item must decide which version to use according to their illustrative value. In this case an official version but its artistic value is less and a flat color version covers more realistic expectations about a many cases. I just want to respect these pictures of templates improper and massive substitutions.

Of course it is not my intention in any way to punish anyone here believe that everyone deserves due respect to the work we do on a voluntary basis and to improve an encyclopedia but I believe pulling even more valid valid images to illustrate many articles not done any favors to Wikimedia. regards.--Miguillen (discursión) 11:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The files shouldn't have been replaced like this by Fry, but the replaced files were neither "more realistic" or "official". Repeating that nonsense ad infinitum doesn't make it true, and Miguillen has been trying to do the same thing to Heralder's files, manually and against consensus. I don't know why he has this vendetta against Heralder's files, and I don't really care anymore. I have ceased protesting his forced substitutions on Wikipedia for a long while now, and I have erred in protesting that as well. Miguillen doesn't speak English (properly?), and communication has been very difficult. I do ask the moderators to keep in mind that Fry's action was a result of this cold edit war that has been going on for years now, not even started by Fry, which I view as a mitigating circumstance. As an example, I give this: File:Flag map of Navarre.svg. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 11:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The same procedure is to be observed with the before mentioned Coats of arms of Savoy and several more files. Without need - as there were already several SVG-files beeing used for years - he extracted the CoA from another, larger file of another prominent artist here, claiming file ownership just for this minor edit and disregarding the original licensing, declaring those files against common use to be superior to the formerly linked files, manipulating the sort order in the categories in a way to be first against former ranking, adding the superceeding template to his file without discussion and using the common delinker to replace his creation in various wikis without discussion and against national consensus about the looks and forms of CoAs. I dont regard this as the adaquate style of doing things here. --maxxl2 - talk 12:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

For the VERY LAST TIME, I did not claim that Savoy file as my own work, I attributed it to the original author and NOBODY agrees with your accusation that I "stole" it. I really wish that interaction ban between us two had been accepted and enforced so you wouldn't be allowed to keep lying about me. Go find something better to do than lie about users! Fry1989 ^eh? 21:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I can only suppress the urge to ask 'what is a national consensus' if it is to ask the even more pressing question 'can you point to it?' Penyulap ☏ 20:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

And to think that I got interested in flags and coats of arms when I was a boy because I thought it was a fun subject... -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

That's why I got interested in it, because it IS fun! Until you encounter people like Miguillen, who make up rules and edit war to force how they think heraldry "should be". Miguillen's hands are all over dozens of Wikipedias reverting anybody who dares to use File:Coat of Arms of Navarre .svg because he thinks it's "wrong", and constantly replaces it with File:Escudo de Navarra (oficial).svg. Now some users may say I've done the same thing with the coat of arms of Monaco (SanglierT certainly would say I've done that), but with one major difference: I post sources, Miguillen does not. He has been asked for a source by half a dozen users on half a dozen talk pages for 2 years and has posted none. But somehow he still thinks he has the right to force something just because he doesn't like it, and gets away with it! These people make flags and coats of arms un-fun. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

@Adelbrecht: With Heralder had reached an agreement and it is shown that the coat of arms of Navarre myself was the one who broke the crown style relief (in some of the pictures I have more than a 90% ownership). and I remember that the consensus should be to change something and more massively and in this case you're not only consensus I just try to keep it as it was because it was correct for the reasons just repeated. This of course seems impossible to explain clearly in a language other than Spanish, given the complexity of the issue as one side is correct heraldic representations and other official heraldic designs to illustrate correct also have greater value as illustrative are somehow official logos (more than just a coat of arms). If you would read more about it there would be no problem. regards.--Miguillen (discursión) 16:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a "Controversial requests" section now, which isn't automatically processed. Please use that if you didn't move a file for a valid reason. -- Rillke^(q?) 18:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a press towards taking away the editors opinion if they have a mover flag, requiring pre-approval where there is no commentary or opinion available in some cases. It is good if file moves take into account other users comments if they exist, but saying approval is needed first is making the flag a -1 opinion and +1 speed power-up. Maybe people wouldn't want the tool if they can no longer have an opinion and make manual requests.

Claims that a move is against consensus have to come with a pointer to that consensus, otherwise the person doing the move using the flag and tools has to have their own opinion respected same as any other editor. They may well have been given the tools and flag because they know what they are doing, and lots of work does equal lots of "attention" from critics Penyulap ☏ 20:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The biggest problem here has nothing to do with my file mover right, but with the idiocy of whoever wrote the CommonsDelinker page. I wanted to make a request for some images to be replaced by the CommonsDelinker tool, and apparently I'm supposed to put those requests in a section that has a bolded header saying "this is for requests that CommonsDelinker can't do", and they didn't think people would be confused with that?? And now the page is only worse because of the addition of a "controversial moves" section. It should only have two sections, the first for file movers to put in requests specifically attached to their work in renaming files, and the other section for every other kind of request. Why is it so difficult to just make the page that way instead of this mess? Fry1989 ^eh? 23:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes to delinker page format

Seems like a popular idea to change the delinker page to say what is and is not appropriate, or simply 'how to use it'.

The suggestion by Fry " It should only have two sections, the first for file movers to put in requests specifically attached to their work in renaming files, and the other section for every other kind of request. " sounds clear and reasonable, so are there any objections to that format ?

•  Support I think it's nice and simple. (also someone might like to mention it on the page and maybe the vp, because lots of people use the thing don't they ? ) Penyulap ☏ 00:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Clean, simple, and nobody can get confused by a stupid header saying "put requests here that CommonsDelinker can't do" when they're trying to get CommonsDelinker to do something! Fry1989 ^eh? 21:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Views on contributions

I am loathe to start another argument here however these contributions seem to add nothing to our project and seemed aimed at promoting the website concerned (I think jpegs of letters and numbers are not that important here). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I've posted info of this on the user's talk page. I think such issues are better resolved on talk pages than here. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC).

I have deleted all the gifs which he uploaded -- we have no need of raster files which duplicate vector files uploaded at the same time. I don't agree with either of you -- the place for this discussion is certainly not the user's talk page, which will be seen by very few of us. It is also probably not here -- better to start a DR.

With that said, I think these could be OK if the vast overcat is removed and the file names are changed so they do not have the link in them. I have two grandchildren and I can imagine building a coloring book for them with this alphabet. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Deleted gifs or started DRs of the same? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I have:

• As I said above, deleted all the gifs, as they were duplicates of svgs. By our rules, duplicates are a {{Speedy}},
• Removed the vast overcat, leaving possibly more cats than there should be, but I'll leave that choice to others, and
• Not started any DRs, as I don't think they should be deleted, just fixed.

There remains the problem of the file names and the fact that they come from a site with an explicit copyright notice, so we will need OTRS permission to keep them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the font they are based upon needs checking, there is a good chance it is not the user's own creation, most of the site looks straight derivative. Penyulap ☏ 18:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

According to United States copyright law, abstract shapes of characters from a text font are "utilitarian" or "functional" and cannot be copyrighted, though the computer code in a computer font file by means of which the shapes are generated can be copyrighted. This means that raster text font renderings are always safe ({{PD-font}}) and vectors of font characters are by no means automatically deleted. AnonMoos (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you AnonMoos I learn something new Penyulap ☏ 05:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

threat and insult by Yuii-Ladykim (talk · contribs)

After I found that all uploads of this user were either missing permission or rather clear copyvios and I had notified him about that(see User talk:Yuii-Ladykim), though I didn't delete any by myself, the user left this nice threat "Muerete Hijo De tu Puta Madre" (translat. per Google: Die, Son of a bitch) on my talkpage[13]. As I am involved, I would like to have somebody else take action against this account from which surely nothing good can be expected. By the way: per his own :es-userpage comment "Soy De chile, ..., he creado el articulo "Kim Jonghyun" con mi otra cuenta, "Usuaria:Blinger-BOne" Blinger-BOne (talk · contribs) is his second user account. --Túrelio (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Just possible that there is a connection here both in approach and other matters. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

And blocked for threatening behaviour anyway - unacceptable words as far as I am concerned. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. If you hadn't, I would have. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Acatemplar

User has uploaded dozens of coats of arms without proper sources and copyright status. Some are probably PD-old, but most look questionable. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Certainly seems to be uploading a bunch of junk and semi-junk. AnonMoos (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

And is still uploading images grabbed from other websites. The Liberia ones are properly licensed, but alot of the images are still questionable. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I've notified the user on the talk page. Let us see the user's response. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC).

I also nominated for deletion all the uploads that weren't licensed or had questionable ones. However an IP 195.177.73.11 has removed the DR tags from several files, no doubt the uploader editing without signing in. I suggest a temporary block for vandalism. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Сербијана

Seems to have developed quite a hatred of certain files, and vents his/her wrath on them by a number of dubious methods, such as multiple useless deletion nominations which are rejected almost immediately out of hand, removing all categories from the image description page, replacing the image description page with a bogus redirect (even though the image is still in place), etc. Would seem to need a more attention-getting or official warning at this point... AnonMoos (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Anon, as a serious contributor, I believe in your summary. But I guess some pointed examples will add more value to your complaint. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC).

See history of File:Bosniak flag.svg, history of File:Candar.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of Serbia and Montenegro.png etc. AnonMoos (talk) 08:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

They all seem to be one-offs, nothing he's warring over. I don't see a pattern here, just a new user learning the ropes.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

If by "one off" you mean that each undesirable behavior affected only one file, that's not correct. There seems to be a common pattern of taking drastic actions against disliked files without bothering overmuch to find out the way things are done on Commons, a pattern that by now is becoming a little tiresome... AnonMoos (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that you recruit a colleague who can write this user's language (Serbian? Croatian?) to help him -- I think his instincts are OK, but his execution needs help. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why the burden is on me -- I don't know any Serbian, and am not on terms of good acquaintanceship with anyone who does know Serbian. The reasons why I posted to this board was because I doubted that my unaided efforts would be enough to result in a favorable change in Сербијана's behavior. AnonMoos (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fair to ask you to try to clean up the problem because you're the one that brought it up. I think this is a newbie problem -- that can be solved with some education. Perhaps one of our colleagues will disagree with me and simply block him, but if not, finding a Serbian speaker might help you solve your problem. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a block, I'm asking for "a more attention-getting or official warning" and I don't have the Serbian-language skills or official admin status to do much more with my own unaided efforts than I've already done, other than leaving an ALL-CAPS MESSAGE IN A BIG RED FONT. If you want the all-caps message in a big red font, then I'll go with that, but I was hoping that something better could be achieved with the help of others... AnonMoos (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You might ask User:Micki, who is a serbian-language admin. --Túrelio (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

admin colleague opinion on deletion of comments of closed Deletion request

Hello colleagues, please take a look at the following issue:

After the closure of the deletion request [14] (kept) one participant (User:Ahmadi) of the discussion deleted parts of the discussion on dealing with the fact that the user has been indef blocked on de-wiki. This statement is true and I do not think it is a personal attack. For this reason I did rollback the deletion of this contributions to the discussion. Since the user deleted again [15] and I do not want to start edit war about it, I ask you to check this.

Best regard --Neozoon (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I reverted and warned him. Yann (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Why User:Neozoon did not tell, what I'm only removed personal attacks and personal issues as I describe in the summary line? Why not the persons, who argues ad personam are not warned but I, who "Remove personal attacks and personal issues" that has nothing to do to the topic to be discussed? --Ahmadi (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Agent001

He started a confused and mixed deletion nomination which lumped together a large number of files with very different degrees of problematic status (Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Anizotropia), and during that discussion he was completely and utterly unable to articulate any valid or useful argument as to why official Soviet government first-day covers have a copyright status which is different from that of official Soviet government stamps. Consequently, those files were not deleted. So now Agent001 is going around repeatedly adding "speedy delete" tags to those images (see http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Convert_ru014.jpg&curid=6252389&action=history etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You do not understand me. I will only speak Russian sysops.--Agent001 (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ähem, wasn't this DR started by our colleague A.Savin? He likely knows what he does. --Túrelio (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I misunderstood some things, sorry, but it's still annoying behavior to add "speedy" tags to a significant number of images which have just survived a deletion discussion. AnonMoos (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not to blame if you do not understand that these images should be quickly removed because of copyright infringement.--Agent001 (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The only time an image needs to be quickly removed because of copyright infringement is when we get a DCMA notice on it. Otherwise, we can well afford to wait a week for discussion if there is controversy on the matter.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

User:AndreasPraefcke

User "AndreasPraefcke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)" who is an admin on Commons, maintains a more or less obvious sockpuppet "FA2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)" which, for instance, supports its puppeteer in deletion discussions, giving everyone the impression that this would be two different users. For this reason, I've just blocked the sockpuppet indefinitely.

Unfortunately, it's not enough imo: On my kind request on the talk page of "FA2010" to make this sockpuppetry transparent and hence generally allowed, the puppet answered with monstrous accusations: that my goal is "to destroy Commons" and that my "above insinuation is typical for the common Wiki troll". [16]. For me, who uploaded more than 4.000 self-made photographs on Commons, who helps with the categorization and sorting-out of copyright violation esp. of Russia related images, who (along with User:Ymblanter) did almost the entire categorization job of Russia's WLM'12 contributions, it's sort of inacceptable, and since the puppeteer "AndreasPraefcke" is an admin, this behaviour is not compatible with the "mellowness" everyone here is allowed to expect from an admin. In my opinion, the puppeteer should response for the PA's made using his sockpuppets as well. But since AndreasPraefcke is an admin on Commons, I'd like to have some more opinions by the admin colleagues here. Thanks --A.Savin 21:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Your affirmation supports its puppeteer in deletion discussions is in contradiction with the answer on his talk page: You know perfectly well that sockpuppetry is only abusive if abused by voting doubly etc..

He does or doesn't participate to DRs with double accounts? On the DR Reichtag, it seems he forgot he were logged in with his other account. --Dereckson (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Confirm that my purpose is to destroy Commons - or help me what to do with a Commons admin who make such accusations. --A.Savin 21:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

A. Savin, you ask for mellowness but this threat to block FA2010 unless he makes the connection transparent does not appear to be the best approach in this case. The intent of this account is obvious, i.e. to upload scans of free art under an account that is not obviously connected to a real name. We know all very well that copyfraud claims have been brought to court and that the use of such a special-purpose account that is primarily dedicated to uploads helps to avoid this risk. While I do not think that such a sockpuppet has to be openly associated with the main account, I think that it is unfortunate that both accounts participated in the same deletion request. In the refered to case it happened obviously by accident. I've run the intersection tool for both accounts and just one another deletion request appeared (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Santon (figurine)), probably likewise without intention.

A. Savin and AndreasPraefcke are both extremely prolific contributors to Commons and admins who have the trust of the community. I think that both are working hard to make Commons a richer source and a better place. But apparently, some tensions arose in recent deletion requests. To make it clear: It was of course not ok to call A. Savin names in the response. But this appears to be an isolated incident. I do not think that FA2010 needs to be blocked. I suggest to unblock FA2010 and would recommend FA2010 to avoid participation in deletion requests as long as it not a DR regarding FA2010's uploads. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

With heavy personal accusations, a sockpuppet of whatever purpose is burnt. Creating a new account and straightly starting uploading files with it has never been a problem here on Commons. So, the issue is: as admins ideally are particularly trusted users amongst us, it's outlandish to tolerate it when one of that "trusted" users skips to personal attacks just because one of his admin colleagues starts a DR.

Btw, thanks for the other diff. Here AndreasPraefcke calls up to block an other admin for starting a DR. Related to the same DR, here the puppet adds more fuel to the fire. Once again: Here are heavy personal attacks against me, related to this DR. I'm lost for words. Is it really the behaviour we expect from an admin, i.e. a trusted user? --A.Savin 08:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

A.Savin blocks a user for "personal attacks" directed to himself. No further comment necessary. What an.... o wait, I don't say it, or he will block me. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The puppet has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. A valid reason for an indefblock. Any more questions? For a clarification by you, or even for an excuse I probably can wait 'til the cows come home. --A.Savin 08:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I think many of our most active admins are just vandals that have some paranoid concept of the "precautionary principle". And it is getting worse and worse. I would have given up my adminship long ago, but I often use it for all these tedious little tasks like correcting file names, correcting larger projects like book uploads (e. g. Württembergisches Urkundenbuch with lots of wrongly scanned and numbered pages), fix own mistakes that are unadvoidable when uploading thousands of images, and help people (esp. new users that ask on the help pages) on de.wikipedia that have problems with their images on commons. All this would need a lot of time from other Commons admins that could otherwise be spent better. Apart from that, I am much more ashamed of the adminship than proud of it, given the behaviour that many admins show here especially since all the URAA deletions that are mostly totally unnecessary and nothing short of vandalism. Nothing I say with any sockpuppet I wouldn't say with my own name, or even in person to the people. But uploading sockpuppets are necessary because they have been legal threats by museums, libraries etc. They cannot be too transparent for exactly this reason. Nobody within the Commons community has ever been left in the unclear as to who any sockpuppet really is, though, and I think our latest "detective" is quite funny therefore. Since it's problematic to edit with your own name in many other daily tasks, too (e. g. because of private e-Mails, and especially all these people who actually phone you up at any time of the day), I often do all these things with the current sockpuppet, too. Just to clarify why all this is sadly necessary. That in ~ 300,000 edits of two accounts the one or other edit may interfere, well that's possible but frankly unintended. I never did anything (let only administratively) to hush confusion like this up, on the other hand, I sent numerous private explications to users to clarify if something like that ever happened. It's just the "assume bad faith" by A.Savin (and previous encounters of the sort in other projects) that prohibits any personal apology in this case. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

So, no idea what problem you have with most of your active admin colleagues; but whatever it is, you don't have the right to call them vandals, and even less to accuse them (who, surely, work here voluntarily and in good faith, including myself) the destruction of Commons. Be aware, too, that I have actually neither something to do with URAA deletions, nor with Jimbo & friends. That is, I find the primary purpose of FA2010 fully OK. What's not OK is the usage of the puppet for personal attacks in DR's or other project discussions (true to the motto: I'm an admin, I don't want to soil my hands with personal offenses, so I'll better use my sockpuppet for this purpose; exactly the same you've said above with Nothing I say with any sockpuppet I wouldn't say with my own name). Btw, an interesting thesis that the puppeteer should not stand up for the claims by his sock. For several reasons, I don't want to have something to do with German wikipedia anymore, but as an admin there you should be aware that in case of a ban of an abusive sockpuppet, the puppeteer normally gets indefblocked along with his puppet. Your repeated "assume bad faith" accusation against me I will not comment any further... --A.Savin 09:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually I don't care for the sockpuppet, I have dozens of them (oh and now he can go searching...). Wow. --A.Savin 21:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Please note that AndreasPraefcke has resigned the admintools. Is this thread still required? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

User:VelikiMeshtar

User "VelikiMeshtar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)"

I actually doubt that all of those uploads are own work. Most of those are obviously not own, including File:Grb rh 2 crvena bijela polja.jpg official ‎Croatia COA, those obvious copyvio cards, etc. All of the images are uncategorised, and under simple one or two word names. Any opinions? --WhiteWriter ^speaks 20:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there seems to be a problem: a simple review shows 9 different cameras, and many small files have no EXIF. Yann (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

User:袁軒龍

User has uploaded numerous photos and illustrations relating to the Titanic and the Queens Mary. A few actual photos may be PD-old or FOP, but most look like copyvios and have inappropriate names such as File:HAHA.jpg. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Érico Wouters ^msg 03:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Nara Fogaça de souza

Suspected sockpuppet of Nara fogaça (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), and suspected meatpuppetry with AMILTON DE CRISTO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Jespinos (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

 Blocked INeverCry 18:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Advices needed about a linguistic POV-pusher user issue and block

Hi,

This section is related to Orthomaniaque (talk · contribs).

Orthomaniaque (this nickname means The maniac of the spelling) is an account created to do some language corrections. He engaged in edit war on Wikimedia Commons to force the grammar he wants, and not the grammar the photo author, description redactor, etc. prefers.

In the English world, this would be a descriptivists versus prescriptivists issue (he's prescriptivist). We also noticed sometimes he denies a rule even modern-era prescriptivists accept, with reference to 19th century. We also noticed when he were replacing verbs considered as Anglicisms, another issue occurred: too busy to remove "bad verbs" in batch, he replaced them by another verb altering the meaning of the initial sentence. Fortunately, he haven't do that on Commons (yet).

On the French Wikipedia, there were no consensus for a block (block I were the author) two years ago. Mass reverts of automatic actions occurred, leading to mixed result: he stopped to edit some weeks, so we can forget him, then did only consensual corrections, then reverted to previous behavior. Some users like to have a very formal level of language and so agree with him and defend him. We reached to the following consensus: the form is problematic, more than the corrections themselves. But on Commons, he started again a correction judged as problematic before (he doesn't agree in the unblock message and consider everybody agreed with the rectitude of the arguments).

On Wikimedia Commons, I note we have a relaxed attitude towards description redactors. We allow them. We improve. We don't insult or mock people using the word used by some dozens of % of journalists and books writers, because the one used by the other dozens of % is better. We don't have edit wars for a word. We don't flood by harsh long automated messages people to explain The Truth.

Orthomaniaque breaks this situation with batch corrections... of a city preposition (en Avignon versus à Avignon).

• Edit war: here
• The message let to contributor: here (this is the same message he let to everybody)

I so blocked one month Orthomaniaque to send a very strong signal to a problematic contributor with the following message:

In 2010, you were warned on the French Wikipedia your behavior isn't acceptable, especially the fact you automate corrections in batch, without prior community consensus.

Your French Wikipedia talk page includes several complaints of contributors about à Avignon / en Avignon.

I noted:

• You created an account called orthomaniaque (spelling maniac);
• You engaged in edit wars to force the captions to be how you want ([e.g. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Promo_008.jpg&action=history here]);
• When an user speaks gently to you ("prière de"), you reply harshly by engaging in an edit war;
• You didn't take in account the uploader advice;
• You're flooding media talk pages with non-sense arguments.

For these reason, and according the previous warnings on other Wikimedia project (here the French Wikipedia), I blocked your account for a duration of 1 month.

You are absolutely not welcome on Wikimedia Commons to force your point of view about how the French should be in the determinist versus prescriptive debate.

Please restrict yourself at the end of your block to consensual spelling stuff (pret -> prêt) when you want to improve French. Wikimedia Commons respect the uploader language choices and doesn't need a prescriptive guru. --Dereckson (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The duration is calculated with the following arguments:

• Need to send a very strong signal to an user closed to any discussion: for several years, people go to his talk page and explain to him they don't share his vision, without any success;
• Sporadic contributions on Commons, two days would have been unnoticed (the events will agree with me: he've reacted today to a 2013-02-20 block, 15 days after);
• The language used in the explanation is rather harsh, he's patronizing and haughty with the interlocutors: see for example Quoi que vous prétendiez (an harsher form in French for whatever you said, meaning we discard every argument the interlocutor said before).

Currently, he's flooding French speaking administrators to request to be unblocked. See Special:Contributions/92.90.26.1.

The automatic process is coherent with the one he follows (same list of corrections, same message to write at a lot of place) and lack of compliance with regular rules (he could have replied on his talk page), so I'm pretty sure this is the genuine Orthomaniaque and not someone impersonating him.

I know this kind of contributions could look valid, but please take in consideration the drawbacks of the method: people felt insulted, patronized for languages issues, need to review every contribution to be sure he didn't alter a meaning, continuous small conflicts around one replacement.

I would like a community review of the block and recommendations on the best way to react to this situation. --Dereckson (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

One minor point, it's "descriptivist" vs. prescriptivist... AnonMoos (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, fixed in the text. --Dereckson (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Addendum. My block concerns the user method and the cost/benefit analysis, I think negative for the project. If you want to evaluate the rightness of the contribution, http://www.lexilogos.com/en_avignon.htm contains a good analysis, quoting the rules and the usage (the last paragraph, concluding we could keep en Avignon is only the opinion of the article author and should be discarded). --Dereckson (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I blocked the IP - Special:Contributions/92.90.26.1 - as he goes on with the flood and even [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kyro&action=history put back a message previously removed by one of the recipient. The administrators he contacted commented the activity on Twitter, more like a sportive event, with pronostic on the moment he'll reach the P for example, but didn't take a moment to answer him. I clearly would have prefered someone less implicated blocked the IP instead me... --Dereckson (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

 Comment I'm not sure I would have blocked the user. However I would classify him as PITA, his contributions to commons are null, he only edit war in file descriptions to impose a wording when both are in use in France. In the end, the block has one advantage he gives a peaceful contribution for some contributors. --PierreSelim (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

it would be nice to see something more substantial on the talkpage of the file you (Dereckson) point to as being the subject of an edit war. There seems to be a long explanation of the thinking, then they are just dismissed without any link to a claimed policy and a request not to be a troll.

Perhaps if there is a policy, link to it, and rather than the troll comment, a 3rd opinion ? I'm not saying who is right and who is wrong, but it could use a world of improvement. Blocking seems to just make things worse in this case. Penyulap ☏ 11:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit war link is the history.

About applicable policies:

• blocking policy (harassment part)
• language policy provides only the fact file description pages can be in any language and should be added in multiple languages, not the grammar point of view to respect in one language, so won't be useful.
• Commons:Ownership of pages and files (de gustibus non est disputandum part, perhaps the most relevant)

About the description of the problematic behavior vs. the policies page:

The first describes the behavior not welcome on Commons, it's applied to the precise case.

Maybe could we simplify the problem in one sentence: It seems common sense you don't edit war for a grammar divergence and you don't correct stuff in batch before having a community consensus for any controversial change., but I can't find a Use common sense guideline (I think I've read such guideline in English, so if it's not on Commons, that should be something on meta., or maybe en.).

--Dereckson (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't edit war for spelling, it's too small in my opinion, but many people do. What is common sense though is to try to work out the differences by talking to the other person, making some attempt. Just blocking them as an opening statement doesn't work well for the future, trying to communicate and find an understanding is common sense approach.

If you see something wrong across many pages, sure, discuss it if you are not sure. If you are sure that it is a problem and you have an idea of how it happened and how to fix it, there is nothing to stop you from making large changes. Sure, you need courage and commonsense, but you don't need permission first to make a large change. Some people are cautious. some are not.

Have you made more attempts to talk to the editor ? (history section doesn't count as a conversation) Penyulap ☏ 09:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read again the first summary, there were talks and mediation tentatives on fr.wikipedia for exactly the same issue and behavior since 2010. There is even a blog post to comment the affair, with some links to such talks section. No, I didn't start a conversation on Commons, as the behavior here is exactly the same than the behavior on fr.wikipedia and I don't see the point to explain from scratch the same thing to the same person just because it's another project for exactly the same actions. --Dereckson (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

well I have no idea what other people think of it, but it does make it a whole lot easier if there is a conversation here, and it also helps to have that 3rd opinion. Penyulap ☏ 07:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree. And by the way, I also agree with your be bold mass edit when the change is consensual enough or useful for the project. The issue here were the change weren't consensual and contested, as it's a special kind of language preference. --Dereckson (talk) 08:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Canoe1967

Canoe1967 was recently warned by Russavia for making this edit. Since then, he has edit warred to add inappropriate information to the Village pump [17] [18] [19] [20], has called an editor from another project a cunt twice [21] [22], and has begun blanking images. See File:Kay Summersby.jpg, File:Russell 1.jpg, and File:Waterphone bowing.jpg. He needs to be stopped before he continues damaging the project. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe if you give him a bit of space he'll come good. That's what I'd like to do, save a good contributor from leaving the project. Warring with him doesn't seem to be helping because it goes against human nature, that is, if your wanting him to stay. Penyulap ☏ 06:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. If you keep treating my input like I am a total asshole then I will fuck off. I have far better things to do with my time than try and actually improve the project. Bye all.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd take a rest from the hassles, it's a good thing to cool off, for both of you. I see Ryan is in such a flurry with two AN reports on different projects at once that he's forgotten to sign his village pump post where his link tells me that "Ani is a ruined Armenian medieval city in today's Turkey." which is interesting.

I remember the cold war movies where the jet fighters are supposed to give up the chase when they reach the border. That would be nice here. Penyulap ☏ 07:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

They did it again on Village Pump, I've since warned them no to make any further personal attacks. Bidgee (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for one day after making another personal attack, not something I wanted to do but allowing them to continue making personal attacks (regardless who it is) is just not on. Bidgee (talk) 09:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk page access has been revoked during the block due to the personal attack being reinstated. Bidgee (talk) 09:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Cabex

Seems like user "Cabex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)" is uploading random files for testing purposes, including copyvios and out of scope. He was previously warned and blocked but he continues uploding nonsense files. --V.Riullop (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for one month. Bidgee (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

IP 88.9.200.139

IP vandalized my talk page by calling me an imbecile in response to this DR. Warn, block, whatever is warranted. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Érico Wouters ^msg 22:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Cecetero

I suspect that Cecetero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is the same person as Ivanimedio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) because he is starting to uploading the same kind of copyvios to include them on the same Spanish Wikipedia article. — Ralgis [mantis Religiosa] — 16:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You can request on Commons Requests for checkuser--Morning ☼ (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Atdheu

User "Atdheu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)" uploaded in one day over 50 images, with very poor names, and most of those use source that is not BY-SA 3.0. Also, most of the images are small bad quality images (less then 10kb), with artifacts from Balkan archaeological sites. I strongly doubt that this is ok. Maybe only first images, taken with Fuji FinePix SL300. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 21:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Done I nuked everything except the Fuji FinePix images, which may well actually be own work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Disagree Erm, it's a new editor with some bad tagging as self-work sure, but did either of you bother to take a second to check the image source in the file description, and the {{PD-KosovoGov}} tag (with a link to the associated Kosovar law) I created and put it in a number of these images? I also noticed no message was left on Atdheu talk page seeking clarification etc. Do we just assume because someone's new, everything is automatically copyvio and just speedy delete? The images were all uploaded over a short period of time because it was being used in a few new articles on Wikipedia that was created as part of Wiki Academy Kosovo which took place over a weekend. The editor in question has taken effort to follow Wikimedia's rules and policies by seeking help and advice from experienced editors (off-wiki), I just wish more experienced editors here show some courtesy by welcoming and working with these new editors instead of just shooting without thinking! -- KTC (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Assuming we accept the existence of Kosavo (which US law does) the images appear to be public domain per at 12.c and 12.f of Kosovan copyright law.Geni (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess we should post a message on user's talk before deleting the inputs - there might also be cases where users may not use appropriate tags and yet the images are PD, etc, - thanks for the {{PD-KosovoGov}} tag info. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC).

Thank you for your help and support KTC. It is true that a lot of work and time went into obtaining and then uploading those photos that made that article what it is. Thank you as well for creating the {{PD-KosovoGov}}, which is how I will add the photos if the permission to upload them again is given. I hope that this issue will be resolved soon, so that I could continue making this article what it deserves to be. Regards and many thanks - --Atdheu (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

On Commons, we have had this argument many times with respect to images posted by government agencies such as tourist bureaus. There are two problems here. The first is that the government exception, in almost every country by the United States, refers only to laws, legal decisions, regulations, and other administrative actions. It does not refer to publications of advertising material. The exception is there for the simple reason that it is necessary to keep the public informed about laws and other things which directly affect their lives and a copyright inhibits that. The second is that there is no evidence that the government owns the copyright on these images and has the right to license them freely. When an entity produces a book such as this one, it generally buys a license for use in that book, not the whole copyright, because the single use license will be much cheaper. We cannot restore these without evidence that both my reading of the law is incorrect and that the government actually has the right to put these images into the public domain. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Two issues which you raised on my talk page, but not here:

First, please do not upload these images again. We never actually delete anything -- everything is saved. "Deleted" images are simply hidden from the view of everyone but Administrators. If our colleagues decide that my deletions were in error, the images can be restored, complete with descriptions and history. Uploading them again would be a waste of your time and of Commons resources and a violation of Commons rules.

Second, you mentioned Section 53. That section is a very typical FOP exception, which allow photographs and some other reproductions of works that are physically located in public places. We have never applied an FOP exception to works on the internet.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear (Jameslwoodward), you are focusing on [Article 53] while the section that you should be focusing on is [Article 12] of the Law No.04-L 065, approved by the Parliament of Kosovo on October 21, 2011. If you think that this law is illegal, then we come to the conclusion that the country of Kosovo is illegal, and even though you are entitled to your opinions, I doubt that you have the authority to come to this conclusion. As far as the righteous ownership of those photos goes, they were property of the Museum of Kosovo, but are now property of the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports, particularly the Department for Protection of Heritage, the organ that published the photos. If you need the contact information for the head of the department, I am more than willing to provide you with that information, since I have been in continuous contact with the archaeologists of the Museum, or the Archaeological Institute of Kosovo, and the head of the Department: Mrs. Vjollca Aliu. I wish that this issue is resolved in a timely and cordial manner, unlike the cordiality that was shown to me.--Atdheu (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

If you are in contact with the source, then I strongly suggest that you have them gice us a formal license using the procedure described at Commons:OTRS. They should state formally that they are the owners of the copyrights to all of the images and have the right to license them. If they are comfortable with describing the images as "all of the images uploaded to Commons by User:Atdheu" or "all of the images found at www.xxxx", then that would be fine. If you or they prefer, I can generate a list of the deleted images for you to give to them.

Also, please read my reply below to Andy Mabbett. I am truly sorry that we cannot give better service to the community, particularly to new users, but the active Admins are running as fast as we can, with an avalanche of new images coming after us. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You're asking for this to go through OTRS for an official body to assert it owns the copyright to the images that if our reading is correct they cannot do since by publishing them, it's not copyrighted. Really? -- KTC (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. As I said above, I think there are two problems with these images. First, the exception in Section 12 does not cover them, and second, even if it does, the source may not own the rights to freely license them. As an imperfect parallel, consider US law. An image produced by a Federal government employee is automatically PD, but there are many images on Federal websites that are produced by others and therefore not free even though, in many cases, the site says that they are.

Assume for a moment that you are correct in your reading of Section 12. Surely the Kosovo law does not make an image PD if the the Kosovo government takes it from a non-free source, or buys it under a single use license, and then publishes it in a travel brochure or on a tourist web page. Before it can become PD under your reading of Section 12, the Kosovo government must have the right to make it PD. I am asking that the source confirm that it has the right to make the images PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This is an appalling way to treat - and describe - a new, good-faith editor. Where are the welcome; the offer of support; the words of encouragement; the assumption of good faith; the notification of this discussion? Please reflect on how you can better support new editors, as KTC has done. Andy Mabbett (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely that the situation is not good. However, please remember that we get around 8,000 new images every day, of which about 2,000 are problematic. That adds up to 60,000 images every month that must be deleted. In the last thirty days, 80% of that work (48,000 deletions) was done by 10 Admins -- we are very close to being overwhelmed, as we were early last summer when deletions fell six months behind.

So, both policy and practice requires that when we see copyvios, we delete them without discussion. If you could find us ten more truly active Administrators, we could give far better service to the community, but as it is now, time simply does not allow discussion of every deletion.

With that said, I also think that if you look at the Talk Pages of any of the top ten Admins you will find that they are among the most active in supporting new users. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are treating this as clear copyvios when it isn't, as such should had been something that went to deletion discussion to ascertain. Every national laws is different. Just because similar provisions in other countries may only cover laws & regulations doesn't mean it is the case in Kosovo. KTC (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly true that laws vary from country to country, but they have common themes. We have had this debate over the reading of this kind of law in many places. I don't read Albanian, so I do not know exactly what

"Section 12 (1.6) materialet zyrtare të botuara për informim të publikut."

means. The Google translation is

"official materials published for public information".

There are similar words in many nations' copyright laws, but we have generally not extended them to include travel brochures.

It might be helpful for an Albanian speaker to give us little discussion of the exact meaning of 12.1.6. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I would look at Atdheu's responses here and consider them the resident expert on these matters until proven otherwise. Penyulap ☏ 23:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

So what is the consensus on these files, should I translate the text for you so that there is a clear picture of what the law states, being that I am a native speaker of that particular language, or should there still be a continuous debate upon who is the owner of the pictures, which I have already stated that it is the Ministry of Culture, which has published the photos. --Atdheu (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

IMHO you should translate the text. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC).

(Jameslwoodward)Tomorrow I have a meeting with the person in charge of Protection of Heritage at the Ministry of Culture, to clarify that they are the rightful owner of the images, and that those images are exempt from copyright. What text do you suggest that they write to testify that they are the rightful owners, that they released these photos in their site, and that they are exempt from public domain. According to Article 12 of the above mentioned Law, these files are exempt from PD:

*idea, principle, instruction, procedure, discovery and mathematical concept
 per se;

 *official law, rule and other regulation;

 *official material and publication of parliamentary, governmental and other
 organizations with powers of public office;

 *official translations of regulations and other official materials, as well
 as international agreements and other instruments;

 *application and other acts in administrative and court procedures;

 *official materials published for the information of the public; (which applies to the photos that I uploaded)

 *expressions of  folklore;

 *news of the day and various information, which have the character of usual
 press reports.

--Atdheu (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to produce another translation into English, when an official one exists, which I am reading such that the images in question would all be in the public domain. By the way, not being aware of {{PD-KosovoGov}}, I have started working on {{PD-Kosovo-exempt}}, which I think is a better name, since government materials are not the only things not copyrightable under that law. Suggestions as to how to merge these two are welcome. I also think we should have a general {{PD-Kosovo}} for things for which copyright has expired.

I am aware of the workload admins have with the many deletions that are necessary, and I agree that it is not always easy to tell. But that's precisely what deletion discussions are for. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Can someone tell me if there is anything happening with the deleted pictures, because I want to do some editing to the article but it looks naked without the pictures.--Atdheu (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Kim-Long07

User keeps removing DR notices from his files after warnings. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week -FASTILY ^(TALK) 10:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I think Fastily acted a bit hastily. I had posted a note on the user's talk about this discussion and before that Fry posted User_talk:Kim-Long07#DR_notices. So, do we not give a person some reasonable time to defend oneself, even if the grounds for such a thing may sound too flimsy? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC).

It seems there are some multiple accounts involved in the same image manipulation/modification. See Giangnam007 (talk · contribs) and Namkhanh02 (talk · contribs), and compare them to Kim-Long07 (talk · contribs).

Zeugma fr (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Likely Sock-puppets. The latter two are already blocked indef by ZScout370, the first for socking, the second for vandalism. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Reblocked as a sockpuppet. Thanks! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Mobileinvestment

Mobileinvestment (talk · contribs) appears to be a spam/advertisement account (name implies this also). User has uploaded five copyvios (which I've deleted) which contained summaries with blatant advertisements. For example, from File:Iphone 5 official1.jpg:

"FREE SHIPMENT TO ALL MIDDLE EAST COUNTRIES >>>>

Latest New Lunched Blackberry Blade design & Porsche Design P’9981 and Apple iPad 3 Wi-Fi + 4G with Arabic & English Keyboard WITH SPECIAL PIN

Network SIM CARD ( Globe-Du-Etisalat -Q-TEL -Al Jawal-Zain-Viva-B-Mobile-Batelco ) many more ..

BUY 2 GET 1 FREE.

Blackberry porsche design p9981 Blackberry Blade design Blackberry empathy BlackBerry Bold 9790 Blackberry 9900 Apple iPad 3 Wi-Fi + 4G Apple iphone 4S 64GB

Made In Mexico and Canada

Contact for Prices::

SKYPE Call & Chat : Mobileinvestment

Inquiry:mobileinvestment@ymail.com

Add Us On This BBM PIN: 293D1144

Sales Manager azeez abdullah

Shukran And God Bless."

Эlcobbola _talk 15:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The entire text may be compared with this website stuff to know the promotion / advertising component. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC).

The deletion of 5 images which you cited is well inline with our policy as I recall this deleted image carried the promotional stuff "SERVICES: TEMPLE ARCHITECTS - STHAPATH" which was actually sourced from here. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC).

To be clear, the deletion is not the salient issue; after all, I deleted them. This discussion is to determine whether the user should be indef blocked as a Spam account. I would block myself, but don't want to act unilaterally. Эlcobbola _talk 16:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

the account is already indef on name, if they can choose another name and be asked not to spam but rather find an acceptable way to promote themselves it would be easier to keep an eye on them. However I think this one will be so busy selling phones they won't have much time for commons besides initial dabbling. Penyulap ☏ 17:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we can help with name suggestions more suitable than mobile + investment. something catchy and easy to remember, hmm, how about departing + dosh, or fleeing + finance, or even bolting + banking .... Penyulap ☏ 17:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

We get one or two of these almost every day -- accounts opened only to place an advertisement. I just deleted a gallery page from one a few minutes ago. They almost always go away after the first try when they find they can't get away with advertising here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Perhelion

User has attacked me twice in DR for no apparent or relevant reasoning, calling me "completely incompetent", "antisocial", "against the rules", and claiming that I have a holier than thou outlook. None of this has anything to do with the DR. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

User warned, DR closed. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 10:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello!? Is there any objective discussion?? Sorry Fastily but I understand your actions not really.

Okay I'm only sorry to said about Fry1989 has a "incompetent discernment". If I say I feel me treated arrogant, is not a attack on F...

• Fry1989 shows here how he polemical exaggerates (remember, as so often):
• Unfortuntaly you Fastily has deleted this file, a very probable original,[23][24]laputa.it[25][26][27]fatherjoshuacatholicmomhfccvic.org[28]cache 30 de Abril de 2009[...ok to much] with me as (delete) reason!? (but after Fry1989 I have nothing calling DR related) Copyfraud would be a delete reasen but not me...
• Nearly all my comments were DR related, all linked reverts where DR related
• I've not calling Fry1989 "completely incompetent", "antisocial"
• I've asked Fry1989 why he does this so "antisocial" (I and other feeling so treated), "against the rules" (no commenting reverts are like it be for vandals) So not in the history, I asked in the DR. But he answer only: " I don't have to justify any of my..." Is that a attack??? Sorry that's 'BULLSHIT' (in Penyulap's word) Reasoning?

I have really no fun to work/ to do anything on Commons anymore with such persons and procedures. Bye -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 12:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Some of the problem may be the time and history of the Internet. If the file is on commons for many years like this one has been, then many other people on the Internet can copy it, it is a free file you see. I look at a few of the links you give, one is a typical church news site. They can't draw their own images, the Pastor doesn't have time, so they shalt steal files from the Internet instead to use on their site.

You say you haven't said a lot of things, but you did say

Author and source are completely implausible (see much hits on google) so user Vanzanten has giving willful false (license) information!? I also agree AnonMoos, the SVG is completely ugly, another reason that User:Cronholm144 can't be the real author. PS: And again, a clear sign of a (completely?) incompetent discernment of Fry1989 -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 18:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap ☏ 14:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

@Penyulap: Yes I have hinted an apology further above. That would be possible and an Admin could easy verify this assertion (only a guess?)!? But anyway no source of this image has Commons or Wikipedia referred as source!? PS. Fastily seems known as one of the fastest admins on Commons. -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 15:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhelion, if you have a problem with me, the way I conduct myself, or the way I conduct my DRs, either come talk to me about it or start an AN/U about it and have the community decide if I've done something wrong. DON'T attack me (twice) calling me names in a completely unrelated DR, where you agree the file should be deleted anyways! It was insulting, inaccurate, and my competency is not at the discretion of your opinion! One other thing, I'm not anti-social, I have several friends here. The difference is they treat me with respect and so I do the same. You do not treat me with respect and that is why you will never get any from me. Fry1989 ^eh? 15:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhelion it makes no difference at all what other sites claim as the source or what they don't say. I'm talking about the timeline. If it is published here in 2007, then you publish it on your website in 2010 and say you made it, you'd be full of shit wouldn't you ? it's like that. You need to find a source for the image BEFORE it was published here on commons. How many times you can find it after that means nothing at all. Attacking other users and name-calling is the sort of thing that is useful on English Wikipedia, but slightly less so on commons. Penyulap ☏ 01:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"Competent discernment" Ok then I talk more concrete: The JPG looks more like a professional work, instead of a Commons-user made SVG-garbage. So where is the deletion-log or any evidence of this file for your guess??? (PS. for me it looks more like a scan) -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 16:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

User:84user

I'm much more familiar with standards and procedures on en.wiki than I am here, so I wanted to ask if the action of User:84user in opening a deletion request here immediately after one had just been closed as "Keep" was defensible behavior on Commons, or whether it's considered to be disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

84user was perfectly right to re-open this DR, as both prior keep-closures were a bit superficial (even admins can't always be perfect). Especially after he had first consulted at Commons:Village_pump#Freedom_of_Panorama_consensus_unclear and was told to do so. Otherwise, I would have done it by myself. --Túrelio (talk) 07:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This is what happened in the case of this DR. It was decided as "kept" in the first DR and yet on a second appeal, it was deleted. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC).

This is the third DR - how many are we going to have? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This should be the last one, unless it is closed as a keep. If it is, then I will nominate it again. It seems to me that the problem here is not 84User, but Beyond My Ken, who apparently refuses to accept our well settled policy that an image must be free in both the source country and the USA, even though that has been explained at great length. 84User did all the right things, including posting a query on VP before reopening this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

So, in other words, you (or someone) will keep nominating it for deletion until it is deleted, because you consider that to be the only correct conclusion. So much for decisions by consensus. (Hmm... since you're not willing to abide by consensus unless it reaches the conclusion you consider correct, I guess that means that if it is deleted, I should be able to re-upload it, since I disagree with the conclusion to delete!! Wow, isn't this a fun game?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You keep referring to consensus; I see no consensus in a 4-3 decision. Moreover, DRs aren't exactly a consensus-based process in any project; policy trumps head counts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

If you (Beyond My Ken) upload this file again if it is deleted, it will be entirely out of process. The correct process would be to post an UnDR. Since you appear to not understand some of our most basic principles:

• that an image must be free in both the source country and the USA,
• that you must not simply reupload a file when you disagree with its deletion,
• that DRs are not votes and not consensuses -- they rest on the closing Admin's understanding of copyright law and Commons policy,

perhaps you should spend some time reading up on our rules and procedures and less time making baseless complaints about colleagues. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Please keep your condescension to yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record I did not re-open the DR immediately after it was closed. First, I was, and still am, genuinely confused by the reasoning of the decision, as I hope I explained in the DR. Second, I first asked for feedback at the Pump here, and then 12 hours later after reading a few responses, re-opened the DR myself. In my mind I also thought it quite possible consensus had changed, thinking partly of the potential impact of URAA decision. -84user (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Star wars.jpg (talk · contribs)

IMO, this is an inappropriate username, both per "Star wars" and per the .jpg extension. So far, he has uploaded only copyvios. But if he goes on to use this account, it should be renamed. Besides, I wonder why MediaWiki does accept creation of such unfitting account names. --Túrelio (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeffed, I blocked several similar accounts over the last weeks. Nothing but vandalism/copyvio images, primary focus/interest seems to be ita wiki. And yes, MW should not permit such a username. --Denniss (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

User:GhiathArodaki

New user who has made a few nationalistically-based DRs, uploaded a retaliatory file, and has attacked myself for political reasons. I don't think this is the place for him. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, he's apologized (partially) for attacking me, but his politically motivated edits still don't belong here. Can someone else take over these DRs and him? Fry1989 ^eh? 21:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Not too disruptive as such, but he's incredibly quick to take offense and feel "insulted" on behalf of the Assad regime ("Insult" seems to be his favorite word). AnonMoos (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

In fact, any flag that isn't the current flag of a country, is an insult to that country according to him. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Foroa‎

I feel overrun by admin Foroa who reverts my edits without showing interest in any discussion. Background: There has been a practice that all user categories should be hidden. I, as well as others, have reoccuringly questioned the support for this practice. The discussion has taken place at Commons talk:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy#Hidden user categories. OK? and (in short and with some of the same users) Template talk:User category. The discussion started in 2009, and I made the conclusion in 2010 and again this month that there is no consensus for the practice. Noone has questioned this conclusion, but the practice still remained in the policy by demanding the use of {{User category}} which includes the hidden attribute, until I changed it a couple of weeks ago. After my edit I waited for a little more than a week to give time for people to react. Nothing happened, so I began to implement the change by replacing the user cat template in my user cats with simple categorization.

Reactions from Foroa: Admin Foroa reacted by reverting (almost) all of my edits, without any kind of notification on my talk page. Allready at this stage the user is at the brink of breaking rollback guideline. Just the fact that the reverts were done to several user cats should be sufficient to show that I am not a vandal, but rather a quite experienced contributor. (I am an administrator, check user, and former bureaucrat at one of the larger Wikipedias.) I responded by requesting a show of consensus in support for the reverts (User talk:Foroa#User cats). I awaited any discussion on the matter, but Foroa soon explained that the user is not inclined to actually read the policy supposedly supporting them. Since an admin who is not interested in policy wording nor in the (rather short) discussion behind it shouldn't invoke a consensus which the admin simply is "pretty much convinced that there is", I redid my edits. By now Foroa obviously must know both that I am an established user and that I am willing to back my actions on talk pages. I am also willing to back off if consensus is really shown. Still the admin speedily reverted my edits with no further explanation, but with a threat of also, by bot, ruining my user cat structure, still referring to some unsupported consensus.

Request: I have been active on talk pages to question a practice. When noone has objected I have made a few changes to policy text. I have awaited reactions to these. When I at last act on these changes, my actions are undone, but my argument stays unanswered. I thus question Foroa's use of admin tools, primarily to the second round of reverts, and request that the user undo these. Secondly I welcome a more thorough discussion on the matter at Commons talk:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy.

/Dcastor (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The user plays with words. While he is stating Of course user cats are not topical, but there is no automatic logic to hide non-topical categories. It is clear that when a category is non topical, as they are called on category displays, then they should be in the other row. And saying that there is no consensus in the discussion, because he seems to be the only one in the world that seems to want his personal name displayed in the topical category list is far-fetched. --Foroa (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

@/Dcastor, to answer your 2010-question "Can there really be said to exist a consensus for it?": yes, there is, at least among those for whom this is relevant. Over the years I have added the user-category-template to a lot of user-categories of other users and explained it to them. There was never any dispute about. --Túrelio (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

If all users start to build hundreds of user categories (this user has 79 cats, all shouting clearly his name) with their personal naming and structure logic, it will be nice here. We are lucky that we have no David Castro topic yet, good luck to find it. --Foroa (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)--Foroa (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

There has been a change in the default handling of hidden cats since I started these discussions. Back then hidden was hidden unless a user actively set preferences differently. When the change took place, so did the heading, not to call them "hidden" any more. That change has not yet occurred in the Swedish UI translation, so I never noticed the change. I thus no longer have an interest in the changes I asked for, but would still ask of Foroa to actually communicate (as on talk pages) rather than just reverting. If that had been done, we could have come to an understanding without using this noticeboard.

I don't understand the reference to any David Castro topics, nor what my user cat structure has to do with anything. /Dcastor (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

While at it, could an admin please change the Swedish translation from "Dolda kategorier" (hidden categories) to "Motivoberoende kategorier" (Motif-independent categories? /Dcastor (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Uh oh Uh Oh Again

Looks to me like another uploader of private images without any educational purpose. Please check. -- Ies (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

All uploads filed for deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

& user blocked for sockpuppetry. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Sridhar1000 sockpuppet Piggy58

I just reverted bunch of weird and incomplete renaming requests by Piggy58 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. I see this alternate account of long-term vandal Sridhar1000 has already been brought to your attention more than a month ago, but I guess there was some epic drama discussion going on at the time which drew everyone's attention away from boring routine stuff. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I was the person who reported User:Piggy58 about a month back. I hope at least now our sysops will look into the matter. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC).

 Done Seeing that we have known sock accounts like User:Goldduck58 and User:Sridharbabu58, I've blocked this one too. INeverCry 17:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I performed a check per request of Ezarate and User:Piggy58 is indeed a Confirmed sockpuppet of Sridhar1000. Trijnstel_talk 18:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It's good to see the confirmation and the fresh block. However, the point in detecting / reporting sockpuppets like Piggy58 is that non-sysops like myself and LX do not go for "checking" option since we do not have the access to the option. We report suspected sockpuppets based on the type and pattern of edits, uploads and rename requests. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC).

Hello. You can request checks at Commons:Requests for checkuser. Not all sysops can check users either :) Best regards. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, most cannot. It's a separate and much more restrictively granted right. For obvious cases and new puppets of previous cases (both of which apply here), creating a new formal request is often needless red tape. Usually, if there's sufficient evidence to justify a check, it will be obvious enough that a block can be applied without running a check first. In practice, the main benefit of the checkuser functionality to is to identify sleeper accounts of obvious sockpuppeteers. I also tend to create a formal request for newly detected cases if the abuse is significant or intricate enough to merit some documentation for future reference. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

User has re-created deleted Wikipedia userspace articles on Wikimedia commons

Someone caught using their Wikipedia userspace as free web host has re-created all their deleted articles here on Wikimedia. 24.218.242.159 02:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Have already been deleted, however, without any DR or any notification of the uploader, which is bad. --Túrelio (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Slowking4

Can some people take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sir Henry Rider Haggard.png and Slowking4 comments there (and mine as well, probably)? The user has admitted to deliberately uploading a file here because I challenged it on en.wikipedia ("i uploaded it because you challenged it"), deliberately and incorrectly changed the year of the picture (from ca. 1920s to 1900s) to give it a better chance of survival, and his comments at that discussion became more and more uncivil, with gems liek "your incompetent "malignant assiduity." i will enjoy your crash and burn just like Betacommand. " and "i am not alone in my disdain and contempt for your disruptive hounding of productive editors. they are sharpening their knives, and you had better change your behavior, before they ban you as they banned betacommand." This is all apparently because he doesn't agree with how a case I started about another editor on en.wikipedia finished: in that case, not a single finding of fact, remedy, admonishment, .. against me was made, and basically my position was confirmed by the en.arbcom. To bring that conflict here deliberately, uploading a dubious and challenged photograph, just to get back at me, is very poor behaviour. Some neutral eyes on this would be appreciated. Fram (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)