Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 45

Plenty of posters

Special:Contributions/GAPPInstruments ha suploaded posters, please delete--Motopark (talk) 08:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

All nuked -FASTILY 09:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Copsychus malabaricus male - Khao Yai.jpg

Please revert this vandalism immediately. Don't know how it is unnoticed so far. See File talk:Copsychus malabaricus male - Khao Yai.jpg. The POTD text is also affected. :( JKadavoor Jee 13:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Didym (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. JKadavoor Jee 14:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio

someone can see [1] bye --Chatsam (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Privacy

Files in Special:ListFiles/Mgrasek100 contain geo location data what should be removed for privacy. --Hans Haase (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Mikropenis.JPG and File:Cellulitis1c.jpg are still affected. --Hans Haase (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Bug

I did it for the former, but MediaWiki seems to be buggy. I ticked to hide the content, but not the user names and the edit summaries. The opposite was done. :-( --Leyo 16:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but the EXIF in the binary file still exists! --Hans Haase (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

A new version of the image (without the EXIF) needs to be uploaded over the old one, which then needs to be hidden. --Leyo 16:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I will request the user to do so. --Hans Haase (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hoangbaothanh

Looks like another sock of Namkhanh02 Fry1989 ^eh? 02:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

 Blocked INeverCry 02:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The DR Backlog -- Part II

Great work everyone! We reduced the backlog by ~19 days since the last time I posted here. Unfortunately, as of right now, we're still 32 days behind (or 5843 items requiring attention). To all admins: please donate a few minutes of your time and close some DRs to help eliminate this massive backlog!

If you'd like to help, I recommend using DelReqHandler, which is available on the gadgets page. Thanks for helping out! Cheers, FASTILY 05:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I have removed duplicate entries in Fastily's list above. --whym (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Now everybody can see, what INeverCry meaned to us. If he closed a lot of DR-s every day, then such backlog was not. I spent today whole day working in DR-s, but I am not able to do that every day. Taivo (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Believe it or not, we have only one open DR -- A big "Well Done" to us all. Of course that will change in an hour and twelve minutes -- midnight UTC. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Make that zero. INeverCry 22:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Teylers Museum

It seems to me that there are two categories about this museum: [2] and [3]. If so, will you be so kind to fix it? Thank you. --Seleucidis (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Teylers Museum is a gallery page, while Category:Teylers Museum is, well, a category. There is a difference between the two. odder (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

What should I add: a gallery or a category to illustrate an article? Can I incorporate both? A link to a gallery in an information box and a link to a category in the external links? What are the rules? What is the best for the reader? --Seleucidis (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Several Wikipedias support both, eg. en:Template:Commons and category. MKFI (talk) 08:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Odder & MKFI thanks. We used Commonsall and it works. Seleucidis (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

DR or Special:Nuke?

We have a sock puppet master who is engaging in repeated uploads of art from a non-notable artist. At the moment, I am in the middle of doing a second CU in less than a week, and expect to end up with more than fifty socks. See:

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Alexander Tatarnikov 12:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Commons:Requests_for_checkuser#DiezelSun8
• Commons:Requests_for_checkuser#Varum7

Question -- Strictly speaking, these uploads do not fit the criteria for {{Speedy}}. Nonetheless, I think that we should use Special:Nuke on sight -- I hope that if his uploads are deleted immediately, rather than after the week's run of a DR, he might get discouraged. I might have done it myself, but since I am doing the CU work, I feel involved and would like an independent opinion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I have speedydeleted the files. I hope this is okay. Clear out of COM:SCOPE + corosswiki spamming. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

See meta:Steward_requests/Miscellaneous#cleanup_required_xwiki --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Good, thank you. Does the community agree with Steinsplitter and me that we should do that to all future uploads from this puppet master? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Why not? :) JKadavoor Jee 16:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

 Agree INeverCry 19:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked another sock: DiezelSun9. INeverCry 19:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

That makes 74 -- I found another one at the same IP. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Gesher Neolithic site again

About a week ago I handled that absurdity editfight and achieved your appreciated assistance by this notice, and now as you can see it's back, and they had Category:Gesher Neolithic site renamed yet again to a nonsense "Category:Gesher Neolithic archaeological site". The parent is clearly "Neolithic sites" and not "Neolithic archaeological sites", could you this time please restore it and *protect* the badname from recreation, or anything?? Orrlingtalk 15:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Account merge / account deletion

Howdy, admins. I'm Zippy on the en wikipedia, and an admin there. I *think* the Zippy account on Mediawiki is mine, but if it is, I registered years ago and can't seem to pick the right password or email.

I looked and the account seems to have: 1) no user page, 2) no uploads/contributions to Mediawiki.

If you would be able to reset this account for me, or delete it so I can use the same name here as on en.wikipedia. I would be most appreciative. Feel free to leave me a note on en if you want to verify my account (and this request). --ZippyEN (talk) 08:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Or delete the existing Zippy here and rename ZippyEN to Zippy. That works too. --ZippyEN (talk) 08:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You may request an account usurpation. Best regards. – Kwj2772 (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Usurpation requested, thank you Kwi2772. --ZippyEN (talk) 10:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

See also Special:CentralAuth/Zippy. --Glaisher (talk) 08:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Automated deletion requests

In the last week we have seen several hundred deletion requests created by The Photographer (talk · contribs), see Photographer&withJS=MediaWiki%3AGadget-rightsfilter.js&lifilter=1&lifilterexpr=Starting+del&lifiltercase=1&format=json filtered search, this special maintained report with over 400 open DRs shown along with the thumbnails and this static report of The Photographer's closed DRs for November with 648 closed DRs. The DRs use boiler-plate text and based on how several are being created per minute, it is reasonable to conclude that The Photographer is using automated tools that he has yet to explain. The DRs are presumably for what The Photographer sees as obvious cases, however there is still a significant "failure" rate at 7% or so as not much (or nil) effort is going into checking the background of the photographs such as understanding text written on the image page in non-English languages, doing a related Google search to uncover context, or even ensuring that the nomination text is appropriate for the context rather than standard boiler-plate.

The Photographer's activities remain a concern, however in this thread I would appreciate some slightly more general views from admins as to whether there is support for automated DRs and whether we expect contributors like The Photographer to explain more clearly the process they are following for automation, possibly requiring them to seek community approval before rapidly raising hundreds or thousands of deletion requests.

Perhaps we should establish a guideline for tool users covering these types of automation that may entail significant work for other volunteers? --Fæ (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

See User_talk:Jameslwoodward#The_Influx_of_Problematic_Files. I think many admins including Jameslwoodward and Fastily suggested the need for more DRs on similar works. Even though I didn't think all such DRs should be closed as "deleted"; I didn't see any harm in them. They work only as a notice to the admins; our admins are free to either "keep" or "delete" it. Moreover, I think it is a good and necessary thing that some one like The Photographer or any other smart guy find time for it. And it need to be appreciated. Am I right? (BTW, he nominated a few of my uploaded too for deletion. ) JKadavoor Jee 11:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it is a matter of educating those who are using the tools. Because of the high failure rate, I find The Photographer's noms harder and slower than others. For example, I have never had a single one of Eugene's noms go to UnDR -- he has, in my experience, perfect judgement. Therefore, when I am going through the DR log, I just hit the "delete" link, without looking at the files he nominates. This may be heresy to some, but given Eugene's perfect record and our usual backlog, it seems appropriate. I look at all of The Photographer's noms and most others.

With that understood, I think we need to encourage more DRs. The last million files was uploaded at the rate of 15,000 a day. In the last thirty days we've deleted almost 1,800 files, which is down from our high of over 2,000, but up from recent times when we were doing less than 1,000. My best guess is that we need to delete between 15% and 20% of all new uploads -- and, as is pointed out in the discussion on my talk page, several new tools have increased that significantly so perhaps it is now over 20%. We've shown that if we work hard at it, we can close DRs as required, so the bottleneck is noms. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

And we can hope The Photographer will learn from his mistakes and improve his evaluation skills. No need to fully discourage him now? JKadavoor Jee 12:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Reminder this thread is about whether we need better guidelines for the automatic creation of DRs. The Photographer's case is an illustration. If you want another illustration, I would be happy to create a bot that (completely) automatically raised every new mobile platform upload without any EXIF data on the image up for deletion, on the basis that 90%+ of these images are either copyright violations or out of scope.

To repeat my first comment - "in this thread I would appreciate some slightly more general views from admins as to whether there is support for automated DRs" - Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an admin; but will support if you make such a tool. I remember I suggested your name when The Photographer contacted me for help. JKadavoor Jee 12:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that most (over 90%) of The Photographer's requests are good. Hopefully, he will learn and make fewer wrong requests.

I never do automatic deletions. I always check the file before deleting it, and when it is not a DR, only when I am pretty sure it is a copyright violation.

Yes, as I said on Jim's talk page, some automated process for tagging copyvios would be useful. You could tag with {{Copyvio}}, any file with the following:

1. Has some external source and doesn't have a license.
2. Has Google/Internet/Facebook/unknown/etc. as source, and a recent date, whatever is the license.
3. Any poster/album cover/etc. with a recent date, and no OTRS permission. Yann (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear above -- I said only that I thought we needed more DRs. I would support even more automated DRs -- along the lines suggested by Fae and Yann. I also think that we should eliminate {{No license since}} and {{No permission since}} in favor of using a DR on those. A DR gets more visibility and (with DelReqHandler) is easier for the closing Admin. I found in going through Category:Media missing permission yesterday that a significant fraction had to go to DR anyway.

I would like to add to Yann's list an automatic DR for the first ten uploads of any new user, but I'd be afraid of the negative effect on newbies. Perhaps we should consider renaming the DR to something like "Status Review" -- although it would have the same purpose, it isn't such a chilling name. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

WRT newbies, OgreBot's reports already do this, in a passive way, which avoids upsetting newbies with lots of threatening notices.

I'll have a proper think about this over the winter holidays. I think there is scope here for a useful bot monitoring new uploads and both identifying individual problem images and problem uploaders with a serious pattern of deleted/tagged initial uploads. I would want any of my bots to have success/failure rates carefully reported and tracked. Personally, if a bot-type task were much less than 99%+ accurate I would be worried, plus as a bot operator I could imagine lots of stressful vitriolic complaints on my talk page, which I would need a very solid defence for. A simple bit of transparency, community consensus and continuous statistical process control goes a long way for this sort of project.

In the longer term (like before the end of 2014), I think there may be grounds to have a bot with admin power of deletion too, however I'll ponder the usecases for that, and see if I can set up some test reports for a wider community consensus. Deletions would have to be something like 99.9% spot on in provable copyvios or similar, perhaps with a regular human review of the summary. For boringly obvious copyvios, an admin regularly sampling 2% of bot deletions to check it is on track, is a lot more efficient than an admin doing 100% by hand instead. --Fæ (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for this discussion. My review procedure is not automated. I check each selection personally opening as many windows as possible in my web browser. I would like to thank for their enormous Fae participation in many of my nominations. Furthermore, at this time I focus on promotional images, images of children in sexual positions and widespread vandalism. A tool to detect these images using a dictionary (similar to search engine provided by okawix) would be very beneficial. Always requiring human participation to confirm. --The Photographer (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You can set up your own queries with OgreBot, see User:OgreBot/gallery, to generate galleries of image review candidates, like User:Mattbuck/Nudity. It's not too hard to set up, I suggest you try it out.

If you are identifying sexual images that may involve minors, please do not use a public process like OgreBot to create filters or galleries. I suggest discussion by email with an admin you trust, or checking with admins and oversighters on IRC before doing anything publicly which may have unintended consequences. The mere process of documenting filters may encourage harvesting illegal images off-wiki. Raising public deletion requests or similar, may also attract attention on images that could increase damage caused to the models or others involved, so it is important to let oversighters or more experienced admins handle deletions like this quietly when necessary.

Illegal or damaging images probably do require more automated processes to find them, and it is perfectly reasonable to have bots email results to closed lists, rather than publish them on-wiki (I always assumed that some of this went on already, but I've never been that interested in digging into it, wanting to focus on more positive content creation). These are things we can discuss on noticeboards like this in general terms, and there should be ways of providing transparency and measuring progress, without risking damage. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Reality Check: DR ≠ Guaranteed deletion. Our deletion request process is a review process (the only one we have), and I think The Photographer is doing us a massive favor by nominating all these files for review. Pretending that these images do not exist (i.e. sweeping them under the rug) does not, in fact, make them magically disappear. -FASTILY 01:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. We should encourage more such DR efforts. When 95% of the nominated files are being deleted, this is certainly not a waste of the community's time. --Avenue (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Lots of ideas here! I'll try to break my responses apart:

• I like the idea of a "new user review" or similar (as passive as possible, hopefully not even noticed by the user). I welcome Ogrebot's lists, but we could perhaps be more efficient by clicking a button somewhere so that the next reviewer didn't need to inspect the same user. --99of9 (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• I agree that we are missing a lot of incoming copyvios, so more DRs on new material are a priority. --99of9 (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• I don't mind no-permission or no-source tags, but perhaps someone can write tools to speed up their handling too. --99of9 (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• For approval of fully automated DR-opening bots, I would want a high demonstrated and tracked accuracy rate - something like 90%+ of nominations actually getting deleted, and a written pseudo-algorithm explaining how it works. --99of9 (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• For semi-automated tools operated by an experienced user, I'd encourage these, but would expect about 80%+ hit rate together with a committment to learn from one's mistakes. --99of9 (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If some file is presented for deletion, then I look at uploader's other uploads. Often they have also problems and I can nominate them for deletion. Zelenko also works that way. Taivo (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have no issue with anyone putting up for deletion selfies posted by one-and-done users - people that came to Commons solely to upload a selfie, and have no significant activity on any WMF projects. I do have an issue with putting up for deletion selfies of established editors. Unless it gets out of hand, to the point where we're seeing 10, 50, 100 selfies, I don't see this as a problem. We have long held that established editors can have a few images of themselves, with the expectation but not the requirement that said images be used by those editors in their user pages. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• We have Category:User page images for that. JKadavoor Jee 19:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• If I had a dollar for every miscategorized image on Commons, I would never have to work again. Most people don't even know that exists, and plenty of people that do know it exists aren't using it correctly. My comment stands; we have long held that established editors can have a few images of themselves. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Sure; and it seems many people are misusing that provision too. See File:A picture of Ben Bout.jpg. That user has only two edits in Commons; one is this upload. Should we keep such files even if categorized as Category:User page images for mere self promotion? He has less than 50 edits at EN. His page says there "Hello! I'm Ben. Maybe I'll update this later, but for now for you to get an idea of who I am, here are no links because wikipedia won't let me add them: (google 'Benimation' instead)".

What about hiding Category:User page images, so that they do not show up in web search engines? Does adding it to Category:Hidden categories work? JKadavoor Jee 03:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of first version of File:Jimmy Wales at WikiWednesday in Copenhagen 20131204.jpg due to too much info in Exif

I've messed up and failed to remove an email adress in the EXIF-data of the first version of File:Jimmy Wales at WikiWednesday in Copenhagen 20131204.jpg. Could someone please delete that version? Thanks in advance. Regards Knud Winckelmann (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Didym (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Much obliged. Knud Winckelmann (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

File:WMMainbackgroundv1.svg

The Wikimania2014 wiki [4] is using this image as the background on every single page, can an admin please upload protect it please? Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 05:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I protected the file, even though I think pages like Contact look totally stupid with this file in the background. odder (talk) 09:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Revision delete

Hello. I request to delete this revision.--Avocato (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done This is only vandalism. No need to revdel. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Abusive DR

Can these two DRs be speedily closed please? It's a clear case of abuse and hounding to get rid of them without any substance. They were only just kept in a previous DR about a day ago, with the nominator being the sole user who thinks they are still copyrighted. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Greatly appreciated. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The closing admin's rationale in the original DR read "Some of these are probably okay for Commons, and some probably aren't. Either way, this images need to be reviewed on an indvidual basis, and not in a mass DR." I'd see creating DRs for individual images as following that decision, not as abusive. (I tend to agree that the arguments for these images were favouring keeping them, but that's a separate issue.) --Avenue (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Whereas:

• The nominator was the sole user to believe they are still copyrighted
• The nominator was claiming Wikipedia policies to get it deleted even though they do not apply to Commons
• The nominator was attempting to attach a burden of proof to the precautionary principle that does not exist
• The nominator did not have any proof that the original author lived to any specific age
• The facts surrounding the age of the flag and life expectancy make it extremely likely that the author died before the current age deadline in direct conflict with the precautionary principle's requirement of "significant doubt" to be applicable

There is absolutely no reason for it to be deleted, and renominating it so quickly is the same pointy disruptive behaviour as being reported above by Eleassar. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

What's actually abusive in this case (as well as in the above one) is the speedy close by User:Yann. LGA is correct in renominating these files: there is significant doubt that they're free. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Tell me Eleassar, what exactly do you think qualifies here for "significant doubt"? Everything is pointing to the guy having died before the deadline, nothing points to the direction of him living longer. I've asked for the simplest of evidence, an obituary, a name in a newspaper, anything! If you can't provide any evidence that LGA has already failed in providing, go play somewhere else. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

What exactly points to the direction of him dying before this year? --Eleassar ^(t/p) 22:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If you can't read the previous DR, I'm not gonna spell it out for you. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have not asked you to. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 22:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No, but you are asking me to explain something that should be rather obvious. We do not know when he died, and probably never will. What we do have is supporting evidence of his likely time of death. Whereas the precautionary principle requires significant doubt and there is no supporting evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to delete this under the assumption it is still copyrighted. Everyone could see it except LGA, and perhaps yourself. The precautionary principle doesn't require solid proof, LGA repeatedly tried to attach that burden of proof to it, but LGA can't rewrite the principle into what they wish it said rather then what it actually says. Renominating the image so quickly after it was kept without any new evidence and simple re-stating his same beliefs from the first DR is an abuse. It's the same thing you do, but you also have used the DR process as a tool to get files relicensed when you knew that even though the current license was wrong there were correct ones that were right, and instead of just relicensing them you waste everyone's time by nominating them. That's why I don't like you, that's why many users are showing frustration with you, and it's why you're now being warned with the prospect of a block if you keep this up. Instead of acknowledging it, you're taunting everyone. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I am lost for words as to how either of these two DR can be seen as abusive; the original mass nomination when it was closed the admin (Fastily) said "Either way, this images need to be reviewed on an indvidual basis, and not in a mass DR"; I then further discussed this with Fastily on his talk page (see User talk:Fastily#Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Proposed flags of Australia) where he says (amongst other things)"I'd suggest creating DRs for individual files" and "IMO this is a hotly contested issue, and would surely merit some additional community discussion" that is exactly what I did; further I have lost count the number of DR's I have see closed as delete because there is no proof the file is licensed in the manor claimed. In this case Fry1989 is claiming a licence applies when he can't prove it. I therefore ask Yann to justify why he closed them as abusive and ask him to reopen them and that Fry1989 proves the licence applies. LGA _talk^edits 09:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Fry1989 explained to you above and in the DR why it is abusive, much better than I could do myself. If you can't understand his words, I don't see the point to explain it again. Yann (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

But the admin who closed the first one suggested not once, not twice but three times further discussions were needed, and as I showed on the original DR by the governments own numbers one in four 15 yo's in 1901 lived to 1962 and it is reasonable to assume the a similar ratio of 22 yo lived to 1955; another example I quoted was the 16 Prime Ministers of Australia that were born in the 1800's, average age at death was over 75 and of the 11 that were born before 1884, 18% were alive in 1955. LGA _talk^edits 09:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

We've had a similar statistics-based case at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Solkan bridge, but I withdrew in the end, because there were some indices that the guy was already in his middle years at the time and I didn't want the more probably free than not images to get deleted just because of the formalities. Probably it would be sensible to open a wider discussion about such photos at COM:VP. I know that User:Jameslwoodward considers copyrighted all works that were created in 1885 or later for the countries where the copyrighted works are those whose authors died in 1943 or later;[5] this is comparable. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

LGA, how many times do you have to be told the precautionary principle does not require proof???? IDK if you're being thick or purposefully ignoring the actual wording of our Commons policies, but you've demanded proof several times and that is not what the policy says. You can not manipulate the policy into what you wish it said. You also tried to claim Commons doesn't make decisions based on the balance of probabilities, when that is exactly what the precautionary principle was created for; situtions in which we do not know the facts but we know the probability. That you were also trying to use Wikipedia policies in your arguments even though they do not apply to Commons leads me to believe you are looking at this matter from a Wikipedia point of view and do not fully understand the difference POV that Commons takes on these matters. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Per this reliable source, "only material from as far as pre-1870 may relatively safely be assumed to be in the public domain." This means that per reliable sources there is significant doubt that post-1870 orphan works are in the public domain! --Eleassar ^(t/p) 23:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not a Commons policy, and this isn't an orphan work. It means nothing. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course it is an orphan work: even after much effort still only the name of the creator is known (see en:Orphan works). What we use (per COM:PRP) is the criterion of 'no significant doubt'. Are you saying that "only material from as far as pre-1870 may relatively safely be assumed to be in the public domain." means there is no significant doubt for post-1870 works? --Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker and some logic

I think, this edit is not correct. If the reason is "Exact or scaled-down duplicate," the correct action is to replace the reference, not to remove it. Vcohen (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's an issue. We track this with Special:AbuseFilter/57. Patches for CommonsDelinker are welcome. -- Rillke^(q?) 20:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

User:C.salazar499

This user uploads a series of obviously copyrighted images, doesn't respond to my copyvionotes and therefore needs to be stopped by you. Thanks. -- Ies (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Im working on it. Just give me some time to work on my proper images.— Preceding unsigned comment added by C.salazar499 (talk • contribs)

I've deleted the copyvios. All uploads were within approximately an hour of each other (i.e., not a habitual/long-term/on-going upload of copyvios) and the uploader has seeming stopped and responded [6] [7]. I don't think a block is necessary at this time. Эlcobbola _talk 17:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Denniss and File:Map of Serbia (municipalities).PNG

We have a map called File:Map of Serbia (municipalities).PNG. Some users have been replacing it with another map that does not show all the municipalities of Serbia. One of these users is User:Denniss, who is also an administrator.

Several days ago, Denniss has reverted the map to the version without all the municipalities, without any explanation. I have reverted the image to its original version and explained why in the edit comment, which he has reverted back without any explanation. Eventually, he reverted the image to his preferred version, locked the page, and called me a vandal on my talk page[8]. Now, people who see the image will see a misleading map that does not show all the municipalities of Serbia, and people visiting my talk page might really believe that I am a vandal.

I have explained to Deniss how my actions were not vandalism and why the map should stay on that version in [9]. He did not respond in any way, yet refused to revert back the map, apologize for calling me vandal, or indeed do anything.

I would like for a fellow admin to:

• Remove Denniss' comment about me being a vandal from my talk page. I could do it myself, but I believe it is better that someone else does it.
• Warn Denniss that he should use edit comments, especially when reverting, that it is not acceptable to call regular users vandals, and that is it not OK to use admin tools on files he has edited as an user.
• Revert the file to the version that shows all the municipalities of Serbia and add "The Law of Territorial Organization of the Republic of Serbia, article 16" (without quotes) to References section of its Source section.

You may notice that there are more files with similar problems but let's deal with one thing at a time. Nikola (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You may have somehow missed the Independence of Kosovo...... --Denniss (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dennis. I have no viewpoint with regard to the correctness of versions of the map, nor on any dispute relating to political definitions (on Commons this would not be the first time that we would have multiple versions of maps in order to represent various disputed viewpoints on territory or naming). Looking at the history of the file, you twice uploaded a version of this image before deciding to use your admin powers to protect the file, i.e. this is not one of those situations where you are either uniquely informed in order to make an administration decision, nor were you involved as an administrator from the beginning. It is good practice to ask another admin to take a look or make decisions in situations where you are likely to have your independence challenged after taking action. You used a boiler-plate vandalism warning which I have to agree with Nikola Smolenski does not appear to capture the possible issue here of a minor form of edit-warring (diff) which you were a party to before taking action.

To repeat, I have no viewpoint on any territorial issue, I am only questioning with regard to the appropriate implementation of the Commons:Administrators official guideline. Though on Commons we have no direct equivalent to en.wp's policies of independence (probably a good thing considering we have so few administrators), we do say that admins "have no special editorial authority" and a natural corollary of that, is that admins should not be seen to be using tools to gain editorial authority.

Would you please consider withdrawing your notice from Nikola Smolenski's talk page and let another admin handle any administrative action here, including taking responsibility and authority for protecting this image? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The independence of Kosovo has long been a controversial issue, and there are many people with different views on the matter; Commons has already been witness to the fact that political beliefs and opinions directly influence their contributors' actions. It should also be noted that administrators, as users with certain greater on-wiki privileges, should try to avoid that happening and should not use their authority in disputes of political matter (or, in fact, in any disputes).

With that out of the way, I think there are some easily solvable problems relating to File:Map of Serbia (municipalities).PNG that can be addressed without going into political debates here:

1. The Wrong Version: this is the Wrong Version which was visible for almost five years, between February 26, 2008 and October 13, 2013, when it was changed by @Bobrayner into this Wrong Version. I wonder what prompted the sudden change of the map, and specifically, why Bobrayner decided to revert the file, seemingly without contacting anyone about it, knowing that it had already been part of an edit war.
2. File description: the file description located inside the {{Information}} template says that it's a map of Serbia between 1990-1992. As far as I understand, in 1990 Serbia was part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and only after 1992 was it part of Serbia and Montenegro, so something seems wrong about the description.
3. In addition to that, a contradictory sentence was added to the file description page in this edit by @Nikswerdhond; not being an expert in Serbo-Kosovian relations, I don't know what to think of this, and would like someone more knowledgeable to comment which description is correct, so we can work that out. odder (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with several different people here :-)

• I think that Denniss did good and bad. Reverting and protecting the map was a good move, since it ensured that we had a map closer to reality, rather than one which reflects the fantasies of one particular set of nationalists; it was just as helpful as NordNordWest's recent protection of File:Serbia location map.svg. However, the vandalism warning was a bad thing because Nikola_Smolenski's version of the map wasn't vandalism. Problematic, yes; wrong, yes; vandal, no.
• To answer Odder's last question, this comment isn't contradictory, but it could be improved, because 2008 is merely a convenient cutoff point rather than the actual date when Serbia lost control of those municipalities.
• For those who need a map which reflects the Serb nationalist perspective, rather than reflecting reality, there is an alternative version of the map at File:Map of Serbia municipalities before 2008.PNG. This approach is a big improvement over the previous situation, although maybe the filename could be improved (because Serbia lost control of Kosovo some time before 2008). This approach seems to have been suggested by Jameslwoodward after a sockpuppet started a COM:AN/U thread complaining about Nikswerdhond.
• Nikola Smolenski tried an argument based on Serbian law. That is flawed in so many different ways. Firstly, the law was passed before Kosovo declared independence. Secondly, it's generally a Bad Thing to base controversial maps on one government's declarations (For instance, Turkish law pretends that Kurds don't exist; Chinese law pretends that Taiwan is a province of China; and so on). Thirdly - as I'm sure all scholars of Balkan constitutional history are aware - that law is incompatible with key provisions of Serbia's own constitution; the only version of the map which is compatible is the one that I reverted to. Fourthly, and most importantly of all, that law bears no relation to reality. In reality, those municipalities have Kosovar police rather than Serbian police, Kosovan schools rather than Serbian schools; taxes are paid to Pristina rather than Belgrade; and so on. There may often be competing political claims, but if in doubt, our maps should reflect reality.
• Nikola Smolenski also tried an argument based on a UN map which was produced in 2007. The year before Kosovo declared independence. Obviously, that argument holds no water either.
• However, even our maps taken direct from the UN Cartographic Section are problematic; if they don't sufficiently reflect the Serb nationalist perspective, somebody will add "Province of Serbia" in big red letters over the top of Kosovo. Here Nikswerdhond dared to upload the actual UN map, as it was issued by the UN; then WhiteWriter simply reverted every one of Nikswerdhond's fixes, including a revert back to the old, falsified map. Which brings me to the problem of offsite canvassing, which is a problem for these topics on other wikipedias; despite having previously inactive on Commons, Buttons promptly appeared out of the blue to repeat WhiteWriter's reverts wherever somebody tried to fix a map, and I caught Region190 red-handed canvassing another editor to do the same.
• There have been discussions on a number of different pages such as File talk:Serbia location map.svg. There seems to be a general feeling that maps on Commons should reflect reality. Quite often we can try to sidestep controversy by using compromises such as dotted borders, partial shading &c but that is not ideal and it simply won't work on some maps (like the map of Serbian municipalities). Sooner or later, our maps will reflect reality, but protection is sadly a necessary part of that process, because there are some editors who will revert any attempt to fix the maps. bobrayner (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable with a stress on "reality", this is just another way of arguing based on "the truth". Maps are inherently political and it is not the job of Commons volunteers to declare one political viewpoint as being the "reality" and marginalizing all other viewpoints as some sort of fantasy. If territory and definitions are disputed, it is well within the scope of this project to host multiple maps and media that illustrate all political points of view. Doubtless some will be approved by more independent bodies than others and they can be marked as such so that nobody is confused as to which maps are the most widely accepted and which represent a minority political viewpoint. Similarly any contested map would be well served by being marked as contested so that re-users are well informed as to what their choice of map represents. --Fæ (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If the current version is to be kept, the description must be updated, in 1992 Kosovo was part of Serbia. I would further suggest that the two versions be renamed, File:Map of Serbia municipalities before 2008.PNG to File:Map of Serbia (municipalities) with Kosovo.PNG and File:Map of Serbia (municipalities).PNG to File:Map of Serbia (municipalities) without Kosovo.PNG, and have them linked to each other properly in the 'Other versions' section of the description. This allows editors/projects to decide which version to use, without taking a side on the issue either way. Liamdavies (talk) 08:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• File:Map of Serbia (municipalities).PNG showed Kosovo for several years until the end of October this year. Therefore, it can be expected that any users of this file are expecting to see a map which includes Kosovo (for nationalistic or historic reasons or whatever). If this map changes to exclude Kosovo, the reusers may get a map which does not display what they are intending to display. For that reason, it seems better to keep including Kosovo on this map (but probably rename it into something else with a redirect from the current name), and then upload a map without Kosovo under a separate name. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

In the light of the discussion here and a lack of a response to my direct proposal to Denniss yesterday (and seeing that he has been active on this project for most of today), I am taking the bold step of removing the vandalism warning that appeared inappropriate for these circumstances to several contributors in this thread and instead left a mellow note.[10] I would hope that Denniss will see the wisdom in avoiding taking any further admin action with regard to this file or Nikola_Smolenski for a reasonable time, and instead leave it to other administrators take any action they feel is necessary and sufficient. I would be happy for an independent administrator to revert my action, or to engage with Nikola_Smolenski on their user talk page in addition to this discussion thread, if they see fit. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

History split, please

Please see "Liberty County Courthouse" at en:WT:NRHP. Our File:Bacon-Frasier House.jpg has two separate images, both uploaded with a CC-0 by the same guy, and it would be helpful if the one that was uploaded first could be available under a different file name, since as far as I can tell, we don't have any other images of it. Nyttend backup (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done The first upload is available at File:Liberty County Court House.jpg. INeverCry 22:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

These files

have my doubt in qualit, copyright or other reasons for DR. --Hans Haase (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC) File:Four generations of Mac.jpg

File:Junior Bocas YFC--Junior Bocas is a youth football club that was set up in 2009--In its short history it has grown from a single team to three youth teams and a futsal team- 2013-12-06 23-34.jpg

Pleas fill a COM:DR --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Repeated DR may be considered as harassing

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pommard2.jpg. It is created within thirty minutues of the closing of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Saint-Georges et le Dragon de Salvador Dalí. And the contributor responded with anger. I see the relevant policy is: "If you disagree with an admin's decision to delete a file, or not to delete it, you should first set out your reasons on the admin's talk page and ask for reconsideration. If the admin declines to reverse the decision, you can request a review by other admins on Commons:Undeletion requests (or if the file was kept, renominate it for deletion)."

I failed to see any discussion on Fastily's talk page related to it. I'm not reporting it as a user problem; but want to bring your attention for a guideline to DR nominators. Considering against a very good contributor like Jebulon (or any one else), it should be done with care. JKadavoor Jee 17:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The nominator is well-known for abusing the DR process and using it as a tool. Enough is enough from Eleassar. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I closed this last one, and needless to say, I agree with your assessment. Yann (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Factually, I agree with Eleassar. The sculpture is quite prominent, if not even the main subject in the photo. It doesn't matter whether it is possible to take a photo without it, nor is the sole criterion how many % of the image the copyrighted work takes. Positioning, background and image composition as well as the photographer's intention (given by composition, description and title) are also important. However, I believe that we are no judges and should probably warn the uploader and re-users but re-consider our overly strictness to ourselves. There are so many obvious copyright violations not being dealt with in time… so having overly long discussions without proper evidence how a court would decide is not really helpful to anyone. -- Rillke^(q?) 19:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Rillke is absolutely right. There are thousands of blatant copyvios and out of scope images in Category:Media needing categories, (album covers, posters, screencaps, promo images, unused personal images, etc), so why all the hair-splitting FoP DRs? INeverCry 19:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I should have notified the closing admin. My apologies for having missed this part. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 19:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that Eleassar is banned from reopening any DR (or canvassing for a DR to be reopened by someone else). If an image is wrongly closed as kept, let that be for someone else to decide and take action on. As noted above, there are plenty important and obvious DRs. Eleassar seems to have a specific problem with listening to advice from others when they disagree with him, so this particular remedy is appropriate imo. His comment above shows he only respects the minimum that is written in policy, and not what counts: the time and opinions of others. -- Colin (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If it is agreed that the file is non-free (like here above), closing the reopened DR as kept is abusive.[11] A copyvio is a copyvio, no matter whether blatant or not. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 19:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

@Eleassar: If you disagree with an admin's decision (to delete/keep a file) you should first set out your reasons on the admin's talk page and ask for reconsideration otherwise it is abusing of the DR process. Please do so in future or you will be blocked without further warnings. Enough is enough. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Per Commons:Deletion policy: "To appeal debates of image not deleted, you might first want to discuss with the admin who closed the discussion." I read here 'might want to', not 'you have to'. I don't see why special rules should apply for me; the vast majority of my DRs get deleted, so they're sensible. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 20:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps if you didn't constantly re-nominate things very quickly after they've been kept, in order to get your way, you wouldn't have to be threatened with a block. You know exactly what you're doing. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

@Eleassar: Enough is enough. You are wasting the time of the community. This "edit restriction" is the result of this discussion. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I will respect the community consensus. The renomination was not abusive and was accurate (confirmed above): the file is not free. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 20:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You twist my words. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't see in what regard. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Eleassar writes "A copyvio is a copyvio". Anyone who actually had any legal knowledge whatsoever would know things are rarely black and white. One must use judgement. And ultimately respect judgements that while reasoned, are not what you yourself would have decided. Eleassar does not appear to know what judgement means and a black-and-white view of legality is deeply unhelpful to DR. Other people might have closed it differently, and intelligent people can disagree and still respect each other. It is abuse to keep opening DRs till you find someone who agrees with you. That Eleassar doesn't understand this is troubling. Ultimately, I predict a complete ban. That he may do a certain amount of good work, or that a certain percentage of DRs happen to be closed his way is statistically meaningless. I despair sometimes of Commons statistical stupidity. Colin (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Rillke's assessment, and have reopened the discussion. Just to be clear, I'm not advocating immediate renoms of closed DRs, but IMHO, this really is not a clear cut case, and certainly merits at least some discussion. -FASTILY 23:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Colin and the others who stated that "enough is enough". -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 01:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
i.e. this and this means challenging the system (apart from abusing of our patience and good faith), thus is highly adviceable you stop this behaviour. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 02:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Is appealing a court case or going to another doctor for a second opinion abusive? I don't think so. Should I argue with the judge or my doctor before this? No, I may if I "want to", but it's usually counter-productive. And what should I wait for before doing any of these? That the ruling becomes binding or that I develop a serious disease? Why should we do differently in this case then? It's all in the eye of the beholder, and in my opinion, appealing a decision and asking for a second opinion is not abusive, but it is preventing one from doing so. In any case, you should keep in mind that we're here not to do damage to the project, but to create a collection of free files. What we need here is not the community pointing the finger at me or LGA below, but someone to write the guidelines about who and how may reopen a deletion request. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, you failed to understand what we are telling. See this example. I contacted Jim when he closed it as "kept". Then I forwarded it to VPC as he suggested. Now I'm awaiting for a response from the legal. You can see there most of other admins agree with my argument; so it will be deleted (the higher version) if I made another DR instead of making that much efforts there. But we have some rules, that we have to follow. It is for the protection of the contributors from abuse. Our contributors are also humans, and they too have feelings. We have to care them too; deleting every copyvio at any cost is not our motto. You are free to make your appeal; but only in the allowed way. If you still can't understand this, I can say that we prefer to keep a copyvio than to keep a user repeatedly disturbing others. JKadavoor Jee 08:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll follow the instructions at Commons:Deletion requests#Appeal that you've linked to. For example, there are some files that have been closed by Yann as "abusive", like this one, which was argued by an experienced administrator as a completely valid request here. I'm going to post a request for review at his talk page even if I expect him to respond in the same abusive manner as here and here. Then I'm going to reopen the DR, per the linked page that says: "If the admin declines to reverse the decision, you can request a review by other admins on Commons:Undeletion requests (or if the file was kept, renominate it for deletion)." Would this be ok? --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes; you can make a new DR after discussing with the closing admin of the prior DR if he refused to respond or refused to change the decision. But bear in mind that you should give enough time (48 hours, at least), and should mention the previous DR in the new one. Here, in the above case you opened it within 30 minutes, without mentioning anything about the previous DR. I didn't check the DRs you mentioned that Yann involved; I'm not interested to participate in the case I mentioned too. I've no problem in deleting a file if it is against our policies; but hunting around a particular user or a particular area of interest is not good for this project. Pleae note INC's comment above: "There are thousands of blatant copyvios and out of scope images in Category:Media needing categories, (album covers, posters, screencaps, promo images, unused personal images, etc), so why all the hair-splitting FoP DRs?" JKadavoor Jee 08:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok. It is natural that everyone has his area of interest (mine is maily Slovenia and (south)-eastern Europe), and if you look at my recent DRs, you'll see that although many are about the FoP, there are also a number of others from other areas. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It's OK. Try to learn from small mistakes like this and try to avoid developing huge conflicts by repeatedly following same users. Hope you can improve yourself in your voluntarily works. Best wishes. :) JKadavoor Jee 09:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@Eleassar: «Is appealing a court case or going to another doctor for a second opinion abusive?». You know the answer to these pointless questions. Because this is not a court or a hospital, the context is not a trial or a medical exam and we are not either judges nor physicians (and should any of us be, it's irrelevant for the sake of this discussion). We are not talking either about a lawsuit or about your own health. We are talking about a DR, and yes, appelling a decision the way you do may be seen as abusive or even controversial, especially because you do that with photographs that are not blatantly or self-evidently copyvios (like most of the copyvios here are); yours are almost regularily border-line DRs that are based either on FOP or age of the pictured subject. As result, being this a grey zone, is not a good behaviour reiterating the DR again and again until you find an admin that deletes the media as you wish: in the grey zone there's much left to the discretionality of an admin, and the said admin might not have the same point of view as yours. Your task here is helping the community grow, not insisting to ignore consensus or admins' decisions until you find a likeminded one. Hope I was clear. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 14:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The questions are not pointless; the analogy is completely valid: an authority makes a decision that can have consquences and one should therefore have the right to challenge it. The admins' decisions should not be holy cows about which it is not allowed to express the doubt. Your claim that my renominations are borderline DRs is far-fetched; they're mostly not (see e.g. [12], [13]). The policy is also clear and it states that "To appeal debates of image not deleted, you might first want to discuss with the admin who closed the discussion." This means that it is in the discretion of the one who wants to reopen a DR to decide whether they want to notify the closing administrator or not. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 23:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Do I need to repeat that also replying deliberately missing the point might be seen as provocative or harrassing? Do I need to repeat that "following the rule to the letter" is a valid argument in a court but not here? Do I need to repeat that I don't care of your justification that tend to give the same meaning to "I might want to discuss" and "I don't care to discuss thus do what I want" ? Do I need to repeat that "I do that because I have the right to do" is not per se a licence for doing actually what you want? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 13:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess every dissenting opinion will be seen as harrassment by you. So much about impartiality and the freedom of speech. Do I need to repeat that the policy gives editors a free choice and it is one's own discretion about whom to talk to if at all before reopening a DR? How can one follow the rule to the letter when the choice is free by the letter? Doesn't this seem contradictory to you? To be clear, I don't do anything here just because I have the right to do so, but to improve the content of the project. You should rather have some trust in your fellow editors and you still have to demonstrate with some reliable evidence (not just rumors as above) that reopening a DR in good faith is harmful to the project, or that my reopenings have been harmful, no matter whether the precedent administrator has been notified or not. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 20:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Eleassar, again and again. After what there were more photos erased without justifyed reason (see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_44#Category:Carnivals_and_User:Eleassar), after I did not get an answer why not to delete almost all of the images from the category of Carnivals, Eleassar again is tagging for deletion photos of individual users (from notices I see that I'm not the only one) and again without real reason marks my photo Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Vjesnica_mira_Antun_Augustincic_grafit_Rijeka_08042012_2.jpg for deletion. If this image is not considered a violation of copyright File:Pommard2.jpg then my photos of graffiti that has obtained all necessary permits City of Rijeka (http://www.novilist.hr/Vijesti/Rijeka/Ri-Servis/Augustinciceva-Vjesnica-mira-opet-u-Rijeci) also unduly marked for deletion. Could administrators react and protect useful members of the community from such harmful activities as Eleassars? --Roberta F. (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

You still have to explain why this image is free and why this DR is harmful. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 19:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Repeated DRs on the same image are one thing. Nominators need to be aware that these are prone to cause conflict, and should be careful to communicate patiently with those involved (particularly the last closing admin) before starting a new DR. We could probably improve our guidelines here too.

But IMO people are often far too quick to claim abuse regarding DRs, particularly for their uploads. I can understand people feeling upset about such DRs, but it's usually much better to view them positively, e.g. as a chance to learn or to improve the image's documentation.

Looking specifically at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Vjesnica_mira_Antun_Augustincic_grafit_Rijeka_08042012_2.jpg, I see nothing wrong with this DR. The image does at first glance appear likely to be a legal mural, not an illegal graffito, particularly given that its author was credited by name. Maybe we will discover evidence that this graffito was in fact illegal, in which case the DR will have prompted an important improvement in the image's documentation. My reading (of an automated translation) of the link Roberta F. has now provided suggests the opposite, that it was legal, which would usually argue for it being deleted. Another possibility is that it could be kept under Croatia's 2-D FOP exemption, if it's in a public place, in which case we need to apply the appropriate FOP tag. Whichever happens, Commons benefits, and the DR was productive, not harmful. (I think Roberta F. has tried to argue for keeping it by showing the graffito was legal, which would indicate she hasn't understood our practices regarding graffiti. That's quite understandable - I've also found them confusing - but the learning opportunity here is another positive aspect of this DR.) The issues here are very different from those regarding File:Pommard2.jpg. --Avenue (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Avenue, you make valid points, but where is this constructive and cordial discussion occurring? The photographer has invested time, effort and possibly money in going out to take a picture and upload to Commons. Along comes someone who's hobby is deleting images on the borderline of policy (because they obvious ones are not interesting) and a robotic template is dropped on your talk page saying that unless you become a copyright lawyer and can convince us otherwise, we're going to put your work in the trash. It's a power trip. If we are serious about retaining valuable contributors and educating people about policies, then there needs to be another way. Your conclusion is that the image should be kept but needs better documented -- well why didn't that occur instead. Why has the documentation still not been improved despite this discussion? Why didn't Eleassar investigate properly and just improve the documentation. Why threaten with deletion at all? Then we could have had a "Thank" going from Roberta to Eleassar and the educating would have occurred and everyone would be happy. -- Colin (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Just one point: if a country FOP allows pictures of 2D works, why do we care whether the graffiti is legal or not? I think that's why one might think that the DR is abusive. Yann (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If it was illegal, then it wouldn't matter whether it was in a public place or not.

Raising the FOP issue in the DR request would have been useful, if Eleassar had thought of it then, but I can't see how an oversight like this could reasonably be seen as abusive. --Avenue (talk)

I've written two arguments for deletion: unclear FOP status (is it permanent, is it in a public space?) and unclear copyright status of the reproduction of the monument (the non-free monument was evidently photographed during transport and the image seems like a derivative of such a photograph of a non-free monument). It has been created by a Facebook group, which surely cares very much about the copyright... To me it seems like license washing. On the opposite, BlackCat has (for no good reason) determined that the DR is 'pointless'. He is an administrator, so he will have the final word. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

In addition, I plan to reopen the DRs closed by Yann without notifying him, because he doesn't want to be notified.[14] --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

That's what I call "inappropriate" behaviour. Reopening a DR until you find someone who listens to you. That borders harrasment and misuse of service tools. Sure it won't be me who will oppose if any admin will block you because of that. Reflect to the opportunity to stop a bit and wonder whether what you're doing is opportune. Keeping a quiet environment is as important as fighting evident copyright violations. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 09:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Ouestsite

continues uploading copyvios.--Motopark (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

16:18, 8 December 2013 Tabercil (talk | contribs) blocked Ouestsite (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 days (account creation blocked) (Uploading unfree files after warnings) --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Marcosanseq

Need some instruction, my help don't help, see history--Motopark (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Question on artist images

I tagged File:Judge Vaughn Walker official portrait United States District Court by Scott Johnston.jpg as a copy vio from http://www.scottjohnstonportraits.com/Portrait_Judge_Walker.htm ... then noticed the same user (user:Scott Wallace Johnston) has uploaded multiple images. However, given the username is the same as the artist involved, it's quite likely they are the same person. They just need guidance on making the copyright status more explicit on their own website.

Could someone with more experience with the copyright requirements as well, as more experience in working with copyright holders, attempt to work with the user, to help resolve the issue? Thanks! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

For starters, images in these circumstances can be tagged {{No permission since}} rather than for speedy deletion. This is friendlier and at least directs the uploader in a useful direction. Dankarl (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

They contacted me at my en.wp talk page [15] saying they are the artist and I recommended them to file an OTRS request.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

As did I on their talk page. Dankarl (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Permanently blocked user is back with a new account

WPK (talk · contribs) who is permanently blocked on Commons is back with a new account: Wikiotr (talk · contribs). Could you block him? Best regards, --Stryn (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

First of all, Wikipedia is free and second, I have not made any vandalism. Best regards, --Wikiotr (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

WPK, you were given a "1 year block" in February this year. If you would like to appeal, please do so by making an unblock request and explaining what has changed since February at User_talk:WPK, rather than creating new accounts. --Fæ (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

 Blocked --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Hommik laukaserval, Endla LK.jpg

This is a new FP and while closing I just noticed that no formal permission from the author is recorded there; no proper source linked. I discussed this with the uploader; but it seems he has a difficulty to understand me. It seems the entire category has the same issue; some files in the previous year too. So forwarding here for a wider opinion. JKadavoor Jee 15:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing else to be linked as thous images are gained directly from the magazine for to be uploaded to Commons (via a memory stick from the editor in chief). Authors gave their permission for it, when they gave their images to the magazine.

Seems that I forgot to send some letter to for OTRS tags to the files from 2012, so I'll do it now. But with this year images it seems that you are missing the point, that is that the authors already gave their permission. Kruusamägi (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

But recorded nowhere? JKadavoor Jee 16:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Available only on a paper. But I don't have that issue. Kruusamägi (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

At COM:OTRS? (I don't know whether they can process other than emails.) JKadavoor Jee 16:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Rules where published at one issue of the magazine.

I also started collecting the permissions via e-mail. Kruusamägi (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Mostly resolved (OTRS permission added); thanks Kruusamägi. JKadavoor Jee 02:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

File:위키백과 알림 시스템 스샷.png

Please revdel previous version by File upload bot (Magnus manske). It include other user's email address. (I removed and uploaded new version with address hidden.) --레비Revi 05:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done -FASTILY 05:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --레비Revi 05:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Some no permission tags

User:Fastily, who has a long history here of semi-shoddy work and acting with more haste than care, has been adding bogus "no-permission" tagging to images of U.S. origin having expired copyright status in the U.S. (some downloaded from the Library of Congress) under alternate account User:FSV, without offering any explanation or indication as to why this makes any sense whatsoever. I don't know how many images are affected yet, but I see several on my watchlist (File:Nonpareil.jpg‎ etc.), and one would be too many... AnonMoos (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Understand the details a little better now -- apparently Fastily had a difference of opinion with User:Wikiwatcher1 about policies which should apply to pre-1978 U.S. publicity stills, so he unleashed a bot to apply indiscriminate "no-permission" tagging to all of Wikiwatcher1's uploads, regardless of license. It's a misuse of a bot, and rather annoying... AnonMoos (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much, and as far as I can tell, my tags are pretty accurate. By the way, I really do appreciate the ad hominem attacks, it's so friendly of you! -FASTILY 06:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you however, I don't feel very strongly about leaving those tags in place, so I've removed them. That should resolve this matter. On a tangential note, I can't say I'm too thrilled with your childish conduct in this thread. I would expect someone with your degree of experience with WMF projects to be capable of expressing opinions more professionally, and less dickishly :) Cheers, FASTILY 07:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Although User:Wikiwatcher1 (or User:Light show) sometimes uploads {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}} images without sufficient evidence, I'm not sure if we can say that all of the user's images are problematic. For example, if an image was published before 1923, all we need is the publication date and evidence of publication, which tends to be easier to verify than copyright formalities. I also don't like the idea of tagging lots of images without notifying the uploader; an uploader does not necessarily notice a tag which is added to a file. If the uploader is unaware of a tag, the uploader is unable to act upon it. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Normally, yes. But as you'll note from Wikiwatcher's talk page, they're well aware of what's going on. -FASTILY 10:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I find it especially disturbing that the edit summary on File:Nonpareil.jpg‎ was "p"; deletion templates should be loud and clear in watchlists.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. What saves me time definitely isn't clear to others. I'll avoid doing this in the future -FASTILY 10:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Many of those uploads have sources like "movie studio" and "wire service" along with improvised dates. The uploader had a dramafest at en:Media copyright questions and is now probably believing he was right. We hope (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Amtrak Illini at Carbondale 2.jpg

Could the top two revisions of this file be deleted? It was licensed CC-BY-2.0 in 2010 but this was changed since. The original version should remain. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 22:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Mackensen (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Unorphaned Category talk

Given that Category:Bathing women in art was turned to a redirect and was not deleted upon the merger with Bathing females in art, its talk-page has obviously no reason to be regarded as orphaned, and therefore please undelete it.

Furthermore, in my opinion when a category is deleted as a result of a successful move and there's content in its talkpg, that page should not be deleted but be transferred along with the category's front content, to the respective destination-cat's talkpage – as long as the latter is empty at the time of moving; and only then can be deleted.

Thanks. Orrlingtalk 12:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It's been a couple of days now. Why haven't you restored that page yet ? Orrlingtalk 13:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Taivo (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Rochester Amtrak station.jpg

I first uploaded this image from Flickr four years ago. It was licensed CC-BY-2.0 then, and the largest available version was 1024×576. There's now a larger version available (1358×764) which also has the EXIF data restored. It's still available under CC-BY-2.0 and I've uploaded the larger image. The thing is, the Flickr review template dates to the 2009 iteration: is there some way to have the image re-reviewed, to validate that the current iteration is also CC-BY-2.0? Thanks, and I apologize is this isn't the right venue. Mackensen (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 23:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again! Mackensen (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Please upload another version of File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-ar.png

Please upload another version of File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-ar.png which is File:Wikipedia-logo-ar-250k-vector.svg , because we celebrating reaching the 250,000 article milestone on Arabic Wikipedia --Mohamed Ouda (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done. --Dschwen (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Melbourne Evening Herald flag (blue).svg

Can this DR be closed please, it was already done on the flag's red counterpart. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 18:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Flag of Belarus.svg

Please RevDel Ionchari's 11 reverts back to the version by Sarang on July 16, 2012. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 18:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, for both actions. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Are screenshots copyrighted?

I'm trying to get pics of all the Game of Thrones cast for their wiki pages (most of them don't have one) but it's really difficult to find any images that are licensed under creative commons. Are screenshots from the show copy righted?

A pic like this for example (Ed Skrein from Game of Thrones). Anarchistdy (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Screenshots from the show are definitely copyrighted. You may want to search Flickr for fan pics of the actors. Just make sure the images are available under a free license that allows commercial use and derivatives. INeverCry 16:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

User:CommonsDelinker/commands/filemovers

It is backlogged. Can any admin clear it out? Thanks. --레비Revi 08:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Rillke^(q?) 11:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

If possible, please look at it regularly. Thanks. --레비Revi 12:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Steinsplitter seem looking at it regularly until last week. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Assist again, please

Hey guys. this user is being threatening one of my uploads with (yet again) an invalid-rename terrorism. This is appearing after the thread that I'd dedicated to that very file has been resolved upon a clear Administrative opinion in favor of my choice of naming my uploads as descriptive as I wish. I'd advise locking the file to ensure it away from their reach or altenatively give them a message that will do the same job. Thanks! (this is the file) Orrlingtalk 04:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

What you are doing here is not acceptable. It is annoying enough that you so vehemently insist on giving your files useless and nondescript names. Now you are using terms like terrorism to attack users which are trying to improve the project by renaming your files to sensible names and even suggest we reprimand these users?! Sorry, Orrling, you are way off base here. --Dschwen (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Annoying that I name my uploads with correct names? "Useless" names? Would you say how you mean by this? How are filenames supposed to be 'useful'? Filenames are subject to uploaders' wording. Would you please care to explain this approach because it might be contrasting with the other admin's, the one who stated that "we don't worry about which file exists at which name", and see also "There is no criterion (except criterion #1: uploader requested) which allows renaming files only because the file name is short", at that same thread. I fail to understand on what you base this input now. That I indeed experience the constant attempts by the user (albeit theoretical) to baselessly harass that file as intimidation against my consistency in filenames doesn't mean I should be criticized, but rather assisted – unless I'm being missing something. I believe you have the informative base for this topic. "The rules technically do not allow filemovers to move from somewhat-descriptive names to more descriptive names", so why should'nt I be defending it when a user appears to not put up with that resolution? It's more ironic you're saying this after I was eventually inclined to re-name that file a more specific name, as I pursued to relieve the discontent of the initial user who disliked "Stockholm.jpg", although no rule compelled me to do so. I'm happy with the new, specific name, and am rather very confused with the way you perceive this matter. I'd appreciate if you review it, as you might discover you were wrong; or tell me how and where I was wrong. Thanks. Orrlingtalk 02:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

How are filenames supposed to be 'useful'? Filenames are the captions to images in Category pages, filenames show up prominently in search, filenames are what people see when they edit the source code of a wiki page. Of course they have to be descriptive! There is a reason we disallow filenames like IMG_8628.JPG. Filenames are not something meaningless that is up to the whim pf the uploader! If someone moves your file from Baltic.jpg to Stockholm from a ferry in 2010.jpg, which is clearly a more descriptive filename you leave it that way. You absolutely don't edit war it back. Even if the first rename was not not to the letter according to policy, the reverse move was totaly against the spirit of our policies. --Dschwen (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but now you're furthermore attributing to me editwarring. - You well know that this is distorting the meaning of that term. Edit-warring was the user who – upset upon my disagreement with their edit – initiated that same edit again, to the same no-no-no filename, while knowing very well that their chosen "name" would never be accepted. I don't need clarifications about the reason we decline IMG_8628.JPG. All my files are similarly named correctly and concisely, this might for you, alas, be a "whim", but I'd expect an admin to show that they know the differece between "Stockholm.jpg" and a dummy meaningless filename. I was encouraged by your colleague 2 days ago to stick to my obvious freedom of having back "Stockholm.jpg" (while you apparently did not participate when that was discussed), however, as an act of good will I finally yesterday 'focused' the filename even more, i.e from the big-city level to the exact suburb level, and I'm afraid I need to respectfully ask you to bring here the reference to the policy you're talking about above, I'm not convinced I'm off base requesting you to defend my correct filename. Orrlingtalk 04:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh my, my threatening of your uploads with rename terrorism sounds like a serious charge. Jokes aside, no where did I say I would move the file, I was discussing the name. If I wanted to file moved I could do it myself, but would not for two reasons, 1) is that the move could be seen as contentious, and 2) is that it would be an abuse of my move tools. I agree with Dschwen that the move originally straddles the line of policy, but your move is a complete violation. I would also like it noted that you did not inform me of this discussion, and that is very much against protocol; when one puts in a user related complaint on the drama boards (especially one as serious as threats of rename terrorism) you should place a note on their talk page. Liamdavies (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate this comment. I actually wasn't aware of any expectation from me to place a note about this topic on anyone's talk page. However, I would probably be uncomfortable doing so. I don't personalize users here. I only examine edits, and there was nothing in your somewhat hostile-resonant writing in that discussion which could make clear that you wouldn't carry out those "suggestions". Telling me that my move was a violation is not valid at all, to put it mildly. You can be sure I'm here to defend the joint project, I would like to believe you're up for the same objective as suggested by the admin here. The consistency of my filenames is highly dear to me, and am not seeking to dramatize. Orrlingtalk 04:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of how you feel about it, one should always notify a user if you are questioning their conduct at any Admin Board, if even states so at the top of the page above the contents. Yes, you did personalise users, you said one user (me) 'is being threatening one of my uploads with (yet again) an invalid-rename terrorism'; that is a personalisation. I understand that file names are important to uploads, but they should still give an idea of what the photo is of, File:Nacka.jpg is so unbelievably broad it is pretty much useless, I was trying to address this by suggesting a more appropriate and descriptive name, to think otherwise does not display AGF on your behalf. Liamdavies (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Orrling, you seem to cling to the misconception that you own the file pages and the filenames. I respectfully ask you to back off because all this creates is drama with zero benefit for our users. --Dschwen (talk) 06:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, my one and only point then concentrates to the request that the existing filename be protected as it's been neatly selected to accomodate to the area-specification need and - again - if you don't wish to or can not provide reference to where I did wrong when undoing the recurring illegitimate move please just ensure that from this point on no contested move will be made upon that file uploaded by me, agreeing that it's right-now in a perfectly agreed status. I have to remind that violation of this will attract me asking for the deletion of the file as no excessive filename is identified with my set of uploads. Regards, Orrlingtalk 06:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to protect the file, there is no war or disruptive behaviour ongoing. I would however point out that you are saying that you will behave disruptively, and also request that you apologise to me for your lack of AGF towards me here and for failing to notify me about this discussion. Liamdavies (talk) 06:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio ou besoin de l'orts

pour les contributions de Special:ListFiles/Artist_Roberto_Jones il faut pas un ticket orts ? --Chatsam (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Oui, je pense qu'il faut un ticket orts parce que File:Artist Artist Roberto Jones - painting number 002.jpg et File:Artist Roberto Jones - painting number 021.jpg, par exemple, sont en basse résolution et n'ont pas des métadonnées (EXIF). -- Rillke^(q?) 09:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Mass rename request

Dear Administrators, I need your help fixing an unpleasant typo in names of the files I've just uploaded. These are the files in the Category:Euromaidan in Kiev that contain 'Euromaidan-in-Kyin' in their names. Obviously, it should be 'Euromaidan-in-Kyiv' instead. I've read that there's a tool to fix that in an automated manner: User:Legoktm/massrename, but it is only available to administrators. This is why I request your help on this issue. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. --YurB (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done 13 pages were moved. --Fæ (talk) 08:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! --YurB (talk) 11:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Rename File:N.png

Kindly someone - with stripes on the sleeves, and epaulettes too - rename that file to NK Ostrozak.jpg, or whatever ;). Thank you! OAlexander (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 11:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! OAlexander (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Baltic.jpg

Hey, following this advice to me I'm forwarding that file's issue now to the more general board as I couldnot be assisted; I can't technically restore the filename as this morning it was made into a redir by an act of forcible, explicitly opposed renaming initiated illegitimately. Please view the history beginning here and, clear that odd matter by moving back the file from any name it's currently at to Baltic.jpg. (I have agreed with the opinion suggesting "Stockholm.jpg" might be less suitable.) I believe it's vastly agreed here that I shouldn't be putting energy on carrying a campaign for the name of an image contributed by me but rather on editing others... ;) Thanks in advance for the fixing. Orrlingtalk 21:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no criterion (except criterion #1: uploader requested) which allows renaming files only because the file name is short. See for example Commons talk:File renaming/Archive/2012#Policy on very short filenames. Therefore, the request to rename the file from File:Stockholm.jpg wasn't a valid request and should have been turned down. However, the name change from File:Baltic.jpg to File:Stockholm from ferry 2001.jpg meets criterion #3 (Correct misleading names into accurate ones) as the name "Baltic.jpg" suggests that the image shows something from Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania, which is not true here. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to put an even more accurate image of what has happened, there hasn't even been a request to rename the file from File:Stockholm.jpg, valid or not – the user just renamed it :) . I'd be very happy to get back Stockholm.jpg but the one Admin I've consulted with argued that it wasn't an accurate name and I didn't want to argue. Baltic isn't "Baltic countries" but also the Baltic, so there isn't anything misleading either in "Baltic.jpg" nor in "Stockholm.jpg" and any of them is OK for me as the uploader. Orrlingtalk 23:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I totally understand the nature of what's being requested here... if Orrling wants to create a new image, the procedure is to upload to a completely new, descriptive name with no conflicts. In general, we don't worry about which file exists at which name, as the name is just a throwaway access marker to the file. Thus there is no grand discussion of which file gets the honor of being named File:My cat.jpg. Also, the rules technically do not allow filemovers to move from somewhat descriptive names to more descriptive names, but often times people do it anyway because it can lead to confusion (e.g., File:Pittsburgh.jpg to describe an image whose primary purpose to show a band, but the original name was poorly chosen based off where the concert took place). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You need to rename the file, to Stockholm.jpg or to Baltic.jpg, given that only Administrators have the technical tools to do so. I hope this clarifies better what is being requested here. Orrlingtalk 21:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The word "Baltic", without "The" before or "Sea" after, typically refers to a group of three countries. This image is not related to those countries, making the name "Baltic.jpg" utterly confusing. Furthermore, the location where the photograph was taken is normally referred to as "saltsjön" or "Danviken", not "Baltic Sea". Furthermore, the photograph mostly shows Nacka, not Stockholm. I realise that those buildings that you can hardly see back in the horizon are in Stockholm, but the clearly visible buildings, such as Category:Saltsjöqvarn, are in Nacka. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, these are unimportant discernings, no intention to be arogant or anything. There's a clear rule stated above here in this thread, you can read it once more, it's articulated by two different users +added to what I've already known, that filenames given by uploaders are only contested if misleading or offensive. I got what I need and want for this lovely impressionistic image, I regard it as a stunning victory and would suggest the file be from now protected to prevent the nuisance from repeating their harassive attempts. Thanks! :/ Orrlingtalk 13:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• May I ask: what the hell just happened here? Why has this image been moved so much? And now has a generic meaningless name, rather than a descriptive name. Surely this file should have a more meaningful name that File:Stockholm.jpg. Liamdavies (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

When you theoretically one day change the project's rule about (re)naming files setting it to prohibit short filenames your bottom comment will be valid. until then, read this thread. I'm currently awaiting response from a Stockholmer I correspond with (am not in the city now) who might know the more specific name, if there is, of the depicted location, and might then rename the file accordingly if I choose to do so. This thread is resolved Orrlingtalk 20:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

This move was done after this discussion, and was from a specific name to a generic, with a rubbish reasoning. I am not objecting to the file name because it is short, but because it is meaningless, they are two different things, and the second reason was raised as a valid rename criteria by Stefan4. Why don't you read this again? This thread isn't resolved because you moved the file after it had been resolved that the more descriptive name was better. If you are waiting for someone to give a better name why did you move it back to a meaningless name? This is just absurd, the file now has another short, meaningless name, it is now File:Nacka.jpg, it should have a more meaningful name like File:Nacka from ferry, 2001.jpg. Liamdavies (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Even better name: File:Saltsjöqvarn from ferry, 2001.jpg. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Moved. And this better be the end of this farce. --Dschwen (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Orrling has now requested the file be deleted: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Saltsjöqvarn from ferry, 2001.jpg - Liamdavies (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Blind deletion by Admin

When license of image is reviewed and as per license we are allowed to modify/crop image, we do it and link new uploaded version to original image as per this guideline. I followed guideline but admin User:Fastily has deleted two images.[16] Abhi (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Both images restored and licensed. Next time you do such crops, please use the proper license according to what is defined in the original file.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 22:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Pl see File:ASIN.jpg. When I tried to copy-paste license like you did, I get message that 'I am not allowed to review image'. Why exactly license review of image is needed which is already reviewed? Abhi (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Now I understand what was your problem. Only admins and reviewers can review those licenses. Next time you do it, please use {{LicenseReview}} without filling its fields (just place the template below the license), and it will be reviewed by an admin or reviewer.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 02:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Plenty of pictures to checking

Special:Contributions/Seweryn_L._Lewandowski cover pictures and some documents that has been scanned, part of them shall be deleted, please check.--Motopark (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Taken care of. However, a Polish-speaker might be of help. --Túrelio (talk) 11:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

See pl:Wikipedysta:Seweryn_L._Lewandowski/brudnopis. Apparently intended to be part of an autobiographical article on the Polish Wikipedia.--Auric (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Waiotauru River Slip Tararua Forest Park.jpg

I created some problems by a sequence of actions Wikimedia does not handle properly:

1. first I moved the the now called file Waitatapia River Slip Tararua Forest Park.jpg from this name, because it is not the Waiotauru river, and I wanted to use this name.
2. second I got the remaining redirect deleted, and
3. third I usurpated the name for this upload.

As a consequence, sometimes the previous file and sometimes the new upload was shown. When I (fourth) uploaded the new file again, the correct pic is shown as the old version, but still the moved/deleted file remains visible instead of the now one. When I tried (fifth) to revert to the picture which is shown correctly, it is still the same. At the end of my wisdom, I need administrator help to repair these faults. Thank you sarang♥사랑 09:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a cache issue. All versions of File:Waiotauru River Slip Tararua Forest Park.jpg are the same for me. And File:Otaki River Slip Tararua Forest Park.jpg redirects to File:Waitatapia River Slip Tararua Forest Park.jpg. Is it what you want? Yann (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you a lot, it had really been just a cache problem - i didn't have the idea. The redirect Otaki River Slip Tararua Forest Park.jpg is a relict from a move, there is no need to keep it. sarang♥사랑 10:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Falkirk Wheel from the top. - geograph.org.uk - 11035-2011-05-03.jpg

DR gas been closed and this picture has been added during íscussion, can somebody take care of this picture also--Motopark (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Poco² 16:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Filename

An upload by me, File:Nacka.jpg, was yesterday moved in a contested and outragiously-breaking-the-lines edit by another user to a new "name" while notably knowing that I was in a bitter and stable disagreement with such pattern of activity that is against our policies. During the recent few days I've put efforts to follow all guidelines and tasks to prevent this threat through reasoned explanations in threads on this noticeboard and on individual Admins', with good-faith worded long discussions to sustain the status-quo allowing uploaders to name their uploads as descriptive as they please, also referring to our rule which prohibits filemovers to rename correctly-named files only because they want to; and at the end I even was inclined to give this file a more defined name and willingly moved it from "Stockholm.jpg" to "Nacka.jpg", which is the location of the image. I've clarified that that rule was something I'd defend as much as I need, stressing that the names of my uploaded files are a small area of preciseness and coherency for me; and all in all I could believe that here in this forum, once discussing all those kilobytes out, our joint respectful collaborativeness would be kept with fervor. I'm over-surprised to now find out that this unreasonable exception could be let happen, and given my already-mentioned justifications I'm requesting that this move be undone, or that alternatively, enough-clear that there's no way the imposed “name” format would be right for me, you delete the file please. I'll be putting a delete-tag on it and hopefully this can be fulfilled soon unless the recent damaging image-renaming be undone back to the normal name. I may equally be adressed to discuss any other name suggestion, but Nacka.jpg is enough suitable. I assume the file will rest better when deleted. Thank you, Orrlingtalk 02:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose See #File:Baltic.jpg above. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

GWToolset

Dear colleagues,

The GLAMwiki Toolset was just deployed on Wikimedia Commons. With it comes the special page Special:GWToolset, accessible to holders of the gwtoolset user right, which is assignable by sysops.

So far, as far as I can see this right was mostly self-assigned by curious sysops, or given to the extension developers/WMF folks who needed it − cf. Special:ListUsers/gwtoolset.

Jan created a new section on COM:RFR to ask for this right (upon my suggestion I think ; you may direct the forks and picks to me ;-þ). Moreover, I went ahead and boldly gave him the right (in the spirit of the Rollback right).

Do we need a more formalized process? Is COM:RFR enough? Is direct request to sysops acceptable? I’d be happy to hear your thoughts (and feel free to revoke any of my actions if you feel it’s needed).

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Imho COM:RFR is enough and the right should be removed in case of inactivity. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The gwtoolset user group is much more powerful than rollback, I'd personally classify it at the same level as the bot user group, and would therefore prefer bureaucrats to be able to add and remove users from this group. Before that change is deployed, I'd want to see all people who haven't documented a real need for this to be removed from the user group; they can test things on the Beta cluster. odder (talk) 11:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not object to odder's suggestion, so long as the bureaucrats can handle requests fairly promptly, though if there were a way to do it, I would prefer a couple of admins directly connected to this project and understand its background to manage the right. I think we can use informal common sense for management of this right for the moment. The main users likely to need the right are those directly helping with the GLAM toolset project (project team and steering group members) and end users of the tool who are either in, or working with, GLAM institutions with significantly large quantities of media to release on Commons. Once the tool is in wider use (in a few months time) and has more end user feedback, we will have better end user guides and documentation. At that time we will probably need to formalize this a bit more and possibly introduce something like a noticeboard to manage both this user right and provide help to end users of the tool.

The right is needed as the tools have the potential to create a large mess very quickly, for this reason we would like to ensure that users of it are known to us and have sufficient support to use this as intended.

For those not aware, I'm a founding member of the steering group and I'm quite likely to be one of the volunteers next year helping GLAMs to understand the tool and how to best manage their releases of media collections. --Fæ (talk) 11:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Fait points, odder. I will refrain to add more people to this group now and rather direct them to the Beta cluster. I’m rather with Steinsplitter here to leave that to RFR, but I would not mind a bureaucrat assigned right. Thanks for tempering my overly enthusiastic frenzy here ;) Jean-Fred (talk) 11:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect metadata— Courtney Love Sept 2013 NYC.jpg

I recently uploaded Courtney Love Sept 2013 NYC.jpg to the commons under an OTRS ticket from the copyright holder; however, she has recently contacted me and brought to my attention that the metadata incorrectly labels Patrick Mullan as an additional copyright holder. According to her, the metadata is wrongly entered and she wants his name removed to prevent confusion. Is there a way to edit the metadata or delete this incorrect information? Scottdoesntknow (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It is possible to edit Exif data and re-upload the picture again. There is a variety of Exif manipulation tools available on the Internet, feel free to use one of them & reupload the file. odder (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

[OK], using ExifToolGUI and exiftool.--Auric (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:PD-UK - a major problem in implementation

Files are routinely moved here from other Wikipedias. This is, of course, a good thing, but we need to be careful that so moving does not cause the files to disappear.

Commons has a bad habit of depreciating templates that were made consistent with other Wikipedias, but not bothering to update the corresponding templates. On English Wikipedia, en:Template:PD-UK is the only template for describing UK copyright law beyond a simple en:Template:PD-Old-70.

Now, we are perfectly justified in wanting to be more specific than that. However, currently, if I move a file from English Wikipedia to here with en:Template:PD-UK - the equivalent, the Template:PD-UK-anon license does not exist on En-Wiki, this is what appears on that file:

	This tag is obsolete, and files using it will be automatically nominated for deletion.
	Do not use this template. For copyright information and current United Kingdom specific license tags (if any) see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom and Commons:Copyright tags/Country-specific tags#United Kingdom.

Automatic nomination for deletion is not an appropriate response. It is perfectly reasonable to flag it for review, but deletion is so wildly inappropriate that it boggles the mind why on earth we would want to do such a thing.

Why has this been allowed to stand? Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

From enwiki:I don't really see the problem. You aren't supposed to move files with a bot and not review them yourself. The template gives very clear instructions on what tags may apply instead. If you just reviewed your own files, there would be no problem. It is automatically tagged for deletion because there is a review system, and that's the uploader. For the anon template , move to enwiki yourself if you want. I might do it later if that's what you're all worked up about. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a disproportionate and highly inappropriate response on Commons' part that means files not only get deleted, but get automatically removed from all usages, concealing the disappearance. Because of the CommonsDelinker bot, undoing a deletion fully is almost impossible - all usages of the file will be long gone, and there is no way to reverse the bot. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The thing is that the person who moved the file is the one that should update the tag on commons, and a deletion request is probably the best way to do the review you want. Files nominated for deletion are not deleted within a week, (unless obvious legal considerations, or other extraordinary circumstances apply) so there is often time for discussion. Also, a file can always be undeleted later, and delinkers activities can be traced with this tool. Is there a particular file or files that you are concerned about? Liamdavies (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

See w:WP:CSD#F8: a file can only be deleted on English Wikipedia if the file has correct information here and won't risk deletion. If a file risks being deleted here, then English Wikipedia admins are required to either cleanup the file on Commons or keep it on Wikipedia.

Commons can't be expected to keep copies of (or redirects from) all different copyright tags which exist on various different Wikipedia editions.

If CommonsDelinker delinks a file, you can find a list all of the deleted instances in the delinker log and thus restore the file again. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The template exists on enwiki. I just created the redirect at en:Template:PD-UK-anon -> en:Template:PD-UK-unknown. I'll mark this as  Done now because it was solved through hard work. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done. This is a general problem. I can't, for the life of me, see how anyone can think Commons' actions is a proportionate response. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Since user did not disclose, he opened up a discussion and this overflowed on en:Wikipedia:An#Template:PD-UK_and_the_absurdities_of_Commons. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the template text above. "Nominating for deletion" is our review process here. That doesn't mean the file will be deleted; that depends on the outcome of the discussion. There would only be a problem if such files were automatically deleted. Lupo 21:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• There are lots of cases where things may go wrong if the person moving a file from Wikipedia doesn't check the output correctly. For example, if a someone moves a file from English Wikipedia, and the file shows something listed on the w:National Register of Historic Places (using w:Template:NRHP), then Commons Helper automatically nominates the file for speedy deletion as a copyright violation, although a historic place obviously is something old. Anyone moving a file to Commons should simply make sure that the data on Commons is correct. It is not Commons' fault if people fail to clean up files properly after moving them. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I think Lupo has it right -- a DR is our review process. It is intended to be, and mostly is, a process that allows several members of the community to look over the situation and comment. Although closing Admins certainly do make mistakes, it is unlikely that a file would actually be deleted simply because it has a deprecated tag. As several people have said above, the person moving the file from another WP must pay attention to our needs. Please remember that WP:EN is only one of over 250 WPs, most of which have license tags in 287 languages. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

bot attack?

All over the day I have seen a strange edit pattern by IPs. They add strings such as z14202 m18256 k3315 to image talkpages and other pages; usually 1 IP does only 1 edit. See [17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25]. Any ideas? --Túrelio (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

There have been the same kind of edits on the French Wikisource lately. Yann (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I am going to create an AbuseFilter. Looks like some software vendor has decided setting Commons as their default test wiki in the software they sell. -- Rillke^(q?) 23:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The IPs are all abused/open proxies. I've blocked them. INeverCry 23:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Follow the abuse log of Special:AbuseFilter/125. -- Rillke^(q?) 23:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

@Rillke: The AF will probably fail to match the new-section comments reported on en.wp --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

@Zhuyifei1999 /^(?:\D\d{3,5}\s?){3}$/.test("d236 D1424 k3157") → true. These are definitely not HEX-color-codes. I have just deleted the filter because it had no match and our recent changes are not that difficult to watch. -- Rillke^(q?) 17:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

@Rillke: I mean edits like [26] (on en.wp) /^(?:\D\d{3,5}\s?){3}$/.test("/* d236 D1524 k3159: */ new section") → false --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right. -- Rillke^(q?) 13:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Same thing was noted on en-wiki's AN. Chris857 (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

And again: [27] --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Some fresh IPs for User:INeverCry:

• 125.122.40.52 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 122.244.164.109 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 218.84.213.182 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

-- Rillke^(q?) 14:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done These 3 blocked, and one other that hit Commons:Forum. INeverCry 17:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Here are some more:

• 180.250.87.115 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 204.178.0.39 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

Any new will be prevented and appear in this log. -- Rillke^(q?) 19:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done These two are blocked. I'll keep an eye on filter #125. INeverCry 19:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Collage Bologna.jpg

Please delete the 2013-09-23 revision of this file, uploaded by Nick.mon. It contains additional images not credited in the original file description, including one which appears to be a copyright violation grabbed from http://www.cefla.com/it/business-units/impianti/news-eventi/certificazione-leed-r-gold-per-la-torre-unipol-di-bologna. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done by INC. -- Rillke^(q?) 21:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

File:UP Diesel.png

Forgive me if this is the wrong venue, but there doesn't seem to be straightforward place to appeal a decision to not delete a file. I've been trying to have File:UP Diesel.png deleted. It's an improper transwiki of File:UP Diesel 4453.jpg from 2004. Things were looser then. Attribution history was not maintained from the English Wikipedia and, additionally, the file was converted from a JPG to a PNG and lost its EXIF data in the process. The original on en.wp followed a separate history here to Commons including a crop, since reverted. The two files are now the same resolution. There was a cursory deletion discussion which did not grapple with the underlying attribution/transformation problem. I followed up with the closing administrator, Jameslwoodward (talk · contribs), who declined to reverse his decision (see User talk:Jameslwoodward#Commons:Deletion requests/File:UP Diesel.png). Given that the images are the same, I tried to have the PNG deleted as a duplicate, but after some misunderstandings Billinghurst (talk · contribs) declined to fulfill the request. That discussion is at User talk:Billinghurst#File:UP Diesel.png.

I'm about at wits end here and have no idea why this has proved so controversial. I don't understand why we would keep an image with these problems when we have a properly attributed copy with its EXIF data intact. I don't know why we would offer the other as an option. I would appreciate it if someone not previously involved could examine the matter and explain to me why we would want two copies of the same image, at the same resolution, one a JPEG and one a PNG, one with its EXIF data intact and one with it missing, one with a clean attribution/transfer history and one with it muddled. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Mackensen wrote the message above immediately after putting a message on my talk page, while I was writing my response. He has also raised the issue with Billinghurst, without telling either of us of the other discussion. Now we have a third discussion here. I don't think so.

The problem was that the image has versions in two different crops. I wanted to keep both sizes because I thought the larger crop was better, while he (apparently) wanted to keep only the smaller one. It turns out there was a caching issue, so we weren't communicating. He apparently agrees that the large crop is better, so I think we're OK now.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologize; I didn't realize you were still seeing the cached version (hence my considerable confusion). Mackensen (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for deletion

I would like to request deletion of my commons.js. Thanks in advance, FDMS (WP: en, de) 01:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, but I've just noticed that I have actually managed to also create a deletion request – I would be grateful if that could get closed after the page has been deleted. |FDMS (WP: en, de) 02:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 02:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Uploader uploads same pictures with different names after deletion

Please check deleted pictures of Special:Contributions/DJ_Gerardo_Sanchez, if I remember right there are same picture that has been deleted after deletion request.--Motopark (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Uploads deleted + account blocked --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Google-doodle-doctor-who.jpg

Copyright??? CC??? --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 02:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I've requested speedy deletion as it seems to be an obvious screen cap of the Google website. No evidence uploader has right to license under Creative Commons. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Deleted. INeverCry 04:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Previous version deletion

Would an admin please delete the previous version of File:Middle Tennessee MT Wordmark.png from 20:32, 23 December 2013 (the version with the horse). Uploaded in good faith by a contributor, but addition of the horse takes the image well beyond threshold of originality for copyright. Thanks. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 04:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks INeverCry. Do you know of a template that would simplify such requests in the future? I looked but was unable to locate anything. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry. This is the easiest way I know of to get these taken care of. I've also done some history cleans and splits, etc, via requests here. INeverCry 04:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright issue

File:Jonathan Smith, EMMY Award Winning CEO USAudio Multimedia Productions.png

and

http://goodlifecommunity.com/PDF%20Archive/2007/GLC_Mar07web.pdf

are using the same picture first side. Who (if) violated a license or copyright? --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 04:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

goodlifecommunity is from 2007; "our" file was uploaded in 2012. The file is now tagged (no permission). --Martina talk 09:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Another copyright issue

User:Settai3 has uploaded over twenty copyright images on Commons this month and shows no signs of stopping. If an admin could please have a look and decide whether or not a block is in order I would appreciate it. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 18:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! and Merry Christmas to you and your family, -- Diannaa (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Same to you and yours, and I hope you all have a great 2014! INeverCry 19:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Backlist error

Im trying to upload https://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary/11001331684/ to File:St Martin in the Bull Ring circa 1809.jpg, using Flickr Upload Bot, and have got a "You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: The page title or edit you have tried to create cannot be created or edited by you at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, used to prevent vandalism" message, which asks me to report "File:[\w\d\s]+ <reupload> @File:St Martin in the Bull Ring circa 1809" here. This is not the first time I've had this type of error in recent days, performing the same task. Can anyone assist, please, both in this case, and to help me avoid recurrence? Andy Mabbett (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You forgot to enter the file extension. File:St Martin in the Bull Ring circa 1809.jpg apparently worked, while File:St Martin in the Bull Ring circa 1809 did not and won't for non-admins. -- Rillke^(q?) 14:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

This useless error message has tripped me and countless others up over the years - suggesting some obscure cause for a simple filename syntax error. This usually happens to conscientious users who try to add informative filenames to images. If there is some serious reason why filename syntax cannot be separated from banned filenames, it would be helpful to change the error message to point out that there are other possible causes than the blacklist (I'm assuming here that this is an actual system message and not buried in unmaintained botcode). Dankarl (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- A neat warning message explaining everything in detail is now in place. -- Rillke^(q?) 12:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dankarl (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Nahal Ein Gedi Nature Reserve.JPG - rename to File:Waterfall at Ein Gedi.jpg

Was a critical mistake in the name and the names are the same, the name must be changed urgently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by נהוראיי מבורך כחלון (talk • contribs) 03:53, December 26, 2013‎ (UTC)

 Done You can use {{Rename}} in future. INeverCry 17:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Again does not work, I will delete the two files so I will upload them correctly. נהוראיי מבורך כחלון (talk) 07:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Tammy Barr.jpg

File:Tammy Barr.jpg should be reviewed of copyright! --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 02:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Deleted. INeverCry 03:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The file Percentage population undernourished world map.PNG should to be corrected

File:Percentage population undernourished world map.PNG [28] must be corrected: The colors used on various countries (Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, El Salvador, Morocco...) don't match with the equivalents found in the map (name: World hunger 2009)[29] or the documents (name: food insecurity 2006)[30] the author claim to have used on the creation of the map itself. I can't overwrite it. Varitia (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The author also seems to be doing a synthesis between one source and another and mixing numbers, what makes it very inconsistent, and the main problem is that one source is a report from 2003 while the other (the map) is from 2009, what means that countries that have improved their situation on that period of time still have numbers from 2003 while others have numbers from 2009, which one gets which right now is decided by the author itself. The author have said on the page for the file itself that "When the two sources contradicted each other, the FAO report was given priority, as it is the one with the most recent data" but that's wrong, given that this map is from 2009 [31] while the reports are from 2006 (see [32] and [33]), finally another issue with the file is the arbitrary scheme to divide countries: (it starts going from 0%-2.5%, 2.5-4, then a huge gap of 5% to 20%) which strongly deviates from the source map the author claims to use. For all this i'd sugest the file to be corrected or rather completely overwriten with a consistent better one, i can create it, but i can't overwrite the current one as of now. Varitia (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll begin to work in a new map based on [34] just in case. Varitia (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Please delete

I just uploaded this file, only to realize it's a duplicate! Please delete:

-Pete F (talk) 08:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI, you can use {{Duplicate}}. --레비Revi 08:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Avenue (talk) 08:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both -- next time I'll use the template! -Pete F (talk) 09:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Can't delete file

Would somebody with some relevant tech skills take a look at File:Solar storm 2003-10-26 (SOHO-EIT, Ultraviolet 195 Å).png. I've tried on two different days to delete it as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SOHO images and both times get the message:

"Error deleting file: The file "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-deleted/5/m/z/5mzjl3u7tvvfk9p4jdaa2peke1atfbx.png" is in an inconsistent state within the internal storage backends"

Thanks, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Done by Rillke -FASTILY 23:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

What a pity that we had to delete this great file. Now it is entirely gone (if you undelete it you'll see the 1x1px file I used to overwrite it). -- Rillke^(q?) 23:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Fenn-O-maniC

Hi, I just wanted to ask if the administrator who blocked Fenn-O-maniC could give a reason as to why his works were found to "copyright violation". Absolutely no explanation was given and the block came out of the blue. If it is any help, I can vouch for the authenticity of his works. I would love to see this resolved in such a way that he can continue to contribute to Wiki Commons since it would be a great loss for the heraldic community if he could not post his works. Thank you for your time, --Avenflight (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

This user was not blocked recently. I only see a one week block back in Februari, for edit warring. Jcb (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Most of his works were marked as copyright violation and since this was a "persisted violation" . . . Also, thank you for the prompt answer and explanation :) I would love to hear from the person who makred hi works because I cannot imagine what led him to that conclusion. --Avenflight (talk) 12:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I still haven't gotten a response from the admin. Apparently, according to the edit history, it was Cindamuse. Please, I would love to clear Fenn-O-maniC's name . . .

Category:Information graphics of Aalen and Category:Diagrams of Algeria

Hi, I yesterday issued the deletion of two category pages which I later recreated, and I'm a bit bugged by the absence of the respective original history logs, can you please restore the history logs in both pages for transparency's sake? Thankz, Orrlingtalk 12:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Georges Ibrahim Abdallah.jpg

This image is a blatant copyvio, as it has already been published at least here, here, etc. There is no indication that the uploader is the original author of this image, which has been popping up on various militant blogs and websites, for several years now. JJ Georges (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Merci d'utiliser le modèle {{Copyvio}} pour ce genre de cas. Pleclown (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Georges Abdallah.jpg

The same account tries to upload this photo again and again. Could someone explain him what a copyvio is ? (and maybe how otrs work, just in case he is the original author : this, however, is difficult to ascertain, since this photo is all over the place on far left websites). JJ Georges (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Uploader blocked by Jcb. INeverCry 19:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Georges ibrahim abdallah.jpg

Same subject, same image, same problem (but not same account). See here. JJ Georges (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Image deleted by Jcb. INeverCry 19:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Robbanskell

Can someone check the uploads from this user please - they all seem to be copy-vios of stuff from a Swedish museum, which he is passing off as own work, with no evidence of permission. I've tagged a few for speedy, but he seems to be uploading faster than I can check them. Thanks.  An optimist on the run! 22:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

 Comment I nominated all files for deletion (please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Robbanskell) /St1995 17:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

File:SRK at CE promotion.jpg

Requires an urgent review for license. A GA review on Wikipedia is hanged up simply because this image is unreviewed. I posted on a admin's talk; got no response. Anybody, please review it. Ethically Yours (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 06:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Obese Woman at Menards.jpg

Dear admins, please delete this file per Commons:Deletion requests/Pictures of fat women by User:ParentingPatch /St1995 16:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 19:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

File:93.jpg

Dear admins, please delete old vandalized version. /St1995 16:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ejac.jpg, likely the same file.--Auric (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done History cleaned. INeverCry 19:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Please fix

Please fix this translation edit with the correct language (ja). Thank you, — TintoMeches, 10:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done. You can use {{Edit request}} at the talk page of the affected page if it is non-urgent stuff. This will categorize the page into a maintenance category and an admin will fulfill the request while working on the backlogs. Regards -- Rillke^(q?) 10:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Dueteam and Special:Contributions/Surgeit

first uploads copyvios and blocked and second upload same pictures again---Motopark (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Likely socks of one another. Both have been blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 18:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Undelete in 2014

Would those of you who restore these please mark them as minor edits? I suspect there are dozens, if not hundreds, of them on my watchlist and I'd rather not have to wade through them all. Thanks, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not possible to mark restores as minor is it? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Not as far as I know, but edits to remove {{Delete}} tags etc can be. --Avenue (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Someone needs to ask the devs for the ability to filter the watchlist to remove log entries. I suppose that could be me. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Pictures with phone number

Special:Contributions/Prasendo has uploaded watermarked pictures where are phone number, please delete--Motopark (talk) 06:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 06:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

MicroElec Technical

Please check for License or copyright issues of the recently uploaded logos by Special:ListFiles/MicroElec_Technical. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 12:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Inesjade18

Please check Special:ListFiles/Inesjade18 for screenshot copyright violation. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 12:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Denniss and File:Serbia map modern.png

Denniss is misbehaving again and he put unvarranted vandalism notice on my user page again. It is my understanding of the conversation now archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 45 that such behavior is not acceptable. Would someone please remove the vandalism notice from my user page, warn him not to put it again, and revert respective files to their correct versions? Nikola (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Also, Denniss has deleted a number of revisions of this image without any apparent reason, explanation or justification. I believe they should be returned. Nikola (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Please accept there's no Serbia in Kosovo anymore. --Denniss (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Please accept that your quips are not at all relevant. Nikola (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no place for nationalistic views. Please leave your fantasy world and enter the reality. --Denniss (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

@Dennis, you are way out of line here. You are an involved party in this discussion, and should not use your admin privileges as an argument. I restored the file versions you deleted, and am adding the file to my watchlist. I suggest that you discuss this with Nikola in a civil manner on the file's talk page instead of engaging in an edit war. odder (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You should better investigate what really happened - this user reverts any change to the current status of Kosovo in any Serbia-related map and forces other Wikis to use a biased map. It was actually this user to start edit warring with multiple other users and I was trying to stop that (and cleaning-up afterwards). --Denniss (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be true. File:Serbia map modern.png showed a map of Serbia with Kosovo for more than six years (between 2007-07-13 and 2013-12-17) before being unilaterally changed by @Nikswerdhond. Nikola reverted that unilateral change on 2013-12-26, and that's when the current edit war started. With all the controversies and high emotions around the independence of Kosovo, no one should change any maps without consulting this with others, as any unilateral change (be it to include Kosovo or not) is bound to attract more and more controversies. I would personally suggest for people to upload their versions as completely new files, link them in the {{Information}} template, and let Wikipedians and our re-users choose whatever versions they prefer. odder (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but the independence of Kosovo is a fact and these maps were updated to show the reality, that's a common practice for Wiki maps. If someone prefers the old version (or to have a comparison) it's always possible to upload the older version under a new name (clearly separated from the current version and marked as old, outdated, up to 2011 etc). Another option would indeed be the new version and a new name with replacing all uses of the old version and local Wikis could easily revert to the old version if they prefer them. (But I bet some special users would revert all Wiki uses to the old version anyway). --Denniss (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

@Dennis: I am afraid that you are over-simplifying the matter and letting your own political position influence your actions as a Wikimedia Commons administrator (which is only natural, I agree, but not particularly appreciated). It is my understanding that Serbia (together with a few other countries) does not recognize the independence of Kosovo and considers the territory part of their country. The status quo for over six years was to include Kosovo as a part of Serbia and any and all changes to that—once again, considering all the controversies—should be discussed before putting them into place. That is common practice here on Commons when it comes to such touchy subjects. Joining or being part of an edit war helps no one and leads nowhere; and if people want to engage in edit wars on Wikipedia (in whatever language), that's a matter outside of our competence, as we are not suited to make decisions on The Wrong Version™. odder (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

together with a few other countries - Not only a few, but a significant number, about 50% of the UN members, including Russia. Suggest reverting the file back to the first revision and renaming it to something unique like serbia map as of -data- from the perspective of serbia. -- Rillke^(q?) 00:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Denniss you declined to respond to the last review of your actions against Nikola over 3 weeks ago, per Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_45#User:Denniss_and_File:Map_of_Serbia_.28municipalities.29.PNG. I believe Nikola has been perfectly correct in raising your actions in reverting these map images and then for a second time apparently misusing your authority as an Admin in giving them an inappropriate vandalism warning when you are directly involved.[35] Your explanation here, so far, has been inadequate given this history. It would be a simple mellow thing to do to ask others to review Nikola's edits if you felt they were inappropriate. You are an admin, so you know perfectly well the sort of behaviour that would be good practice in these situations.

Would you care to make a proposal? I would be disappointed if this needs another admin to enforce a solution. --Fæ (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Nikola Smolenski is reverting to old, outdated versions of maps. If that is not vandalism, is there a better word for it? Why do updates to these maps always get reverted? If somebody updates maps of GDP to show the last year's GDP, or if somebody updates maps of rainfall so they shows the latest rainfall or whatever, we wouldn't have automatic and widespread reverting. However, when somebody updates a map to show that Kosovo declared independence then this editor will always revert. Nikswerdhond (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

There were some agreements on pages like File talk:Serbia location map.svg and File talk:Continental-Europe-map.png which involved a lot of other users, but Nicola Smolenski is stalking me and automatically reverts on each map, it doesn't matter what other users agree. If we will have another bigger debate about how to handle these maps, that could be good, if the result of that debate is enforced because previous agreements to update those maps have been ignored by Nikola Smolenski. If we have another bigger debate I hope we invite all the people who were in previous debates. Nikswerdhond (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Odder: I did not "unilaterally" change Serbia map modern.png. The map's creator uploaded a new version, Nikola Smolenski reverted unilaterally with the summary "Fixed error", then I reverted to the more current/more accurate version. So far three different people have tried to update the map and Nikola Smolenski is unilaterally reverting them all. Nikswerdhond (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

[after two edit conflicts]Perhaps you have chosen poor examples, but updating "maps of GDP to show the last year's GDP" would be incorrect. The old map should be in one file, with a year in the filename and the new map should be in a second file, also with a year. We should never overwrite one year's data with more recent data. Similarly, a 1980s map showing East and West Germany should not be "updated" with a new map showing the combined Germany. The new map should go in a new file.

So, on the face of it, the actions you are complaining about are entirely correct. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes the edit warring is disruptive, a stupid act by all parties involved (including Denniss) and a waste of time for the rest of us. Edit warring is not vandalism as it takes two or more parties fighting each other for it to occur. If all those involved agreed to stick to splitting the files so that different versions with extremely clear descriptions and titles to distinguish them from each other were available, then there would be nothing to discuss here. Note that past maps showing older political territories and names are perfectly valid images for Commons to host and do not need "updating" by being over-written by new versions. Personally I have uploaded over 20,000 map images of weather patterns, I do not overwrite yesterday's rainfall map with today's. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward and Fæ: If the file name said that it was information for a specific year then I agree updated data would go in a new image with a newer year in the title. But when something is called "Map of Serbia" with no year in the title, shouldn't it be an actual map of Serbia instead of being stuck with one particular historic version of borders? In the earlier debates most people seemed happy with titles like "Serbia before 2008" for versions that included Kosovo. Can't we continue doing that? Jameslwoodward suggested it. We already have several maps like that but Nicola Smolenski always reverts to old maps even when we already have a different image with a clearer title which shows that old map (examples [36] [37] and [38] [39]). Denniss is right to stop that. Nikswerdhond (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

As I said, we would benefit from "clear descriptions and titles to distinguish them from each other". If this needs the generic files being moved to more specific names and the generic names protected from recreation, that may be a good step forward. --Fæ (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Although independence has received very broad recognition, it is not yet completely accepted with China, India, Russia, Spain and most of Asia, Latin America and Africa opposed. Commons, as policy, stays out of political questions. Thus I think we should not have a "Map of Serbia", but instead a "Map of Serbia before 2008" and a "Map of Serbia after 2008" and let the editors of the various WPs choose which to use. My thinking might change when Kosovo joins the UN. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I thing this discussion is focusing in the wrong issue (e.g. wether Kosovo is part of Serbia or it isn't). The important fact is that somebody overwrote a file without clear consensus and without agreement of the original uploader. Such overwriting must be reverted, and the user should be warned.

Of course, a different map can be uploaded under another name.--Pere prlpz (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree the focus has drifted onto the wrong issue. I see the reason this thread was created is that for the second time, Denniss has been brought to AN by Nikola Smolenski due to handing out vandalism warnings while in content dispute, rather than asking someone else to take a look. Denniss appears to remain unaware that this behaviour is not acceptable. Repeated behaviour like this could well be counted as an "abuse of power" as per Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. As above, my good faith invite to Dennis to make a proposal, and put this right himself, remains open. --Fæ (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "vandalism" is the right word, but Denniss has done well to stop some highly problematic revert-warring. Isn't that part of an admin's job description? Similarly, NNW protected File:Serbia location map.svg against Nikola Smolenski's constant revert-warring; should NNW be punished too? I think we should focus on the underlying problem: Attempts to reshape geography by reverting any change to maps which doesn't fit a small minority's firmly held beliefs about what the map ought to look like. bobrayner (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The solution was spelt out the last time that this problem was brought to AN and does not need anyone to revert anyone else. Giving out inappropriate warnings when involved is not evidence of an administrator having "done well". If any administrator believes it appropriate to revert other editors and then use file protection to "win" an edit-war that they have chosen to engage in, then they probably need to review the policy more carefully with regard to their own behaviour. --Fæ (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I admire your optimism, but the solution spelt out last time did not involve cutting off Nikola Smolenski's ability to revert, so there will be reverts (and deceptive edit summaries) in future. Repeatedly. No amount of warnings (or compromise solutions) has stopped it in the past. That's as inevitable as the sockpuppetry and canvassing - although as far as I can tell you haven't discussed these - do you see them as a problem? And even if Denniss (and NNW) step away, at some point some other competent admin will revert or protect an image to prevent the nationalist POV-pushing, and then we'll have another thread here complaining about that admin. Same thing happened to Nikswerdhond - having dared to fix a few maps, Nikswerdhond was targeted by a thread here, created by a sockpuppet. Denniss has done well to stop some highly problematic revert-warring, but there will be more, and blaming admins for responding to it is not an ideal or sustainable solution. bobrayner (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

 Comment as I was mentioned: I am only involved in discussions around File:Serbia location map.svg. I didn't say or do anything to other files. I wasn't just reverting uploads by the Kosovo-being-part-of-Serbia side but also by Nikswerdhond and tried to find a solution for all sides – supported by interviews with the Serbian prime minister. It was me who edited first at discussion page and who wanted all participants to find their way there, too. I have never acted as an administrator in this case but as the creator of this file. NNW 11:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Demolished buildings

There are other "demolished" categories, shall I do also? Greetings --Jean11 (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

This may be very regional, but for me "demolished" suggests that a substantial work was destroyed. You might have a demolished building or bridge, but not much else. Also, use of "demolished" requires that the destruction was intentional. "Destroyed" is certainly a better word because it includes both those that are destroyed intentionally and those that are destroyed by fire, earthquake or otherwise. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Commons:Files with deleted versions to be restored in 2061

Please, delete the initial revision of four files just added to this category:

• File:PL Joseph Conrad-Murzyn z załogi Narcyza 006.jpeg
• File:PL Joseph Conrad-Murzyn z załogi Narcyza 007.jpeg
• File:PL Joseph Conrad-W oczach Zachodu 008.jpeg
• File:PL Joseph Conrad-W oczach Zachodu 009.jpeg

as they contain non-PD graphics (the graphics is removed in later revisions). Ankry (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 00:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Un-deleting files

I have a question - is there any way to convieniently (as clicking through them manually is kind of tedious) undelete a bigger batch of removed files (OTRS arrived after some weeks). Thanks for the help. Masur (talk) 12:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

We're working on it. See Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#mw:Extension:DeleteBatch_and_mw:Extension:UndeleteBatch. INeverCry 16:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Files in need of deletion

In regards to the following files...

• File:2013 Greece.png
• File:GRE 2013.png
• File:LUX 2004.png

All three coins are part of an ongoing commemorative series of Euro coins. Coins in the series have come up for deletion before across a broad array of DRs. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Euro coins (commemorative) is one example, among others. I recently tagged these for speedy deletion as copyvios, given the history of images of these coins on Commons. Literally thousands of them have been deleted in the past many years. Admin Jcb has rejected their speedy deletion, and insisted they go through DR in order to be deleted. Discussion regarding this occurred at User_talk:Jcb#Euro_coins. Jcb has disengaged from the discussion. I'm not here to garner disapprobation for Jcb's actions, but simply to have the files deleted under Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#File #1, and/or Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#General_reasons #4. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Go to the file description page, press 'Nominate for deletion' from the tools menu and tell a deletion reason. Our procedures will do the rest. Jcb (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Jcb, I'm well aware of the procedures thank you. It isn't necessary. There's been plenty of DRs that have deleted such coins before, and thousands have been speedy deleted. There's no need for the bureaucracy. This is precisely why we have speedy deletion. I'm sorry you do not see it that way. I understand your position. I disagree with it, and am asking for another administrator to step in. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop wasting our time with this. The time you have spent complaining would have been more than sufficient to start the DRs. If an administrator declines speedy, your remaining option is a regular DR. Period. Jcb (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

As another admin, what Jcb said. Just DR the damn things. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

@jcb: If an administrator or any other user declines speedy, then this DR should be launched by the person who opposes this speedy. --High Contrast (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Jcb (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Aha. And when is it "not necessarily"? It is a matter of transparency when the speedy-tagger knows what happened with their initial actionwork. Please keep in mind: your admin-opinion is not more worthy than the one of any other user. --High Contrast (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Untagging a file should generate a notification to the tagger. If you do not receive such notifications, there may be something wrong in your account settings. The response of Hammersoft suggests that he/she did receive the notifications. Jcb (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

My concerns do not direct to technical issues but to your unwillingness to involve the initial tagger into your decission. You tend to prefer to give your opinion a heavier weight by your removal. Hammersoft's actions were not vandalism. --High Contrast (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You know it's not true what you are stating. Do you see unanswered questions on my talk page? I can also give you examples from the past days where I did contact the tagger, but I don't think it would show you something you don't already know. Jcb (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Mellow out guys. Our practice is to require a DR for coins, just as we require a DR for FOP cases even when the case is completely obvious. I think it is a good practice because both types of cases are widely misunderstood by our editors and a DR gives them a chance to learn. Therefore it is correct to refuse a speedy on these. Although some of us routinely convert speedies to DRs, in a case where the nom knows full well that a DR is required, I think the Admin is perfectly fine in simply removing the speedy tag. Admin time is valuable -- we have far too little of it.

Hammersoft's argument that we have done hundreds of Euro coin cases misses the point and bringing it here when an Admin has simply asked him or her to follow practice and use a DR is an abuse of process. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• If it is an abuse of process, then please permanently block me now. Throwing around accusations like this is hardly helpful. We know beyond a shadow of doubt that these are copyright violations. We have had multiple DRs that have supported this conclusion. Hundreds, if not thousands, of these images have been speedy deleted before. I know I have marked an enormous number of them for speedy deletion myself, and they have been speedy deleted. I fully intend on continuing to mark such images for speedy deletion due the enormous amount of precedent and our speedy deletion policies unless someone can point to an actual policy that says "For Euro coins, we don't speedy delete them". I'm not aware of any such policy. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

We have a number of practices which are not formal policy, which we follow, not because experienced users and Admins need a DR, but because the inexperienced users and newbies need one. Coins and FOP are two of the areas in which this is important. Certainly it is well established that they must be deleted, but it is close to certain that the person who uploaded the image does not know that -- else he would not have uploaded the image. If they are deleted as speedies, then the uploader is simply going to go to the deleting Admin's talk page, to UnDR, to the Village Pump, or here and complain about the deletion. That's a waste of everybody's time, so we do a DR, with a little explanation and the opportunity for the newbie to ask what's going on. There is both an actual saving in time and the opportunity to seem a little less mechanical and a little more human. Both are good things.

There's also the fact that DelReqHandler makes it probably five to ten times faster for Admins to close a DR than to delete a {{Speedy}}. Closing a DR with DelReqHandler takes two clicks to delete the image and close the discussion, plus typing the closing comment. It requires no page loads. On the other hand, deleting a {{Speedy}} takes two clicks, a pull down, three page loads (the image, the deletion page, and the success page) and typing a comment. So, by insisting on using speedies, you are substantially increasing the workload on the Admins from your DRs.

So, if you won't do it because I've threatened you, please do it because I've explained why we do it and because it saves me and my colleagues time. Please remember that ten of us do 1,300 deletions a day -- about 80% of the total -- so we need all the help we can get in saving time. We were caught up briefly last month, but we're now falling behind again. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Do we need more admins willing to delete images? ̃Jonathunder (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be great to have more Admins who are very active. However, in the 3 1/2 years that I have been an Admin, the situation has been much the same. 80%, more or less, of the work has been done by 10 people, with a single person, first Túrelio, then Fastily, then INeverCry, and now Fastily again, doing around a quarter of the total.

See

• Commons:Database_reports/Users_by_log_action all time list
• Admin actions in the last thirty days

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Closing DR

As a non-admin, am I able to close a DR and if so, how? Thanks, We hope (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You may close non-controversial keeps. To do so you must do a bunch of things. Admins have the script DelReqHandler which automates the process, but you must do it by hand:

1. Remove the {{Delete}} from the file
2. Make sure that the license information is up to date if the DR mandates a change
3. Add {{kept|date of closing|Full name of DR page}} to the file talk page
4. Enter a horizontal rule (four dashes) at the end of the DR.
5. Enter Kept, a comment, and your sig under the rule.
6. Enter {{Delh}} at the very top of the DR -- above the section head which introduces it -- and {{Delf}} at the very bottom.

You can also read Commons:Deletion_requests#Instructions_for_administrators

Note that DRs remain open for seven days. The one you mention above cannot be closed until January 6. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim! We hope (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems that DR was opened by you. You may {{Withdrawn}} it so that another one can close it. Jee 03:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Now done, and thanks! We hope (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Problem with loading file

Hi. Yesterday I uploaded this files. First loaded correctly. But problem with second. No category, no description. And i can`t change it. Please help. Sas1975kr (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• File:Dunkerque Oran Hit NO 3.svg
• File:Dunkerque Oran Hit NO 4.svg

Editing the file description works like editing any other wiki page. Take this here as a template and paste it there amending everything that needs to be amended and press Save page -- Rillke^(q?) 11:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Opinions of administrators needed

Hello, it is here required opinions of commons administrators, the category name is not matter for me, I want peace. Then I would like to implement the result. Thank you. Greetings --Jean11 (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Ravenna Sant Apollinare in Classe abside 04.jpg

I've uploaded four files with upload wizard but the session timed out and I can't insert a description. Now I can't do that the files are: Ravenna Sant Apollinare in Classe abside 01.jpg, Ravenna Sant Apollinare in Classe abside 02.jpg, Ravenna Sant Apollinare in Classe abside 03.jpg and Ravenna Sant Apollinare in Classe abside 04.jpg --Edisonblus (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Now corrected. Please add your infos. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

A small query

If an editor makes a large number of justified renaming requests, but falls below the "rough guideline" of 1000 edits; will he/she be granted Filemover? My request at Commons:RFR has gone un-answered to the directly "Not done" by Alen. I don't have any problem not being granted; but I guess this creates a problem for filemovers especially at times when I tag a lot of files together for renaming. If granted the right; I can move them myself. I'm a trusted user at enwiki too. Thanks! Ethically Yours (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of file's history

Could you delete the history of File:Pierre Niney 2014.jpg, which I just uploaded ? I had forgotten to crop the picture before uploading, and as a result, a private person can ben seen in the first version. Thanks. JJ Georges (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You meant deleting the 1st version, right?  Done. --Túrelio (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Trabalhos.jpg

In a recent discussion, Kat Walsh commented that "Whether a thumbnail would be considered to be a different work than a full-size image isn't a question we can resolve--it depends on the specifics of how much difference there is and the laws in your jurisdiction."

So I request an admin to look into this matter and delete the higher resolution file per COM:PRP. We can see here, many admins and well known media contributors showed their dissatisfaction on the CC FAQ update, and we have no crystal clear opinion in this matter so far.

If we arrive into a decision and update our guidelines according to it, we can reconsider it. IMHO, taking case to case decisions until then is not helpful as it only helps to make fear and uncertainty to our professional contributors. Jee 14:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you explain why you are raising this request on AN? If there is a new request from the uploader to delete then this is suitable for a DR. At the moment a check of the image page, the image talk page and the previous DR (which you raised on 18 November 2013) shows no evidence that the uploader objected to the higher resolution version being released.

If you are looking for the community to reach a consensus to delete all uploaded files of higher resolution than any original upload to Commons, then this is not the best place to achieve that. --Fæ (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

1. This is not a DR. We need a policy or "best practices" in this (generic) matter. So the discussion here.

2. Regarding that particular case. We have no evidence that the original uploader or that Flickr account belongs to that person. Both account seems inactive now. No response for my mails too. But as far as I know, we don't keep images due to no complains from the author. COM:PRP #4 "Nobody knows who the copyright owner is, so it really doesn’t matter."

3. My stand in this case: I have no clear stand in this case. I've no problem with CC's new FAQ updates. But we need a rigid "best practices". Admins do not act on their POV. I see admins like Jim and Avenue in one side and Yann, Túrelio, Denniss, etc. on other side.

4. "If you are looking for the community to reach a consensus to delete all uploaded files of higher resolution than any original upload to Commons, then this is not the best place to achieve that." I didn't see any other similar upload here. Jee 15:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• WRT 4 - I know of several cases, if someone is interested in assembling a case book to support new guidelines than I may point them out at that time. Asking for Admins (or an admin) for their viewpoints does not establish a consensus for general change in policy, many of our contributors have a legitimate viewpoint to express who are not admins. --Fæ (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Even though this is AN, any one can comment here, including you. :) Jee 15:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, we do not have a good place for an all-Commons discussion. The Village Pump existed in 42 languages last time I counted, so a message there will not reach everyone. ANB is probably the place where the largest number of active editors are likely to see a discussion.

I think the message from Kat is clear -- if you use a CreativeCommons license you are licensing all resolutions of the image. You can use a license that is not CreativeCommons and license only one resolution, and I think that Wikimedia Commons should accept that, but you cannot say "CC-BY for this resolution only" as that is the same problem as saying things like "CC-BY but you must notify me of off-WP use" which we do not permit. Perhaps we should draft up a suggested single resolution license, using CC-BY as a starting point. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Count me out, this same discussion has been run in several places now. If someone starts a useful project wide RFC I may eventually chip in there. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That VPC discussion is almost closed/dead. Jee 16:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim for your opinion. If this is the "community accepted opinion" I'm more than happy to accept it. I fully agree with you on "CC-BY but you must notify me of off-WP use or attribute me in such a way for of-wiki use which is invalid". There is no separate terms for wiki and non-wiki uses. There are so many such things people still in the clouds. Jee 16:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear -- my point is that there can be no such thing as a "CC-but" license. If you call the license "CC" then it has all of the CC terms, including multiple resolutions. CreativeCommons could offer a new modifier, call it "CC-OR" ("OR" for "one resolution") to go along with "BY", "SA", "NC", and "ND", but unless it does, a license that calls itself "CC" covers all resolutions. Since "CC" is a registered trademark (#3096268) of Creative Commons, they can (and should) prevent users from calling a license a "CC" license when it differs from their actual licenses. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

My opinion: a CC license is a license for all resolution up to the uploaded license and not for a higher "original" resolution. All other opinions are too wrong for me! We don't have here at Commons higher original resolutions. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said on another location I have serious doubts this new/updated CC interpretation holds ground in court as it's only the copyright holder who has the right to license higher res images under a CC license (or refrain to do so). I don't know how the wording/specification was in a previus version of the FAQ but if they advertized it the other way one could claim this an invalid license change/addition. Plus it's impossible to verify the higher res version of an image to be exact of the same source as the lower res version. If we accept this view of CC we need to install a warning/information on all CC license tags. --Denniss (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The three FAQ updates are totally new; no previous versions. But in their much advertised e-book The power of open has a conflicting example in page 26: "When completed, every aspect of the film will be released under two different CC licenses: BY-NC-SA for the high-resolution version, and BY-SA for the low-resolution. "We assume that if you are a movie theater, an on-demand platform, a newspaper, or TV, you will need the high-quality version and reach an agreement with us. - Nicolás Alcalá, founder" Jee 03:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If they don't care about their license, why should we? If we are forced to treat all higher res versions found elsewhere to be on a CC license why shouldn't we do the same and assume it's the noncommercial variant? Using the same version number it's still the same license, just with an additional usage restriction. --Denniss (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh please let's not have this again. Jim is wrong, CC did not clearly state that CC covers all resolutions, as Kat is at pains to say in the linked message: "Whether a thumbnail would be considered to be a different work than a full-size image isn't a question we can resolve--it depends on the specifics of how much difference there is and the laws in your jurisdiction.". What they said is more like "it depends" which is unhelpful but importantly different. In some jurisdictions, two images might be considered the same work that are apparently different sized versions of the same work, and if so then CC covers both. But in some other jurisdictions they might not be considered equal and an uploader in that jurisdiction might be breaking copyright. Since nobody will tell which and it is impossible to find out, we have to assume worst case in both directions. This means potential uploaders of original work only donating a small image should be warned their CC licence might cover more than they think. And potential uploaders of a bigger version they found somewhere should be warned the CC licence on the small one might not cover as much as they think. Just because the two files look darn similar apart from size doesn't mean some significant creative work went on to produce the bigger one. In the UK, where the threshold of originality is low, setting different noise reduction, sharpening, white balance, white point, etc, might be creative enough yet impossible to tell if the small version had the same settings. The second uploader is in a "do you feel lucky, punk?" situation. We can't recommend either behaviour.

Our personal opinions count for nothing. Please let's take this to the Village Pump where we an run a discussion on how to improve our upload pages to better indicate that CC covers the "work of copyright" and not necessary just the file you are uploading. -- Colin (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 Support your conclusion "we have to assume worst case in both directions", if CC's "new" interpretation cannot be shown to be legally nonsense (see Carl Lindberg's statement below). --Túrelio (talk) 09:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I tried to raise the issue of "CC-BY + res restriction" here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Suworow_Gedenktafel_Panixerpass_01_12.jpg It fell of deaf ears. My point was the restriction invalidates this being called a CC license. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

DRs don't attract much eyes and so not a good place if policies and our "best practices" are not defined. I was in vacation on that time too. I agree with you (and Jim) that we can't add additional restricting condition on a CC license and call it a CC license. We are allowed to add a more generous clause (like attribution and links are not necessary) and call it a CC plus though. Jee 03:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If CC's clarification is indeed true, then you're correct that the uploader is not allowed to call it a CC license. However, Commons does not require that a license be CC, merely that it be free. And the definition of free content says nothing about automatically licensing higher-resolution images under the same license. So the DR has no merit. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

To me, copyright owners have the right to license whatever they want, dividing their rights however they want, in whatever way is to their advantage. They can license by territory, by groups of people, by manner of use, i.e. limit things in any way they want. "Free" means they can't limit very much, but I have no problem with just a portion of a work being "free". To me, all that is required by the CC licenses (and definitely in general) is that something is a "work", i.e. copyrightable subject matter, such that there are rights that exist that can be licensed in the first place. If Creative Commons is trying to define their license in terms of the whole work, with no subdivisions allowed... I think that is 1) not necessarily supportable by the wording of the license, and 2) detrimental to the "open" cause as it will only needlessly limit what authors are willing to release. To only allow separate licenses if something has enough derivative work to support a separate copyright registration as a derivative work, I think is absolutely the wrong way to think about it, and it creates ridiculous uncertainties all through the world over the divisions of such things, when in reality the owner of the rights normally gets to determine exactly what it is they are licensing. If they only want to freely license a portion of their expression, that is fine to me, as that portion is then "free", even if they keep full rights to other portions. Are photographers allowed to crop a photo to their liking, and only release the crop? Or does the rest of it also become licensed if they want to license any of it? Even if they don't like it aesthetically and don't want it distributed? What if they split the photo in two and register them separately with the Copyright Office? One photo, but neither portion is derivative of the other, so two works now. I think if it ever came up in a court of law, the courts would side with the copyright owner almost always -- they control the rights, they control how much they release or license. Trying to conform to CC's new interpretation I think is incorrect and detrimental, and just causes more legal parsing of words where really the licensor should be able to define the "Licensed work" in question -- that should be up to the copyright holder, not determined by the legal interpretations in hundreds of countries. The only requirement to me is that the licensed portion is at least copyrightable, so that there is a right being licensed in the first place. If we are not comfortable using the CC licenses under that interpretation -- an interpretation that has always been implied in a number of their samples as pointed out above -- we should probably then change to use our own identical license but one which makes clear the author gets to define the scope of the work they are licensing. If they choose to do so by resolution, that is fine. They can't control if someone expands that lower-resolution version into a higher resolution -- otherwise it would not be free -- but they can state they are only licensing a particular resolution of the work. That portion is no less free to me than if there happened to be a higher resolution copy or not, so I don't see why we would not allow it. Licensing only lower-resolution versions is perfectly fine by me and still free, and we should provide users licenses accordingly. If CC stands by their new interpretation, I think we need new licenses, and convert anything which was uploaded under the old understanding to the new licenses (which would be virtually identical). I would not upload anything higher resolution than that explicitly licensed by the copyright owner. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

 Support. Thanks for this analysis and statement. --Túrelio (talk) 09:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Given CC's position, I would be uncomfortable assuming that CC licenses can be applied only to certain versions of the whole work. I'd have no objection to us hosting a specific version offered under a free license that clearly does support the licensing of just certain specific versions of a work. However I'm not sure if there are any such free licenses available, or whether the definition of free content our policies rely on even allows such licenses. --Avenue (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with some of what Carl says and some of his thinking matches mine initially but CC have not given us the flexibility you and I desire and I agree with avenue that trying to form a different interpretation by Commons consensus would be unwise. I agree a copyright holder can invent whatever licence they want and impose whatever rules they want but not with a CC licence. Whether we can invent a new licence that would be robust enough to be wisely used is unclear and there seems to be no enthusiasm for this from the WMF. I would like User:Eloquence to chip in with whether the Definition allows us to do this. But this forum is not the place for that discussion. -- Colin (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

My small camera has a built in facility to take pictures in various resolutions; so I can take 3, 5, 7 and 10 MP pictures of the same frame if mounted on a tripod. I wonder how people can use the license of my 3 MP photo (CC BY-SA) on my separately copyright eligible (?) 5, 7 and 10 MP works (CC BY-NC-SA)? :) Jee 07:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Assuming the lighting, exposure etc are as unchanged as the framing, I think those seem unlikely to attract separate copyrights under US law. The situation might be different in other jurisdictions, e.g. countries with a Lichtbildwerk provision like Germany. --Avenue (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you able to 100% confirm a large res image found elsewhere has the same source as the lowres version available under CC? --Denniss (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I can't (although I think 100% confirmation is an impossible goal in most situations, not just this one). However it wouldn't surprise me if someone could do some clever forensic work to establish that a particular hi-res image is very likely to come from the same source image as a certain low res version. This is quite a different question from whether the hi-res version is the same "work" as the low res version, though, which according to CC is what matters for their licenses. It might amount to the same thing in some jurisdictions, but not others. --Avenue (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I would definitely argue that a given license does not cover a higher resolution of an image. Let me take this to a reductio ad absurdum: I take a square photo, 4000 pixels to a side, and CC-license a 10x10 color field image that is a faithful sampling of that photo. Surely you would not argue that I've therefore CC-licensed the entire 4000x4000 pixel image, even though what I've CC-licensed is a faithful downsampling of the image. So why should it be any different if I've CC-licensed a 400x400 downsampling? Similarly (but less absurdly) in France, where there is no FOP for buildings, if an architect CC-licenses a photo of a building, they have certainly not just put a CC-license on the building itself. - Jmabel ! talk 05:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

If we're arguing from extremes, let me also put one forward. Suppose an image is released under a license (call it the "Any Resolution" license) that explicitly covers not just the attached version of the image, but also the original digital photograph and every version in any resolution derived by automatically downsizing that photo. Then, assuming that it's established that a 10x10 pixel version is derived by downsizing the original 4000x4000 pixel photo, licensing the 10x10 pixel version under the Any Resolution license would similarly license the 4000x4000 pixel version. Okay, this is an unrealistic example, but then IMO so is a CC-licensed 10x10 colour field.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that CC licenses have such an absolute "Any Resolution" property. (To the extent they do, I imagine this would usually break down well before we reach 10x10 pixel versions.) I'm just saying that showing something holds (or doesn't hold) in extreme situations doesn't tell us much about what's true for more typical situations. --Avenue (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

I would agree with Carl and Denniss above. The copyright owner is the one who can decide what is licensed, not an local interpretation depending of the juridiction. I also think that the courts would support that. I don't know what we should do with Kat's comments, which are not helpful at all. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

We're just repeating arguments we had at the village pump (copyright) earlier, which prompted the CC FAQ to be added-to and which eliminate some of the interpretations here. I think telling CC they have interpreted their own licence wrongly is silly and trying to install our own interpretation here on Commons is foolish. Their licence may be badly worded (I think so and CC4 is if anything even more confusing in this regard). If we want a licence to operate the way we wish it to, then we'd have to create our own. And it won't be any use for Commons unless it meets the Definition of Free Cultural Works. Again, why is this being discussed on the Admin noticeboard... -- Colin (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this discussion will help to determine whether the community need a better (?) license. As LVilla (WMF) said earlier, if there is a strong need, we can push WMF to consider it. If only a few of us need it, there is no scope. As Jim said above, VP is split into so many languages, so a centered discussion is difficult. Jee 09:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

As someone who has sold his images from time to time over the last fifty years, I don't see a problem. Under US law, a work is a work and different resolutions are the same work for copyright purposes, just as a fancy limited edition of a book, a hardback edition, and a paperback edition are all the same work (unless the fancy one contains special matter exclusive to it). If I want to give a CC license to a low resolution version of an image and sell a higher resolution version, I can easily do so by licensing the higher resolution under a special license that restricts my customer to a single specified use. It's true that if my customer violates that license and posts the high resolution image to Commons, the image will be out there under the CC license, but that's a small risk and one I would be willing to accept.

And yes, to Colin, perhaps we need to establish a multi-language discussion place, but until we do, for me, this feels more inclusive than the English version of the VP. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

US law may be nice but it's only relevant for works created by US citizens in the US, all other works may be affected by regulations in other countries. In short: CC is dead as universal/multinational license. And yes, the WMF has to examine this and how it affects images given under false preconditions like the Bundesarchive images. --Denniss (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a wide community discussion on "CC is dead" would help assess a consensus rather than chit chat on AN? --Fæ (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Many of us are quite happy to donate any version of an image we've created under CC but there are a large number of donors who are not. I disagree that CC is dead but it is seriously wounded as a good image licence due to such bad wording and its interpretation being so wildly influenced by various copyright laws. James, please no more analogies (hardback books), I'm thoroughly sick of them in this discussion and they are absolutely no use in understanding copyright which simply is what it is and varies illogically from country to country and age to age. I agree with Fae that this is no place for this discussion. The main village pump is probably the best place. -- Colin (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Angela George

Hello Commons admins. I'm requesting help regarding a problematic deletion request I had recently opened up at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ben Affleck 2009.jpg, which I believe will unfortunately spark some controversy about the images in use at Commons here in relation to their photographer Angela George. Michael J. Scofield provided some insightful comments in that deletion discussion: "I got in touch with Angela, and she redirected me to her profile page. Sadly, it looks like any images uploaded by Sharon Graphics are copyrighted with all rights reserved. I asked her if she would alter the licensing, and she said that when she gets around to it, her images will all be copyrighted and all rights will be reserved." If this information is correct, could an admin perhaps try to persuade her to change her license so it will compatible with the various Wikipedia licenses and we can retain the images in question? Otherwise, we would have to re-review the copyright statuses of all the images located in Category:Photographs by Angela George, as well as run checks through Google images if any upload dates on any websites preceded the Flickr and Commons uploads. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, a free CC licence is irrevocable, whatever licence the author may later apply to an image- and in the case of the above, it was reported to have had a free licence in 2011, so is OK to host on Commons. Unfortuantely, Wayback Machine does not seem to archive Flickr image versions, so it can't be checked in that way. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That's true, but I wish there was a better indication of whether or not she really did release under a CC-compatible license. For as far as I know, she might have uploaded the picture on Flickr and no one (except a bot, and bots can make mistakes) was there to check if the second clause fits in with our CC-By-SA 2.0, and it's further complicated by the fact it was not uploaded by her directly to Commons under that license, but by Blue Marble (talk · contribs) who has since been blocked for "Uploading unfree files". If she was here to confirm that, even at that time, she did in fact upload it under CC-By-SA, which is irrevocable, I think this could be better resolved rather than deferring to the precautionary principle. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

What more do you want? A well written bot does not make mistakes -- it fails safe, which this one does by asking for human review if it cannot find exactly what is required. What you are suggesting here is that we stop using Flickr as a source of images -- since Flickr allows users to change the license, if we do not trust the FLickrreview process, we should not allow any Flickr images because we would have to both monitor the license on Flickr and delete any that changed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Could we close this thread and keep discussion in one place please? The DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ben Affleck 2009.jpg seems a much better location for the community to reach a consensus that can apply to any similar images from the same Flickrstream. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bejinhan.JPG

Suggest a speedy close; this is too disturbing to a young girl. See these discussions too (Your portrait on Commons., Re: Your portrait on Commons.). Jee 07:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed.  Done Yann (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Jee 08:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the keep closure. Deleting this image would basically have amounted to calling the uploader a liar over a standard everyday personal image. We have thousands of blatant copyvios and out of scope images in Category:Media needing categories that would make much better candidates for DR/CSD. INeverCry 09:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

File:PL Marek Aureliusz - Rozmyślania.djvu

Please, hide/delete the initial revision of File:PL Marek Aureliusz - Rozmyślania.djvu. The preface by Tadeusz Sinko (1877-1966) is removed in the next version. Ankry (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 18:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Corrupted file BaumBayesGig.svg – my upload (resolved)

I tried to upload a modified version of this file, unfortunately after uploading it had black areas in it, whereas it looks perfectly fine on my computer … until I can figure out what has happened here, could you please remove/delete/hide/whatever this wrong version, so that the previous version will be visible in the de-WP article where it is used? Thank you, Troubled @sset  ^{Work • Talk • Mail} 18:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, just found out that I could revert to the previous, correct version myself. No further action required. Sorry for the hassle. Troubled @sset  ^{Work • Talk • Mail} 18:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Geniusakash01

Hello again. Can an administrator check the contributions from this user for copyright violations? I haven't had time to check them all but I know that some like this for example are obvious copyright violations of this. Thanks, TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done - all the images are deleted. JurgenNL (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Changing username

Can my username be changed to SovanDara? It's already changed on Wikipedia but not on Commons. I already moved my page to SovanDara but my username is still not renamed. My old username is "SovanDara18". SovanDara18 (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Please request changing your username at Commons:Changing username. JurgenNL (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Katanga still locked?

The provinces of Congo are the plain names of provinces without the suffix "Province", as are all the entries in Category:Provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (e.g. Category:Nord-Kivu, and not Category:Nord-Kivu Province). Category:Katanga is no exception, and won't be one. That category, however, as you know, has long been redirected by someone at the invalid form of "Category:Katanga Province", and then made inaccessible for others to edit it. It's been since made multiple vigorous requests to fix this anomaly, which hadn't born the required fixing and so we've come to that "Category:Katanga" is still redirecting to "Category:Katanga Province" and one can't reverse it due to the cat's technical/administrative status.

This is, in other words, the third time asking to unlock Category:Katanga, and give it the parent [[Category:Provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo]] instead of the currently-prevailing redir code. Thank you. Orrlingtalk 14:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Taivo (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanx. Orrlingtalk 20:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

mis-sent a original file(09.01.2013)

I mis-sent a private file today

just searched about some and mis-clicked, very sorry...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.236.1.13 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. Did you upload something to Wikimedia Commons by mistake? If so, please give us a link to the uploaded file. Jcb (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

copyvio

A user has uploaded a bunch of files taken by the professional photographer Cor Vos. --Pirker (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, I have tagged that bunch of files as 'no permission'. Jcb (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sidebar translation

Hello. Please move this page from "MediaWiki talk" to "MediaWiki" namespace. Thanks, Rzuwig^► 19:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done - JurgenNL (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Superstar basketball Player Michael Jordan with 2XL robot.JPG and File:Michael.JPG

If I remenmber right those pictures File:Superstar basketball Player Michael Jordan with 2XL robot.JPG and File:Michael.JPG are same and first gas been deleted from blocked user, could somebody check--Motopark (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Now the same picture has uploaded with name File:M. Jordan.jpg--Motopark (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Question -- PD Old tags

I should probably know the answer to this -- but I don't.

If we have an ancient sculpture and the photograph is properly licensed, say as CC-BY, do we have a tag to add for the sculpture? Those in Category:PD-old license tags don't work because they all say that the file is PD, which in cases like this, it is not. Or do we simply add a note that the sculpture is ancient -- with its date, if known? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Ngoclinhtran new sock of Namkhanh02

Please block. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 18:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you also delete these categories they created? Category:Coats of arms of Vietnamese subjects, Category:National flag of Vietnam, Category:Old national flags of Vietnam. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 20:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Housekeeping deletion

Can someone please delete the reported duplicate of File:Eddie Stobart PJ11VRV (H6391 Christina Beth) (10883982496).jpg. It won't let me edit the page as mediawiki seems to think it doesn't exist, but the file is there, occupying a filename. Ultra7 (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

 Deleted and redirected to File:Eddie Stobart PJ11VRV (H6391 Christina Beth) - Flickr - Alan Sansbury (1).jpg --Alan ^(talk) 16:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure? I think you've done it the wrong way round and redirected the functional image page to the corrupted version. Ultra7 (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Both merged now under the old name. --Denniss (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Ultra7 (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Allow gallery without File: prefixes (bug?)

For example Wat Si Saket:

If I want to save the following:

<gallery>
Sisaket.2.jpg
Sisaket.turm.jpg
Laos_Vientiane_Wat_Sisaket.jpg
</gallery>

[[Category:Wat Si Saket| ]]

the following error message appears: "It appears that this gallery contains no images"

On the other hand

<gallery>
File:Sisaket.2.jpg
Sisaket.turm.jpg
Laos_Vientiane_Wat_Sisaket.jpg
</gallery>

[[Category:Wat Si Saket| ]]

(only with one File: prefix) works.

Please, adjust the filter such that no File: prefixes are required anymore - like in the English and German Wikipedia. Thanks.

77.56.53.183 21:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That's Special:AbuseFilter/16. That is a mighty strange filter. It is entitled "Galleries without images", but as far as I see it triggers if a page contained file: before and doesn't contain it anymore after the edit. Which is why it triggered for your edit. I see nothing related to galleries per se in this filter, and I wonder if it is really needed. If it is needed, it could be fixed by including all possible file extensions in the check; but even then it wouldn't really test what it claims to test. In filter #52, BTW, this particular "fix" was also attempted, but only using extensions jpg, png, gif. What about the others?

Are these two filters (#16 and #52) really useful for something? Lupo 22:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

#16: to prevent new users from making Not a gallery (such as spam or wikipedia article); #52: to prevent CommonsDelinker from making Not a gallery after removing an image. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

My point is: that may have been the intent, but if I understand it right that's not what that filter does. If the page contains a file: somewhere else, for instance in a second non-empty gallery, the filter will not trigger even if a gallery was emptied. So what's the point of having this filter? Besides, CommonsDelinker is explicitly excluded from triggering this filter. Lupo 10:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Taking a look at past filter hits, this filter triggers if somebody replaces a page by complete nonsense (and the page did contain at least one file: link before). That might actually make sense, but has nothing to do with galleries. It also triggers

• when somebody removes the file: prefixes in galleries, as the OP did (false positive).
• on page blanking, but for that, there's another filter already (false positive).
• when someone removes a gallery completely: that may well be a legitimate edit, would need a different filter that only warns and tags, but allows the edit (false positive).

Lupo 11:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Please delete

User:Lalinchi, has removed speedy tag twice--Motopark (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done JurgenNL (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The DR Backlog

Hi all, we seem to have developed a bit of a backlog at DR. To ALL Admins who see this: please donate a few minutes of your time and close some DRs listed in the logs below. If everyone helps out, we'll be done in no time!

• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/12/17
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/12/18
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/12/19
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/12/20
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/12/21
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/12/22
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/12/25
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/12/26
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/12/28
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/12/29
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/12/30
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/12/31
• Commons:Deletion requests/2014/01/01
• Commons:Deletion requests/2014/01/02
• Commons:Deletion requests/2014/01/03
• Commons:Deletion requests/2014/01/04
• Commons:Deletion requests/2014/01/05

-FASTILY 10:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Please delete

We.pe, uploader has removed my speedy twice--Motopark (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done. I have also re-tagged bis only upload. --Túrelio (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Now blocked for 1 day for edit-warring. --Túrelio (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Please delete these

I've never been able to figure out how to nominate something for a speedy on here, so I'm coming here. Long story short, User:Julieeveraa created an attack page on Wikipedia. As part of the article she added the following images: Jeffery.jpg, Yayy.jpg, Alicee.jpg, and Lolol.jpg. I can find nothing to show that these photos are of the people they claim to be, but more importantly they were used as a page that was of no other purpose than to disparage its subject. The captions in some of the photos are of a bullying nature as well, saying things along the lines of the girl being released from jail and so on. I don't know if there is a speedy category here, but these really need to be gone from here. I'm trying to get them deleted off of the main Wikipedia as well. I've blocked the original editor on Wikipedia for uploading an attack page and I'd recommend that the same get done here. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done --A.Savin 11:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you! Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

APIerror during upload

Hi, I experienced a API-error during upload and this File:Røsvik handelssted, Nordland - Riksantikvaren-T413 01 0051.jpg got stuck in an existential crisis, if someone deletes the current revision I could try to reupload it. Profoss (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Deleted. Try reuploading. (Ping Profoss) Alan ^(talk) 00:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Josiasseb

Josiasseb (talk · contributions · Statistics) keeps uploading images from http://flybase.org with unverified CC licenses. Unfortunately he didn't respond to my talk page messages [40]. De728631 (talk) 10:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing to see here after all. He has now explained to me that a mail has been sent to OTRS. De728631 (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry & disruption, Wikipedia User:Lawline, various images

User:Lawline was blocked in 2011 on Wikipedia for making legal threats. He showed particular, and distinctly POV, interest in the articles Louis J. Posner, VoterMarch, and various subordinate related articles. Since his block, Lawline has created a dozen or more sock puppets to continue his disruptive editing, all of which have resulted in blocks. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lawline and its archive. Here at Commons, confirmed sock Special:Contributions/What88 earlier this year uploaded a variety of photographs relating to Posner, VoterMarch and other related subjects. Now, another confirmed Lawline sock, Special:Contributions/Mantracat, has arrived to seek deletion of those same photos, claiming that the original uploader (that is, himself) was a sock of Lawline and lacked permission to upload the images. Lawline has also employed another confirmed sock, Special:Contributions/Tredgert, to bolster a deletion argument at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Louis_Joseph_Posner.jpg.

I don't express any view on whether the images should stay or go, and don't care. I do think however that in evaluating the deletion claims, administrators should be in full possession of the facts, which Lawline has taken pains to obscure. I also think that blocks at Commons of all confirmed WP socks would be in order, but leave that to the admins here. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The following is a list of the confirmed WP socks of Lawline (IPs omitted). I'm providing it only for convenience, and, apart from the comments above re particular editors who have betrayed their puppetry, do not make any particular allegation about whether any of these are socks as well. Most have no edits here, and there is I suppose always the possibility of different people taking the same name in different Wikipedia projects.

Special:Contributions/FreedomFighter77

Special:Contributions/SnoopyPA

Special:Contributions/What88

Special:Contributions/RobinHood99

Special:Contributions/Luckydan89

Special:Contributions/Denver982

Special:Contributions/Gouldlaw

Special:Contributions/WikiApril

Special:Contributions/Tredgert

Special:Contributions/Preston66

Special:Contributions/Demetrine

Special:Contributions/Promera

Special:Contributions/Tonywikido

Special:Contributions/Mantracat

Special:Contributions/Tulipart

Special:Contributions/VoterMarch

JohnInDC (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Activities and blocks on other projects are rarely cause for blocks on Commons. Having said that, if the user is using multiple accounts to alter the outcome of DRs, this is of concern. Of the accounts listed by User:JohnInDC above, Special:Contributions/What88, Special:Contributions/Tredgert, Special:Contributions/Tonywikido, and Special:Contributions/Mantracat have made edits on Commons. Given the accusations above (and provided User:JohnInDC can provide a working link to the sock investigation), would a Check User please look at these accounts to ascertain if they are the same individual, and if so at the very least warn them against using multiple accounts to alter the outcome of DRs? Liamdavies (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ouch, that blue link above threw me. Here's a working link to the SSI at WP, my apologies: Link. JohnInDC (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• The example DR, Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Louis_Joseph_Posner.jpg, was started Jcb, and I see that only one What88-related account has edited there. Do you have an example of multiple What88-related accounts participating in a discussion? Эlcobbola _talk 15:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The 108. IP, which also appears in the history, has been used by Lawline socks but of course has not been CU confirmed. Other than that I don't think two Lawline socks have commented on any one DR. The double-teaming, as it were, is reflected by the efforts of a third sock Mantracat's to have deleted a series of files uploaded previously by sock What88, the former claiming that the latter lacked permission. At WP, Lawline has alternately defended the subject articles and sought their deletion (I think, when the contents don't suit him) and so his acting at strange cross-purposes to himself here is not unsurprising.

Otherwise, I understand re the policy against the direct import of blocks from other projects. I don't really know the ins and outs of Commons very well so whatever is usual is fine with me. Also for what it is worth, Lawline has been known to use several different locations for his undertakings, particularly recently, so the older contributions by What88 may not show a connection to the more recent ones, Tonywikido, Tredgert and Mantracat. Good luck and thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, the 108 IP was just Tredgert logged out. Tredgert ultimately signed that comment [41], so there isn't a double-counting. I can only run a CU to prevent disruption, and I'm not convinced the accounts have reached that threshold (nominating images for deletion, even ones you've uploaded yourself, isn't inherently disruptive). I'll see what other CUs think. Эlcobbola _talk 16:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That's fine - I just wanted to be sure that folks here are in full possession of the facts. JohnInDC (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess I would add though, that nominating images for deletion under a claim that their upload by some third party was illegitimate, when you yourself in fact performed the upload, mis-frames the issue at best and will cause a reviewing admin to waste time evaluating a lie. How much easier it would be for Mantracat to say, "I'm What88 and in fact I did not have permission to upload those images and they should be deleted". Not that any of this matters, if the images aren't properly here; so I suppose finally I'm just venting! JohnInDC (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• NOTE: Tredgert had not been notified of this discussion, this has now been done. Liamdavies (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• After reading through the ENWP SPI it seems quite clear that Special:Contributions/What88, Special:Contributions/Tredgert, Special:Contributions/Tonywikido, and Special:Contributions/Mantracat are all the same user ([42] and [43]), this (in my mind) renders a checkuser request here superfluous. There also does appear, as elcobbola has pointed out, to have been no abuse of multiple accounts here. But given the concerns raised by JohnInDC it may be best for an admin to at the very least warn all accounts, and remind them that using multiple accounts to alter the outcome of discussions is grounds for a block. Liamdavies (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I think this is very close to abuse of sockpuppets at least. What88 is mailing to OTRS, claiming to be not What88, to claim a copyvio by What88. Then he is responding to the DR on the What88 upload, again trying to look like not being What88. Jcb (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, I paid more attention to the SPI than the DR (my bad). Although editing from only one account, the way they present themselves is highly deceptive, and presents a false impression, unduly influencing the DR (although, with this much doubt, the image should probably be deleted per PRP). Liamdavies (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Anyone can email OTRS regardless of their account status, so I'm not sure why that's germane. A check would tell us, for example, that What88 = Tredget. This is already known, so what would a new check accomplish? Unless another account has been contributing to these discussions with the same pattern(s) as the what88 socks, I don't understand why a check user would be helpful. Check user is not for fishing. Эlcobbola _talk 18:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• In response to these unfair accusations, the real story about User:Lawline is that an Administrator was making edits to an article written by Lawline. The Administrator had no knowledge of the subject area but engaged in cyber bullying against Lawline to get her/his way. Lawline indicated that he disagreed with some of her edits. Lawline also advised the Administrator that some of his/her edits could be viewed as libelous under New York law. However, Lawline NEVER threatened to sue and always respected the rights of Wikipedia and the Administrator. The Administrator then turned things around and claimed that Lawline threatened to sue Wikipedia which was not the case. The Administrator did this as a ploy to block and ban Lawline so she/he could could get Lawline out of the way and edit the Article the way she/he wanted to. Following the banning of Lawline, every User that in any way was associated with or supportive of Lawline was blocked and banned as a "sock puppet" of Lawline. Included in the "sock puppet" list was User:LuckyDan89 who was a college student who had been a Wikipedia user for over 5 years, and who was banned for making one small edit on a Lawline article. While the majority of the Wikipedia volunteer editors and administrators are very noble, there exists a sizeable minority (including User:JohninDC) who engage in cyber bullying and other tactics which hurt the Wikipedia community.

@Mendaliv and @JohninDC have engaged in a vindinctive and malicious campaign against any article that Lawline was involved in, mercilessly deleting information, requesting that good Wilipedia articles be deleted, and using trashy tabloid articles to smear the reputation of Louis J. Posner. Their conduct has been deplorable and Editors like them give Wikipedia a bad name and discourage new users. Based on their virulent conduct, I am now beginning to suspect that @Mendaliv and @JohninDC may be political operatives. It is no secret that various political operatives have infiltrated various organizations and that a group like Wikipedia with anonymous editors is particularly vulnerable. The subject Louis J. Posner, co-founder and national chairman of activist organizations Voter March and NoBloodforOil is a political activist who has worked closely with other controversial progressive activists including Greg Palast, Vincent Bugliosi and Zack Exley. Posner is the type of individual who would be targeted by such political operatives with a hidden agenda.

Wikimedia Commons should not get on the "band wagon" and chastise any user ever associated in any way with @Lawline. Instead, make your own independent decisions based on Wikimedia Commons. I have acted in good faith and have not abused any privileges as a user or editor, and intend on continuing to make contributions to the Wikimedia Commons community.Tredgert (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This is now an edit on the Commons in which you did not act in good faith (" there exists a sizeable (sic) minority (including User:JohninDC) who engage in cyber bullying", "@Mendaliv and @JohninDC have engaged in a vindinctive (sic) and malicious campaign", etc.) Take your own advice and refrain from discussions of Wikipedia. You will be blocked if you continue to make personal attacks. Эlcobbola _talk 19:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• After some discussion between CUs, the above behavior looks like abuse of multiple accounts. Tredgert has no legitimate reason for the use of multiple accounts, and appears to have been deceptive and created confusion with the above mentioned behavior. I've blocked What88, VoterMarch, Mantracat, and Tonywikido as Confirmed socks of Tredgert. Tredgert can continue to edit, but should stick to one account and avoid any inappropriate behavior in future. Any further creation of socks or inappropriate behavior will result in a block of the main account and subsequent accounts. INeverCry 00:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that, at the same time that the unblocked Tredgert is offering assurances that no further abuses are forthcoming, and that he only needs one account to carry out his business at Commons, the same editor in the guise of Mantracat is seeking an unblock. JohnInDC (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

As User:What88 as well. JohnInDC (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Tredgert is now blocked. INeverCry 04:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

And so up springs another: Masterkeysid. This will continue until the underlying IPs are blocked and account creation disabled. JohnInDC (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done An RFCU might be better if/when more socks appear. INeverCry 18:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)