Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: COM:AN/U

  Welcome to Commons   Community Portal   Help Desk
Upload help
  Village Pump
copyright • proposals
  Administrators' Noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
 
Administrator's assistance

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new report]
User problems
[new report]
Blocks and protections
[new report]
Other
[new section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.

Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.

Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.

Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed here.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
Translate this page
Commons discussion pages (index)


Note

  • Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • It is usually appropriate to notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
  • It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.


Disputed territorial maps[edit]

There is a dispute between myself and Elmor over several maps which display disputed territories, specifically Crimea as a consequence of the recent events between Russia and Ukraine. Back in august, I added this template too these maps simply stating that they display disputed territorial situations which make them unsuitable for use on Wikipedia articles where NPOV rules would apply. Repeatedly, Elmor has removed these templates under the statement "let projects decide it themselves". Furthermore, in our brief discussion on my talk page, Elmor has accused me of attempting to intimidate users away from using these files, and possibly of intentional hypocrisy because other non-neutral maps don't have similar templates.

Quite frankly I do not understand Elmor's defiance of a simple truth that these maps are unsuitable for NPOV-governed articles, or their hesitation of having these templates on the maps. There is nothing stopping their use, and in fact they are used including places where they probably shouldn't if NPOV was being rightfully observed. The point of the template is simply to give extra warning and is completely harmless. It appears to me more of a case of pride and file ownership than any real reason to object to the warning. However since Elmor absolutely refuses to allow these warnings to be on "their" files, I seek wider opinion. Fry1989 eh? 03:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Hello! Here are a few points to clarify my position. 1) I do understand completely that files on Commons have no owner. 2) I think that is it not to Fry1989 (or any other users) to judge whether these map are unsuitable for Wikipedia or another projects, but for these projects’ respective communities, as long as the legitimacy of their presence at Commons themselves is not questioned (as it is not). 3) These maps reflect an important aspect of the situation – the de-facto one. De-facto, as we know, Crimea is controlled by Russia. Elmor (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not passing judgment on my own, it is very obvious these maps violate NPOV. You're accusing me of trying to intimidate users away from using these files, which if I was trying to do I must be very bad at because they are in use. The templates are harmless, your opposition I can not understand. I have added similar templates before in the past, most noticeably to File:Flag map of Armenia, new.svg which deliberately shows a situation that is neither the physical or legally recognised de facto situation. These maps dipicting Crimea as part of Russia I see no difference in. Fry1989 eh? 17:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't like this template. And it's not itself a NPOV template, as it uses a POV state borders are defined by international recognition. --Dereckson (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
And would you elaborate on why you dislike it? Or provide an alternative template to use? It very simply and harmlessly states that the map in question displays a disputed situation and therefore is unsuitable for NPOV-governed articles. That's all it does, it stops nobody from using it, it simply provides extra warning about the map's status. I even tried to write the warning in the most neutral way possible, stating no opinion on which side is right but simply that the map is disputed and unsuitable. There are thousands of maps on Commons and most are uncontroversial, but some display disputed situations and they should be properly labelled as such. Fry1989 eh? 17:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
By definition any map of any disputed territory, regardless of who is holding the reins, is inaccurate. It can't be anything else but until the dispute is settled and becomes stable. A template that points this out can be nothing but helpful. It doesn't matter if you have a Ukrainian viewpoint or a Russian one, the map is still inaccurate until there are signatures on the bottom of a document, and even then it will still be inaccurate until the dust settles and the intricacies of border definition are finally ironed out (or at least reasonably close to being ironed out). In any case what harm does this template do? And saying that it "scares" people off is at best hyperbole, at worst pure bullshit. And once again we have yet one more storm in a teacup. And a point from a Devil's advocate, ALL maps on Commons are inaccurate. After all this is a media repository, not a cartographer's wet dream. I suggest the pair of you get over it and go and do something useful as this discussion most certainly isn't helpful to anyone, anywhere. I somehow suspect that the residents of Crimea give less than a shit about what the maps on Commons say. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
No, I won't move on, not until I am given a proper reason for why these maps should not be clearly labelled as disputed. Any of the reasons so far provided do not meet the most basic of why the maps being labelled so would be harmful. Fry1989 eh? 18:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
This kind of maps are exactly the reason that the template is for. It's meant to avoid users in other projects to use the map incorrectly. The template is the minimum to avoid the confusion.
I'll say more than that. In part of the maps it is simply wrong to put the flag all over the map because the dispute entity is sometimes different entity and should have different flag. for example File:Flag map of Armenia, new.svg that was mentioned before. Even Armenia does not recognize Nagorno-Karabakh so that flag map is wrong and misleading.
I even see that somebody, mistakenly or deliberately, replace the flag maps of template in the ru.wikipedia to File:Flag-map of the Russian Federation.svg. we can see that the template is much necessary. Geagea (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Fry1989 -- It was decided long ago that where there's a real dispute going on in the real world, Commons will not take sides, but will allow images expressing the various contesting viewpoints to be uploaded here, and leave it up to the individual language Wikipedias to decide which images to use. Obviously personal non-notable hoaxing or hatemongering should be quickly nuked, but otherwise Commons doesn't have an NPOV policy as such (just as Commons doesn't have a "no original research" policy as such), and it's really not our role to decide such issues for the various language Wikipedias... AnonMoos (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me that Fry isn't deciding anything for anyone, but merely pointing out that the maps are inaccurate, which is indeed the case. The final decisions are made by whomever chooses which map for whichever wikipedia. The more information they have to work with must surely be beneficial? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
AnonMoos did you even bother to read anything I've said here or the actual wording I chose when I applied the template???? What part of "I deliberately tried to make the statement as neutral as possible" do you not understand? I shall repeat for your ignorant consideration: All the template says is that the map displays a situation that is currently disputed and that makes it unsuitable for NPOV articles. It states no opinion on which is correct nor does it forbid anyone from using the map. It is a notice, nothing more. If you're going to comment, at least know what you're talking about, instead of accusing me of trying to get these maps deleted or banned from use or whatever else you think I'm trying to accomplish because you didn't even bother to pay attention. Fry1989 eh? 17:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
As the situation where Crimea is part of Ukraine is disputed by the Russian authorities, shouldn't the template also be placed on all maps that display the situation of Crimea being part of Ukraine? Or are those maps okay for use in NPOV articles? - FakirNL (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
As Crimea is currently recognised as part of Ukraine by every country excluding Russia, that is the accepted legal status quo, which is why I have not added it to the maps showing the reverse. I would not stop other users from adding it themselves but I see no need. That does not change the question raised here, which is "Should maps that are deliberately in violation of NPOV be so marked so that users are aware they are unsuitable for articles governed by NPOV rules?". Fry1989 eh? 17:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your statement is incorrect, since it seems that at least Afghanistan, Cuba, Nicaragua, Syria, and Venezuela recognize Russia's annexation of Crimea. I'm really not personally pro-Putin, but I greatly prefer keeping hands off in such cases, since doing otherwise is a recipe for perpetual edit-warring on images connected with flashpoints from Western Sahara to Kosovo, on down through the list... AnonMoos (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I want to made a flag map of USA without Alaska. And also want to made flag map of Russia with Alaska (historically it was Rusian teritory). All this without the temple. Is it O.K. ?? -- 05:15, 21 October 2014 67.81.189.54
That would appear to contradict the "real dispute going on in the real world" proviso, since Russia handed Alaska over to the U.S. 150 years ago in a non-coerced treaty signed by the Tsar. However, we have equally ridiculous irredentist flag-map images on Commons, such as File:Flag-map of Balkan Federation (Belgrade capital city).svg... -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
You are wrong. Afghanistan, Cuba, and all other countries you have mentioned not counted. You still see, in all wikis, that crime considerd as a part of Ukraine. Only major countries. Non of the major countries recognised it and therefore no flag map is needed in whe wiki articles. They should be deleted.
AnonMoos, the reason such ridiculous maps as Russia claiming Alaska or a United Korea don't have the template added is because everyone knows they're fake! These maps about Crimea deal with a current territorial dispute that goes beyond paper or fantasy. Now you really don't seem to want to be honest about this issue, because you bring up false equivalents and accuse me of things I haven't tried to do, so maybe you should just shut up, or tell me why these maps should not have this warning on them with a real objection stating why it is harmful or wrong and not some bullshit comparison like "oh well this map doesn't so it's not fair". Fry1989 eh? 18:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Still waiting for a resolution. Should maps that clearly and deliberately violate NPOV rules be so labelled as a reminder for users on projects that the file may not be suitable for use on articles where NPOV is the rule?. Fry1989 eh? 18:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Adding {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}} is not a regular task for commons user. It have to come after discussion in the files talk page of other place. Geagea (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Clocks by night edit warring[edit]

Hans Haase (talk · contribs) is edit warring to keep photos in Category:Clocks by night that do not show anything that would indicate that these photos are taken at night.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Partly he seems to believe that his personal speculation about EXIF data and the time shown by the clock (yes, really), or even how many people are visible on the photo[8] is sufficient to categorize an image, which is obviously not how we do categorizations. Could an admin please look into this, as I don't want to edit war further? He has not responded to my attempt at discussion on User_talk:Darkweasel94#Editwar. darkweasel94 09:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warrior reported himself. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 09:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Darkweasel94 (talk · contribs) photos in Category:Clocks by night. Severalt times edit warring without discussion and ignoring edit comments. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 09:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Seid ihr beide schon erwachsen oder sind wir hier im Kindergarten? Oder mit anderen Worten: es kann doch wirklich nicht wahr sein, dass ihr euch über solch eine Frage in die Haare kriegt. --Túrelio (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

7 Pictures, one schedule to check for evidence, I am not the warrior. Btw. I created the Category. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 10:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Users are expected to collaborate with others, and once it is known that there is a disagreement should discuss the issues on the relevant talk page rather than repeatedly undoing other users' contributions. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hans Haase you and Darkweasel94 (at the very least, preferably other users too) need to agree on criteria that will be used for that category. It's a new category, there's no clear guidelines for what constitutes a clock by night, agree on that first rather than continuing to edit war. Nick (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you all, I wil give the category a specification on it's page. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 10:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I noticed two of my images added to this category. I reverted these edits as one was outside during the day (albeit not a very bright photo) and the other was inside showing a clock on a black screen. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
As a side note, this should really be Clocks at night. Clocks by night would be a metacategory which would contain categories which show clocks on particular nights, eg "Clocks on the night of 20 October 2014". -mattbuck (Talk) 11:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Done. If somebody think it is an idea to automatically move the category to Clocks at night or Clocks by nighttime, you may do so. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 12:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
This is really ridiculous. I guess I should go and categorize other indoors photos into subcategories of Category:Night, because it might be dark outside, because EXIF, because few people, or because the clock shows some specific time. But I won't do that because that would violate COM:POINT. I will note here that Hans Haase continues to edit war even while this discussion is ongoing: [9], [10], [11], [12] (this one is the most ridiculous, this isn't even a photo, so no night can possibly be visible), [13], [14] I'm disengaging from this for now. darkweasel94 13:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I reverted some and warned Hans Haase. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Possibly the warring parties will be interested in this suggestion of mine. YLSS (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

can't be that difficult to get an basic understandig of these diagrams pending on the coords for each photo.
@Yann, the problem was solved and user:Darkweasel94 said "I'm disengaging from this for now."and I decleared how to use the category, I created yesterday and added the picturtes with permission. You did not read, you only reverted the edits by following the revert of Darkweasel94 in a blind way. In the gallery above I gave reasons, why the pictures have been added to the category. Don't continue edit warring as another user. @YLSS, no, the 24h is not the answer in this issue. The created category should categorize between daylight and night time. As in winter time in the northern sphere the nights are longer, the photos have been added into this category where they belong to. See categories on COMMONS, there is much more possible. If you don't like, create and use other categories, but do not hurt existing ones and even add your categories into others whenever they fit, but never interrupt the project in personal issues. I declared every edit. Recent reverts have no reason exept following a personal oppinion. It is okay to review edits, but it is clear now: By tomorrow you will make, this category contaning 206 pictures and no one less or have a valid evidence for each picture to keep it removed. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 22:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Hans Haase:, I have noticed adding some of photos I uploaded to this category and decided to comment on it. Please not that the fact there are few people on the platform does not mean anything: you wrote there are too few people at File:UbahnWienU3.JPG, but you can see same number of people if you look for this station at Panoramio or Structurae, thus this photo could be taken at any time. Such approach is useless: there is no difference between a photo of clock at night and a photo of the same clock in the afternoon provided the clock in question never sees daylight. This criterion has no encyclopaedic value, as if one looks for clocks at night he or she will most likely want to see the clock with night clearly visible and not just where one can suppose (and not prove) it was at night — NickK (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The problem I see is that it's always night somewhere on the planet, so unless you're planning on getting very complicated time zone sub-categories this category is less than useful. This is a perfect example of over-categorisation and simply a waste of time (unless one is very OCD I suppose), resources and brain power. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
+1. Hans, in many cases (including the ones I reverted), your categorization doesn't make sense. You cannot just assume it is night based on some convoluted deductions. Categories should be based on facts only. Any way, if there is opposition, do not add categories. Discuss first until you reach a consensus. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I found a current schedule of the Vienna Underground.[15] In the rushhours the schdule is maximum 5 mins or less, else it's 5 and more mins. Operating beginns between 4:30 and 5:15 and ends between 0:00 and 0:30. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 22:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

File renaming[edit]

Hi. According to Commons:File renaming there is 7 accepted reasons to rename and some cases where renaming is not accepted. If you look on the move log some files are moved even if they file move do not match one of the accepted reasons.

So what do we do about that? Nothing? Talk to the user? And what if the user do not care? Do we ignore it? Do we remove the filemover right? --MGA73 (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Example? --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I just picked a few random renames that I do not think meet the excisting rename reasons even if the new names look better:

  1. 18:29, 20 October 2014 DragonflySixtyseven (talk | contribs | block) moved page File:Katedrala 2.JPG to File:Crkva imena Marijinog, Novi Sad (2014).jpg (there are hundreds of Katedrala (cathedrals) in the world; old name is not meaningful) (revert)
  2. 13:57, 20 October 2014 Bohème (talk | contribs | block) moved page File:China garden SPb.JPG to File:Saint Petersburg Chinese Garden 02b pond.jpg (meaningless file name) (revert)
  3. 11:56, 20 October 2014 Krassotkin (talk | contribs | block) moved page File:D-P034 Nicht falten oder zusammenschieben ty.svg to File:DIN 4844-2 D-P034 Nicht falten oder zusammenschieben.svg (File renaming criterion #6: Harmonize file names of a set of images (so that only one part of all names differs) to ease their usage in templates (e.g. diagram symbols, scans of pages of a book, maps, etc.).) (revert)
  4. 10:18, 20 October 2014 Steinsplitter (talk | contribs | block) moved page File:, trap - Heusden - 20112140 - RCE.jpg to File:Trap - Heusden - 20112140 - RCE.jpg (File renaming criterion #6: Harmonize file names of a set of images (so that only one part of all names differs) to ease their usage in templates (e.g. diagram symbols, scans of pages of a book, maps, etc.).) (revert)

No 1 and 2 claims that the old name is meaningless but meaningless is something like File:22785u9ob807b3c4f4.jpg and File:DSC_1342.jpg. No 2 and 4 says it is to ease their usage in templates but they do not seem to be used in a template as far as I can tell.

They are just examples.

Perhaps the strict policy to rename as little as possible is no longer needed but so far there were not concensus to make it less strict. If there are no good reasons not to rename it is better to change the policy instead of taking up a discussion with users that move too many files. --MGA73 (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with my filemove? The ", " at the begin of the filename is not needed. Ridiculous... --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
(Offtopic) This protection is wrong. Files used in the interface should be protected [upload=sysop] [move=sysop] --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Currently, Steinsplitter and me operate most of the Delinker requests. (I guess some of these files were actually approved by me). I tend to interpret criterion #1 (meaningless name) more broadly than MGA73 does it, and generally I do not see much harm in moving these files. (I personally only move really meaningless names such as IMG2876554a.jpg). However, if there is consensus here that this criterion should be applied more strictly I will apply it more strictly. Concerning #6, I guess it does not require that the images are already in use in a template in at least one project. However, if the consensus is they should be already in use, I will only approve these which are already in use (which actually would make things difficult for Delinker operators, but not critically).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Sorry did not notive the ",". But the stated reason is wrong then.
Anyway you do not need to stalk my edits to look for a reason to "give pay back" just because I used one of your edits in an example. But now you mention the wiki-logo I can inform you that the logo is not yet in use in the interface at no wiki. That is why I only gave it semi protection. --MGA73 (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Looking at your log is not stalking imho. I don't see the need for this protection. I generally ignore such things because nobody is perfect and because we are humans and humans making error. I see no need to make drama because a rename reason isn't 100 perfect (talking about my move). Commons has a big backlog, it isn't possible to progress thousands of requests 100% perfect. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Please do not misunderstand me. I do not expect that anyone is 100 % perfect.
I do not mind that other users check my edit. I just do not think it is helpful if it is done as "pay back". The only reason I protected the nn-logo and the no-logo is that the local files on these wikis are moved to Commons in a few days hopefully and I hope that the two wikis will decide to use the logo on Commons in a few weeks. I think it would be nice if the logos are not vandalized by ip-users while the discussion goes on locally.
If a user finds out that renames are not done perhaps then the user will stop suggesting renames and that would reduce the backlog. So I think it is a good idea to find out if we rename too much or not.
And cheer up. Do not be upset just because a fool like me steps on your toes. --MGA73 (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Ymblanter A file does not have to be in use in a template to meet #6 but I think that there should be a template somewhere where the set of files could be used.
Perhaps it was the wong place to bring it up because it seems that focus may be who is mentioned in the examples instead of should we do something about file moves or not. --MGA73 (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@MGA73: Honestly, I can't understand why you report this here. I don't see any issue with the renaming above... Regards, Yann (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I know that not all agree om when to rename or not. And if most users think like you then we should just change Commons:File renaming and problem is solved. But if someone move files agains consensus we should decide if we do something about it or not. --MGA73 (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Someone could just close Commons:Requests for comment/File renaming criterion 2 … @Rillke: Progress with "enforcing" the first RFC?    FDMS  4    19:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it would be nice if we close this RFC before we discuss this further. No need to spend more time checking old edits if policy is changed. --MGA73 (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Personally I couldn't give a toss what COM:FR (or timewasting RFC) says, it's simply a guideline, official or otherwise.. My own personal guideline is, if the name is improved, is clearer, is more accurate by the time I've finished then I'm good to go regardless of what any other criteria says I can or can't do. If folks don't like it then they need to remove my filemover bit. Just my 2c. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Agree with Fred - it's simple: users can, and should should apply common sense to situations where common sense is required. I see no reason to squander volunteer time nitpicking file moves especially given that there is no obvious benefit in doing so 😮 -FASTILY 01:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    • A big +1. Josve05a (talk) 07:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
What exactly is the point in having filemoving criteria (not suggestions or ideas, but criteria) when they are being interpreted as "everyone can do whatever he/she likes until he/she is no longer technically able to do so"? Although judging by the above comments it seems that idea has become less popular, I still believe that community consensus (or "timewasting RFC", as Fred the Oyster calls it) is worth more than personal opinion when it comes to contributing to an open project.    FDMS  4    02:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I think those of us who think COM:FR is a good guideline just need to accept that files will be renamed whether or not they actually meet that guideline (or even whether or not they meet something explicitly listed there as not being an acceptable reason – removing a comma at the beginning of the filename is definitely a case of "looks a bit better"). With no guarantee that even the language will be preserved, with no guarantee that actually useful information like the Flickr ID or the filename on the uploader's computer will be preserved, and with an added bonus if the new name makes files of one series no longer stand together alphabetically in categories. That's now the state of file renaming on Commons – no one enforces these guidelines, no one will move File:Yellow Trabant 601 at a street in Vienna, Austria.jpg back to File:2012 Wien 0228 (8102865895).jpg, or File:Biberhaufenweg 3.jpg back to File:Biberhaufenweg (dewiki).jpg, nor remove the responsible filemovers' bits, so we'll just have to live with people enforcing strange Wikipedia-like naming conventions for files on Commons (where filenames are supposed to be unique identifiers for files, but not much more). darkweasel94 07:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Chadwick.jpg[edit]


A.Savin[edit]


Long term pattern of image overwrites of others by Fry1989[edit]

Fastily's close within less than a day[edit]

I am concerned about Fastily's abrupt closure above, which is less than 22 hours since it was opened. I am completing a report for the evidence of revert warring throughout 2014 by Fry1989. Considering Fastily's involvement as an admin that has twice unblocked Fry1989 this year and (from memory) having previously abruptly closed and collapsed from view discussions about Fry1989's disruptive behaviour, I do not believe it is appropriate for Fastily to be repeatedly acting in a way that leaves these issues unresolved both for the community and for Fry1989 whether they can be sufficiently demonstrated or not.

I can complete my report and leave it pending updates and a future complaint by someone else about Fry1989 reverting their work, however this would seem to leave an unpleasant discussion hanging unnecessarily. -- (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

One thing does seem to be clear is that no-one other than you gives a shit. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Complaints should be given a fair hearing. The discussion concerning Fry was unlikely to have led to action against Fry, but it may have led to discussion and perhaps consensus to expand the guidelines concerning image reverts/overwriting. Nick (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Maybe, but such discussions do not belong to AN/U. In this case I completely agree with Fastily. Admin's should be able to do their real jobs instead of being bothered by personal conflicts between two users. Jcb (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Jcb, just because one party repeatedly claims there is a two party argument, does not make it true. Were it true, you might expect to see some interaction between myself and Fry1989 in advance of the above thread, there has been none. As for Fastily's close, their point of view as expressed by "Your ridiculous grudge match with Fry turned personal vendetta has no place on ANU" and their confusion that I am somehow connected with "WMF projects" (I have never been), might throw some doubt on their level of independence to be the final decision maker when it comes to admin actions taken here.[16] -- (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Bravo, keep on beating that dead horse. You're doing a spectacular job making a fool out of yourself and undermining whatever credibility you have left. -FASTILY 23:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Didn't Pete Townsend use a similar excuse for when he was caught? "I was only doing it for the good of the children". It seems you, Fae, have discovered an until now, undiscovered, way of legitimising stalking. Kudos to your inventiveness. "I'm doing it for the good of the project", now where have I heard that sort of thing before?--Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Fastily, I had my credibility removed by the WMF in 2012, so it's not something I have to lose. You are the long term admin in this discussion. Perhaps rather than making personal attacks and giving Fred an opportunity to call me a stalker (Fred, really, considering your history?) and post a comparison to paedophile allegations, you should reflect on whether admins ought to act with an appropriate level of independence here on Commons. You are not. -- (talk) 07:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Firstly I have no history of stalking, none, nada, zilch, I don't give enough of a shit about anyone to stalk them. Secondly I made no comparison with paedophilia, I chose my words carefully so as not to so that I could concentrate on the excuse given, not the crime accused of. Though it really doesn't surprise me that you would go there as I remember your methods of discussion from a while back, ie play the "oh poor me, that cruel man has impugned my sexuality", says he that chooses a username that means "fairy". But nothing could be further from the truth. You are in fact stalking a person you quite obviously don't like and this is the way you go about making trouble for him. If anyone is being disruptive, it's you. But that's something you are very good at, but disguising it as being good for the project. No it isn't and no you aren't when you are in this sort of mentality. Is this the run-up for another attempt at adminship, because it isn't the behaviour of a normal user who just wants to get on and get things done. As for your WMF/credibility statement, well that presupposes that you had any to begin with. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


Fae I don't understand what you want from me. When I first came to Wikimedia, I didn't understand a lot of the rules and I deserved several of my blocks. But I've learned and am still learning. Along with that, I've uploaded countless images, I've made friends even if you are not one, I've resolved many a dispute through discussion, I've sniffed out socks, I've been given trusted tools, I've done all sorts of things. I get in scrapes here and there but certainly not any recent ones, and still you want me put in a cage. That was the point of your AN was it not, to have some form of restriction placed on me? As I said on my talk page I am loosing steam, and this stunt you're pulling right now sure isn't helping. Fry1989 eh? 00:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I see no immediate reason for this discussion; so agree with Jcb that AN/U is not the right place for this discussion. I've no problem to allow it here as far as it is a friendly discussion with a generic scope (like to make a healthy guideline for overwrite). But I see only mud throwing and name calling; so suggest a speedy close. Jee 03:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
This is not the first time that Fastily's making an early close of discussion, especially discussion that fry involved with. It is a part of encouragement that Fastily gives to bad behavior. Even if there no bad behavior as claimed, the early closing of discussion make the impression that there is some thing to hide.
I have shown clear case where Fastily removed early versions of file and removed the original uploader of file which becomes Fry as the the original uploader. But nobody cared. I stand after every word in that case. But nobody cared. I stand after every word in that case. later on, after another thread in COM:AN Fastily restored the original uploader. Geagea (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
And so the moral of the story is: if you ask politely, I'll be happy to oblige :) -FASTILY 07:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll be happy if you indicate what part of my word was not polite. Unpleasant yes but not un polite. I also think that if you answering to accusations it only means that they are correct. But if you wish to give us explantinos now it is ok with me.

So I appreciate if you answer, in a polite manner of course:

  • 1. Why did you removed the original uploader in this file. Why at all did you removed old versions from the file? Why to hide the older edit waring in this file?
  • 2. The file was highly in use. The version that the other wiki projects was the dark blue, why the last protected version if the file is the light blue (Fry's version)?
  • 3. When you blocked User:Shyoon1, why you disabled the email, and editing his own talk page? You prevent him to apology on his word in the hit of a moment.
  • 4. Why do you early closing the threads about Fry? There is any reason that User:Fæ not allowed to raise threads about Fry? Geagea (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Re #2, that was the final version as that was the colour decided on by the consensus. You did read the talk page of the flag? The great long discussion where the final colour was decided on by several people? But then it's obvious you don't let facts get in the way of a good vent.
As for #3 What business is it of yours?
Why do I get the impression that the folks with grudges are now starting to come out of the woodwork?--Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Sounds about right. Gia has an obvious conflict of interest: it's no secret she's out to get me, and has been trying (albeit fruitlessly) for quite some time now. Believe it or not, I still don't know why she wants my head, but I'd be willing to bet cash that it has to do with the fact she dislikes Fry and resents me for intervening when she attempts to childishly harass him. So here's a public disclaimer: if I observe user(s) picking on another user for shits and giggles, then they can damned certain I'll be there shortly to kick their arses ;) Now if defending individual editors from baseless harassment/witch-hunt groupthink isn't an admin's job, then I certainly don't know what is. -FASTILY 03:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
No, kicking arses is not the role of an administrator. You have lost perspective in this case and should have stepped back and let an independent administrator examine the long term pattern of revert warring being presented in the evidence, rather than suppressing basic evidence. I raised the original case here based on what I saw in reports this week, not because of "shits and giggles".
Please let evidence speak for itself, administrator action should not be directed by hearsay, neither should it be accompanied by tangential childish personal attacks. Emotive and non-neutral behaviour from those holding the mop can only lead to the community losing confidence in governance of the administration of this project. -- (talk) 07:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Christ Church Cathedral Vancouver[edit]

I came across this page for Christ Church Cathedral Vancouver, which contains a picture of a church just up the street from it (St. Andrew's Wesley United Church). I don't really know how wikimedia commons works, but I do know that this is the image google seems to pull in searching for the church. Any thoughts on how to fix this?


http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Christ_Church_Cathedral_(Vancouver).JPG&oldid=64461653#metadata

I've renamed the file to File:St. Andrews Wesley Church (Vancouver).jpg, I don't know how long it will take Google to update their bit (we don't control that, they just cherry pick data from us, based on things like filenames). You may need to let Google know in a few days if it doesn't update automatically. Nick (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

File rename refusal[edit]

I have a constant problem with Admins refusing files to be renamed. Keeping calm about this issue unfortunatly failed already. The latest example is File:Polistes nimpha killing an Apis mellifera-20140819-3.jpg. There is obviously no doubt that the current file name is misleading since the Insect in the picture are in fact a Cerceris rybyensis killing a halictid bee of Lasioglossum genus. There is no Polistes nimpha nor Apis mellifera. Also there is policy of the commons that misleading file names should be changed (3. Correct misleading names into accurate ones [17]). Still there are many Admins here (I had to endure the ignorance of three of them by now) who insist in repeatedly reverting the rename request in files like these. I think reverting rename requests like this violates the codex Administrators should follow according to Commons:Administrators Administrators are expected to understand the goals of this project, and be prepared to work constructively with others towards those ends. Administrators should also understand and follow Commons' policies, and where appropriate respect community consensus.

Is there any procedure how I could stop this kind of project retardation? Regards --Aiwok (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what can be done in future, if anything, but I've moved&renamed it for you. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Hmm; I would have rename it to "File:Cerceris rybyensis killing an halictid bee (Lasioglossum sp.) on a pot marigold (Calendula officinalis) in London.jpg" to satisfy all. :) BTW, it seems the file has "no permission" from "original author" (Emőke Dénes)? Jee 02:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Just a comment, some users (admins and filem overs alike) seem to be a little too strict when it comes to renaming files. I remember before I got my file mover right, I proposed a file be renamed and it qualified under 3 different policies for renaming. One user denied my request several times, and even opposed my request some time later to become a file mover in revenge when the file was renamed by someone else who agreed with me and over-ruled them. I finally got my file mover right 4 months later in a second request, but seriously some people are just a-holes. Don't give up just because some won't listen to you when you're right. Fry1989 eh? 02:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I reverted the request because controversial moves should be discussed first on the relevant talkpage to avoid drama, i don't know who is right. Instead of discussing this on VP or on the relevant talkpage the user is making drama here and on enwiki (1. Aiwok has used a very rude language on my and Marcus's talkpage, please note that we are all human volunteers here spending free time for commons. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

At last a proper Name! Thanks for that and of course sorry for the drama, but I found just no other way to resolve the issue. I tried use discussion pages and failed miserably then I tried mediation page which turned out to be focused on en:wiki only (still couldn't find out if there is any mediation for commons available) and this user problems notice board which fortunately worked well. The file page discussions seem to be rarely read so didn't start any efforts there (Please let me know if it still needs to be used in cases like this). Also I can tell you reverting users work will make most of them angry, especially if it happens without any proper explanation. It really drives me mad (most likely a little bit too much) if I see the efforts to improve the project being reverted without excuse. So if you decline a move or revert an edit then please give an explanation and even more important if someone protest against the revert consider the given arguments. It was the worst thing for me to see all my explanations and arguments simply being set to nought without any counter-argument. That was the point when the urge to punch somebody was really high.. So if you admin guys want to keep the drama low use your power wisely and of course take the users serious. They are also human beings spending their time to improve the project. Regards --Aiwok (talk) 10:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Files by user Arsney[edit]

User:Arsney has uploaded a number of high quality files of top members of Nissan management, and high quality renders of upcoming Nissan models. What surprises me the most is that other editors are willing to use these clear copyvios in articles. Might there some way to make users responsible for introducing such blatant copyvios into the various project pages? That way these kinds of things might get reported instead of spread around.

I do not have the time nor energy necessary to become an admin, but I would love to be able to block this kind of nonsense when I encounter it. Is there such a mid-level responsibility available? mr.choppers (talk)-en- 02:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Vitalpost[edit]

Possible m:Role account, keeps uploading images with no permission of living subjects, despite multiple warnings on user talk page, from multiple admins. -- Cirt (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)