Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

Shortcut: COM:AN

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

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-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
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 at COM:HMS.
Archives
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~86
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~1
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-06: ~72

Other:

• Duplicates: ~2
• Advertisements/spam: ~0
• Personal photos/selfies: ~1
• Other speedy deletions: ~91
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~4
• Undeletion requests: ~9

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~4
• Interface admin: ~16
• Technical: ~1
• Template protection: ~21
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Note

• Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
• If appropriate, notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

Proposed Change of Rules

I propose that we change our rules to require users to be logged on, with an account that is at least three days old, before they can create a new page of any kind. This would be in line with WP:EN and follows our existing rule that users must be logged on before they can upload a file.

This would have two immediate effects. The larger one would be a reduction of Admin workload. We get approximately 100 new gallery pages every day, almost all spam, nonsense, articles, or other material that does not belong in a gallery. Almost all of them are from IP users. Some of them are serial offenders. Half a dozen Admins do most of the deletions.

The second effect would be that IP users could no longer nominate a page for deletion, since they could not create the DR sub-page. While we certainly get some valid DRs from IP users, it seems to me entirely reasonable that one should be required to sign his or her name -- albeit often a pseudonym -- to a DR. This would, of course, not prevent an IP user from commenting on an existing DR.

While I honor the policy that any user can edit Commons without having an account, simple edits can be undone by any user, or even a bot, so that wrongful edits are easy to fix. Once a page is created, it takes an Admin to delete it, and our workload is growing. We deleted 46,000 pages in the last month. That's up 50% from a year ago, when the tally was around 30,000.

Since page creation should be done by users who know what they're doing, it seems reasonable to restrict it to those who have at least a bare minimum of experience. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the timed text namespace is now "validated" by an abuse filter I would exclude this namespace. Also, IPs should be able to create deletion request sub pages (as we endorse trying using the deletion request instead of "legal methods") and perhaps even category-pages. Also users should be able to upload files immediately. As for the remaining pages/namespaces, I support this suggestion. Unfortunately there are sooo many stupid people out there so we will block some good contribs. What a pity. -- Rillke^(q?) 19:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Technically, we'd be taking away the createpage userright from usergroup All, and giving it to Users. That right is needed to create non-discussion pages (createtalk allows creation of talkpages, and All should keep that). There may be some workaround therefore where the "nominate for deletion" script puts the DR from IPs on the DR talkpage - that page can then be moved by almost anyone to where it should be. Not ideal, but that's one way to keep DRs from IPs, which seems our main concern. Rd232 (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Uploading files is not included in this suggestion, right? --Leyo 23:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I think Rillke means the status quo should remain (you can't upload as IP, but can upload immediately if you get an account). upload is the userright which controls this, and Users have it. (Special:ListGroupRights is my source for this BTW.) Rd232 (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Does not uploading a new image require the creation of a page? -mattbuck (Talk) 01:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if it does, upload is already restricted to account holders. IPs cannot upload files. --99of9 (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this not also including people who have had accounts for less than 2 days? They can currently upload, but wouldn't be able to create the image page. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Users usergroup has both the upload / createpage rights; they wouldn't be affected. IPs are members of group "all" and don't have upload and would additionally lose createpage. Browse Special:ListGroupRights a bit (Users is at the bottom for some reason). Rd232 (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I mean using an abuse filter to prevent everything except the cases I mentioned above (by me and of course talk pages should be also being allowed to created). This way we can also display a proper message and have all the actions logged so we can decide later to adjust the settings if required. -- Rillke^(q?) 08:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

 Support This sounds like a good idea. I delete 100+ of these spam/accidentally created galleries per week, so this may actually be a bigger problem than IP DRs, though those are of course an issue. INeverCry 21:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

 Full support as I'm one of the admins who delete those nonsense pages regularly. I spend so much time in doing this ... Trijnstel_talk 21:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

 Comment if the statement We get approximately 100 new gallery pages every day, almost all spam, nonsense, articles, or other material that does not belong in a gallery is correct then this move does make sense - we're hardly losing anything and saving work. There's some question about other namespaces (eg category:) and there's the DR issue (I suggested a possible workaround above). Unfortunately MediaWiki doesn't (AFAIK) allow per-namespace control of page creation, apart from distinguishing talk pages, which are controlled separately. Rd232 (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I checked the useful new pages created by anon users a while ago (a month or so) and I noticed 0 useful additions over 30 days... Trijnstel_talk 23:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

 Support as long as anons retain the ability to nominate things for deletion. --Carnildo (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

 Comment – [1], [2] – I'm leaving these hyperlinks here so visitors to this thread can see the pages and deletion discussions that anons create. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment It's important to me that IPs can still directly nominate for DR. There are two scenarios where I think we need to keep this open (neither is PK related):

1) when the copyright holder comes across a copyvio we are hosting, I think it's important for them to be able to nominate for deletion instantly without signing up for an account. (Often this opens a discussion which leads to OTRS, but I don't want to put any barriers in their way if we are already proudly displaying their stolen goods.)

2) Some DRs on contentious images are opened by IP, and I suspect it's often account holders who would not like to be publicly associated with that content. I'd rather they do it this way than by making sockpuppet accounts.

--99of9 (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment I'd also consider preserving the right of an IP to create a category page - they are often reasonable, and can be turned into redirects if the naming convention isn't followed. --99of9 (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • If we want this sort of fine control (at namespace level) we're talking about a MediaWiki change, rather than just a configuration edit. That stretches the time required potentially a lot (months/years rather than days/weeks), unless we're lucky enough to get the attention of a developer. That doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it, but there is that cost to consider, and maybe a decision about whether to wait for namespace-level control or go ahead without and use it later whenever it turns up. Rd232 (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    • We could use abuse filter. -- Rillke^(q?) 08:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I thought of that; I assumed it would be too much of a burden on the servers. If not, cool. Rd232 (talk) 10:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I have started a filter for that at Special:AbuseFilter/105 (currently logging only and namespace 0 only). Let's see if it serves the purpose. --whym (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Thanks. Log for Filter 105. Rd232 (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose per a number of the above comments. The project I joined some years ago was intended as one that "anyone can edit". --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• • (i) ? "per a number of the above comments" doesn't make sense when nobody else has outright opposed (some, maybe most, want to be sure to retain IP DRs and maybe some other namespaces, but nobody's opposed stopping IPs from creating pages in mainspace, since this activity appears to have benefit of approximately zero, and a substantial cost. (ii) I thought "anyone can edit" was a Wikipedia thing. Does Commons have it too? Where? (iii) "anyone can edit" is a statement about who (amateurs) not how. Requiring a 30-second signup no more breaks that principle than failing to allow people who can't use the internet to edit by carrier pigeon messages does. Rd232 (talk) 10:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Herby, "anyone can edit" has limits. We don't allow IP users to upload images. Moving pages and deleting pages are even more restricted. WP:EN doesn't allow IP users to create new pages, so there is ample precedent for this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support This is a sound idea. Definitely support this. -Djsasso (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I like this, seeing that most new galleries are just rubbish and take up a lot of administrators' time to delete. There is this one setting in the software that can restrict editing in a certain namespace to whoever has a certain right, but this setting can't be set to a specific group, i.e "Users". It has to be set to an existing right, or created and then assigned to the group. For example, if we wanted to restrict gallery creation to just "Users", we would have to define a new right in the setting and assign it to the "Users" group. If we are restricting this to autoconfirmed users, we can just set the right to autoconfirmed. Techman224^Talk 06:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Good idea, but that approach would prevent IPs editing existing galleries (in addition to preventing them creating new ones), which I don't think anyone wants to do. We'd need an equivalent to mw:Manual:$wgNamespaceProtection, :mw:Manual:$wgNamespaceCreation, to restrict creation by namespace. It's not that hard I guess, if the abusefilter approach doesn't work we could submit a bug and cross our fingers... Rd232 (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Support as long as the available methods of requesting deletion (e.g. OTRS, asking at Help Desk) are communicated clearly to IP editors through the "Nominate for deletion" sidebar link (which perhaps should be renamed when displayed to them). --Avenue (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. IPs often create good categories and deletion requests. In addition, the commons is not supposed to be a project isolated from other Wikimedia projects. Its main purpose is to serve these projects. Proposed changes, especially "require users to be logged on, with an account that is at least three days old, before they can create a new page of any kind", would run contrary to this purpose. In fact, "three day requirement" would go well beyond even the restrictive enwiki. Ruslik (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose – Many of the pages that anons create aren't deleted. I would prefer it if anons continue to be allowed to create pages in any namespace except for the "MediaWiki" namespace, but if you decide to restrict them anywhere, then please only restrict them from creating pages in the mainspace. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • That's not a particularly helpful link (all pages created by anons in any namespace) - talk pages of all namespaces would certainly be excluded, and we seem fairly clear about wanting to either keep anon DRs, and possibly categories. Anyway, if the abusefilter option for targetting mainspace alone is feasible, that's probably the first choice. See log for mainspace page creations by anons. Rd232 (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree -- it is a very useful link, it proves my point very neatly. Of the last 5,000 new pages kept from IP users, only five were in Gallery space. Several of the five probably should have been deleted as out of scope. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

•  Support On the proviso this is limited to "Gallery" space only. russavia (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • If you look thro new creations by IPs I think you will find that the usual most constructive ones are categories --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I did, and that is absolutely true. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• • • Right Herby, which is why I would only support this if it is limited to gallery page creations. Everything else should stay within "anyone can edit". russavia (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose IPs should be able to create categories and to open deletion requests. We should not give up the anyone can edit approach too easily. However, I do not mind if galleries can no longer created by IPs. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

 Question can someone familiar with the abuse filter comment on whether Filter 105 (currently logging only) is a viable way to prevent IPs creating mainspace pages only? If the load is not too great, then we can move forward with this fairly quickly, because there's clearly consensus for that. Other namespaces (particularly categories) can then be discussed separately, opinion being more divided about those. Rd232 (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Suggestion – I believe that the people who will be affected by this proposal (anons) should become involved in this discussion. We shouldn't pull the rug from under them without them knowing knowing about this discussion or having a say in it. Perhaps we should use MediaWiki:Sitenotice or MediaWiki:Anonnotice. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be more broadly publicized before being implemented, but not necessarily because of the effect on IP users. My strong impression -- not studied in detail -- is that the affected users will be almost entirely people with no other actions on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Has there been any progress on the publicizing this proposal? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment Although I originally proposed a broad ban on creation of any page by new users, I see the merit of allowing them to continue to create DRs and categories, tempting as it might be to restrict DRs. Templates and other pages are not a problem. Therefore I'm happy to restrict this to Gallery pages. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Support As somebody who used to work C:SD, I strongly support this proposal. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose - I see quite a few good deletion requests by IP's. Would be a real shame to miss out on those. Garion96 (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Support The benefit seems to be greater than the potential problems. Yann (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Support except for deletion requests and category namespace  Oppose. --  Docu  at 18:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

 Comment How about using the Titleblacklist instead of the Abusefilter? I think it would be faster and simpler. We can restrict page creation just on the gallery namespace while allowing editing, just like what we do with Editnotices, but just with page creation. It would probably require some additions to the code, as you can allow "autoconfirmed" users to create but not just all users, but I think that would be easy to add. Techman224^Talk 02:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added the "users" option in gerrit:40774. Techman224^Talk 05:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment – Shouldn't this had been proposed at the Village Pump instead? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I proposed it here because Commons is a multilingual project and this is the closest thing we have to language-neutral territory. There are actually 42 different Village Pumps and we clearly don't want to have a discussion on all of them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright. I understand now. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Help needed

User:Interfase during last years regularly making changes/reverts of the files, which are uploaded by me. The thing is that the files were taken during my trips to Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and I've filled the description of the files according to the local sources. Azerbaijan claims that the whole territory of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is a part of Azerbaijan and according to the Azeri propaganda campaign, the activists are clearing all information which is not representing the position of the government of the Azerbaijan. Due this, some Azeri users, including Interfase making raids on the articles/images/videos etc. which represents the actual situation but what contradicts to the new informational policy of the Azerbaijan (renaming, changing, distortion of the all local names to new Azerbaijan names).

According to hereinafter, please protect uploaded by me files from such actions. Thanks in advance, --Ліонкінг ^{Lion King} 16:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

User Ліонкінг makes non-neutral edits. He remove information that the objects are situated de-jure in Azerbaijan. He remove Azerbaijani description of the objects situated there. He also changes the names of these objects. For example, the article about Azykh cave. As you see the main name of the cave is Azykh. But user Ліонкінг makes redirect from Azykh to Azokh. Is this correct? I don't think so. --Interfase (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Here he remove category, that this building is in Azerbaijan. But the Agdam, where this building is situated, is in Azerbaijan. That is destrucive. --Interfase (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Here he removes the information that this castle is known as Shahbulag, that it situated de-jure in Azerbaijan, and the category "Shahbulag Castle". --Interfase (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Here Ліонкінг removes the Azerbaijani description of the mosque, and the information that the mosque is de-jure in Azerbaijan. --Interfase (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Administrators must do something with this POV-pushing. There is no any Azerbaijani propaganda. The so called "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" is unrecognized government. These territories is de-jure in Azerbaijan. So here we must give neutral information, that the objects situated there are also situated in Azerbaijan. And we must use the names that used in Wikipedia. Azykh, not Azokh, Shusha, not Shushi, etc. --Interfase (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The same situation was on this file. Here user Ліонкінг also have removed the information that this castle is in Azerbaijan. But administrator Jameslwoodward let this information stay on description. But, as we see here, Ліонкінг didn't understand that and continues his non-neutral and destructive actions. --Interfase (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, here You can see, as Interfase makes changes in the file which I've uploaded - I've reverted his destructive edit. He reverted my edit and said that he is reverting vandalism.

Secondly, speaking about my "non-neutral edits" and his words that "we must give neutral information, that the objects situated there are also situated in Azerbaijan" - having a look on the downloaded by him images I've not found any file where he've mentioned anything that such place is situated in Nagorno-Karabakh Republic / Azerbaijan. In his files he wrote that this place is situated in Azerbaijan while in my files he wrote that the place is situated in Azerbaijan and in NKR. So Interfase better should keep quiet about his neutrality and my non-neutrality. At least I'm not pursuing uploaded by him files with making mass changes of the plot of description.

Thirdly, speaking that administrator make a changes in my edit just to stop edit wars, Interfase as always keeping quiet that administrator make changes in his edit also.

Finally, according to the policy of neutrality in case if some territory is claimed by another state (as with NKR) we must mention that the object is located in NKR de-facto and de-jure (according to the legislation of NKR) while he inserts only the position of Azerbaijan government which is grounds on the nationalism effort during the war. For example, Martakert city never has Azerbaijan population but when Azerbaijan army destroyed the whole city in 1992 they renamed it to Aghdara. Less than after the year, in 1993 self-defense forces liberated the city and the local population returned to their city. As a result during the whole history of the city it was named "Aghdara" only less that during one year (1992 - 1993) and it was never used by local population. Mentioning that the name of the city is Aghdara according to the "official position of Azerbaijan's government" is misleading because it is only the POV which is written on the paper. Very poor part of the population of Martakert knows that there were a short-period time during the control of the city by Azerbaijan Army it was called by them as "Aghdara". Wikipedia opposes to the censure, Wikipedia is not a judicial factbook, Wikipedia first of all represents the real information, not useless information which is sharing by biased government which grants to shoot down civil airplanes and where the hero is a person who in neutral state during the international program at the night murders a man asleep only because of his nationality.

Every year different biased users who wants to change description of the files which renders to the Nagorno Karabakh into official position of the Azerbaijan starting to make a massive edits in this files, a big amount of which are uploaded by me. According to this I ask the administrators to:

1. Prohibit mass edits and reverts in this files.
2. Prohibit mass pursuing of my contribution.
3. Allow make such changes only after discussion.
4. Make a protect on this files.
5. Ban users who violates this rules.

--Ліонкінг ^{Lion King} 18:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

If you guys want me to look at the problem, I will insist that you both stop editing "Karabakh" related files for the time being. LionKing, I haven't yet looked at all the links provided by both of you yet, but I did look at this. Can you explain why you removed the Azeri language description from the file? Please respond to this question, and this question only, then I will look at the rest of the issues that you both raise. russavia (talk) 02:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have looked at the various links. Using File:Ukhtasar018.JPG as our guide; LionKing it is unacceptable to remove Azeri language descriptions from files. We should be aiming for as many langage translations of descriptions as possible. I do not like how you have deleted the additions by Interfase to the Russian/Ukrainian/English descriptions; additions which denote that the subject of the photo is located in a disputed area. Interfase, your additions to this image descriptions are useful; they might be even more useful if for Nagorno-Karabakh related files you include in your Azeri description what is present in the English/Russian/Ukrainian description fields? Can you both comment on this, and then we can look at the other issues next. russavia (talk) 02:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course, I can explain my actions. Firstly, I want to mention that I'm the author of all this files. Secondly, according to our policy everybody can make edits in such files, but it's unacceptable when another user make massive destructive edits without any discussion with the author of this some 100 files. Thirdly, I've deleted the description in Azeri language because there were nothing mentioned about it's current location. Of course, all of us understands that Azerbaijan claims that territory but not mentioning of the current location is a misleading of the readers. If Interfase assume good faith we should firstly: discuss with me this question; secondly: keep such standards for his articles (he never mentions the current location - NKR); thirdly if he wanted to add Azeri description, he must first of all mention the current location, but he have not done it. More than that there're rude mistakes in his edits of Ukrainian description. He never tries to have discussion he only makes massive edit wars or when there are some another supporters from Azerbaijan - making claims about my (and other users with another of their POV) activity. Descriptions in many languages - it is good, but biased descriptions can't be a good behavior. --Ліонкінг ^{Lion King} 10:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your answer. Firstly, please COM:MELLOW a little bit. I am well aware of the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute, and know it intimately, so I am also well aware of the positions of "each side" of editors in this dispute. If either editor disputes the description, add {{Fact disputed}} to the file page, and discuss issues on the talk page in a civilised fashion. Edit warring, accusing each other of bad faith actions, etc is not COM:MELLOW behaviour and will result in files being protected to force editors into discussion. Hopefully that will not be required. I will tell you now, that removing the Azeri description is unacceptable. If there were mistakes (as in spelling) for the Ukrainian description, then that is fine that you have fixed those. Also unacceptable is that you have removed the city being in Azerbaijan (de jure) from other the language descriptions. Both the de jure, and de facto, locations should be in the description of the file. In relation to the Azeri description, I would hope that Interfase will take my advice about including the same status to the Azeri description as a way out of such disputes. Also LionKing, I believe you are both acting according to what you think is right, so both need to AGF of each other here; this issue has been brought here because it is obvious that some outside input is needed, and here I am telling you both that you are both right and you are both wrong. The solution for such files is what I have stated above -- that being Nagorno-Karabakh files should have in the description both the de facto and de jure location information. I will await Interfase's response on the solution to files, then we can look at other issues such as categories, etc because I can imagine there are problems there too. Can you both please confirm that my suggested solution for file descriptions is a way forward, and that you will both put this into action russavia (talk) 11:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that both the de jure, and de facto, locations should be in the description of the files. I mentione it with "/". But, in the name of the objects, settlements we must use the names (in categories also) used in many reliable sourses. For example, Azykh cave, not Azokh cave. Agdam, not Ukhtasar. --Interfase (talk) 14:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Great, would you be able to expand the Azeri description of File:Ukhtasar018.JPG as per the above. Then I'll take a look at the category issues you raise above. russavia (talk) 15:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I see that LionKing has added to the Azeri description. Interfase, please confirm that the changes are inline with my suggestion above. Also, Interfase and LionKing, please both confirm that this is how you will both handle Nagorno-Karabakh files in future. russavia (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this version seems to me acceptable. --Interfase (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

OK great, so we'll expect the principles above to be applied by both on future files too. russavia (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

In relation to the categories, this might be harder, it might not (I hope not). The dispute is centred around whether they are in NKR or Azerbaijan. Could this dispute be settled by having Category:Buildings in Nagorno-Karabakh; which could then be further categorised under Category:Buildings in Azerbaijan. I suggest this because Nagorno-Karabakh described the region and doesn't favour Nagorno-Karabakh Republic or Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast. Could this be a solution to that problem? Comments welcome. russavia (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

We could add Category:Buildings in Nagorno-Karabakh for the buildings situated in Nagorno-Karabakh region. But Agdam city is not in Nagorno (Highland) Karabakh region, but in Lowland Karabakh. And this region (Lowland Karabakh) is not whole controled by Armenian forces. --Interfase (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that it's not the best solution of the problem. Interfase is right that there're some parts of NKR which outsides the Nagorno Karabakh f.e. Agdam. Another example can be the parts of the territories of NKR which are a parts of Nagorno Karabakh, but they're under the control of Azerbaijan. I propose to use alternative categories as with description. F.e. Agdam according to NKR legislation is situated in Askeran district while according to Azerbaijan legislation in Agdam district. So we're mentioning both categories "Askeran district" and "Agdam district". Ліонкінг

Please tell me if I am correct here, or not. Agdam (city) is in Agdam (region), and the western half of the region is controlled by NKR forces and the eastern half by Azeri forces. Is the actual city (what is left of it) also divided in terms of control? I see from the relevant WP articles that the NKR forces use the city as a buffer zone. I am guessing the photo that LionKing took is in an area of Agdam (city) controlled by NKR forces? Perhaps it needs a category like "Buildings in areas outside of Nagorno-Karabakh controlled by NKR forces" (less clunky of course), because such things may be of interest to someone researching this area. This is in addition to the "Buildings in Azerbaijan" category. Can the two of you suggest a suitable category here? russavia (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Interfase means that Nagorno-Karabakh=Upper Karabakh, which is geographical area. Geagea (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Right. --Interfase (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned before there're no such official terms in NKR's Constitution and legislation as "buffer zone". Whole area of NKR has its divisions which consists of 7 districts and one city with special status (capital city) - there're no any buffer zones or zones of Mountainous / Lowland Karabakh. So we can't use a category "Buildings in areas outside of Nagorno-Karabakh controlled by NKR forces". Eastern part of Agdam region is still under the control of Azerbaijan and they have not renamed it just it's administration is situated in a village at the Azerbaijan-controlled part of the district. Other parts of the former Agdam district are under NKR's control. Southern part of Agdam district became a part of Martuni district (4), western and central (including Agdam city) became a part of Askeran district (3) and northern part became a part of Martakert district (2). Azerbaijan has it's own new administrative divisions. So in this case I propose to use "Buildings in Askeran district" (a part of category "Buildings in Republic of Mountainous Karabakh") and "Buildings in Agdam district" (a part of category "Buildings in Azerbaijan"). --Ліонкінг ^{Lion King} 18:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Interfase, does the Askeran and Agdam district categorisation sound like a solution to this? russavia (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay. --Interfase (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

 Question. Емишджан and Емишчан the same? Geagea (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. These two articles are about the same village. --Interfase (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I also add rename to Category:Govheraga Mosque in Shusha for your consideration. Geagea (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This category most be divided into two categories: this photo is about Ashaghi Govhar Agha Mosque. Another photos relate to Yukhari Govhar Agha Mosque. --Interfase (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so it seems we have our solution. For Nagorno-Karabakh files we use descriptions which denote both the de-jure Azeri and de-factor NKR descriptions in all languages, when possible. For categories we use both the de-jure Azeri and de-facto NKR categorisation system. I would encourage all editors to be mindful of this. We don't need to be NPOV in our descriptions, etc, but as a media repository we need to make files as descriptive as possible, and categorise them appropriately, so that re-users (both on and off WMF projects) are able to find and put these files to good use. If there's nothing else, I think we can close this off as resolved? russavia (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we don't have our solution. It's the best example what we shouldn't to do. Here we've got a compromise what was confirmed by Interfase. According to this template I've made a part of edits, including this one. But yesterday Interfase decided to change his mind and in the file Azokh he made an edit with the comment that "main name is Azykh". Of course it's a position of Azerbaijan that the main name is Azykh. I can say that I've also a lot of claims, but if all of us starts speak about them we never can gain compromise. And the worst position is to make changes after having an agreement - such actions are unconstructive and inconsistent. Both of us have our views what is true but we can't make one step forward and two steps back. --Ліонкінг ^{Lion King} 17:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ліонкінг, I never agreed that the name of the cave referred to as "Azokh (Azykh)". I agreed that it was stated both localization (de jure or de facto). As for the name of the cave, we must first indicate the name Azykh because it is found more and name Azokh less. And the article on Wikipedia called Azykh instead Azokh. --Interfase (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You're wrong. Okay, I'll remind you of what we agreed.

1. Ліонкінг in the file Ukhtasar018.JPG mentioned both points of view, firstly the current location and secondly the position of Azerbaijan which is useless in NKR.
2. russavia asked Interfase if new version of article is acceptable for both parties.
3. Interfase confirmed compromise version.
4. russavia said that we'll expect the principles above to be applied by both on future files too.
5. Ліонкінг according to the acceptable to Interfase version and the recommendations of Russavia make similar edit in the file Azokh_Cave5.jpg.
6. Interfase unlike previous position has reverted my edit with words that "main name is Azykh".

So only after a week You start new claims to the questions which were solved already. It's unconstructive position. More than that You're with enthusiasm make massive edits in my files mentioning the position of Azerbaijan while in Your files You use only position of Azerbaijan nothing mentioning about real situation. You must decide if You're going to keep Your words, or You've agreed on a mutual compromise only for trade to new compromises into Your side from agreed compromise version. It's unaceptable to make new claims on the resolved questions. --Ліонкінг ^{Lion King} 17:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I want you guys to sort out the descriptions of such things yourselves, inline with the above. In terms of categories, you both have used the right idea -- simply use {{Category redirect}} for main variants of the names of cities, features, etc. It makes no sense to have 2 categories with exactly the same content...just use redirects as appropriate. The category name should match the article name on enwp -- in the event of there being no article, use common sense. russavia (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm strongly oppose using names on enwp. All names of cities and villages were uploaded to enwp by bot from official governmental Azeri web-site - that's why all names with exception of capital (Stepanakert) are used from the position of Azerbaijan. A lot of villages were destroyed and abandoned while a lot of new villages were founded (they're not mentioned in enwp). Most part of villages have different Karabakh and Azeri names. In this case enwp is one of the most unneutral in the question of NKR because Azeri users have a serious numerical advantage in enwp. Only one example.

Martakert and Martuni are the second and the third largest cities in Republic of Mountainous Karabakh. During the history of both of them they were cities with Armenian population. In both of them Azerbaijan SSR lost the control in late 80's (in USSR, it was not independent Azerbaijan). Martakert - a city with 12,000 inhabitants in 1992 was destroyed by Azerbaijan forces - all local population was escaped or being murdered by new owners. It was renamed by Azeri nationalists and was used new name - Aghdara only by Azery forces which were controlled the city for a year. In 1993 self-defense forces liberated their city and returned it's name - Martakert and today it has a population of 5,000 inhabitants. Martuni was never captured by Azerbaijani forces but it was also renamed to Khojavend. As all another names which were given by Azeri nationalists, nobody (or very few part of people) in Martakert knows that according to the legislation of Azerbaijan the new name of their city is Aghdere and in Martuni - new name is Khojavend. This names are useless and written only on a paper, they mislead the readers. That's why we can't use the names from enwp.

We should give objective information. And if during all history of the city it's name was Martakert we can't say that it is Khojavend only because a state without control the city have renamed it while in this city such name was never in use. --Ліонкінг ^{Lion King} 18:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Lionking, we are not Wikipedia, we are a media repository. Names of places can be addressed by using {{Category redirect}}. If we don't have an article on enwp; then this is where common sense comes in -- use google searches, for example, to ascertain where a category should be named, and use category redirects for alternative names. Work with other editors to reach consensus on such things, and please remember COM:MELLOW -- especially the part of leaving disputes from other projects on those projects, and recognising that Commons is a unique project with a specific purpose. If you all do this, you will be able to reach consensus on such things between yourselves. But creating two categories for the same topic is not the way to go about such things, that much I can tell you. russavia (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I want to remind You that not I've started mass edit wars - I've stopped them and wrote here for a help. Speaking about categories I agree with You that we shouldn't use two categories (with different names) for the same article. If we're going to use common sense using google searches - Ok.

Category:Martakert is a redirect.

Category:Aghdara is a main category.

Google search gives 166 000 Martakert vs 11 900 Aghdara (14 vs 1).

Google books gives 2 830 Martakert vs 59 Aghdara (48 vs 1).

Category:Martuni, Artsakh is a redirect.

Category:Khojavend (town) is a main category.

Google search gives 1 120 000 Martuni vs 118 000 Khojavend (9,5 vs 1).

Google books gives 8 720 Martuni vs 300 Khojavend (29 vs 1).

What is Your opinion including that I've written earlier? Do You think that current naming of this articles is a common sense? And speaking about Your words that "such things may be of interest to someone researching this area" do You agree that the situation with this two categories is misleading for readers and tourists? Thanks for the answers. --Ліонкінг ^{Lion King} 12:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Unsigned

Please have a look at the last change to this template and changes to related Templates by this user so nothing is broken as side effect. --Denniss (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I reverted that change. The change to the template forced the template to display in English, which is a bad idea on a multilingual project. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

What about the change to Template:UnsignedIP2 ? --Denniss (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Move requested

File:It’s a flower day today..jpg – the name contains a right quote; better as plain ASCII quote? Peter coxhead (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done :That's probably not enough to justify a move, but together with the double dots, it is. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ho hum

I know we are not censored but how many images of one guy's penis do we really need? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

About 100...apparently. :) russavia (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

And a DR is filed: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hansy2. Trijnstel_talk 20:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Please delete duplicate files

I've been cleaning Category:Katowice and it seems that at some point a flickr bot uploaded few duplicate copies of several pictures, spamming the category. This can be easily seen - just check the bottom half of the photos. I don't feel like tagging them with duplicates when an admin can just speedy delete them in half the time it would take me to use the template. I'd appreciate some quick clean up assistance, thanks. Duplicate files start with File:Wzdłuż linii kolejowej Entlang der Bahnlinie Katowice - Bytom - Tarnowskie Góry (10).jpg and continue until the end of the category. Whether somebody should investigate this weird bot malfunction (perhaps it has been already) is another issue (at the very list this bot malfunction has not been fixed). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Should be done now, there were some file upload and storage errors in the process so some images may have to be re-uploaded. --Denniss (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

mistake while file spliting File:Accession.jpeg

I am sorry but i made the mistake of undeleting too many text revisons while spliting File:Accession.jpeg(13:00, January 7, 2013 Morgankevinj (talk | contribs | block) restored page File:Accession.jpeg (3 revisions and 1 file restored: File Spliting) (global usage; delinker log)) and i a result end up attching the wrong revisions to each split after moving that file. I will be more careful in the future. Can someone help me fix this. Thank you, MorganKevinJ^(talk) 18:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

What to do with Category:AAAP ?

What to do with Category:AAAP ? Is it real ? --Foroa (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

User:MOTOI Kenkichi (not a newbie) seems to think so. Weird. Notifying user as you forgot. Rd232 (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

1. #AAAP Is that "Real"(On wired communications group -> Exsample My work is Awamomo Office Profiles).

In a variety of ways Manner are not a alive Accessibility.Let's talk more.Thank you.Amen.--MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, I have indicated an intention clearly legal. It is not a concept to compete with the Wikimedia Foundation. We are persecuted in various forms in the battle of similar right up to the present.--MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't suppose we can rustle up a Japanese-speaker here? Rd232 (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

We have various native Japanese admins (such as Chatama, Miya, Whym) and others (admins and non-admins) who speak it as well. :) Trijnstel_talk 19:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Added By Native Japanese talk pages to 2ch's We invite questions to more Discuss.--MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

AAAP（アスキーアート保護協会） ７スレ目 inAAサロン(ja)

アスキーアート保護協会7->文字絵友の会 #AAAP 1(ja)

---

So feel free to use for anyone

---

Content that you have created the current situation I have to free.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
I think I have come to persecution or even suicide in money and power, large companies so unreasonable come.
Small author in trouble because there is exploitation, consider a system that can be directly reduced to the owner of the original creators.
Judging from this talk, if "Chiryaku(see ->Machiavellianism)" of Wikipedian, take for granted the obvious, it is possible to normally.
Civil and family all over the world at any rate.
We are just talking about the obvious commonplace rather than win the rights.
That was simple, was not it?--MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

---

誰もが気軽に使えるように

---

私の作成したコンテンツは現状フリーにしています。
御理解と御協力をお願いします。 私が思うのは、大企業は金と力で迫害したり、無茶苦茶やってくるので自殺者も出ています。
零細作者は搾取されて困って居ますから、本来の持ち主である作者たちに直接還元出来るシステムを考えましょう。
このトークを見る限り、Wikipedianの知略なら、当たり前を当たり前に、普通にする事は可能です。
Σ/D＜Yapee Google translated is so none!?--MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I made 4chan Lounge.Talk thread.

4chan #AAAP No.1 --MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

AAAP seems a licence created by MOTOI Kenkichi. Category:AAAP is a private category, which may be needed to delete. / どうやらAAAPはMOTOI Kenkichiさんが作ったライセンスのようです。Category:AAAPは個人的なカテゴリですので、削除すべきでしょう。--Ohgi (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Moved by me in order to give better organization. --whym (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment I have a great difficulty in making sense of what he attempts to say, on the category page, on the links he gave, and here, even from his words in his (and my) native language... From what I seem to understand, at Category:AAAP he tried to document a "license" and its aims and background, envisioning a "framework for collecting fees [from re-users?] and distributing them to authors" ("作者たちに直接還元出来るシステム"). (Please don't ask me for details of it, because I couldn't understand)

My suggestion is to move it to his userspace, because it makes sense only to him. It could be deleted per COM:SCOPE, too. The so-called "license" seems to be something he is promoting through his blog [3] [4], his online store [5], and bulletin board threads he started [6] [7] [8]. However, I can see no use cases of it elsewhere. I don't believe we document such exotic "licenses" in our content space anyway. If it is incompatible to COM:L or ambiguous (which is the case I believe), we will certainly be uninterested. Even if it is compatible, having unnecessarily many of them would make Commons less machine-friendly and probably less human-friendly. FWIW, ja:AAAP was deleted with the rationale "non-notable and/or advertisement" years ago. It might be considered again someday when it becomes notable and gets many independent use cases outside his control, but not now. --whym (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment AAAP = Association of Ascii Art Protection / アスキーアート保護協会. The only place on Wikipedia mentioning the association seems to be ja:のまネコ問題, where there are two sentences about it. I followed the links from Commons and later found this, containing rules regulating the association. This does not seem to be a final version of the rules. For example, it says that the association has an office in "xx Ward, Tokyo" (東京都○○区), and a final version would need to contain the name of the ward. The page tells that the association doesn't exist, and in the deletion request on Wikipedia, a user tells that the chairman's blog no longer receives any updates. I'd guess that some guys met on the Internet and that they planned to start an association but in the end never did that.

The category contains a lot of files uploaded by User:MOTOI Kenkichi and User:Gikoneko. The page w:User:Gikoneko says "For other uses, see User:MOTOI Kenkichi" which could mean that both accounts belong to the same person. Also, the page has an interwiki link to ja:利用者:擬古猫 (擬古猫 = Gikoneko), which is blocked with a reference to Wikipedia:Contributor block requests/MOTOI Kenkichi. I can't figure out in what way the files are supposed to be related to AAAP or why they are listed in the category. Many of the images are related to ASCII art, and AAAP is obviously also related to ASCII art, but not all ASCII art is related to AAAP. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment this edit by User:Gikoneko supports the idea that the category is an attempt to create and explain a custom "AAAP" license. So the question then is whether to try and work out a viable {{AAAP}} license template here and now (tricky, since no-one seems to be able to make head or tail of it), or simply to nominate the category for deletion whilst recommending that those interested in AAAP try and develop a license template. User:Whym suggested moving the category to userspace, but given the communication issues, that might not be clear enough - it might carry on being used, which in its current confusing form would not be good. Rd232 (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge

Hi. Please merge File:Ismail lion 7.png with File:Shiite Calligraphy symbolising Ali as Tiger of God.png. First file has better quality and more usage and second has better name. −ebraminio^talk 19:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done --A.Savin 09:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. A.Savin 09:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Burned israeli flag - 27zapata.jpg

File:Burned israeli flag - 27zapata.jpg has had an edit dispute going on for a long time about its categorisation, and it recently flared up again, re-appearing at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#File:Burned_israeli_flag_-_27zapata.jpg. There is actually quite a lengthy discussion on the file talk page. Would any admin be willing to assess the talkpage for a possible consensus, and/or attempt to move the discussion forward?

There are also wider issues about such contentious categorisation which could potentially be covered in an RFC, about what the purpose of categories is - to what extent is to be descriptive in a verifiable way, and to what extent is it to help people find things they might use to illustrate a topic, even in a way others might disagree with? Rd232 (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Both burning flags (this act of hate (or just dumbness?) does not change anything) and this edit war make no sense. If the war goes on, the file is protected randomly; there will be always people who see it as antisemitism and those who don't (me included, but I come from Europe, more worse from a German speaking country so I don't feel comfortable making any decision here; The individual burning the flag may feel frightened by the state Israel, Israel as a country with nuclear weapons and who may be also influenced by his local media; he perhaps hates Israel but not Judaism; though I have to admit that I never visited Israel nor one of the neighbouring countries nor I am specially educated in this matter).

For Malcolm Schosha, it was important that the Jewish star was burned out, assuming intention and the fact that most of Israel's inhabitants are Jews, he came to the conclusion it was anti-Semitic motivated.

I believe the term antisemitism (which English Wikipedia defines as hatred toward, or discrimination against Jews), its meaning and especially which actions are interpreted as those are influenced by the culture and highly polarized.

This is, I think, the most important fact to understand here, though it's not the solution to the “problem” whether to add the category or not.

But it helps both parties to understand that the other party didn't add or remove the category because they want to provoke or because they are evil but because of the different worldview. Is this worth an edit war? -- Rillke^(q?) 16:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I will cowardly refrain from stepping in (besides, I'm a European admin too). A RFC could be useful on categorisation as well as file descriptions/file names. Off the top of my head I can think of two issues, which aren't Israel-related. I remember a picture representing a man and a woman talking in the street; the file name or description mentioned they were a prostitute and her pimp. My second example is a close-up of a horse during a polo match; someone wanted to add a category related to animal cruelty. While Commons files need not necessarily comply to NPOV, there is a neutrality issue here. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Kkdu101

IDK what to say about this user. From what I can see, he's mostly interested in some sort of self-promotion and claims to tiles and similar things. This can all be seen exhibited on his talk page and his uploads. It's not really harming Commons, but it's not really in our scope either, so I thought I'd bring it here and let some wiser people make the call on what to do. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I did warn this user for to stop with the spam. Their editions on Commons are very similar with those of the english wikipedia. The next time will be blocked. Thanks for the report, Érico Wouters ^msg 23:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Much of his uploads look like they should go as well. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I have deleted most of his uploads, which were copyvios, nonsense, or both, in addition to being self-promoting. I have tagged several others with {{Delete}}. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ajout de balise

Bonjour,

Je voudrais savoir s'il serait possible, via un bot d'ajouter le balise Template:Personality rights à l'ensemble des images contenues dans Category:Images by Georges Biard. Certaines photos ont déjà la balise, mais la plupart ne l'ont pas. A une dizaine d'exceptions près, les images contenues dans la catégorie sont toutes des photos de personnes, dont la plupart sont encore vivantes. JJ Georges (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Bonjour,

Vous pouvez faire la demande du travail sur la page prévue pour les demandes pour travaux de bots : Commons:Bots/Work requests. Vous pourriez peut-être aussi voir si vous pourriez le faire vous-même à l'aide de l'outil VisualFileChange.js (que je ne connais pas plus que ça, mais qui a priori semble utilisable pour ce genre de travail). -- Asclepias (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Français : J'allais le faire avec VisualFileChange.js avant de me rendre compte que je m’apprêtais à faire 1800 modification à la chaine. Je suggère une requête aux bots (demande si tu as besoin d'une traduction)

English: I was going to do the task with VisualFileChange.js before realizing I was going to perform 1800 changes in few seconds. I suggest a Commons:Bots/Work requests

--PierreSelim (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, fait, merci, je n'imaginais pas de demander ça à un être humain. JJ Georges (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

En fait on a des gadgets qui aident :-) --PierreSelim (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Gas the Germans. (talk · contribs)

This user has uploaded an attack picture, File:Mohammed the Muslim pedophile.jpg, as “punishment for Wikimedia Commons' anti-Semitic propaganda such as Category:Carlos Latuff and anti-Semitic administrators such as the German Denniss (talk · contribs)”. He then added it to {{PD-old-100/en}}, {{PD-old-100/layout}}, and {{PD-old-100/lang}}. I have blocked them indefinitely, cleaned the templates, semi-protected them indef, deleted the picture, and protected its filename. I have also semi-protected Denniss' talk page. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Lock requested on Meta and underlying IP blocked - the earlier one was on an open proxy. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh and cleaned Denniss's page too. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Please leave a indef-blocked-message on the user's page. --High Contrast (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done and I've amended the block reason - hope that is ok (basically it is an attack account/inappropriate name/puppet abuse+) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the indef-block template Herby, and for adding a more precise block reason. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the actions, it seems I run into this Troll (or group of Trolls) multiple times per year (having Latuff-related pages on my watchlist). --Denniss (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment The file name suggests that the file might be related to File:Mohammed the Pedophile.jpg, which was uploaded by Kill Nazis (talk · contribs). --Stefan4 (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio uploads by Hamid3

Please see Special:Contributions/Hamid3. I think a lot (or maybe all?) of his uploads are either copyvios or questionable uploads. Can someone help? Trijnstel_talk 17:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Some of them are also here with an earlier upload date and "all rights reserved. For example, File:AZNA - Spring View.jpg is at [9]. However, the user name on Panoramio is the same as the user name on Commons, which could mean that the users are the same. There's not enough evidence that they are the same person (just see yesterday's DMCA takedown), but it may be a reason for using a slower deletion process than a plain {{Copyvio}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Genitals of a teenage boy.jpg - why was this deleted now? Why was the uploader blocked?

Russavia deleted File:Genitals of a teenage boy.jpg with the edit summary of "contact me for further information if required". He blocked the uploader, UserHank1357, with the edit summary "contact me for further information". This file was uploaded in March 2011 and was kept after a deletion discussion which included experienced Commons contributors such as Mattbuck and Beta M. Since I was curious why this file was deleted, why it was deleted now, and why the uploader was blocked, I took Russavia at his word and asked on his talk page. He removed my questions with an edit summary of "if you would like to rephrase the question without the ridiculous trolling relating to other editors, then i may consider answering this question, until then away this goes". I removed any mention of other editors and asked again. Russavia appears to be ignoring the questions. Can someone please explain why this particular image was deleted almost two years after it was uploaded despite the deletion discussion, and why the uploader was blocked? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I have an idea why it's deleted (judged by the open and private logs), but I advice you to email Russavia in order to get an answer. Trijnstel_talk 18:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The image itself has been suppressed, I can't see it. I can still access the page text. Techman224^Talk 19:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct. As a steward I can still see the content and I understand why it's suppressed. Trijnstel_talk 19:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I now know why, and if I had known the background when deciding the DR, I wouldn't have kept it for OTRS reasons. --Rosenzweig τ 19:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

While it is nice that you have an answer, Rozenzweig, I still do not. Was there an OTRS or legal request to delete the image? Why was the uploader blocked, if that was the case? Who made the request? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

For reasons of privacy, I won't comment any further on the reasons to delete, but I concur with the deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 19:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)