Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Shortcut: COM:AN/U

• 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
23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	117, 116, 115, 114, 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	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

^{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: ~162
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~3
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-11: ~118

Other:

• Duplicates: ~25
• Advertisements/spam: ~13
• Personal photos/selfies: ~43
• Other speedy deletions: ~74
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~4
• Undeletion requests: ~11

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~46
• Interface admin: ~20
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~14
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• 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

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

Stefan4 and questionable deletion nominations

I have witnessed several DR nominations by this user which I consider disingenous at best and outright dishonest at worst. My most recent concern is this DR where Stefan4 has nominated an Austrin logo using COM:TOO#Austria for the basis of their belief this is copyrighted. The problem which exists here is that this file is basic geometry while the TOO entry for Austria only has examples of hand-drawn signatures. In this nomination Stefan4 wrongly claims "even simple text logos are copyrighted in Austria", ignoring that signatures are significantly more complicated than "basic text". Stefan4 has previously done this on atleast 3 DRs that I can recall, including this DR and this DR, both where I have previously addressed the difference between basic text and a signature.

Another questionable reasoning for DR is here, where Stefan4 uses wordplay to question the status of a freely released image.

Even worse, Stefan4 often does not even pay due attention to the place of origin for images, as shown here, here, and here.

Overall, I am concerned about Stefan4's honesty in nominating images for deletion. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Section moved to here, from COM:AN by — Revi_complaint? 03:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Why would anyone search out these iffy or even mistaken DR subjects when there are thousands of blatant problem images just waiting to be tagged in Category:Media needing categories requiring human attention? Just go through 1 day's images, and you'll find dozens of images that can clearly and simply be tagged for DR or CSD, and won't end up being kept or argued over (or mentioned at AN). INeverCry 03:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't search them out, I've kept them in my watchlist because I saw a pattern and was waiting for enough examples to be worthy of concern and show that this is not one-off behaviour. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That comment wasn't directed at you Fry. I was referring to Stefan searching out the subjects for his DRs, which in the above cases would've been better off left alone. What I meant was that he could make a lot better use of his time by tagging the blatant problem images in the category I pointed out above. Why search around for scraps when there's a plate of steak and potatoes sitting on the kitchen table? INeverCry 04:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I ask myself the very same thing. Some people seem to find pleasure in nominating for DR files that are adimittedly in a grey area, causing heated discussions and inflaming the matter with “deletionist” vs. “inclusionist” talking points. It is too easy, and not any less urgent or important, to find files for likely consensual DRs. -- Tuválkin ✉ 09:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• I too do not trust Stefan(2|4)'s judgement and see him as another one of that small, but vociferous, group of editors who is far too interested in finding "things to do" and has zero interest in "things that benefit the encyclopedia". They damage the project by damaging content, but even more importantly they damage the gooodwill of other editors by their unnecessary and inappropriate haste to remove things, just because they can find an excuse to remove it. Even if there is an alternative to removal, they do not consider this - there's no fun if you don't get to press delete. In the hands of such editors, truth is malleable. Here's one of his latest:

en:Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2014_February_23#File:Sectional_drawing_of_Hulsebos-Hesselman_engine.jpg – claiming that engineering technical drawings are "maps", because he has found an excuse for maps to be deleted.

Like so many editors and ex-contributors here, I'd leave this project if I could. Certainly it's not big enough for both of us here. Stefan is one of the major reasons why I've stopped contributing to Commons, after thousands of past uploads. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Processing obvious problem images is great, especially when we have so many. But more complex DRs can also be useful, by making it clearer what we should keep or delete. For instance, a good response to those closed Austrian logo DRs would be to update COM:TOO#Austria accordingly.

I don't agree with Stefan4's positions in the DRs Fry lists above. But Stefan4 launches a lot of deletions, so a few mistakes wouldn't seem unreasonable. Just looking through his last 10 DRs (i.e. from the last couple of weeks), I see one is listed above, five have been closed as delete, and none were closed as keep (although one of the deletions has since been reversed). Meanwhile he has also identified problems with around 30 images that have since been speedily deleted. One or two mistaken DRs in that period is not a bad rate IMO.

I also don't see any reason for accusations of dishonesty. Fry1989, have you tried to discuss your concerns about those DRs with Stefan4 before bringing the matter here? I don't see anything like that on Stefan4's talk page. --Avenue (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If you do not understand how calling hand-drawn signatures "basic text" even after this has been rejected several times before is dishonest, then perhaps you don't quite grasp the issue here. It's like saying File:Statsikon.svg is "basic geometry". Fry1989 ^eh? 19:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That was non-responsive to the main question I asked you. Should I take that as a "no"?

Personally I agree that "basic text" is not a great description of signatures. But if Stefan feels that the difference is insignificant (as one of his posts here suggests), I don't see why him describing them that way would be dishonest. Maybe a bit careless, if he's aware that others disagree with him on that point, but not dishonest. I think you should be a lot more careful about publicly throwing such accusations around. --Avenue (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It's dishonest because it's been rejected several times before, not just by me but by closing admins, and Stefan4 is still trying to use this claim in DRs despite this rejection. It's dishonest because it may mislead users who know little about copyright thresholds to think that signatures and basic text letters are actually the same level of originality. It's dishonest because it overly simplifies the issue of threshold of originality altogether. That is why I think Stefan4 is being dishonest. The wordplay I showed in another DR example is even more careless and frivolous, and that should also disturb anyone observing this. So if you want an answer to your question, the answer is no, I have not discussed this with Stefan4 outside of DRs, because twofold I think Stefan4 won't take my concern as valid and I believe that this requires greater scrutiny from the community. Clear enough for you? Fry1989 ^eh? 00:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

When Fry1989 states something, he often provides no source for his statements. The statements can therefore not be assumed to carry any weight. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

And which statements exactly are not true? The fact your claim of signatures being basic text has been rejected in other Drs before, which I HAVE proven by linking the DRs above? Do I have to link them in every single response I make or else their weight expires??? Or the fact that impressionable new users with little knowledge could be mislead into believing that signatures and basic text do have the same level of originality if they look at your DRs? Or the fact you used wordplay in a DR to completely twist around a free license into a non-free license? Or the fact that you have made it clear you do not take my concern about this seriously and therefore talking to you about it personally would be a waste of time which is why I came here instead? Don't play stupid, the proof is here in all the links I've given. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• I did not search for File:Logo Wiener Lokalbahn.svg but happened to find it because it was mentioned on a page on English Wikipedia which happened to be on my watchlist. I do not remember how I found the other files. When I search for problem files, I am more likely to look at OgreBot's galleries of recent uploads by new users and w:Special:ListFiles.

It seems that Fry is searching for deletion nominations which he does not like but ignores other deletion nominations. If a user makes a lot of nominations, it is only to be expected that a small number of those may be mistakes or errors. It also seems that Fry has misunderstood COM:PRP, which says that we only can keep images if they beyond reasonable doubt are free, whereas Fry seems to think that images can be kept as long as they are not beyond reasonable doubt unfree. The only examples we have from Austria at COM:TOO are two handwritten logos, and the Austrian supreme court decided to apply a fairly low threshold of originality for such images. We do not have any examples of geometric shapes, so we have to assume that the threshold of originality for geometric shapes also is low. We also do not have any examples of images which are below the Austrian threshold of originality, so we have to assume that there also exist images which are simpler than the examples at COM:TOO#Austria which still are above the threshold of originality. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's another one that I was involved in recently. en:Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2014_January_15#File:Altcar_Bob.jpg]

No effort to check the sources (this is a well known image from postcards and several books of the 1910s and 1920s). No consideration that it would meet NFC. No consideration of whatever encyclopedic value a resource has, merely an undue haste to get it deleted regardless. Stefan has had hundreds of my UK-PD illustrations (see [1]), citing URAA, without the slightest consideration as to their value, their actual age, or the effect on the encyclopedia. This project has become nothing more than a bureaucratic playpen for Stefan and his friends to play at being traffic wardens. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Andy Dingley: The problem is that you often tag files with "PD-UK" without showing that the files are "PD-US". In the mentioned case (en:Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2014_January_15#File:Altcar_Bob.jpg), you also failed to show that the image was "PD-UK". The file was listed on that discussion page for almost two months, and you were still not able to show that it was published before 1923 before the file was deleted. If you have evidence that the image was published as a postcard and in books in the 1910s and 1920s, then why didn't you present that evidence during those two months? In fact, the uploader is supposed to provide this information already when uploading the file, which the uploader failed to do. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Stefan4, I haven't "searched" for anything, I've been watching your DRs for a long time and the ones I have listed raise very important concerns about your honesty. You simply must know that signatures are not "basic text", that signatures are unique to every person who writes them, and yet you repeat this lie for the 3rd time that I can prove. The wordplay you attempted to use in creating this frivolous DR show that you are playing games with serious issues. Then the fact you don't even pay attention to origin of images when it very clearly says in the file description box that a file is from Belgium and not France makes you look incompetent. I don't think you should be allowed to nominate files, or should have very heavy oversight. You created this problem yourself by your own actions, not by me hunting for things to dig up on you. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Signatures are basic handwriting (although sometimes with calligraphic elements, of which there are not many in the examples at COM:TOO#Austria), just as the logo generated by File:Logo Wiener Lokalbahn.svg shows basic arrangements of geometric shapes. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No they're not!!!! How can you possibly call a signature, something that is unique to every person, "basic" in any conceivable way? If you and I were both asked to handwrite the same sentence, they would differ greatly. That's why it takes forensic experts to check handwritting in criminal cases to look for fraud. Signatures and hand-writing in general are extremely personal and unique. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think that writing a word in slightly different ways is any different to arranging geometric elements in slightly different ways? The same word, written by different people, becomes different because different people have different skills (unless we are talking about calligraphy which we are not in at least the Bauer case). However, skill is only relevant for the sweat of the brow principle (which requires skill and labour), but Austria does not seem to use the sweat of the brow principle in the first place, so the important thing must be something else. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Stefan4: did you miss out a word or two around "becomes because"? I'm having trouble following what you mean there. --Avenue (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, missing word added above. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact that handwriting is unique from person to person, and the requirement of forensic expertise is admissible in courts of law should be clear enough to you that signatures are not "basic text" in any stretch of the imagination. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

However, "different" is not the same as "original" or "creative". --Stefan4 (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say that something which is unique from person to person is "original", though perhaps not "creative" unless speaking about calligraphy. Still, it's not basic, it's not the same as simple letters and shapes. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Stefan's contributions to DR are definitely problematic, and will likely be costing Commons images/contributors . The examples above are similar to my experience, where he tried to cite a UK court ruling about newspaper headlines to argue that an image of a utilitarian 'no trolleys beyond this point' sandwich board (which wasn't even the main subject) should be deleted. Thankfully it wasn't lost in that case, but such is the state of Commons, it's not hard to imagine how others might be. He really needs to stop trying to play at being a lawyer and concentrate on protecting Commons from realistic actions - if he can't find a court ruling/legal opinion that is actually relevant to the image/s in question, then he shouldn't be trying to find one that he thinks is similar just for the sake of argument - that's not what PRP is about at all. Contributors really shouldn't have to be forced to waste their time engaging with these hyper-theoretical arguments. Ultra7 (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the deletion discussion, I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone involved to stay civil and keep a cool head. Bandying about accusations of lying, misrepresentations, blindness or simple-mindedness is not helpful nor conducive to the atmosphere of Wikimedia Commons, and I would advise participants involved to lay off it and do something more productive. As noted above, Stefan has done some valuable work for Commons, so he would be prone to a few mistakes here and there. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@TeleComNasSprVen: Yes, but we're not talking about a pattern of a few mistakes here and there, and before valorizing our aims (the encyclopaedia) we should valorize the more our means (our community and its norms of behaviour). We know that there are oddballs who contribute to Wikipedia who make life very difficult for us, the celebrated 'passive aggressive' obsessively uploading (say) images of Bollywood celebrities whose free status can't be determined and who just won't be budged from their pattern of behaviour, but who nevertheless is careful always to maintain civility and to avoid bans. But these people exist on the other side of content/policing divide as well. In Stefan's case, given that he is plainly problematic, the first thing we should be doing is to insist his accounts Stefan2 (Wikipedia) and Stefan4 (Commons) are merged (along with other accounts he may have) so that we can track his behaviour the better. I outline my own interaction with him below. He really upset me. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not possibly to steal other people's accounts (at least not without making those people upset or violating their attribution rights), so I am not sure how your proposed merger would work. I use the user name "Stefan2" on all projects except for those where the user name is held by someone else. I am not sure what other accounts you are talking about. Are you proposing that my bot account (User:Stefan2bot) should be merged with my normal account? In any case, it isn't possible to merge accounts on Commons, as mw:Extension:UserMerge hasn't been installed on Commons. Also, there should be no problems at all to track my behaviour, as my user page on Commons clearly indicates what user name I am using on Wikipedia and as my Wikipedia user page clearly indicates what user name I am using on Commons. Also, w:User:Stefan4 and its associated talk page are redirects. I am not sure why you think that I am "plainly problematic". --Stefan4 (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• See also Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#SVG.27s_are_computer_software.3F Andy Dingley (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
• Another bizarre cite of NFCC#8 to justify deletion. en:WP:Non-free_content_review#File:Crowned_Portcullis.svg

Funny how all of these "Honest and entirely unavoidable mistakes" err on the side of deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like a formal admonition towards Stefan4 that signatures are not basic text and to not use this comparison to nominate files in the future. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• See my Wikipedia Talk page (top) regarding this user in his Wikipedia incarnation as Wikipedia: User Stefan2 where I express my frustration and a sense of stalking and harassment to the point I became nervous and lost confidence. For an on topic example of a Commons file of mine he tagged for deletion see Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mary_Ebbets_Hunt_-_Chilkat_blanket.jpg. This was a file I was proud of and mention on my Talk page here. In the early hours of 18 February 2014, editing late after what had begun as some late evening relaxed editing of Wikipedia trying to find a Fair Use image of the work of Janine Antoni which was being impeded by Stefan2, I was suddenly templated as well for the Chilkat blanket image I had uploaded weeks before. The ground for deletion was absurd - that it was a "sculpture". I felt violated and retired to bed defeated, but couldn't really sleep and got up early the next morning to note on my Talk page my frustrations and my intention to retire from editing for a while. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Stefan2 aka User:Stefan4 has now taken to refactoring my Talk page. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I had several disagreements with Stefan about copyright issues, and I mostly agree with the complains above, but I won't act as I would seem to be involved. However the changed mentioned above doesn't seem acceptable by any standard. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Yann, that refactoring was a bit a far out of left field. --TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The policy w:WP:NPA tells that you may not put personal attacks on pages on English Wikipedia. I found some personal attacks on a page, so I removed some of them. I realise that it may have been a bad idea, but the user has constantly been inserting personal attacks against me on various pages on English Wikipedia, and it is getting annoying. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I was expressing matter of factly a sense of harassment and stalking. That's not a personal attack and I did notify you on your Talk page at the time here at Wikipedia:User_talk:Stefan2#File:Eva_Hesse_-_Repetition_Nineteen_III_.280.1_MP_reduction.29.jpg. on 20 February (diff) A normal response would have been to express regret and to seek some resolution. You did not, neither did you defend yourself against my charge of harassment either directly or by pleading "personal attack" as you do now. It was quite plain that I was really upset over the Chilkat blanket, but you did nothing to smooth things over. Rather you justified your deletion tags on Eva Hesse. The overall effect you conveyed was of self-satisfaction. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not an administrator here, and don't recall any previous interaction with Stefan2/Stefan4/etc. However, I have looked at all the incidents linked here, and it is clear to me that there is a systematic problem with his deletion nominations. |While some of the nominations were correct, the error rate is far too high, which combined with the spurious arguments for deletion and combative interaction style mean that he is actively harming Commons by driving away contributors. I would strongly encourage whomever can do so here to topic ban Stefan2/Sefan4/etc. from nominating any file for deletion and from introducing any new arguments into any deletion discussion (he would be able to comment on/endorse/oppose any arguments presented by other people). He should be allowed to raise concerns about any image on the talk page of any administrator here, subject to that administrator's permission, who may then choose to nominate the image for deletion if they wish but would take full responsibility for the nomination and for ensuring that the nomination reason is accurate and relevant. Put simply, Stefan2/Stefan4/etc cannot be trusted to behave in a way that is in accordance with both policies and reality. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I certainly think he needs mentoring. As an ambassador for Wikipedia he sucks loads. [Magog the Ogre complains on my Talk page that that last struck out was a personal attack. I certainly have to remember that Stefan is not a native speaker of English and should be careful to express myself more straightforwardly and not in a way that a non-native speaker might interpret as a personal attack. What I meant is that it's plain he's disliked by many and that is not a good thing from someone who acts as an agent of our project.] Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hm, why? Users are complaining about a very small number of my total nominations, and most of my nominations result in deletion, suggesting that they are correct. Are you suggesting that I should list hundreds of {{Copyvio}} tags on an administrator's talk page? Sounds very cumbersome and just creates lots of extra work without any real benefit. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Support topic ban Denies a problem, so mentoring not a route. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Mooni singh raizada socks to block

Mooni singh raizada (talk · contribs) is blocked here for persistent copyright violations. He's got two active sockpuppets which also need to be blocked, and most of whose uploads here also need to be deleted: Arshad Roshan.a.a (talk · contribs) and Varsha Deshayi (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mooni singh raizada for further details. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll wait Commons' CU or enwiki CU to confirm accounts' relationships. — Revi_complaint? 12:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course that's an option, but a much easier way of confirming the relationship between the accounts is to note that they've uploaded the same copyright-infringing images here and posted them to the same articles on Wikipedia. Even if you don't consider this to be conclusive evidence of sockpuppetry, the copyvio images here (which seems to be all of the uploads save the self-portrait) should still be deleted. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Accounts blocked, uploads deleted. INeverCry 00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

They are back again as Ahem Modi (talk · contribs). Refer to contributions here and to the English Wikipedia SPI for evidence. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I blocked Ahem Modi. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Restoration of file names rejected with invalid reasons

Hello, user Marcus Cyron has rejected my restoration of files First Red Guards in Petrograd, fall 1917 palace square.jpg & Milan Nedić 1934.jpg and deleted my request. As reasons, he mentioned: "the file was for month under the english name. Maybe the renaming was not needed - but now it was for a longer time. And english is much more usable for the most people. And the theme is not one, were spanish is really needed" which directly contradict the rules (2. Files should NOT be renamed only because the filename is not English and/or is not correctly capitalized (Remember, Commons is a multilingual project, so there's no reason to favor English over other languages).) or "but now there IS a newer name - and the newer name is simply better", which I consider is simply his point of view and not really the case. I kept restoring my request as I consider it valid and the renaming incorrect as they do not meet any of the 7 rules. I consider user Marcus Cyron's reasoning incorrect and his actions in removing my request over and over again as unworthy of an admin. Hence I request the restoration of file names to their old names unless it can be clearly proved they meet at least 1 of the 7 possible criteria and the removal of user Marcus Cyron's powers to judge about file renaming as I consider he does not have the necessary knowledge on the allowed criteria and uses reasons that go explicitly against them. Thank you.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I performed the rename, as it was a clear case of criterion #1. Not sure why @Marcus Cyron: didn't notice that. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I wish some people with the powers to change things checked the rules more carefully before using them and did so more cautiously. From my point of view, I hope this is over now. Thank you again.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Blind action!

1. the renaming was months ago - how often we rename this? And when? After years? Why we need to re-rename, for what?
2. spanish language for an image of russion history? Why exactly? Russian - OK. Englis as central language that all understand - OK. But spanish? So the reuse will be complicated.
3. Rowanwindwhistler is maybe the uploader - but not the creator of the image. Why he should have the same right to name a file as a real creator has?
4. Commons is a collaborative projects. Why some people think, it has to go exactly and always the way they want?
5. Commons:File renaming is not law! It is not a policy!
6. btw - I often refuse requests for renaming becaus there are people who only want to change something in english - but this does not mean, that we should stop thinking. Using the brains is not an unimportant factor here. Blind following "rules" is at he end only one thing: blind.
7. File:MilanNedićEn1934.jpg is ab terrible name compared to File:Milan Nedić 1934.jpg. It is also misspelled - "en" must be in small letters. But it seems, it is better to have mistakes here than think for yourself...

For Commons such renamings are a bad move. Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand your point - you are allowed to make file moves to a different language[2] even though policy unequivocally says you aren't, but the uploader isn't allowed to have them moved back even though policy clearly says he can? And then, despite the fact that you're the one who performed the illegitimate rename in the first place, you are the one who gets to turn down the rename, to massively edit war over it, and then threaten the uploader with a block? And no, using CamelCase isn't a "spelling error." Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I simply wanted to state my support to Marcus. In my opinion, he acted correctly (except participation in edit-warring) and Spanish-language name is not justified. Taivo (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, okay then. I want to express my support Magog the Ogre’s position here. Marcus Cyron’s views and actions concerning translating filenames to English are damaging in several ways and would probably be problematic even in the English Wikipedia (or in any other English-only project), let alone in Commons, where English is a mere practicality. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The (linked) files are File:First Red Guards in Petrograd, fall 1917 palace square.jpg & File:Milan Nedić 1934.jpg. I think Charlik (talk · contribs) acted improperly in January 2014 by renaming the first file without citing one of the criteria of COM:RENAME and I don't think any of the criteria apply. Moreover, the file was uploaded in 2010 and changed in 2014. File names that have been stable for an extended period should not be changed unless one of the criteria clearly applies. On the second file, I don't think Marcus Cyron is interpreting criterion 3 correctly. Criterion 3 applies if the image is not of Milan Nedić or not 1934. It clearly does not apply to names with disputed capitalization or grammar (unless they engender confusion with another subject). Moreover, the file was uploaded in 2011 and the name was stable until it was renamed in 2014. I encourage Marcus Cyron to adhere to a strict interpretation of the rename criteria and to defer to the wishes of the uploader whenever possible. Commons is ill-served by alienating contributors.[3] I don't doubt that COM:RENAME could be improved. That is not an excuse for ignoring its guidance. Changes may be proposed at Commons talk:File renaming. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

AlJX

POV vandalism on File:Scheme of administrative division of Ukraine.png and File:Scheme of administrative division of Ukraine-2.png despite warning. No other useful contributions. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked by Denniss.[4]. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Fastily

There have been numerous problems with admin Fastily in past, such as overhasty closures against the majority opinion and many others including a proposed deadminship procedure.
A few hours ago, Fastily overhastily overruled a factually justified short-term block by Avenue. By this he completely ignored the main reason and the fact that one file where Fry1989 continued editwarring was actually first uploaded by Perhelion. Hence, in this case it was Fry1989 who broke the interaction ban.

As IMO Fastily trying to solve user problems introduced major imbalance to the Commons' community, I'd like to propose two possible measures:

• Fastily is not allowed anymore to use his tools for taking decisions concerning users problems, including the block/unblock function.
• Desysop Fastily for e.g. one month.

Any comments and suggestions, especially by uninvolved parties? --Leyo 07:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you don't tell Fastily about this ANU complaint, or try to resolve the issue with him directly. Oh yes, not done and not done. Seriously, if Jesus H Crist turned up, I doubt you'd be happy with him either, this is the most trivial complaint I've ever seen. Fastily and INC do what, 99 % of the admin work around here and the thrust of your complaint is that he gets the job done quickly rather than procrastinating until the end of time ? He sets the example that others should follow. That YOU should follow.

If you want an example of public disgrace, the Dynamic Duo of Yann and Fae, repeatedly nominating and then deleting my artwork example example, the 'reasons' if you want to call them that are so transparently awful, IT MAKES NEWS ON THE WEB ! Deleting the 1984 artwork as drawn by a 'non-notable artist' ??? Yeah, I'm sure THAT's a policy. Now, it gets so much public attention as a bad deletion that I wouldn't bother asking for UD. link to image, check where and how it is used the deletion is a public disgrace. I don't care, the image gets to be in two articles now, rather than zero, but obvious moral of the story is Fae + anything = public disgrace. Fastily is not about to get airtime and infamy on the web over doing his job zealously.

Seriously, "Fastily is too fast" is the best you can come up with ? he's SUPPOSED TO BE, everyone should be. Why, he's so quick he's even fast asleep. I suggest you all try to do half the work Fastily does in a month, for a month.

Clearly Leyo, if you can't bother to follow basic longstanding courtesy of discussing this with Fastily or so much as notifying (it's been nearly two hours so far), then YOU giving advice on User issues is bullshit. The community expects more, whats left of them do. Penyulap ☏ 09:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)