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
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: ~59
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-07: ~55

Other:

• Duplicates: ~6
• Advertisements/spam: ~12
• Personal photos/selfies: ~227
• Other speedy deletions: ~84
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~3
• Undeletion requests: ~10

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~4
• Interface admin: ~16
• Technical: ~1
• Template protection: ~12
• 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

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

User uploads files without a category.

L.s.

Mudangel (talk · contribs) uploads a lot of files and does not (as far as I know) give the file a category. I once asked it very friendly and the second time also friendly with a little warning. But I see only new files from him or her, without a category. Can a moderator take some action. Maybe a final warning or a short block or a good conversation (if it helps, I doubt it).. Kind regards, - Richardkw (talk) (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Last activity on 21 October 2014. I'm really curious, what should a message or even a user block bring us? --A.Savin 20:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Let me stress this again: Although i.m.o. categorization is the most important feature of Commons, there should no requirement for any uploader to add categories to file pages, let alone penalties for not doing so. This user’s files are now tagged for being uncategorized and will eventually be categorized by other users — as the filenames, description, source, and (for some) usage provide enough information about the subject to allow proper categorization. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree. No categorisation is better than bad categorisation, and we get plenty of the latter. Alan Liefting (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I said this because I sometimes work on this pages: Category:Media needing categories requiring human attention and there are thousands and thousands of files there without a category. If I work there it can take 5-10 minutes for only one file, to find a good category (sometimes quicker if I know what it is). Someone who uploads a lot and for a longer time, i.m.o knows more about that file than just some other user. So for him it's easier to add a category, because he knows what it is. I upload files here for years, not daily, but there were weeks that I uploaded a lot in the past, from 2010 until now with this account and from 2008-2010 with two other accounts. And I always try to find the category. I never leave a file without a good category. If this is how you 'guys' think about that, then I consider to stop working on that pages, because then it is carrying water to the sea, although the last time I already did not do much there, because of an other project I work on. Kind regards, - Richardkw (talk) (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, no reason for that, I think, speaking as someone who also often pokes at Category:Media needing categories requiring human attention (it is in my to-do list) but mantaining what I said above. I do know that often (and I hope that, eventually, always) a file which was left uncategorized for years suddenly, after the addition of a single category (even of a not very exact one) cascades down to rapid full categorization and some times even use in projects. And therefore I fully agree that if/when uploaders add even one or two not-too-bad categories that is much more useful and interesting than when they add none.

What I cannot agree is whether there should be any sanction for those who do not add categories upon uploading. It seems pointless: A creator of phine and phancy photography who sees Commons only as a vehicle for promotion of their art will likely not add a category — too busy sumitting to QI/FP/VI/whatever. What would Commons gain by driving away or blocking such a contributer? Nothing, and we’d lose good photos. So, I say, no penalties. (Should good categorization be a requirement for QI/FP/VI nomination? Maybe…)

-- Tuválkin ✉ 22:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Poor categorisation by a bot

User:Shizhao operates User:Panoramio upload bot and the bot adds all sorts of categories that files should not be in. I have asked for the categorisation to be reviewed (see User_talk:Shizhao#Categories) to no avail. As an example File:Finke River Gorge - panoramio.jpg was in Category:Landscapes and Category:2006. Both of these are high level categories that should contain few, if any files. Alan Liefting (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is another example. Alan Liefting (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Alan, we are all in this together. Bot writers usually do the best they can, but proper categorization is often not possible without human review (hence his bot applies {{Check categories}}), especially given the limitations of Panoramio "tags". Those of us who do not code bots can help with this, and I see that you do, congratulations. If you can suggest a better automated procedure, go ahead, but complaining alone is near useless. Some bot authors take it upon themselves to later fully categorize all their files manually, but others prefer to concentrate on the programming side, and relying on crowdsourced help. If they have done the best automated job they can, it's not reasonable to expect them to also do the manual work on thousands of files. --99of9 (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I would have thought that it would be very simple to program the bot to have a black list of categories that should not be added. It would include all of the meta categories. Alan Liefting (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

By "all of the meta categories", do you mean those in Category:Categories requiring temporary diffusion? --99of9 (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I mean Category:Meta categories. Alan Liefting (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

In that case, it would not have picked up either of the two categories you complained about, Category:2006 or Category:Landscapes, because neither is (currently or at the time of upload) a Meta Category. Fae's code would have caught one of the two if I'm reading it right. But I agree this is a useful ideal. The fact that Fae considers it "easy enough" should be read as coming from someone who has a lot of experience and expertise in bulk upload categorization, which most bulk uploaders do not yet have. A code sharing page may be of help here. --99of9 (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I previously offered to help with workshops for bot-writers, but local chapter politics have made this unlikely to ever happen now.

Based on the example categories of concern, I have changed the generic diffusion check to:

re.search(r"\{\{(categori[zs]e|catdiffuse|metacat|catcat|yearcategory)\}\}", cat_page, flags=re.IGNORECASE)

It's probably the sort of tip that should go on a best practices for batch uploaders page, especially considering what might happen if the powerful GLAMwiki toolset starts to be used by lots of less experienced contributors. --Fæ (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if stuff like this is built into GLAMWiki Toolset (@Multichill: ), because by design it is intended to primarily help less experienced contributors. PS Please don't take this as chapter politics: for a distributed global project good documentation is probably better than workshops anyway. Please go ahead and share whatever code snippets you think are helpful.--99of9 (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

As I was on the Steering Committee, I can give a good answer. No, the GWT has no automated category checking or finding. The presumption is that the user does this when they prepare the XML input files. Hence the need for training materials and manuals (which are already quite reasonable, but are not intended to provide a generic guide to Commons best practices). --Fæ (talk) 06:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is easy enough. Any bot writer can add a category check. As an example I am currently uploading some files from the Miami University Libraries Flickrstream and I use the Flickr tags to automatically provide a potential list of Commons categories. There are two types of category check, against a "hand maintained" array and by the bot double checking each prospective category for diffusion notices (it then remembers the check so that the category wiki-source only has to be read once, effectively an on-the-fly white list and black list).

My example "manual black list" array looks like:

nocats=['India', 'England', 'Africa', 'Europe', 'France',
		'Great Britain', 'China', 'Germany', 'Economics', 'Journalism',
		'Authors', 'Teachers', 'Digital', 'University',
		'Family', 'Families', 'Events',
		'Organisations', 'Students', 'Reading',
		]

The general "diffusion" check looks like this.

cat_page = wikipedia.Page(site, "Category:" + cat).get()
if re.search(r"\{\{([Cc](ategorize|atDiffuse)|MetaCat|CatCat)\}\}", cat_page):
  nocats.append(cat)
  print "Category check of", cat, "showed diffusion category so ignoring suggestion."

Working out how to do this for different bot scripting languages is not rocket science. bot-writers should be willing responsibly to improve their bot uploads and invest some time doing their homework, I am not surprised that they get flak back from other members of the community. Saying this, I agree there are mass uploads where categorization is itself such a tricky debate that bucket categories are unavoidable (I often used them, it can help when semi-automating later housekeeping such as mass categorization/recategorization; e.g. Category:Images from DoD uploaded by Fæ), however this is not the same as dumping thousands of files in a high level parent category and walking away. --Fæ (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that Fæ. Alan Liefting (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

If you would like to quote a simple real example of this in action, you may wish to try File:Pathway and stone bridge on Western College Campus n.d. (3195981597).jpg. This was a Flickr upload and the Flickr tags that match Commons categories included Trees, Roads, Nature and Landscapes. These all failed the automated diffusion category check but the category of Bridges got through. Not perfect, but a lot better than category dumping or no categories at all for a batch upload of thousands of images. By the way, I have done generic testing for parent-child category relationships when category matching, most notably for my HABS batch upload, it's a nightmare and massively processor/transaction expensive so would not expect this of a batch uploader unless the types of category made it simple to solve. --Fæ (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons has declining editor numbers yet there is a rising number of uploaded files. Obviously with this situation the backlog will only get worse. Editors must keep this in mind, especially if they do mass uploads. Alan Liefting (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually that's not a foregone conclusion, exactly because of automated tools. Many Bot requests we receive are to help with the admin of one or more of the backlog items. --99of9 (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Point taken that bots can help with the backlog but careless uploading by a bot creates extra, unneeded work. As well as the poor categorisation in this case there are also numerous files that have been put up for deletion. Alan Liefting (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

 Comment In general, I have never understood, why Commons needs the mass upload of almost bad categorized photos in bad quality from Panoramio and Flickr. Instead of raising the quality of Commons it is watering the content. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more! Ten million good to excellent images is far better than 24 million piss poor to excellent ones. Alan Liefting (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons? Commons surely doesn't. The only ones who need it, are the uploaders of such stuff, because they can easily jack up their upload count this way. --A.Savin 16:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

So if no serious Commoners likes this behaviour, why does Commons facilitate this with authorizing tools like Flickr-to-Commons or FlickreviewR? --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

They are useful if people use them wisely for a limited range of uploads and do all home works like meaningful filenames, categories, etc. So it is ultimately not the problem of tools; but people who use them carelessly. Jee 17:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. The tools can be useful but just use them correctly. Quality not quantity. Alan Liefting (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You can obviously have both. However, one’s notion of quality may not be another’s. You may think that this particular locomotive or insect or whatever is best covered in Commons by one or two excellent photographs that made it to QI/FP/VI/etc, but I would not be content with less than a few hundred images of each, covering all possible aspects of the subject — and ready to accept as good even grainy misframed amateur shots. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

+5. :) Jee 16:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Alan Liefting: why you don't ask Shizhao on his talkpage before reporting here (COM:DISPUTE)? --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I have. See the opening post. Alan Liefting (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh. True :-). - And of course Shizhao should try to fix this bot issue. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not so much in dispute with the editor. I just want to get his/her editing improved. Alan Liefting (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Should we ban mass uploads? Each image needs to be carefully reviewed. Alan Liefting (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No, we should not. Yes, it does. (And how can you carefully review an image before uploading it?) -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, let me guess... Maybe by having a look at the image and considering if it can be in scope for Commons/Wikipedia? --A.Savin 20:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

How is «having a look», especially a look had by a single user, the prospective uploader, is anything like a careful review, which in a wiki environment is also expected to be done by multiple users? -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I already fixed year and meta categories problem in script--shizhao (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:AntanO ignoring COM:Renaming

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon. Looking at AntanO's current contribs, I don't see any systematical against-the-policy renames of files here. Time to move on. Thanks --A.Savin 21:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

---

I warned him, yet he refuses to acknowledge, insisting that the new name is better than the old one — which is exactly against policy: The old name needs to be wrong for a renaming to be acceptable, and simple improvement from acceptable to smashing-brilliant (if it could be agreed upon) is explicitly listed as not enough to rename. (Yes, it is a bit counter-intuitive — that’s probably why there’s a policy in the first place).

The matter here is not this one renaming, again, but the prospect that this user has a flawed view on the relevant policy, and yet he has file-mover rights.

-- Tuválkin ✉ 17:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

 Comment If user Tuválkin could assume good faith of the fellow participants in this project, many edit wars created by user Tuválkin could be avoided. This is another of same. File was not described in Esperanto, there was no indication that upload name was anything other than letters and numbers. That is not the real problem. The real problem is that Tuválkin went instantly to claims of "ignoring" and other name calling instead of patiently working with the other editors to solve the situation. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I’m frankly disappointed, Ellin Beltz. Your assessment of the situation seems to me to be off in most accounts. I hesitate about listing and rebutting them all to defend my position. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

 Comment I do not understand why Tuválkin take it as serious issue and bring here. Please look at my user’s talk page and see the weight of issue and the “temper”. I cannot accept false blame which is not my intension to breach the policy. I would like to ask admins to warn him for accusing me like “user has a flawed view on the relevant policy” and creating unnecessary issue here and in my talk page. Still he comes to my talk page and disrupting me while reporting here. --Anton^Talk 18:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Bulleted replies, to make it swift:

• That one renaming itself is not very important, as said, and I never asked you to undo it. Yet the matter of file renaming, in general, is serious (there is a policy about it, after all), and the response I expected from you (something like «Oh, I see. Okay, notice taken.») never come — instead you kept explaining why the new filename is better, defending a concept (file renaming for filename improvement, instead of for filename correction only) that is contrary to the policy. That’s why I brought the matter to AN/U. It is serious and necessary.
• Temper? Well, you repeatedly characterized the filename of my choice as meanigless and incorrect, even after its meaning was explained. That ruffled my feathers. I was not impolite, though, I think — or was I?
• You would like admins to bully me so that I just accept your renaming action against official policy? That doesn’t sound too good.
• «Unnecessary issue», you complain, both here and in your talk page. Well, should I have come here first, instead? (I don’t think so.) Should I have kept quiet about the matter, even though I felt (and feel) this is important and should be addressed? (I don’t think so either.)

-- Tuválkin ✉ 18:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

 Comment I leave it to Admin. I don’t want to waste the time to give one by one answer. If admin ask for more clarification, I can. Tuválkin forcibly and logically tries to accuse me regarding to policy. I never say a single word against policy. Do I? If so, where? No logic please! Again I request admins to give him a warning or block for false accuse.--Anton^Talk 19:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting developments meanwhile on User:AntanO’s talk page, where this user, encouraged by the apparent fruitlessness of my complaint here, now gloats and tries to insult me («Circular reasoning, hur hur!»). I expect that he’ll now feel emboldened to further overlook COM:Renaming; sooner or later he’ll affect filenames chosen by someone with more clout than me, and then we’ll see how it goes down. -- Tuválkin ✉ 06:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Admin needs to take action as the user continues his arbitrary talk on my talk page while complaining here. You may check "logs". I never attack anyone, false complain, etc. --Anton^Talk 07:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Anton, just ignore and move on. An admin already commented above and this thread only needs a speedy close now. :) Jee 07:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Is that post on AntanO's talk page some kind of early April Fool? Tuválkin uploads a file he names "4volboj4krucoj.jpg", taken from another website. To everyone here that doesn't speak the constructed language Esperanto, those look like random letters and numbers. The photographer himself (who presumably doesn't speak that language either) requests a rename to something sensible. That might help the file be used, which it currently isn't on any Wikimedia project. That request is granted and the person who does it gets a heap of policy shit dumped on him by Tuválkin -- who doesn't explain that the filename is actually meaningful (to him). Our rename policy has a measure of sense to it but at the same time we really need to apply an ounce of common sense. Why is Tuválkin uploading other people's files in Esperanto? Does this personal quirk serve Commons in any way? How does it come about that some random uploader has a greater say in deciding the Commons filename than the photographer himself? Tuválkin doesn't own the file and nether does Commons. I can appreciate that a file in-use on dozens of Wikimedia projects can be disruptive if changed without very strong reason, but I don't see any good reason here to disrespect the photographer's wishes. Nor do I see any purpose for Commons users to use constructed languages, especially written with random numbers and no spaces, that appear for all the world like a secure password, when uploading other people's images. If he wants to do that with his own images, that's up to him. That, combined with an over-rigid application of policy that discourages any change to the original name, seems here to be little more than a game where Tuválkin can choose deeply unhelpful names that please him in some way, and then bully other editors into retaining that madness. I request he stops this silliness now and gets a clue. -- Colin (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for recentering the issue, Colin, and speaking clearly. I will ASAP offer my answers to your questions (to the actual ones, not to your rhethorics). -- Tuválkin ✉ 09:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• I almost never use spaces in filenames (in any language), because I think they are more trouble than help (especially when used in wikitext). To split words I favour brackets, dashes, camel case, or digits, as in this case. It is debatable, I concede, but there’s nothing against it in COM:Renaming nor in COM:File naming. -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• When I uploaded those 600-something CC-BY and CC-BY-SA images from Fotopedia, that artistic photography website was about to close down in a few days. I could not clog the uploading pipeline (I used Vicuña) with try-again errors caused by duplicated filenames, so I chose exceptionally whimsical filenames, to be sure they were not yet in use. -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

There’s an unteresting exception to this: Somewhene between the 300th and 400th upload I was franticly pumping through into Commons from Fotopedia’s siking ship, Yann (an admin) found cause to change one (or several, I don’t remember) of my filenames to something more to his liking; discussion ensued (pretty much like this one, minus the drama) and I saw that I’d either waste hours argueing about the merits of Portuguese vs. English and camel case vs. spaces, or I’d use that time to upload more. So I dropped the matter and let about 100 photos come to Commons with filenames like Fotopedia-3mP7RD8ys1o.jpg or Fotopedia-79f280d3d6652b57fa201215f225e38a.jpg — which are clearly against policy. These however apparently pleased Yann, as they were left alone, and some are still unrenamed… -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Tuvalkin, your interpretation is nowhere near the reality. I wanted to help reviewing and renaming these files, but I left after your invocated spurious arguments. So you are plainly wrong here, and I agree 100% with Colin. Yann (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Yann. The reality can be ascertained in logs and diffs, if necessary, and I don’t remember every detail of what was discussed in August — but the gist of the matter is that you end up improving (according to your opinion) one of my “whimsical” filenames, and none of the ~100 "Fotopedia-gobbledygook" filenames I felt forced to generate instead (seven months later there are still 50 of those filenames; I think all the renaming action that reduced that number was made by me — and reinciding in my favourite filenaming style, I’m afraid: whimsical, no spaces, no-default-English).

I’m sorry if my riposting back then chased you away from license reviewing the images I was uploading from dying Fotopedia, risking their later deletion over a 404 source, but I’m glad your opposition to my filenaming did not chase me away from uploading the rest: The current stash of mostly useful photos is something we all can enjoy, and I hope some time soon the announced total of 22 thousand photos with acceptable license is extracted from “purgatory” and joins those here in Commons.

-- Tuválkin ✉ 23:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Fotopedia had a po-mo / hipster / artiste outlook and things like «Look at the pretty waterfall!» could not be “ruined” by mundane data like location and date — so in most cases I had to come up for a filename with whatever the image suggested and be done with it: There was not much time to think a lot about each — the faster I’d upload, the more I could save. (Some may want to read the photographer’s opinion about my role in uploading from Fotopedia to Commons.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• To stress again that I never asked for the renaming to be undone, just for policy to be upheld futurely. Colin, Ellin, Jkadavoor, and AntanO need to pay attention to this fine distinction. -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• Upon re-reading Colin’s comment carefully I see about half of it is dedicated to criticize COM:Renaming: «a heap of policy shit» ^{(elegant word choice, by the way!)}, «over-rigid application of policy» (admitting that I was right in my original criticism of AntanO), «policy has a measure of sense to it but» (…), etc. In short, Colin doesn’t like COM:Renaming. That’s cool, but it is still a mandatory policy — changes to it should be discussed and maybe approved after vote, not sneaked in. -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• I’m accused of bullying AntanO, because I brought him to AN/U — yet I did so after a long discussion in his talk page, and I’m the one against whom «admin action» is being called for, while all I am saying is: Respect the Renaming policy. -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• We also learn from Colin’s comment that he doesn’t like the fact that Esperanto is used in Commons, and also that he is very, very angry — to the point of using some vulgar expressions (in English, of course). Two things about Colin that are utterly irrelevant to this discussion, though, and which I’d prefer never to have learned. -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sick and tired of "it isn't against policy" being used as an argument to do something unhelpful/unpleasant. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. When will this sink in on Commons? The fact that we have no policy against hard2readf1len@mes doesn't mean it's a good idea. And people deliberately choosing filenames that disobey the standard rules of language construction (spaces between words being fundamental) then they should certainly not go around telling off people that they have done something wrong, let alone go to this noticeboard, because they didn't recognise the gibberish was actually meaninful.
• I accept the initial upload was done in haste and don't wish to detract from your efforts to save those images. All reasonable people would concede that temporary filenames might be justified in that situation, whether random Photopedia names or "exceptionally whimsical filenames". However, those names should not then be set in stone. If that guideline page needs updated because a few Commons Admins have no clue and are unable to recognise exceptions to the rules, then I guess we need to do that. Seriously, one shouldn't have to write policy/guidlines to prevent idiocy. Those should be regarded as temporary names. It does not serve Commons to retain them rigidly. Note that that Commons:File renaming is a guideline which "most editors agree with in principle and generally follow" -- that means that only the principles count, not the rigid application of the words if they harm Commons, and that there is scope to disregard the words if the result is a benefit to Commons. In the case of this file-rename, one can be absolutely sure that Commons is better off with the new name.
• You went to tell AntanO that he did something against policy, something wrong. The fact is, he didn't break any policy, only a guideline that mostly applies. That's a big difference from thinking "mandatory policy" whatever that means. It doesn't make sense to apply it here, for your temporary "whimsical filename". This is a vital point. It means you were wrong and AntanO was right (even if the photographer picked the wrong "rename reason", who cares). Not only should AntanO not need to revert his change but should be free to do such a rename again when faced with "whimsical filenames" chosen in haste. Doing so is not against any guideline because our guidelines do not say they must be obeyed without exception.
• The "a heap of policy shit" is not Commons:File renaming which is a mostly reasonable guideline but what you dumped on AntanO's page. That was unnecessary and makes obeying rules more important than improving Commons. Perhaps Wikipedia's "Ignore all rules" needs to be copied here, thought that is a much misunderstood rule. Which of you two was improving Commons at that point? You need to get the idea of "mandatory policy" out of your head and think of the bigger picture - you're not a computer program.
• You say "all I am saying is: Respect the Renaming policy". This is exactly where you are going wrong. You are over-rigidly applying a guildeline and claiming it is more forceful and more powerful than it is. Really, instead of arguing with AntanO and taking him here, you should be saying (in a mellow voice) "Yea that was a whimsical name I chose in haste. Thanks for making it more useful to Commons and our re-users. Btw, it does mean something in Esperanto :-)".
• I don't have a problem with you using Esperanto but I do with you enforcing its use on other people's images. Perhaps you've only used it for your hasty Fotopedia work, but if you are regularly using it for uploading other people's images, I suggest you are more interested in proving some point than about serving Commons. I'm angry about your attitude towards guideline/policy enforcement and this leading you to rebuke other other people's perfectly sensible actions.
• Let me repeat: COM:Renaming is just a guideline. Grasp that essential point and this whole storm would have never have happened. -- Colin (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

(Colin, I notice you replied the same number of bulleted points as I had above; I presume that’s a one-to-one reply, yes? Do you mind if your replies are signed and date-stamped individually and interspersed into mine, to enblable clear subthreading. Me or others may want to reply in turn to some of those points. Thanks you in advance.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no wish to continue this conversation. You clearly aren't getting it. -- Colin (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright, since you don’t enable a straightfoward pont-by-point reply, I’ll address a couple of the key issue you raise in a restarted fashion: (-- Tuválkin ✉ 21:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC))

• About guidelines vs. policy, and the confusion I supposedly displayed about it: Well, excuse me for misusing the terminology, but at the top of COM:Renaming it says that it «is considered an official guideline on Wikimedia Commons.» Surely doesn’t look like a private musing, and I’m taking it seriously. I called it a policy instead of an official guideline and I apologize for that — but that terminological faux pas doesnt’s change a yot off my point. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Colin wants COM:Renaming changed. Fair enough. Go discuss it. But don’t blame me for following it as it is now, instead of preemptively toeing any future version. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Spaceless filenames are not necessarily unreadable gobbledygook. Even the example at hand would be readily understandable by English-speakers should it be 4domes4crosses.jpg instead. It is trivial to find thousands of perfectly readable spaceless filenames in Commons, only a few of which devised by me (either as the uploader or as file mover). -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• My preference and use of filenames without spaces is not a guilty pleasure I trolishly try to sneak in into Commons. On the contrary, it is my unabashed view concerning filenames, that spaces (the character U+0020) are a source of trouble in wikitext or any other mark up “language” which should be avoided — and Mediawiki agrees, having spaces default to underscores (U+005F) in urls since day one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Colin says that he doesn’t «wish to detract from your efforts to save those images» from dying Fotopedia into Commons. Frankly, it doesn’t show. His whole tirade is full of low intensity snide and snark about images «taken from another website» and so on, the kind of skilled wordsmithing a fluent non-native speaker like me can detect but never match — and this is (also) where Esperanto feels so right. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• The wording of §2 and §3 of Which files should be renamed? is problematic and inflammatory when applied (even with the best intentions) to another language, one the filerenamer don’t understand. I don’t expect typical native English speakers to empathically understand this, but at least do not dismiss the issue when raised by others. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

One more example

One more example, this time with nothing to do with me (phew!): Not a file I “dared” to upload, nor a filename I chose, nor even in a language I know: In this edit, user AntanO decides that a photo showing two Hungarian high school badges is better named with English File:Fonyod, high school badge.jpg instead of the original Hungarian File:Karikas-kituzo.jpg — from Karikás kitűzők, given by the uloader/photographer also as the file description. Note that this time nobody else requested the renaming — this is 100% AntanO’s abuse of the renaming tool, clearly against policy («2. Files should NOT be renamed only because the filename is not English»). Am I being over-rigid again? Colin, Ellin Beltz, Jkadavoor — your take on this?… -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC) ^{(redacted: -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC))}

If the original filename is sensible in Hungarian, then I agree it should not have been renamed and would consider changing back if that is allowed. But before you call this "abuse" please consider that he just didn't know about the guideline. Hanlon's razor. A friendly post on a clearly applicable image would be fine, unlike the above nonsense. -- Colin (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hanlon’s razor applies to User:Globetrotter19, who requested the rename (I was wrong about it having been AntanO’s initiative), as he may not know the relevant policy, but there’s no such exemption for AntanO: When he was given the file mover’s right by User:Alan, he should have deep knowledge of both Commons:File renaming and Commons:File naming. A friendly post on his talk page is how this started, a simple call to pay more attention next time — and it mutated into this shrieking fest. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Having read the article en:Hanlon's razor, I find most of its specific wordings unncessarily offensive — I’ll assume Colin here meant, instead of stupidity, mere ignorance or just unawareness. -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. -- Colin (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, Tuválkin, why are you pinging me again and again? I just incidentally saw your preach on his talk page while processing one of his friendly request. Nothing personal here other than we all are volunteers working together for something good. Not a self declared warrior. ;) Jee 12:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I will stop pinging Jkadavoor, then. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, false claim by Tuválkin. Even a kid would tell by looking at the file history that who requested for renaming. If Tuválkin digging the record of me, I can do the same too. But, it would not damage me. As Jeevan told me to ignore and move on, I request Colin. Please, don’t stress by taking your valuable time. It’s better to silent to those who say earth is flat. I respect your righteousness for standing against false claim. Even though, you do not know me. I urge admin again to deal with Tuválkin who already condemn four editors. Tuválkin should get strong warning for false claim, unfaithful behavior and using AN/U to threatening users. Please make a full stop to move on. I don’t like to be in mess. --Anton^Talk 12:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the claim that this rename is 100% User:AntanO’s work is wrong: He merely accepted a request from User:Globetrotter19 — I should have been more careful in my record digging and I apologize to AntanO for this mistake. It is still however against policy and possibly problematic: The old filename, which AntanO replaced, was "Karikas-kituzo.jpg" matching the file’s «Description : Magyar: Karikás kitűzők» (minus diacriticals and plural ending), yet both AntanO and Globetrotter19 found Hungarian language to be worth of §2 under file renaming policy: «completely meaningless». This may have been caused either by haste or by misguided anglophilia, but either way it is problematic and requires, at least, a reassurement from AntanO that he will pay more attention to these renaming requests in the future. (For the rest of AntanO’s comment above, devoided of any justification as it is, I have no further replies.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jeevan for your input and constructive approach. I am sorry that you are caught by crossfire :) This issue should stop rather than affecting others too. Therefore I ping a few administrators here. (I hope it is not against the policy.) @Hedwig in Washington: , @EugeneZelenko: , @Fastily: --Anton^Talk 13:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Unless the hitherto uninvolved admins you pinged are fluent in Hungarian ^{(which are not, trusting the Babel boxes in their user pages)} or have any other specific interest in this matter (such as Yann and Alan, which I pinged above), it is called canvassing. Considering that one of the three pinged admins is the one who ever blocked me it looks pretty much like canvassing alright. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, Tuválkin, perhaps before you reprimand others for not having a "deep knowledge" of our guidelines, and make a fool of yourself on this noticeboard, you might want to first familiarise yourself with the purpose and limitations of what a "guideline" is. Less "mandatory policy" and more "generally good advice". To me, that is the most outrageous mistake, and not whether someone knows #2 or #5 of our renaming guideline off-by-heart. -- Colin (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, Colin, speaking as someone who was once sternly warned by an admin for canvassing (a notion I had never before encountered, to be honest, and which now I admit is one of those counter-intuitive good things that needs to be covered by policy — pretty much like improvement-renaming, really), I replied to AntanO’s parenthetical wondering whether his pinging is against policy. I refrained to classify it as mandatory or not: just linked to the relevant page. As for making a fool of myself, I’m out of fingers toes counting your insults in this thread — I’m sure there’s a policy against that? Or is it just a guideline? -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Tuválkin, it appears there is no policy against making a fool of yourself. I won't be continuing this conversation, though, as it the key point has been made quite clearly and it is obvious you aren't getting it. -- Colin (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

You’re really, really pushing hard on that insult shtick, aren’t you? Trying to egg me on to reply in kind and end up blocked? That’s cute. -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No, just having a little joke. After all, this whole post rather boomeranged on you. Lighten up! :-) -- Colin (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing? Another joke? See: Commons:Offsite discussion Trying all the logic? I would like stay cool as I described on my user page @ en.wiki w:User:AntanO --Anton^Talk 03:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, I once did what you did above, I pinged a handful of uninvolved editors to ask their opinion about something, and I was sternly scolded by an admin (user:Beria, if I recall correctly) for something that, I learned, is called canvassing. You wondered if that kind of pinging is against policy and I shared my insight with you. If you cannot be cool even with that, well, then be uncool. -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't care what you say. --Anton^Talk 21:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

user:Meidmanna

I noticed this user uploading lot's of airplane photos reminding me of the banned user User:Russavia. I just noticed File:5 Jul 2010 (4770279001).jpg. Sockpuppet? Multichill (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I see Meidmanna (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has been blocked by @INeverCry: for "Violating WMF ban". Could someone explain how this was determined, and why this was not an Office action?

Please keep in mind that the community has been told nothing of why the original Office action was taken, and there is no instruction from the WMF, nor expectation that community elected trusted users should take responsibility for performing actions on behalf of the WMF Office when they have had no Commons policy based evidence for taking action. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Fæ -- Please don't say that you have no idea why Russavia was expelled, because I don't think I would believe that... AnonMoos (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Fae. Did a CU take place? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

My thought exactly. INeverCry is a checkuser, so I assumed it took place, but it is costumary to report the result of a CU-action (with those nifty icons!), and that didn’t happend in this thread. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

INeverCry is much trustworthy than any banned user here. BTW, do we need prior permissions from every Joe and John for a communty selected CU/Admin to do his day to day jobs to protect this project and its volunteers from ToU violations against them? Do you need evidence of brutal attack against me from this very banned user? Not that I had forwarded it to the respective authorities. So no banned user MUST NOT HAVE edited here because it will affect the safety of the users here. Jee 13:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Nobody has said a dicky-bird about INeverCry being trustworthy or not, apart from you, and this thread is not about whether Russavia made a "brutal attack" against you. You have a track record of making serious allegations and then not doing anything about it or the allegations being demonstrably false on investigation. If you wish to make a complaint to "respective authorities" then get on with it, rather than using Wikimedia Commons as a platform for you to publish defamatory allegations to create pointless drama, attack other good faith contributors and repeatedly take discussions off-topic.

"Good faith" and being mellow, is more than wrapping attacks with smilies or making an apology afterwards. Defamatory public allegations are damaging and stick in the memories of our community members, even if there are apologies afterwards when they turn out to be built on hearsay and opinions rather than verifiable facts. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)