Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Shortcut: COM:AN/U

Community Portal

Village Pump (copyright & proposals)

Help Desk (Upload help)

Administrators' Noticeboard (vandalism, user problems, blocks and protections)

Graphics Lab

Administrator's assistance
Vandalism ( | watch)	User problems ( | watch)	Blocks and protections ( | watch)	Other ( | watch)
English: Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard. Suomi: Raportoi ilmeisistä vandalismitapauksista. Muut estopyynnöt jätettäköön estojen ja suojauksen ilmoitustaululle. Italiano: Segnala qui le utenze responsabili di vandalismi palesi. Richieste di blocco per qualsiasi altra ragione vanno effettuate nella sezione Politiche di blocco e protezione. 日本語: 明白な荒らし利用者の報告所。それ以外を理由とするブロック依頼はブロックと保護へ。 한국어: 문서 훼손을 저지른 사용자를 신고하는 곳입니다. 다른 이유로 인한 차단 요청은 차단 및 보호 요청 문서에 남겨주세요. മലയാളം: ഉപയോക്താക്കളുടെ ഉറപ്പായ വാൻഡലിസത്തിനെക്കുറിച്ച് ഇവിടെ അറിയിക്കുക. മറ്റ് കാരണങ്ങൾക്ക് ഉപയോക്താക്കളെ തടയാനുള്ള അപേക്ഷകൾ തടയലുകളും സംരക്ഷണങ്ങളും എന്ന താളിലാണ് അറിയിക്കേണ്ടത്. Svenska: Rapportera användare för tydliga tecken på vandalism. Begäran av blockering för någon annan anledning ska rapporteras på anslagstavlan för blockeringar och skydd. Українська: Повідомляйте про користувачів, що явно займаються вандалізмом. Запити щодо блокування з будь-якої іншої причини повинні бути повідомлені на дошку для оголошень щодо блокування та захисту.	English: Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes. Suomi: Raportoi ylläpitäjän väliintulon vaativa käyttäjän ongelmallinen toiminta. Käytä käyttäjäongelmien ilmoitustaulua jollei ylläpitäjää tarvita. Italiano: Segnala qui eventuali conflitti con altri utenti che richiedano l'intervento di un amministratore. In caso un amministratore non sia necessario si consiglia di utilizzare la sezione Risoluzione dei conflitti. 한국어: 관리자의 개입이 필요한 분쟁을 해결하는 곳입니다. 관리자의 개입이 필요하지 않다면 분쟁 해결 게시판을 이용하시기 바랍니다. മലയാളം: മറ്റൊരു ഉപയോക്താവുമായുള്ള തർക്കത്തിൽ കാര്യനിർവ്വാഹകർ ഇടപെടണമെങ്കിൽ ഇവിടെ അറിയിക്കുക. കാര്യനിർവാഹകരുടെ സഹായം ആവശ്യമില്ലെങ്കിൽ തർക്കങ്ങളുടെ നോട്ടീസ് ബോർഡിൽ ആണ് ഇക്കാര്യം അറിയിക്കേണ്ടത്. Svenska: Rapportera tvister med användare som kräver hjälp av en administratör. Använd anslagstavlan för användarproblem om ingen administratörshjälp behövs. Українська: Повідомляйте про суперечки з користувачами, котрі потребують допомоги адміністратора. Подальші кроки показані на сторінці щодо вирішення суперечок.	English: Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here. Italiano: Utilizza questa sezione per segnalare problemi non riferibili al vandalismo. Qui vanno anche le richieste di protezione e sprotezione pagine. 한국어: 문서 훼손 관련 관리자 요청에 맞지 않는 차단 요청이나 문서의 보호/보호 해제 요청을 이곳에서 할 수 있습니다. മലയാളം: വാൻഡലിസം നോട്ടീസ്ബോർഡിൽ അനുചിതമായ അപേക്ഷകൾ ഇവിടെ നൽകാം. ഒരു താളിന്റെ സംരക്ഷിക്കാനുള്ള/സംരക്ഷണം മാറ്റാനുള്ള അപേക്ഷകളും ഇവിടെ നൽകാവുന്നതാണ്. Svenska: Rapporteringar som inte passar anslagstavlan för vandalism kan rapporteras här. Begäran för sidskydd eller borttagning av sidskydd kan också begäras här. Suomi: Tällä sivulla voit kuuluttaa vandalismin ilmoitustaululle sopimattomat ilmoitukset. Tällä ilmoitustaululla voit myös pyytää sivun suojaamista tai suojauksen purkua. 中文（简体）‎: 这里可以报告不适合破坏行为布告栏的报告。这里亦可以请求页面保护/解除保护。 Українська: Повідомлення, що не підходять для дошки для оголошень щодо вандалізму можна залишити тут. Запити щодо встановлення чи зняття захисту зі сторінок також можна запитати тут.	English: Other reports that require administrator assistance (i.e. requested moves/renames) which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed here. Suomi: Tällä ilmoitustaulla voit kuuluttaa muille ilmoitustauluille sopimattomat ylläpitäjän huomion vaativat tehtävät ja ilmoitukset, esimerkiksi suojattujen sivujen siirrot. Pyynnöt sivuhistorian yhdistämisestä tai jakamisesta tulee tehdä täällä. Italiano: Segnalazioni varie, non ricomprese tra le precedenti, che richiedano l'intervento di un amministratore (spostamenti, ridenominazioni, etc.); Se il tuo problema riguarda l'unione o la separazione delle cronologie pagine, allora puoi rivolgerti qui. 한국어: 다른 관리자 요청 문서에 맞지 않는 일반적인 관리에 대해 관리자의 도움을 요청하는 곳입니다. മലയാളം: മറ്റ് മൂന്ന് നോട്ടീസ് ബോർഡുകളിലും ചേരാത്ത അപേക്ഷകൾ (പേര് മാറ്റൽ തുടങ്ങിയവ) ഇവിടെ നൽകാം. നാൾവഴിയിൽ മാറ്റം വരുത്തി നാൾവഴി ഭാഗിക്കാനോ യോജിപ്പിക്കാനോ ഉള്ള അപേക്ഷകൾ നൽകാൻ ഇവിടെ ഞെക്കുക. Svenska: Andra rapporteringar som kräver administratörshjälp (t.ex. begärda flyttningar/namnbyten) som inte passar i någon av de föregående anslagstavlorna kan rapporteras här. Begäran för sammanslagning eller delning av historik ska lämnas in här. Українська: Інші повідомлення, що потребують допомоги адміністратора (наприклад, запити на переміщення/перейменування), які не підходять до жодної з трьох попередніх дощок оголошень можуть бути залишені тут. Запити щодо об'єднання або роз'єднання історії мають бути зроблені тут.
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45
English: 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. العربية: هذا هو المكان حيث يمكن للمستخدمين التواصل مع الإداريين، أو الإداريين مع بعضهم البعض. يمكنك الإبلاغ عنه التخريب، المستخدمين الذين يسببون مشاكل، أو أي شيء آخر يحتاج للتدخل من قبل إداري. Azərbaycanca: Bu bölüm istifadəçilərin idarəçilərlə ünsiyyət qura biləcəklər bir yerdir. Bir idarəçiyə vandalizmle müdaxilə ehtiyacı, problemli istifadəçilər ya da başqa bir şey ifadə edəbilərsiniz. Català: Aquest és el lloc destinat a que els usuaris puguin comunicar-se amb els administradors, o viceversa. Podeu notificar edicions vandàliques, reclamar l'atenció sobre usuaris problemàtics, o indicar qualsevol altre assumpte que requereixi la intervenció d'un administrador. Česky: Tato stránka slouží uživatelům ke komunikaci se správci zde na Commons, nebo ke komunikaci správců mezi sebou. Můžete zde nahlásit vandalismus, problematické uživatele nebo další záležitosti, které mohou díky svým pravomocem vyřešit jen správci. Deutsch: Diese Seite ist für Gespräche mit Administratoren. Du kannst hier Probleme melden, die den Eingriff eines Administrators nötig machen, zum Beispiel Vandalismus oder Probleme mit anderen Benutzern. Ελληνικά: Αυτή είναι μια σελίδα στην οποία οι χρήστες μπορούν να επικοινωνήσουν με διαχειριστές, ή οι διαχειριστές με κάποιον άλλο. Μπορείτε να αναφέρετε βανδαλισμούς, χρήστες που προκαλούν προβλήματα, ή οτιδήποτε άλλο χρειάζεται την παρέμβαση ενός διαχειριστή. Esperanto: Ĉi tie estas loko kie uzantoj povas interkomunikiĝi kun administrantoj, aŭ administrantoj unu kun la alia. Vi povas raporti pri vandalismo, problemaj uzantoj, kaj ĉio alia, kio bezonas intervenon de administranto. Español: Este es el sitio destinado a que los usuarios puedan comunicarse con los administradores, o viceversa. Puede notificar un vandalismo, reclamar atención sobre usuarios problemáticos, o indicar cualquier otro asunto que requiera la intervención de un administrador. فارسی: این جا مکانیست که کاربران با مدیران، یا مدیران با یکدیگر می‌توانند ارتباط برقرار کنند. شما می‌توانید خرابکاری، کاربران مشکل‌ساز، یا هر آن چیز دیگری که نیاز به اقدام مدیران داشته باشد را گزارش کنید. Français: Cette page est destinée à permettre aux utilisateurs et aux administrateurs de communiquer entre eux. Vous pouvez utiliser cette page pour signaler des actes de vandalisme, des utilisateurs au comportement problématique, ou tout autre fait nécessitant l'intervention d'un administrateur. Si vous ne maîtrisez que le français, la page Commons:Bistro reste cependant utilisable et vous y trouverez des administrateurs francophones. Frysk: Op dizze side kinne meidoggers oerlizze mei behearders, of behearders mei inoar. Jo kinne hjir fandalisme, problematyske meidoggers en oare saken dy't oandacht fan in behearder freegje melde. हिन्दी: यह वह स्थान है जहाँ सदस्य प्रबंधकों से, तथा प्रबंधक एक दूसरे से संवाद कर सकते हैं। आप बर्बरता, समस्याग्रस्त सदस्य या कोई और विषय जिसके लिए एक प्रबंधक के हस्तक्षेप की ज़रूरत हो, यहाँ बयान कर सकते हैं। 日本語: このページは、管理者同士、あるいは、利用者ユーザがJA:管理者,EN：administratorsと連絡を取るための場所です。問題のあるユーザを報告したり、荒らしユーザを通報したり、管理者の協力や仲介を必要とする事項などにご利用ください。 한국어: 이 문서는 사용자가 관리자, 혹은 관리자가 다른 관리자와 의견을 교환하는 곳입니다. 문서를 훼손하거나 문제가 있는 사용자를 보고하거나, 관리자의 중재가 필요한 사항이 있으면 이곳을 이용해주십시오. Македонски: Ова е место каде што корисниците можат да комуницираат со администраторите, или пак администраторите меѓусебно. Тука можете да пријавувате вандализам, проблематични корисници, или било што друго кога има потреба од администраторска интервенција. മലയാളം: കാര്യനിർവ്വാഹകരുമായി ആശയവിനിമയം ചെയ്യാനുള്ള വേദിയാണിത്, കാര്യനിർവ്വാഹകർക്ക് തമ്മിൽ തമ്മിൽ ചർച്ച ചെയ്യാനും ഈ താൾ ഉപയോഗിക്കാം. നശീകരണ പ്രവർത്തനങ്ങളെക്കുറിച്ചോ, പ്രശ്നകാരികളായ ഉപയോക്താക്കളെക്കുറിച്ചോ, അല്ലെങ്കിൽ കാര്യനിർവ്വാഹകരുടെ ഇടപെടൽ ആവശ്യമായ മറ്റെന്തെങ്കിലും വിഷയങ്ങളെക്കുറിച്ചോ താങ്കൾക്ക് ഇവിടെ അറിയിക്കാവുന്നതാണ്. Bân-lâm-gú: 遮是予用者佮管理員、抑管理員佮管理員咧講代誌的所在，你會當報告破壞、製造問題的用者抑其他需要管理員處理的代誌。 Norsk bokmål: Dette er en side for å kommunisere med administratorer. Her kan du melde fra om problemer som krever administratorers inngripen; for eksempel vandalisme eller problemer med andre brukere. Polski: Jest to miejsce, gdzie użytkownicy mogą kontaktować się z administratorami lub administratorzy ze sobą nawzajem. Możesz zgłosić tu akt wandalizmu, problematycznego użytkownika albo cokolwiek, do czego potrzebna jest interwencji administratora. Italiano: Questa è la pagina in cui gli utenti possono comunicare con gli amministratori, o questi ultimi tra loro. Puoi segnalare qui vandalismi, utenti problematici, e qualsiasi altra cosa richieda l'intervento di un amministratore. Magyar: Ezen a helyen üzenhetnek a szerkesztők az adminisztrátoroknak, vagy az adminisztrátorok egymásnak. Itt jelentheted a vandalizmust, a problémás szerkesztőket, vagy bármi más olyat, amihez adminisztrátori közreműködésre van szükség. Português: Este é o local no qual os usuários podem se comunicar com os administradores, ou onde os administradores podem conversar uns com os outros. Aqui você pode relatar casos de vandalismo, usuários problemáticos ou tratar de qualquer outro assunto que requeira a atenção de um administrador. Română: Această pagină este destinată comunicării dintre utilizatori şi administratori sau între administratori. Aici poţi semnala cazuri de vandalism, utilizatori cu comportament problematic, precum şi alte situaţii care necesită intervenţia unui administrator. Русский: Это место, где участники могут обратиться к администраторам, а администраторы обсудить вопросы друг с другом. Вы можете сообщить о вандализме, некорректных действиях участников и всём прочем, что, по вашему мнению, нуждается во вмешательстве администраторов. Suomi: Tällä sivulla voit keskustella ylläpitäjien kanssa. Voit esimerkiksi ilmoittaa meneillään olevasta vandalismista, ongelmakäyttäjistä tai mistä tahansa muusta joka tarvitsee ylläpitäjien huomiota. Nederlands: Op deze plaats kunnen gebruikers communiceren met de beheerders, of de beheerders met elkaar. U kunt hier vandalen, of probleemgebruikers melden, of andere dingen die de aandacht van een beheerder nodig hebben. Slovenčina: Táto stránka slúži používateľom na komunikáciu so správcami tu na Commons, alebo na komunikáciu správcov navzájom. Môžete tu nahlásiť vandalizmus, problematických používateľov alebo ďalšie záležitosti, ktoré môžu vďaka svojím právomociam vyriešiť len správcovia. Српски / srpski: Ово је место где корисници могу да комуницирају са администраторима, или администратори са другима. Овде можете пријавити вандализам, проблематичне кориснике, или било шта друго што тражи интервенцију администратора. Svenska: Det här är en sida där användare kan prata med administratörer, eller där administratörer kan prata med varandra. Du kan rapportera vandalism, problematiska användare eller någonting som behöver en administratörs ingripande. Türkçe: Bu bölüm kullanıcıların yöneticilerle iletişim kurabilecekleri bir yerdir. Bir yöneticiye vandalizmle müdahale ihtiyacı, sorunlu kullanıcılar ya da başka bir şey bildirebilirsiniz. Tiếng Việt: Đây là nơi người dùng có thể liên lạc với bảo quản viên, hoặc giữa những bảo quản viên với nhau. Bạn có thể báo cáo phá hoại, thành viên có vấn đề, hoặc bất cứ điều gì khác cần đến sự can thiệp của một bảo quản viên. 中文（简体）‎: 这里是用户能够与管理员或与管理员及另一个人沟通的地方。你可以报告破坏行为、问题用户或其他需要管理员干预的事情。 中文（繁體）‎: 這裡是用戶與管理員或管理員之間進行通訊的地方。您可以在此回報破壞、有問題的用戶，或其他需要管理員介入的事情。 Shqip: Ky është një vend ku përdoruesit mund të komunikojnë me administruesit, ose administruesit me njëri-tjetrin. Mund të raportosh vandalizëm, përdorues problematik dhe gjithçka tjetër ku ka nevojë për ndërhyrje të administruesve.

Important discussion pages (index)

Commons Help desk Community-wide general discussion: Village pump Village pump: Copyright Village pump: Proposals Graphics and photography: Graphics discussion Ask for image improvement Photography critiques Categories discussion Deletion requests Copyright and licensing questions OTRS noticeboard Work requests for bots Centralized discussion Contact administrators: Vandalism reports User problems Blocks and protections General (none of the above) CheckUser requests Disputes noticeboard IRC Commons mailing list archive Bugzilla: Commons (last 7 days)

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.
  

User:Jkane438

Could someone else check this user's contribs - specifically Jordan Kane‎? Эlcobbola _talk 18:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Upload and page deleted (by someone else). The user has not editted since then and was warned on his talk; so I'm taking no further action for now. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

"uncontested deletion"

hi;

i've recently noticed that a few admins are closing deletions with "uncontested DR" as though that were a policy at commons (the way it is @ wikipedia).

"uncontested DR" IS IN FACT NOT A POLICY @ COMMONS, & it does not constitute a valid rationale for a close & delete.

this is NOT wikipedia; we have OVER 16 MILLION FILES & growing each day. we cannot WASTE our time tracking every single file against the possibility that some idiot will sumbit a meritless DR & the file will then be removed because "the DR was uncontested".

it's a stupid enough rule @ wikipedia, where "in theory" such uncontested "PROD"s can be undone "automatically" if requested by "anybody (this of course is not the way things work "in practice").

BUT THE RULES @ COMMONS INCLUDE NO SUCH PEOVISIONS.

& if we are going to allow "uncontested" as a valid rationale for deletion here, then it NEEDS to go through an RFC & community approval FIRST.

it would also be an incredibly stupid move & would add an immense amount of work "policing" for stupid DRs that would ALL need to be contested, to prevent loss of the material.

Lx 121 (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lx 121, from your use of CAPITAL letter I assume that you are quite angry at the moment. Could I nevertheless ask for 2-3 example cases for the above described problem. --Túrelio (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

 Comment Please do not write “wikipedia” when you refer to the English language Wikipedia. Other Wikipedias have different policies. --Leyo 08:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

i stand corrected. i'm sorry, you are of course perfectly right about that. just to be clear, i was refering to ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA throughout. i've only done minor work on other-langiuage wikip's thus far. howver, i feel that my central point remains valid; this is COMMONS, not any-language wikipedia. whatever the deletion policies @ wichever language wikipedia, it is a mistake for any commons admin to act as though (or to assume) the rules from another wmf project applied here. commons serves a fundamentally different purpose from wikipedia, & we've gone to a great deal of trouble to work out our own rules & practices accordingly. Lx 121 (talk) 09:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

i did not actually want to "name names" here, & was hoping to get a clear & definative statement of the "general rule", which could be cited to politely warn admins of inappropeiate actions.

BUT

this person, in particular, drew my attention to the peroblem [[1]]

the user is a rather senior-level admin & bureacrat @ wp:en, & admin @ several other projects, including here. but he(/she/they/xe?) seems to act as though the wp:en rules applied @ commons. you will see that their activity list shows an endless stream on "uncontested DR"s.

i'e found a few other cases, while searching commons for an rules related to "uncontested DR", but this person appears to be the "primary source".

the user has also shown rather bad judgement in handling at least a few of the cases, such as here: [2]

(from the context, i must assume this is a professional wrestling related photo, since i cannot check the file myself)

in this case, not only should the question of commons' scope have been handled separately from the fate of the wp:en article (the image might in fact qualify in multiple categories here @ wmc), BUT the article about en:VANESSA HARDING was in fact NOT DELETED, & the admin-user appears to have removed from commons THE ONLY IMAGE we had on file, illustrating this person. leaving us with nothing to use on the article.

i have raised the matter on their talkpage today (& yes, i'm quite upset, & increasingly so, as i gtrew to understand the scale of their activity). this was quite recent, & i've gotten no response as of yet, but i'm not going to comment @ their talk page again for at least 24 hours. i really need to cool down. i wouldnt have expected such carelessness from a senior editor.

i might or might not check back here before that; but i think i'm going to find something else to work on, right now.

thanks for the quick reply

Lx 121 (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

CORRECTION: on reviewing the file history for the above-cited example (re:poor-judgement) i find i was mistaken on a key point. the final deletion was handled by user:inevercry, & it was this user who showed poor judgement & inadequate checking, in deciding to delete the file. user:mbisanz was involved in a discussion about the file on their talk page [[3]], & i mis-read in assuming that the user was responsible for the final/latest deletion. mbisanz was apparently involved by tagging the file for "nopermission", which was a correct action at the time.

HOWEVER: this does not remove or nullify my concerns about the iriginal problem, of their using "uncontestedDR" as a rationale for close & delete @ commons (& using it on a very; large-scale [4]).

Lx 121 (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lx 121, I have taken the pain to browse through (really opened/viewed them) ALL the DR-requests that MBisanz had worked-on on May 12. The DRs had originally been filed in the span from April 8th to 24th and were therefore clearly overdue for closure. None of the original nominations seems to have been unjustified, many were filed by other admins, none by himself. A number of DR-discussions had 1 or 2 additional comments by different users than the DR-nominator, however, all had supported the deletion request. (The only slight mistake I found, was not about the DR-rationale but a mismatch in a dupe-deletion (File:JBs.JPG), which I have already corrected.) Therefore, I think it is justified to consider all of these DRs (nomination and deletion) uncontroversial and in accordance with our policy. The edit-summary choosen by MBisanz to close these DR discussions ("Per uncontested DR") may not correspond to the (current) letter of our written deletion rationales, but it reflects the actual course of the DR discussion and is IMO equivalent to write "per nom(inator)", whereby the del-closing admin adopts the deletion-rationale of the nominator. --Túrelio (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion policy is really a mess right now, with some individuals not following rules, making up rules that others must follow, or simply reading only the title of the policy and not reading the rest. It needs to be made clear that deleting a file does not increase the educational value of the project and should only be done when there is a clear community consensus that it is necessary. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

No. To me, "uncontested DR" is a normal rationale for deletion. Look at the current DR's and you'll see that the participation on big parts of requests is very few, many requests remain entirely uncommented. On the other hand, there are many applicable requests amongst them, for example on images uploaded in good faith but unfortunately violating COM:FOP. If we would establish a rule that only allows "consensual" DR's to be decided, many obvious copyright violations would remain on Commons which would be potentially dangerous for the project. So, it is right to close DR's with nothing more than the request itself as deleted. Let me take a RL example: if someone takes you to court, you get the invitation to the hearing but do not follow it, then the court probably will decide for the purpose of the plaintiff. Nothing different we have here with the DR's. It's not a policy, it's just common sense. --A.Savin 11:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You've made the whole thing up just now, right? DR are not a court, they are not a vote, the closing admin is suppose to look at the arguments presented on their own merit. I have seen a lot of uncontested DRs with the rationale akin to "i don't like" or "need to delete" being closed as keep, and that's the correct way of dealing with the situation. Currently nominating for deletion is significantly easier than monitoring all the deletion requests, this is a problem with a user decides to nominate 517 images for deletion because something bit him/her on the ass. You are correct on one point: This (what you've described) is not a policy. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I never disputed the necessity to look at the argument. The closing admin is normally an experienced user so that they're able to distinguish between an applicable DR and nonsense. The fact that some admins close batches of uncontested DR's using some kind of an automatic script I find problematic as well, even though it helps to reduce the backlog a bit. --A.Savin 09:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem here, except, perhaps, a minor excess of verbiage. If I see a DR which has no comment other than the nom, is at least seven days old, and the problem appears to be real, I will close it as a delete. As far as I understand it, that is entirely within our rules. We cannot generate comment where no one thinks it is necessary. Under those circumstances, the comment "uncontested DR" would be true, but why bother to say it? We have better things to do than to add closing comments to obvious cases. After all, we have around 8,000 new images every day, of which around 2,000 must be deleted for one reason or another. So, if one or more of our colleagues wants to add "uncontested DR" as a closing comment, where's the problem?

I disagree strongly with this:

"It needs to be made clear that deleting a file does not increase the educational value of the project and should only be done when there is a clear community consensus that it is necessary."

Keeping files that are not useful reduces the educational value of the project because it makes it harder to find the good ones among the bad. If a file has a DR on it and after a week it has no  Keep on it, as far as I am concerned, we have a clear community consensus for deletion. That assumes, of course, that the closing Admin agrees that the file is problematic in one way or another..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree there is a problem, the problem is with Commons:Deletion requests not matching custom and practice, in particular the procedure leaves the rationale implicit (under "Instructions for administrators") for DRs with no community engagement. If Admins can delete anything for which an expired DR exists, that's fine and can be justified under the DR procedure, but I would really want their duty of care for the deletion to be spelt out in written policy, specifically they are required to be able to justify the deletion (or deletion pattern) against policy on request, and this must always be more than "nobody objected". If an Administrator were to show a pattern of deletions that failed to unambiguously meet policy, it would be handy to point to their duty of care in order to consider a de-sysop justification. Note, the word "unambiguous" is mine, if a deletion request is marginal, I hope that most Admins would conservatively opt to keep rather than delete, as an obvious form of the precautionary principle.

BTW, Jim, your point about "finding the good ones among the bad" is an extremely poor justification to delete mediocre quality files. Commons does have a problem with how good images can be found, that is a wider discussion of quality ratings and the search function, not a reason to blitz millions of images based on vague justifications of "it did not appear that good a photo to me, and look, we have some better ones". A terrible rationale that puts too much responsibility on the shoulders of Admins for subjective and endlessly debatable actions. Anyway, I think we have been here before, it's time for the DR procedure to be clarified rather than leaving this to one person's subjective views against another's. --Fæ (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I have quickly reviewed a selection of these deletions, and I don't think in fact that the admin was intending to imply that he/she was deleting just because nobody had objected. The ones I looked at were correctly closed according to policy, with the reason having been made more or less clear either in the request itself or in comments that were made by others. I would have closed the DRs with some comment such as "Deleted for the reasons stated"; others might perhaps say "per nom". While I agree that the edit wording could have been better, I don't think that this is a case of an admin deleting huge numbers of files out of process. Our policies on deletions are pretty clear, and admins have to follow them. Deletions outside policy based on "no objections' or "per consensus" are never allowed. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I didnt use that summary because en.wiki permits it. I think I've closed something like 5,000 en.wiki requests and never used a summary of uncontested. I used that summary here because the DRs were eligible to be closed, the reason put forward by the nominator seemed like a reasonable statement (for example, I am not an expert on Philippines law, but a nominator's statement that a certain crest is non-free because the Philippines government has a law retaining copyright for those types of crest is a reasonable statement), and because I intended to delete under the basis stated in the nominator's statement and because I knew of nothing that would contradict their interpretation of policy. I didn't just do it because no one objected (there are a fair number of DRs I skipped even when no one else commented because they seemed like wrong interpretations of policy), but because I'm admitting I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of copyright law and was the deleting because the reasons stated sounded good to me in the absence of any other facts. I'll use "Deleted for the reasons stated" in the future if this is problematic. MBisanz ^talk 14:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"finding the good ones among the bad". I think you will find that I have rarely deleted mediocre files unless they are very similar to other, much better files. My thought here is for the truly bad files -- out of focus to the point where only the person's mother would recognize him, odd angles, terrible color balance, and so forth.

I am more a supplier to Commons than a user of it, but about half the time I go looking for a file on a particular subject I find a category with several pages of files, most of which no one would ever use. Going through several hundred thumbnails to find good files is not easy. More sub-cats is not the answer, because that just spreads the subject out onto still more subpages. Sooner or later we are going to have to bite the bullet and admit that if Commons is truly going to be useful for all subjects, we need to be more selective about what we keep. Just because it is possible to imagine a good use for a file doesn't mean that it should be kept when we have ten files that are much more likely to be used for that purpose. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

OK since there are too many individual comments for me to do an indented comment for each one, i'll summarize here:

1. this is the example of a bad "uncontestedDR" that drew my attention to the problem in the first place [5]

this was a cartoon, by an established, professional cartoonist, who has done a great deal of work that is in our collection (there was actually a wikiproject for it). it depicted en:Ann Coultrer, a public figure & political commentator; apparently in an unflattering light. the nominator mis-used a WIKIPEDIA policy, to justify the deletion. no one else commented, & the user:MCBisanz uncritically deleted the file as "uncontestedDR".

that was a bad decision, & one that was clearly based on wikipedia policies, NOT commons policies.

& it's WORSE to use "uncontested DR" as the justification, because it allows the deleting admin to avpid taking any poisition, or ANY RESPONSIBILITY for the decision.

2. THERE IS NO WRITTEN POLICY AT COMMONS ALLOWING "UNCONTESTED DR" AS A LEGITIMATE RATIONALE FOR DELETION.

we soend so much time arguing over the rules on these project, & beating each other over the head with these same rules.

in this case, THERE IS NO POLICY TO SUPPORT "UNCONTESTED DR", therfore it needs to stop being used, and/or if it is going to become an accepted policy, there needs to be a full communitywide discussion & consensus, before it is adopted. that is how these things work.

3. ALLOWING "UNCONTESTED DR" as a rationale for deletions represents a MAJOR CHANGE in commons' deletion policies.

it would mean that ANY FILE at commons could be nominated for deletion, & REMOVED by ANY ADMIN, after a certain number of days, if nobody hapens to comment oposing the move.

THERE ARE OVER SIXTEEN MILLION FILES @ COMMONS.

how exactly are we supposed to keep track of EVERY FILE THAT GETS NOMINTED FOR DELETION, EVER!?

because if we allow "uncontested" removals, then we are going to have to do that, because ANYTHING at commons could disappear AT ANY TIME.

so editors will have to spend time "watching" EVERY SINGLE FILE ON COMMONS, & oppose-voting EVERY DELETION NOM. want to guess how much time & effort that is going to SUCK out of the community?

in my opinion, it's a stupid policy & wikipedia, BUT it would be a considerably WORSE policy on commons.

@ wp:en there is at least (in theory) a simple, easy process to "automatically" restore an article that is deleted after an uncontested prod. BUT WE DON'T HAVE SUCH AN "AUTOMATIC" UNDELETION POLICY @ COMMONS.

undeleting files @ commons is an involved, time-consuming, & difficult process, undeletions are FAR from "automatic", & IT EATS UP CONSIDERABLE TIME (for everybody involved) HANDLING UNDELETION REQUESTS.

if "uncontested DR"s become policy here, then NOBODY BUT ADMINS WILL HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT'S GOING ON with deletion decisions BECAUSE NOBODY BUT ADMINS CAN DOUBLE-CHECK FILE DELETIONS.

at that point, there's little point in working @ commons unless you have admin-level access. so that's going to have a pretty big impact on the community; in addition to the amount of time & effort monitoring uncontested DRs would use up.

<endrant>

4. i agree that "removing files (generally) does not (significantly) improve the collection"

WIKIPEDIA IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA,

COMMONS IS A CATALOGUE.

it matter more that we have the files sorted

it matters more that users can find whatever it is they are looking for

it matters more that we find some mechanism to make it easier to locate "the best" files for any given topic.

it does NOT matter that we extirpate every single "unworthy" file from commons, as though they were cockroaches. low-quality f8iles do not breed, they do not multiply of their own accord; if we had a decent mechanism for "putting the best/most-important files firt", then IT WOULDN'T MATTER how many low-quality files there were in a category.

THE ONLY "important" deletions, & THE ONLY "time-critical" deletions, are of files with legal issues (or "malware", but we don't seem to have much of a problem with that); ANYTHING ELSE (being considered for deletion) IS LOW-PRIORITY WORK.

--i think that's all the key points; i'll spew more, if i find i've missed anything important.

Lx 121 (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

one item i did not sufficiently clarify above: using "uncontested DR" would allow admins to SIDESTEP & avoid taking responsibility for a decision to close & delete. they could just remove a file; without taking any position, or expressing any opinion on the merits of the nom "because nobody cared enough to  Oppose"

the deleting admin would not be required to put any thought or effort in making such decisions; it would become "automatic", & we could literally write bots to handle the job...

THAT invites ABUSE of the deletion process

(i'm going back to sorting 'pankration' now)

Lx 121 (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

 Support Immediate undeletion for all files above that Lx 121 has raised concerns on or is prepared to list here (Lx 121, it would be useful for you to list as many as you wish to point out). What exactly are we waiting for, a lengthy consensus is not needed, any admin action outside of policy needs to be corrected by the admin community. The wider concerns in the discussion are tangential to taking appropriate prompt action to implement policy as stated. If the deleting admin is passionate enough about these, and feels they have a justifiable case, then they can properly raise DRs and provide that case for the community to learn from. Hopefully this AN/U request does not set a pattern or unveil one that may prompt a future de-sysop request(s). --Fæ (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

We're not communicating. In the case of an uncontested deletion, there are two people who believe that the file should be deleted -- the nom and the closing Admin. There is no one who believes that the file is worth keeping. I don't see that as a more problematic situation than one where there were five {{vk}} comments on the file, all of them arguing for fair use or some other incorrect reason for keeping. The closing Admin is always required to use his or her experience and judgement in choosing to delete a file.

I think you are suggesting that "uncontested deletion" implies that the closing Admin has avoiding that responsibility -- has deleted the file simply because it had a DR on it and no one objected. If that's the case, then the closing Admin deserves censure -- he or she is not doing his job.

I agree that saying "uncontested deletion" as a closing comment says nothing about why the file was deleted. I read it to mean "for the reason given by the nominator, with no objection", but perhaps it would be better if we avoided it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, to clarify then, I would like to see a list where undeletion is being proposed. I agree that if the DR is more complex, there may be issues worth discussing - though I would like the DRs to be reopened if the closure was so below expectations that it was meaningless. If undeletion is plainly daft as the file is clearly against policy (such as a demonstrable copyvio) then fair enough, leave it deleted, but let's find a way of advising the admin they need to do a better job and their past practice is no longer acceptable. --Fæ (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I already said above that I'm very happy to use "Deleted for the reasons stated" going forward and the other admin, Túrelio, who hand-reviewed each of my closes didn't see anything wrong with the results of each. I reviewed each DR at the time I closed it and he's reviewed each now, so I don't see how the normal Commons:UR#Appealing a deletion procedures are insufficient if Lx121 has noted a specific problem that I and Túrelio happened to have missed. I haven't avoided any responsibility for my actions, but no one has complained about a specific action. The only DR Lx121 has cited I stand by. While the person who made the request in that case cited an en.wiki policy, there is still a commons guideline, Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Defamation, that could permit deletion. I don't see how requiring a user to find and cite our version of a policy when their general request was reasonable our our policies and no one was making a counterargument as to why their (and my review of their) interpretation was wrong. MBisanz ^talk 12:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Roger Dantas

• Roger Dantas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

All contribs appear to be either copyvio, or at the least, files uploaded missing permission.

I've tagged them all with missing permission, but perhaps a speedy delete for them on possible copyvio grounds might be in order here. -- Cirt (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

All  nuked. --Túrelio (talk) 06:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, -- Cirt (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Look2See1 again

Look2See1's talk page is full of objections from people because of his refusal to follow our categorisation standards and his constant rearrangement of file description pages; except for one comment from a user who has engaged in trolling, everyone who's come to this talk page in the last year has made objections to Look2See1's actions. He's also been blocked for the same issue. Nevertheless, he continues disrupting pages (see also [6], [7], [8], [9], all of which add tons of parent categories to images), both mangling the description and filling the file with parent categories, and his own comments on his talk page are frequently something like "you're bullying me as I'm helping things". A quote from en:wp's disruptive editing page is appropriate here: "A disruptive editor is an editor who is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors...Repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits." Someone who makes deep changes to massive numbers of articles despite objections from numerous editors is causing problems to the project; we should not continue permitting this disruption to continue. Nyttend (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Where you say 'his refusal to follow our categorisation standards' you meant to say your standards. Your standards btw, are not defined anywhere, at the time of writing there are only redlinks for talkpages for those files. What I see on Look2See1's talkpage is a clear pattern of you hounding and threatening a valuable and prolific editor, making cryptic demands, vague threats, when you should, as you were told before, put some sincere effort into dialogue. Using AN as a substitute for conversation that should be on file talkpages is not appropriate. You have to talk to the editor yourself beyond "I don't like it" and "stop it, stop it, stop it" where 'it' is never defined. People can't be expected to use ESP, this is the reason for file talkpages, so that ESP is not necessary.

• File talk:Prosser House.jpg
• File talk:City Market, Indianapolis.jpg
• File talk:Christ Church Cathedral, Indianapolis.jpg
• File talk:Bates-Hendricks House.jpg
• File talk:Canal House.jpg

It's not Look2See1 again, it is YOU again, annoyed that you can't communicate without words, you haven't used any of these talkpages, I don't see any improved effort to talk to other editors. "Engaged in trolling" is scant thanks for attempting to help you improve your interpersonal problems, whatever, my advice hasn't changed and your approach hasn't changed. You have to use something that is not ESP to communicate with other editors.

You give 5 diffs and claim other editors agree with you. Bullshit. Zero for five talkpages. Penyulap ☏ 16:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not even going to bother trying to respond to this rant.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Why did you remove what you call "parent categories"? For example there is Black and white photos in Indiana, which is very useful for the images. There seems to be a game on Commons for some people called "I will bring you to ANU before you will", as I see it your removal of those categories was the disruption. Can you please explain your position better? Sinnamon Girl (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Sinnamon. Nyttend is referring to COM:OVERCAT. The are, like you say, useful, but it can make a real mess of things when images are categorized in both parent and sub categories. Given the history, I am not sure it's fair to suggest Nyttend rushed to bring this to ANU. I hope that helps (unless I have completely misconstrued your comment, and sorry if I have). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I sort of thought that this is what was meant, but I never came up across this policy. I do agree with it generally, but I don't think that the examples show it. In the first example File:Canal House.jpg was in Category:Jack Boucher, Category:Canal House, Category:Other people's pictures by User:Nyttend and then Category:Greek Revival architecture in Indiana, Category:Houses on the National Register of Historic Places in Indiana, Category:National Register of Historic Places in Fayette County, Indiana, Category:Streets in Indiana, Category:1975 in Indiana,, Category:Black and white photographs of Indiana were added. I did not look trough the entire category tree, but I cannot see any Nyttend's categories being subcats of any categories that were added. I have already stated the example Category:Black and white photographs of Indiana can you please show me the "parent-to-child" category path that leads you to Category:Jack Boucher, Category:Canal House, or Category:Other people's pictures by User:Nyttend. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Nyttend; Look2See1 has been reminded of Commons:Overcat#Over-categorization repeatedly.[10][11] S/he has agreed to follow editors' consensus on categorization.[12] I'm not sure what more can be done. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled, myself. I like Look2See1, and think (s)he does good work. However, the same problems come up again and again (although I would not that some of the year cats that Look2See1 added and Nyttend deleted were appropriate and ought to have remained). I'm not sure what to do. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not all of them are parent cats. Why do you blanket revert even the useful ones? --99of9 (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Skeezix1000. Overcategorisation is, as far as I can see, Look2See1's weak point, but in general, I am quite happy with his work. In the past, I've got several discussions with Look2See1, but never real conflicts. But as in all communities, when people start shouting and wildly reverting, things get out of hand. --Foroa (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sabretoothbeast, again

I reported Sabretoothbeast (talk · contribs) for uploading images under falsified licences on 4 May ([13]), and these images were deleted and the contributor warned. Despite this, they're still uploading licenses from Flickr and Airliners.net under faked CC and PD licenses. Could an admin please follow this up? I've just blocked them from editing for En-Wiki for adding these photos to articles there despite me warning them against this previously. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This person is attempting to evade their block on En-Wiki and is edit warring the copyright violating images back in through IP addresses (see [14]). I'd suggest that a block is in order here given their attitude towards copyright. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

We would need OTRS for the Airliners.net licensed image. The three Flickr ones I checked are full copyright and don't match the licenses added by the uploader. All Flickr uploads should have used the Flickrreview bot tag to verify but none were.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)