Open main menu

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10


Bot re-flaggingEdit

Hi Odder, was traveling these past few months and I just saw your message on my talk page about my bot. Coincidentally these past few weeks I have been working on reworking the code and parameters for my English Wikipedia version of the bot (it has a similar task there). I understand I missed the window for comment on the inactivity deflagging but was wondering if it would be possible to have the bot flag reinstated here (even on a temporary basis) on Commons so I can try and recommence its operations. I appreciate any help you can provide. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mifter: Please request the return of the flag at Commons:Bots/Requests. The process there takes much less time than it did a couple of years ago, so with good communication it should only be a matter of days to get the bot flagged again. Thanks, and I hope to see more of you around here! odder (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, its great to hear that everything has been streamlined. Best, Mifter (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


Hello Odder,

Can you please move these?

Thanks. Jaqeli (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jaqeli: All done. odder (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks odder. Please also delete those redirects. First one is written wrong and has no need, Kartuli and Mtiuluri can also be other things like houses and clothing etc. Jaqeli (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
@Jaqeli: Those categories have existed for too many years for me to simply delete them. There might be many places linking to those categories, and the space is cheap, so I wouldn't want to delete the redirects if I can avoid it. odder (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Not even Category:Sukhishvili Ensmeble? It's written wrong :) Jaqeli (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Odder, please move this one also:

Thanks. Jaqeli (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jaqeli: Done. odder (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Jaqeli (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Odder, can you please delete this category?

Khinkali is a Georgian dish and no such thing as "Azerbaijani Khinkal" exists. Jaqeli (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jaqeli: There are still files left in that category, so no, I cannot delete it at this time. Please move the files to a different category, if any, and then I'll delete (or redirect) it. odder (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I've moved the files to the Cuisine of Azerbaijan. Please now delete it instead of redirecting. Redirecting would mean that such dish like "Azerbaijani Khinkal" exists which is nonsense. Jaqeli (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
@Jaqeli: The category is now deleted. odder (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks odder. Jaqeli (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Odder, please also move these 2:

Thanks again. Jaqeli (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jaqeli: Both done, and redirects are left in place. odder (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you odder :) Jaqeli (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi odder, can you please review this image? I think the flickrbot got asleep :) Jaqeli (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jaqeli: Done. odder (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Jaqeli (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Bots/Requests/SamoaBot 4Edit

Hi! You closed that request ⧼duration-months⧽ ago, but now the Assessments module is almost ready (see Template talk:Assessments#Scribunto) and I've written a Python script for that task (see this test edit) which will be published soon. --Ricordisamoa 18:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @Ricordisamoa; I just re-opened that request. Please do feel free to comment there; further test edits would be especially important & informative for us. Thanks! odder (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and a questionEdit

Hi, I noticed that you've granted me "autopatrol" rights; thanks for the trust that it implies. When reviewing and classifying aircraft images I've noticed that some file names are plainly wrong, while others are not self-descriptive. What can I do to change or improve these file names? Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@DPdH: You are much welcome; thank you for your contributions to Commons! As for changing file names, you can use the {{Rename}} template for now or enable the RenameLink gadget in your user preferences. When you gain some experience in renaming files, please apply for the filemover right at Commons:Requests for rights (or you can do it right now if you feel so). Thanks! odder (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Odder, may I also ask you for filemover right? Jaqeli (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
@Jaqeli: Please request it at Commons:Requests for rights. Thank you! odder (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I thought I could directly ask you. As just there are so many Georgian-related images with messy filenames :( Jaqeli 14:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
@Jaqeli: You could, but I generally prefer that all requests for rights be made publicly (that is, to say, not on a user's talk page) and properly archived. I am sure that one of the administrators who follow that page will be more than happy to grant you the necessary permissions. Thanks again! odder (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you please delete these 2 redirects? this and this. I want them deleted to make a way for a file move. Jaqeli 17:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jaqeli: Done. odder (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks odder. Do you know by chance where can I see those file rename requests the users have to help them out if I can? Jaqeli 17:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
@Jaqeli: Sure! All files that require renaming can be found in Category:Media requiring renaming. Thank you for volunteering to help with the backlog, and good luck! :-) odder (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
So I would need to get back to that category all the time to check if there's new requests? Isn't there a tool I can watchlist new requests coming without getting into the category itself all the time? Maybe watchlisting is possible? Jaqeli 19:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
@Jaqeli: There is no possibility to watch the request that I know of. The best and easiest way is to follow Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Media requiring renaming or, more directly, follow the Atom feed in a web reader of your choice (see sidebar for that). odder (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll go in the category directly I think :) Jaqeli 19:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

odder, please also delete this redirect to make a way for filemove. Jaqeli 21:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jaqeli: Done. odder (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again :) Jaqeli 22:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


Salty chips and
... a sweet cake to nibble while reading.

Hello Odder! I should have thanked you already a long time ago, but better late than never. This article is for you as a souvenir. I hope you will read it with interest. I would also like to wish you long, sunny and joyful summer holidays. Seleucidis (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Wow! I'm so flattered, thank you so much, @Seleucidis! It's a great, very interesting, and very detailed article; well done! Thank you for the kind wishes: I hope the summer won't be too hot, though — I prefer mild climate, preferably somewhere between –15°C and 25°C (so Köppen Cfb, Cfc or even Dfc) :-) odder (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for the increase of my status! Mykola Vasylechko 15:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
@Микола Василечко: You are welcome! Будь ласка! Thank you for your contributions to Commons, and happy editing :-) odder (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Still argue that ...Edit

I would still argue that we are developing a "Disclosure policy" that would address what we wish people to disclose, and at this stage that contrary to ToU, there is no requirement for disclosure whether they are paid or otherwise. It means that if we have anything around CoI, etc. that they can be added. I think that having a "Alternative paid contribution disclosure policy" just a tad weird.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@billinghurst: I quite disagree. The Terms of Use amendment is very specific as to what kind of disclosure is required, ie. only for paid contributions, so if anything, I think the policy should be named Paid contributions disclosure policy (and say that no disclosure is required, if the proposal passes) — but still, that's just details.

The most important thing right now is to have the community agree that we want to continue with the status quo and have the new policy linked from Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies on Meta as required by the Terms of Use amendment.

I understand that the title of the RfC might be a bit misleading (though, truth be told, it is an alternative policy to what the ToU currently require), but I don't think it needs changing. odder (talk) 08:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

But it isn't an alternative policy, it is our policy, in response to the ToU. It isn't a paid contributions disclosure policy, as we are saying that you don't have to disclose. So if you want to talk about paid contributions, for us it then would have to be a "paid contributions non-disclosure policy". From meta, it has to be that generic, as the communities can cover the spectrum of restrictions to none. (D|Non-d)isclosure policy is neutral to the what.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
@billinghurst: I apologize, but I don't understand what the paragraph above even means. Please rephrase your thought or try using a simpler language when writing to us non-native speakers of English. Thank you! odder (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Balls, First ClassEdit

  The Barnstar of Balls, First Class
I, hereby, award you, Odder, The Barnstar of Balls, First Class for this closure of a contentious cross-community issue. It is surely going to upset some, but in the long-term interests of our projects it was the right closure to make, and here's hoping that the issue will be put behind us, and relevant interested parties can work towards a solution that is inline with, and in the interests of, our long-stated mission. russavia (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, @russavia; this made chuckle real hard :-) odder (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


Hi, Just noticed that you've granted me "autopatrol" rights; thanks for the trust :) //Joshua (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@Joshua: You are welcome. Thank you for your contributions to Commons so far, and happy editing in the future! odder (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello. For my part, I noticed the same message today. Thanks for it. Akela3 (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Akela3: Not at all. It is I who should thank you for the hard work you've been putting into making Commons the awesome place it is—so thanks, and good luck with your work in the future :-) odder (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


My position on close of Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA is well known, and so that I, or anyone else for that matter, do not miss-interpret your close of Commons:Review of Precautionary principle at a later stage, can you clarify what your view on this change remaining on COM:L and or this on Commons:URAA-restored copyrights, given your close of Commons:Review of Precautionary principle, specifically should both be reverted to their pre-Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA wording ? LGA talkedits 06:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@LGA: The outcome of the precautionary principle RfC, in which the community rejected the proposal to relax that policy to allow hosting URAA-affected files, stands in direct contradiction to the outcome of the URAA discussion. Given the supposed supremacy of Commons policies, I believe that both those edits should be reverted. odder (talk) 08:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification; would you mind making what ever edits you feel are appropriate to both of those pages to reflect your close. LGA talkedits 12:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
@LGA: I'd rather not do that as I do not want to be dragged into a wheel war. I will ask Michael — who started the precautionary principle RfC — to do it in my stead. odder (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
See this too. :) Jee 12:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


Hi Odder, can you delete this self-made flag? The user has upload this nonsense file without giving any link for reference. This flag has been used by a media. I'm afraid "it could send a wrong message to them". Thanks! :) — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ʜᴜʜ? 11:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ranking Update: I'm not familiar with the subject to make any judgement calls on it, so please nominate the file for deletion the regular way, that is through Commons:Deletion requests. Thanks :-) odder (talk) 11:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You've got mailEdit

-- Colin (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed I have. odder (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much. -- Colin (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


Hi odder,

Please delete these my pages:

Thank you. Jaqeli 18:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jaqeli — all deleted :-) odder (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks :) Please also delete those above :) Jaqeli 19:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
@Jaqeli: Done, too :-) odder (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Please if you can also remove my Caucasus category from User:OgreBot/gallery. I will no more use it. Jaqeli 19:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
@Jaqeli: Sure — just removed it. Thank you for your work on patrolling those images! odder (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks odder. Jaqeli 19:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

OTRS flagEdit

Hey mate, please remove my OTRS flag. russavia (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@russavia: Done. Thank you for your invaluable service on OTRS. odder (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Please come back...Edit

We miss you on IRC. Pls drink some Mint tea and move on. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

? --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Redirects and category redirectsEdit

There is a reason for the double redirect. The #REDIRECT will, of course, send anyone typing a category name into the search box to the new category, however it will not correct the category when adding cats using HotCat. On the other hand, the "category redirect" will yield the correct category with HotCat, but will not redirect the user to the correct category. Therefore, until the functionality of these two are in some way combined, both are necessary in order to get both a redirect and a correct category when using HotCat.

Please give this a try yourself. Create a new cat, then move it to a new name, generating a #REDIRECT. Now, add the old category name to some image and see if HotCat corrects to the new name. My experience is that it does not. If that's been fixed, then I'd like to know about it. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi odder, thanks for following. I want to gain access rights to the GLAMwiki Toolset. Currently I'm performing a wikipedist in residence in Museo Soumaya of Mexico City. In the next weeks we will upload a bunch of images, and I want to use this tool. Regards, --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@ProtoplasmaKid: Thank you for the clarification. I have now added you to the gwtoolset user group. Good luck with your project, and happy editing! odder (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Tomasz, see you soon. --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Max Slevogt - Der Faun und das Mädchen.jpgEdit

Hi, could you please restore previous file - File:Slevogt Faun and a girl.jpg? As far as I remember it was much better, although lower resolution and in use in several pages here and in Besides the file name is more adequate (source in Polish, harmonized with file names in the National Museum in Warsaw category), therefore I don't understand the rationale. Vert (talk) 07:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Vert: The other version of the file was just 769 × 484 pixels, while the current one is 1,555 × 977 — that's much better quality. I left a redirect in place, so no links have been broken, and as far as I can see, all information from the old file description page has been preserved in the new description. odder (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that it is a good practice to discusse such changes, as de facto you have deleted other file. Would it be possible at least to restore previous file name? Vert (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
@Vert: I don't understand what you mean. Why would I restore anything? As I said, File:Slevogt Faun and a girl.jpg is now a redirect, there's no need to do anything about it. odder (talk) 09:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

File:President Yar’Adua’s official visit to the UK (2759714832).jpgEdit

I'm confused by the above upload: the license given at the source (flickr) is cc-nd. How can we host this no-derivatives image? DrKiernan (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@DrKiernan: Did you even read the terms of the license here? odder (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, of course I did. That's the problem: the license on the file page says we "are free to adapt" but the license at the source says we are not. DrKiernan (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
This was covered at Commons:Deletion requests/Files from Foreign and Commonwealth Office Flickr stream. However, in this case the copyright holder is the Press Association and I have deleted that particular image. russavia (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


I Odder. At IRC, Russavia say me you maybe can run your bot to categorise all of my uploaded into "Category:Files uploaded by User:Bernard" :). Thanks a lot. Regards, Bernard (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bernard: Indeed! The bot is filling the category right now.

However, there are 11 files first uploaded by different users which you have subsequently overwritten, and I'm not sure what to do with them. The files are as follows: File:Andenes.jpg, File:Camera.jpg, File:Coat of arms of Mexico (1821-1823).svg, File:Estação de Fuentes de Oñoro (3477673885).jpg, File:Estacion Daimiel - Spacelives.jpg, File:Estación de ferrocarril de Avilés.jpeg, File:Estación RenfeAletas.jpg, File:Gabriel Calderón.jpg, File:Lorena.jpg, File:Martelo Galego (3776065312).jpg, File:Yunquera de Henares Railway Station .JPG.

I think it'd be best if you make the decision whether to include them in your category or not. Thanks! odder (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"Communities will never agree for this."Edit

Hi Odder.
Your comment on the new super-protection feature did not go unnoticed. Thank you for your voice of reason! ---<(kmk)>- (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@-<(kmk)>-: Thank you for your kind words. I am just sorry it was already too late when I saw this patch, and that my comment had no real influence over the situation. I hope the community will be able to force the Foundation to revert this horrible change, and that you — as the German Wikipedia community — will find the courage to stand up for your rights and your values, just as I did a year ago. odder (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Tony_in_Devon - Commons name changeEdit

Hi Odder, hope this is place to reply to you.

Answer no - as explained in my request, there's an (inactive) 'Tony French' with an account for en.Wiki (where I am 'Tony in Devon'). And I am also Tony in Devon on Commons. I'd like to become my real name - Tony French - on both. It's a case of what do I do first. I thought try as Commons first.... but you may be implying I should ask for a usurp on en-Wiki first?

Your advice/help would be appreciated. - Tony

Hi @Tony! Yes, this is a perfect place to contact me. I'm sorry to say that under our local username guidelines, I am not able to rename your account to Tony French, as it is a global account which does not belong to you. As far as I understand the guidelines on the English Wikipedia, they do not allow such username changes, either. You might want to try your luck there, but I am afraid your chances are quite slim — it would be better if you just chose a different user name. Thanks, odder (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, ta for reply... if this is 'abrupt' then apologies, I just lost more thoughtful comment before posting! If I still feel I want my own name... then I'd better try 'usurp' request on en.Wiki - which I think would work (ypou thought not, but the 'other' Tony French doesn't contribute. Please understand background... when joining and contributing many years ago, a 'username' seemed the norm... now I just want to be myself... nothing to hide! I post poetry on the Internet, sponsor an international competition... refer people to Wiki constantly... enjoy and support the ideals... as I know you do. The mechanics of democracy are so tricky sometimes! Now... if my name was XXZZQQ TWATABOOBOO then I'd probably have no problems. - Regards, Tony French


Hi; I gave up my admin rights a few months back, so... you know. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 20:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Wojciech Pędzich: Whoops! I saw your user name listed in the inactivity tool, and somehow assumed you were an admin here, even though I saw your de-adminship request on Meta back in the day. Sorry! odder (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

An important message about renaming usersEdit

Dear Odder,

I am cross-posting this message to many places to make sure everyone who is a Wikimedia Foundation project bureaucrat receives a copy. If you are a bureaucrat on more than one wiki, you will receive this message on each wiki where you are a bureaucrat.

As you may have seen, work to perform the Wikimedia cluster-wide single-user login finalisation (SUL finalisation) is taking place. This may potentially effect your work as a local bureaucrat, so please read this message carefully.

Why is this happening? As currently stated at the global rename policy, a global account is a name linked to a single user across all Wikimedia wikis, with local accounts unified into a global collection. Previously, the only way to rename a unified user was to individually rename every local account. This was an extremely difficult and time-consuming task, both for stewards and for the users who had to initiate discussions with local bureaucrats (who perform local renames to date) on every wiki with available bureaucrats. The process took a very long time, since it's difficult to coordinate crosswiki renames among the projects and bureaucrats involved in individual projects.

The SUL finalisation will be taking place in stages, and one of the first stages will be to turn off Special:RenameUser locally. This needs to be done as soon as possible, on advice and input from Stewards and engineers for the project, so that no more accounts that are unified globally are broken by a local rename to usurp the global account name. Once this is done, the process of global name unification can begin. The date that has been chosen to turn off local renaming and shift over to entirely global renaming is 15 September 2014, or three weeks time from now. In place of local renames is a new tool, hosted on Meta, that allows for global renames on all wikis where the name is not registered will be deployed.

Your help is greatly needed during this process and going forward in the future if, as a bureaucrat, renaming users is something that you do or have an interest in participating in. The Wikimedia Stewards have set up, and are in charge of, a new community usergroup on Meta in order to share knowledge and work together on renaming accounts globally, called Global renamers. Stewards are in the process of creating documentation to help global renamers to get used to and learn more about global accounts and tools and Meta in general as well as the application format. As transparency is a valuable thing in our movement, the Stewards would like to have at least a brief public application period. If you are an experienced renamer as a local bureaucrat, the process of becoming a part of this group could take as little as 24 hours to complete. You, as a bureaucrat, should be able to apply for the global renamer right on Meta by the requests for global permissions page on 1 September, a week from now.

In the meantime please update your local page where users request renames to reflect this move to global renaming, and if there is a rename request and the user has edited more than one wiki with the name, please send them to the request page for a global rename.

Stewards greatly appreciate the trust local communities have in you and want to make this transition as easy as possible so that the two groups can start working together to ensure everyone has a unique login identity across Wikimedia projects. Completing this project will allow for long-desired universal tools like a global watchlist, global notifications and many, many more features to make work easier.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the SUL finalisation, read over the Help:Unified login page on Meta and leave a note on the talk page there, or on the talk page for global renamers. You can also contact me on my talk page on meta if you would like. I'm working as a bridge between Wikimedia Foundation Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Stewards, and you to assure that SUL finalisation goes as smoothly as possible; this is a community-driven process and I encourage you to work with the Stewards for our communities.

Thank you for your time. -- Keegan (WMF) talk 18:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!


Hi, (@ this) Gmaxwell CU was not removed (see meta), the commons policy is too unclear. Maye you like to comment (or something similar) in your crat role? Thanks --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: I believe his checkuser access will be removed in a matter of hours, but feel free to revert my edit if you wish so. I also have nothing to add to whatever the stewards say on Meta. odder (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I am fine with your edits :), Thanks! --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: I have now reverted my two edits as requested. odder (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


I just noticed this. I agree with your right to protest. But note that your contributions are mostly beneficial to the community, not to WMF. So I hope you will reconsider your decision. Jee 02:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

+ 1 & + something sweet as encouragement:-)  . Seleucidis (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Almost two weeks now... I second Jee his comment; please reconsider your decision. (And come back!) Trijnsteltalk 13:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Ahhhh, Tomasz...Edit

  The Working Commoner's Barnstar
This is like watching Herby retire! I hope you don't stay gone like he has Tomasz. You do so much for the community, protecting it as an oversighter, and helping to guide it as a bureaucrat and admin. What keeps me here is the opportunity to help others and contribute to a community. I respect your principled protest though, and I know you wouldn't do it if you didn't feel very strongly about it.

It's been good working with an intelligent, steady, trustworthy man like yourself, who really cares about Commons, as I do, (and would be even better to keep working with you). Take care. INeverCry 18:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I like to +1. A BIG +1. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
@INeverCry: Thank you for your kind words. I never expected to come back, but I couldn't stop reacting to the latest decisions of the Foundation. I see things are getting steadily worse around here, which is very discouraging, so I'm unlikely to stay around much longer. As I don't agree with the direction the Wikimedia Foundation is taking us, I will probably silently slip into inactivity, and let other people carry on the tasks I used to perform. odder (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Odder, I was happy when I saw your edit popped up in my watch-list yesterday. In fact I was about to make a friendly note here to appreciate your decision. But then I saw your further comments on BN.
I had already aware of the issue as I read it in the morning when Tiptoety requested to remove the OTRS flag.
I can understand your protest against WMF's actions without community consultation; but here you failed to prioritize things. What more important here is the privacy of individuals. So advanced privileges should be immediately removed (temporarily) when ever such a risk is raised. Otherwise an admin can misuse the hidden information as INeverCry commented at the de admin request. You know only stewards and wmf staff can technically do it, as did here. So the only thing happened "out of process" is the lack of formal intimation to the Commons community. But we can see many Commons admins participated in that meta RfC. From MoiraMoira's comment there, it is clear that Trijnstel is well aware of the incident. So I agree with the opinion of many people in that RfC that such a discussion should be carried out off wiki to protect the privacy of both parties. My understanding is that now the matter is under the consideration of OC; Gnom already acknowledged it. Do we really need to discuss everything publicly? No; I think. Otherwise it will do more harm to the victim and the accused. (Posting here as I don't want to comment further on the existing heated discussions.) Jee 03:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: I appreciate your comment, but I quite disagree. We cannot just remove user privileges because there is risk that users might do something bad with it; otherwise we should just de-sysop everyone here as there is risk they might misuse their access. In order to remove admin privileges (in this specific instance), we need to have a discussion that either (1) agrees with the evidence already available on Meta or (2) even when it disagrees with that evidence, it agrees that there has been a breach of trust; and that discussion needs to happen in public, and it needs to happen here, on Commons.

The Meta RfC is quite irrelevant to what happens on Commons, for two reasons: firstly, there was no decision to desysop JurgenNL here, and even if there were, the Meta community does not have the jurisdiction here. We are two independent projects, even though there is some overlap between individual contributors. It is not the Meta community's — neither the Wikimedia Foundation's, for that matter — prerogative to remove Commons administrators; that right lies with our own community. I am glad to see that we are now having that discussion, at last — but it's what should have happened in the first place, without unnecessary interventions from the WMF. odder (talk) 06:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's not broaden the scope of this discussion unnecessarily... 1) "the Meta community" has nothing to do with that RfC; 2) the RfC didn't reach any decision, it was killed by Philippe "so that this issue will not continue to divide the community and distract from the important work". There wasn't any community deciding anything here. --Nemo 07:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
… which I brought up above as one of my points :-) odder (talk) 07:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Quick drive-by note: The RFC was closed by a meta admin, not a Foundation employee. Tiptoety talk 14:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Tiptoety for the clarification. So, as I suspected, there is indeed a misunderstanding from Odder's part. He probably thought WMF unilaterally ordered an action which seems not true. Here a meta admin close the discussion waiting for the OC response. And it seems Philippe's suggestion was for a temporarily quick action still awaiting for a final opinion from OC. It is not clear whether Philippe received an advice from the General Counsel or OC; but wording like "Statement from the Wikimedia Foundation" suggests so. Finally stewards acted based on the advice they received. Jee 16:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

De-crat procedureEdit

Hi Odder, this is to inform you that some sort of 'de-bureaucrat' procedure has been started against you: Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Odder (de-bureaucrat). Apparently it was too much effort for Andy Dingley to inform you about this. Jcb (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me about this, @Jcb; I haven't been made aware of the existence of this page before. I am quite flabbergasted to see this procedure being started against me without any sort of previous discussion, warning or notification… but I guess that's a moot point now. I will be a bit busy for the next few days (starting tomorrow), but I'll try to keep an eye on the discussion. Thanks again, odder (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
My apologies. I intended to inform Odder of this but I've just noticed that I'd left that browser tab open and unsaved. Thankyou for notifying him in my stead and my apologies for not having done so myself. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Left the browser tab open for two hours? sigh. Anyway, the procedure is that you talk with the person *first*, before starting a vote. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

user email questionEdit

I just tried to send a Commons email user:Ronhjones, but the message was returned to me and I do not undrstand why. Has my access to Commons mail been blocked? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Malcolm Schosha; as far as I see, your e-mail access was never blocked on Commons -- not by me nor by anyone else. Did you try re-sending your e-mail? Did you manage to send it through, in the end? Apologies for the late reply -- I've had no internet access at home for almost two weeks, and am only trying to catch up with questions now. odder (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I have not been around here for some a few weeks. Whatever caused the glich seems settled now. Thanks for the reply. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm backEdit

It took a lot of time to think about it and users ask me on Facebook, but I will be back to return to flag drawing and solve any disputes regarding flags. However, I do not think I will ask for the admin flag again. Still pulling 70 hour weeks so it is hard for me to focus on disputes like I did in the past. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Zscout370: I am very glad to see that you are back. Your expertise in flag drawing is very valuable to this project, and your involvement is deeply appreciated. Please do know that, if needed, you can ask for your admin flag back at the bureuacrats' noticeboard; requests filled up to six months after uncontroversial resignations are generally accepted after two-three days, so if you feel like returning to helping the project as an administrator, just give it a go! Thanks, and happy editing! odder (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Pl-patentowany leń.oggEdit

Usuń jak możesz. Źle nagrałem, nie mam teraz możliwości poprawienia. Dzięki. // Bubel (dyskusja) 07:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bubel: Usunięte. (Przepraszam za opóźnienie w odpowiedzi.) odder (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

u'r back?Edit

Hi odder, u'r back? Jaqeli 11:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jaqeli: Yes; I have finally managed to get internet access set up at home and configure my network card to work correctly with my router, so I shall be back now :-) odder (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Great to see u'r back :) Jaqeli 12:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


Hi Odder. You wanted to ask me something on IRC, but I was - and still am - pretty busy IRL. I figure it was about Gmaxwell, for which you filed a removal request on meta for his CU rights. It was declined, which you probably also saw, but I wondered: did you already start a de-RFCU here on Commons? In case you ask: I don't have time between now and next week, but I could look at it later maybe. Though it would be helpful if you could make a start. With regards, Trijnsteltalk 13:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Trijnstel! Yes, I wanted to talk to you about Gmaxwell and the fact that the stewards did not agree to remove his CheckUser privileges despite his obvious inactivity as a CheckUser here on Commons. I have been quite busy in the real life as well, and didn't have the time to start a de-RfCU yet, but I will consider starting one in the coming hours — thanks for the reminder. odder (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi again @Trijnstel — I have now started the de-RfCU at Commons:Checkusers/Requests/Gmaxwell (de-checkuser). Your thoughts are welcome there, thanks! odder (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, and   Done. Trijnsteltalk 20:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi Odder! I see you are the one who made the most recent changes in file:Standard_time_zones_of_the_world.png. Maybe you would be so kind as to implement Russia's decision to revert back to the original 11 time zones per October 2014? Richardw (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Richardw! Thanks for the message, and apologies for the belated reply. It's been a while since my involvement with that file, and while I would be happy to update it, I am afraid I do not have the necessary geographical experience—I have no idea what exactly changed with regards to time zones in Russia—nor technical ability to fix the issue at hand, not to mention the necessary time that I would need to spend fixing it. I don't have the file on my watchlist, so I only noticed right now that there are multiple issues with the file — I suggest you consider asking our graphical experts at the Graphic Lab, perhaps one of them will be able to fix them all in one go. Sorry I cannot be of more help, and the best of luck. odder (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
No need to apologize. I will follow up on your suggestion. Thanks for your time, and maybe until next time. Richardw (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
On second thought, I have posted a message in the Commons:Graphics village pump. Richardw (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you !Edit

Bardzo dziękuję Tomasz for making me autopatrolled user ! --g. balaxaZe 21:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Giorgi Balakhadze: You are much welcome :-) odder (talk) 05:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for doing the same with me. It is pleasant to be trusted here! Take care, Elly (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@Elly: You are welcome! Thank you for all your contributions to Wikimedia Commons, and happy editing in the future. Have a great evening! odder (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Rf patrollerEdit

Hi dear Odder, can you please grant me the patrolller right? i am very familiar with Commons' policies and guidelines and i believe that that will especially be useful to me.I also have Autopatroller right on Meta (check) and fr.wp and i think i can help local patroller in their work.Sure i don't have any right here, but i have a cross wiki experience.Best Regards --Grind24talk ??Contribs 13:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Grind24, thanks for the message and apologies for the belated reply. I am afraid that as you have less than 100 edits here on Commons, I cannot grant you the patroller flag just yet. Please gather a little bit more experience, and re-apply for the right directly at Commons:Requests for rights — two weeks to a month might be just enough for other people to re-consider your request. Thanks, and have a good day, odder (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your answers.Regards --Grind24talk ??Contribs 18:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please undelete these filesEdit

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Photographs_by_Hamlin_Fistula_Relief_and_Aid_Fund - I have spoken today to Lucy at Hamlin Fistula in Sydney and she has been travelling the last few weeks, and will be attending to the OTRS required emails on Tuesday or Wednesday. Because of some discussion between her and I in relation to attribution, etc, so that she is able to see how it works when giving permission, could you please undelete the images from that DR for me so that she is able to see how we work on Commons. Hopefully it will lead to a wider release of images in the near future as well. Thanks in advance. russavia (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi @russavia — I have now temporarily restored the pictures and commented on the DR. Let's hope OTRS receives appropriate permission by the end of the week. Cheers, odder (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank You!Edit

Hello! I want to say Thanks for making me an autopatrolled user! --Moheen Reeyad (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@Moheen Reeyad: You are welcome! Thank you for your contributions to Wikimedia Commons so far, and happy editing in the future! odder (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi OdderEdit

Hi Odder,

Can you please delete this redundant category? Magog wasn't pinged I guess. Jaqeli 00:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Jaqeli it would appear that the intent of the creator of this category (Giorgi Balakhadze) was to have a category for Mkheruli scripted signs in Sukhumi, so that they could also come under the Sukhumi category. Whilst the name of the category certainly needs renaming, it is a valid intersection I would say for categories. Can you tell me how many in the parent Mkhedruli road signs category are in Sukhumi? Nevertheless I have deleted the category as it is empty. russavia (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
@Russavia: Thanks. No it was totally the redundant category because those images who had just Sokhumi on the road signs was included there. Not the Mkhedruli signs in Sokhumi but just signs saying Sokhumi for example on the main Georgian highways like in Gori, Mtskheta etc. so that's why it was to be deleted as it had no sense. Jaqeli 00:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Odder!Edit

for making me an ‚autocontroller-lady‘ .... will you please tell me in three (or more words) what this means? I tried to understand what I can-should-may do now, but I didn’t ... (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC) You are welcome. That you are now a member of the autopatrolled user group basically means that your edits are automatically marked as patrolled on the recent changes page and do not need to be checked for vandalism. The change hasn't got any influence on your editing, it is merely a sign to users patrolling recent changes that you are an experienced contributor. Hope this helps, if not, please do feel free to ask more questions :-) odder (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
yes, odder, another question: a wikifriend told me to try to become a File-Mover, to be able to correct my own mistakes ......? can you help me? thank you (and good night!) (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC) To become a file mover, please apply at Commons:Requests for rights, and make sure you are comfortable with the text of the renaming guideline. An administrator will usually respond to your request within 48 hours. Hope all goes fine :-) odder (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


Hello Odder,
I just wanted to write a message to Rukn950, but I got a bit unsure about which talk page I should use - It seems as if you deleted User talk:Rukn950 (after a renaming was requested?), but at the moment User talk:Rukn950 (usurped) seems to be the only existing one (User:Rukn950 (usurped) states a wish to be renamed User:Mufaddalqn, which is a redirect to User:Rukn950... the user decided not to be renamed after all?)
Any ideas what to do in this case?
Best wishes, Anna reg (talk) 12:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Anna reg: Sorry about the confusing manner in which this request was performed. Rukn950 is the current user name of Mufaddalqn, so if you want to contact them, User talk:Rukn950 is the correct page to do so (even though the he user does not have a user talk page yet). Hope this helps! odder (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Anna reg (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Anna reg,odder I am sorry for the confusion as I had changed the username. I am thankful to odder in notifying me regarding the competition. I will take new photos and submit. I also thank Anna reg for guiding odder. I am uploading the source of Nile from jinja,Uganda. I would like your suggestions.Rukn950 (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Permission for GLAMWikiToolsetEdit

Hi Odder. That is urgent: Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Permission for GLAMWikiToolset for Swiss Federal Achives. Can you please give that permission to that user? We have the same setting like User:Swiss National Library and need it now for User:Swiss Federal Archives. There is an upload which should be finished in a day. But it seems that no bureaucrat is there to give the permission rights. --Micha (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Micha: Thank you for the explanation, this is so much clearer now. I have just added User:Swiss Federal Archives to the gwtoolset user group and hope everything will be all right. Let me know if it isn't :-) odder (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Flag of MoroccoEdit


Could you please take in considertion my last request on File talk:Flag of Morocco.svg#Bigger star regarding the radius that should be 1/2, according to the flag shown on the official portal of the Government of Morocco [1]. Thanks a lot, in advance.

--Omar-toons (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Omar-toons; thanks for your messages and apologies for the belated reply. I actually had a look at the file two days ago, and had a try at making the star's radius exactly half of the flag's width using the current version of the file (File:Flag of Morocco.svg), but to no avail. I agree that the file should be updated now that the Government of Morocco uses the version with the bigger star on its official website, and I hope that someone else might be able to fulfill your request in my stead. I am sorry I cannot help you more with it. Cheers, odder (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!Edit

Hi Odder. Many thanks for changing my user rights to autopatrol. I appreciate. Ali Fazal (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ali Fazal: You are much welcome! Thank you for your contributions to Wikimedia Commons over the years, and happy editing in the future! odder (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank You :)Edit

A Very Good day to you !!!

Thank you for granting me autopatrolled user rights in Commons  --MediaJet talk 19:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
@MediaJet: Whoops! I've been away for Christmas for a week, and forgot to reply to your message. You are, of course, welcome :-) Thank you for volunteering with Wikimedia Commons, and happy editing in the future! odder (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your Kind reply   May this New Year bring Joy,Peace and Happiness to you and your Entire Family !!!--MediaJet talk 18:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi Odder! Thank you very much for granting me autopatrolled user rights in Commons. Bye --Ago76 (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ago76: My pleasure! Thank you for your contributions to Commons over so many years, and have a great 2015! odder (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks also from my part! --Marco 22:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


Dziękuję za nadanie uprawnień i przy okazji mam prośbę - czy wiesz może jak ułożyć na mojej stronie [2] wyświetlane tam zdjęcia tak, by układały się one nie w pionowy słupek, a w poziome szeregi? Bo teraz schodzą poniżej ekranu, za to 2/3 ekranu jest pusta. Marnotrawstwo. Pozdrawiam --Robert Niedźwiedzki (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Robert Niedźwiedzki: Nie ma za co; to ja w imieniu społeczności Commons dziękuję za Twój dotychczasowy wkład w ten projekt, i oby tak dalej :-) Pozwoliłem sobie wyedytować Twoją stronę użytkownika tak, żeby zdjęcia układały się w poziomie (tak, jak na stronach kategorii) — gdyby taka modyfikacja nie podobała Ci się, oczywiście śmiało wycofuj moje zmiany :-)) Pozdrowienia, odder (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi Odder, I'm trying to do translation. Is it possible to add me to the autopatrolled? Good wikis. Uğurkent (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Uğurkent: Technically you do not to be a member of the autopatrolled user group to translate pages using the Translate extension, but I had a look at your edits from today, and I believe you are experienced enough not to have your edits patrolled by other users — I have now therefore added you to the aforementioned group. Thank you for your translations, and have a great 2015! odder (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, happy new year! Uğurkent (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Review of Precautionary principleEdit

The outcome of your closer is a potential for edit waring of admnis like User:Russavia already done her and stated he will going to do her. I have mentioned her your mistake by this closer. So i ask you to take responsibility to your closer and change it correct statement or just write not successful. I didn't come to vote in the same page as the name of it was Review of Precautionary principle so i did not follow the discussion but if the name something like reverting the decition abot massive restoration...etc I'll definitely be participate. It's like making DR about file A and delete file B. It is incorrect. I know that your action was in a good intentions so I beliave you are responsable enogh to take the correct action. -- Geagea (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Geagea: I sincerely believe that my closure of the PRP review RfC was correct; certainly I have given it much thought and deliberation. I stand fully behind what I wrote in my closing remarks: that I agree with the opinion — voiced by a few participants of the PRP RfC — that the closure of the URAA discussion was quite questionable, and that it is my belief that Commons policies take supremacy over informal discussions, unless of course the scope of such discussions is to change policies—which wasn't the case with regards to the URAA discussion.

With that in mind, it is my understanding that @russavia's overturning of this DR directly follows my closure of the PRP RfC; if you believe that I have wrongly assessed community consensus voiced in that RfC, and wrongly assessed the relation between the precautionary principle and the URAA discussion, by all means please do initiate a second discussion on the subject.

I should also mention that I believe the closure of the Herman Richir DR to be incorrect, and to stand in direct contradiction with my closure, the precautionary principle, and most importantly, our licensing policy.

Finally, I deeply regret the continued hostilities over the URAA discussion, and I call upon all participants to refrain from using inflammatory language, and to assume good faith over what is an essential discussion for a project that is dear to all of us, and that we all try to improve together. odder (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I disagree with you. And I can say furthermore that the Precautionary Principles policy is a general policy for the cases where we don't have specific rules. Even Michael Maggs understand that.
Regarding to the DR closer, I can understand from your words that User:Yann is trolling? and even if you think so Russavia shouldn't revert Yann. This is definitely admin misusing of tools. The revert can be done only if there is clear consensus which is not the case.
And to you last sentence about using inflammatory language please forward it to the correct address (if you insist I will point them for you). You cant find any of my comment using inflammatory language. That because I am not a native English speaker so I am very cautious in choosing my wording. -- Geagea (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Odder, your closure is wrong, and in contradiction to WMF suggestion over the issue. Most people here, including admins, support keeping URAA-affected files. Only a vocal minority supports deleting them. All of them are native or fluent English speakers. Most people supporting keeping these are not native English speakers. So there is a language barrier involved. It is very sad that you manipulate a RfC because you don't agree with the issue. And as Geagea said above, if Russavia doesn't agree with a DR, he should reopen it, not delete the files. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
@Geagea: The precautionary policy is an official Commons policy, a bill of constitutional importance if you will. The URAA discussion cannot change the policy, for multiple reasons that were stated in multiple places, and most eloquently by Michael before his starting of the PRP RfC (see one of the links I provided above). My comment about using inflammatory language, as I stated pretty clearly above, was meant for all participants of URAA-related discussions (DRs as much as UDRs). And as for your comment about my supposed accusations of trolling by @Yann, I will leave it without comment so as to avoid sidetracking the discussion here. odder (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
@Yann: I quite disagree. The Foundation has stated pretty clearly that URAA-affected files are not in the public domain in the United States, and should therefore be deleted (see this statement for further information); they only opposed a mass deletion of URAA-affected files, and advised the community to perform a comprehensive, case-by-case review of such files.
As for your comment regarding the supposed language barrier, I find it to be irrelevant to this matter: while the discussions indeed take place in English, there are many non-native, non-fluent users who hold opposite views on the matter. Your accusation that I manipulated the outcome of that RfC is, in my opinion, deeply unfair and not at all in the spirit of AGF; as such I will leave it unanswered. odder (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The guideline you cite says: However, if a work’s status remains ambiguous after evaluation under the guidelines, it may be premature to delete the work prior to receiving a formal take-down notice, because these notices often contain information that is crucial to the determination of copyright status. Due to the complexity of the URAA, it is likely that only a small number of the potentially affected works will be subject to such notices. So clearly, you made up you own interpretation. Yann (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
@Yann: The guideline also states that U.S. laws will continue to apply to all Wikimedia projects and files, so once it has been shown without a doubt that a particular file is not in the public domain in the U.S. due to the restoration of copyright by the URAA, the file has to be deleted under our licensing policy, and that's the end of the discussion. odder (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Now you get angry when your mistake is shown, and you can't admit it. The issue is that it can rarely be proved that other facts do not come into play (publication in the USA within 30 days, copyright notice, renewal, etc.). So in most cases, these files have an uncertain copyright status. And that is the point made by the WMF in its suggestion. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Odder, please stop playing games. You keep silence when the topic is discussed at AN and UNDEL; then come back with pushing your POV which is the POV of a minority here. The corrent decision to keep a status quo was agreed by many UNINVOLVED people like Nick. I agree with you we can start a wider community discussion if needed. But what you are doing now is very poor decision making, or concisely trying to make the project a battle field. Or, you are trying to prove you are no way suitable for the crat crew? Jee 07:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Jkadavoor: Please assume good faith. I hadn't participated in any of those discussions because the amount of time I can spend on Commons these days is very limited, and I simply have to focus on issues that are most important to me personally. In addition to that, I have not been made aware of the existence of those discussion, and even if I were, I would not have participated because I see no point in continuing to rehash the same old policy arguments over and over again against a wall of silence and deaf ears—I prefer to help the project in different ways.
  • As for your actual arguments, the supposed majority that you speak of are basically Wikipedians with little to no knowledge of Commons policies, who have been canvassed to vote in the URAA discussion, with ridiculous reasoning like "Israel is not USA!" or "URAA is bad law" (or, indeed, no reasoning at all). This is is no way a representative majority, and that discussion should have never been closed the way it was, particularly not by a person as biased as @Yann has proven himself to be by his wheel-warring over the issue with multiple different people (also see Michael's detailed description of the problems with that closure). We never close policy discussions based on a simple head count but based on the strength of arguments provided, and there was no reason why the URAA discussion should be any different.
  • And finally, as for your last sentence, if you really believe that my having a different opinion on the URAA issue makes me unsuitable to perform the role of a bureaucrat on Commons—particularly in light of my not being involved, as you stated yourself above, in any of those discussions except closing the PRP RfC and answering @Geagea's message here—then I fully expect you to apply the same standards to every other active Commons bureaucrat, as, incidentally, and as far as I am aware, they all share my opinion, and start a discussion to remove our bureaucrat privileges en masse. odder (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm unsure why you've pinged me, Jkadavoor. I agree with MichaelMaggs, odder and others on this issue. URAA restored copyrights is a complicated field, and unfortunately has been poorly handled by the Wikimedia Foundation. The behaviour we see currently is a direct result of confusion, conflicting guidelines and policies, and as is mentioned above, a language barrier, most likely, some of the subtly inherent in the English announcement by the WMF has been lost in translation.
The WMF statement is, in English, clear and unequivocal; work should not be deleted just because it's suspected that it might have had its copyright restored by URAA. This is not, as is unfortunately claimed by some, a licence to upload any image that may or may not have had its copyright restored in the United States by the URAA and then wait for a DMCA takedown. It's a request by the WMF to review images properly and make appropriate deletion decisions based on a proper, detailed review. We could host hundreds of millions of copyright images taken from the internet, you'll never get DMCA takedowns for the majority of those, but like images with a URAA restored copyright, the absence of a DMCA takedown notice or other legal action does not make copyright cease to exist. I do wish people would stop pretending that to be the case with URAA images.
The message to administrators is quite clear - Don't just look at the copyright tag and the source and then decide to delete the image, you should use the information given by the uploader to make a thorough, accurate, detailed assessment before deciding whether or not to delete, undelete or leave an image alone. That means looking through copyright records, library catalogues, WorldCat and publication records to accurately determine how the URAA affects each image on the project.
Vitally, it means that once you have undertaken a detailed assessment, you can delete the image if you're satisfied (beyond reasonable doubt) that the image is not in the public domain in the United States. If you can't accurately determine the copyright status, then it's acceptable to not delete an image or to restore it, but you really need to show you've done the full amount of research before undertaking this course of action.
The Wikimedia Foundation have never said don't delete images where the copyright was restored by the URAA until we receive a takedown notice, what they have said, and what is being misinterpreted, is that if you do a great deal of research and still can't determine accurately what the copyright status of the image is, not deleting it and awaiting a DMCA takedown notice could be the only way to find out its copyright status. To not delete an image and leave it up though, you will need to satisfy yourself that you've undertaken as much research as possible to determine its copyright status in the United States. I wonder if an extension of the PD review system, where volunteers look into the copyright status of images, could be useful in allowing administrators to delete and undelete images touched by URAA ?
Finally, can I just remind people why this is so important - a DMCA takedown request for us isn't a massive problem, we've got a good general counsel, a multi million dollar fortune to resolve legal issues with, and public support broadly on our side. If someone uses our material offline, in a book, in a brochure, or in some other way, they probably don't have their own general counsel and the funds to deal with a lawsuit, it could cost them a few hundred dollars or more. We should be protecting them to the utmost of our abilities, and that means doing our homework, making sure reusers are aware of potential legal implications in reusing work we don't know the copyright status of, and above all, finding and deleting images we know (beyond reasonable doubt) have had their copyright restored by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Nick (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
@Nick: See your comment here: "There are two contradicting policies, each user is following one policy. The new URAA policy allows Steinsplitter to undelete images, the Precautionary Principles policy allows Russavia to refuse to undelete images. If you wish to deal with this, Commons needs reliable legal advice from the Wikimedia Foundation on what to do and how to proceed, before having another discussion and vote and discussion. Nick (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)". I'm talking about that current status of that matter (They are separate polices; please stop try to say one is superior and overriding other); not about URAA itself. Based on that comment I reverted Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA to the stable version. Now I just returned after a break and and my eyebrows raised seeing another edit on a controversial page. If it was not by a crat, I should have reverted it immediately as a clear case vandalism without any new discussion. (I don't believe consensus can be achieved by edit warring without any discussion.) Jee 14:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you calling this edit vandalism, Jkadavoor
I've explained when and why they contradict each other, and when they're in agreement. Nick (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: Setting all other issues aside, I strongly suggest that you read up on the definition of vandalism. Calling other people's edits vandalism when that is quite clearly not the case only unnecessarily adds fire to the discussion, and distracts from the main issue. I hope you can see that you made this discussion lose quality by using such disruptive wording, and will consider not doing so again. odder (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity...". IMHO, any attempt to edit the content when the person has a clear opinion matches with one side (so INVOLVED) will affect the integrity of the contents and so can be considered as vandalism. Note that I'm not supporting extremists in any side (as you are doing). See my request/support for a moratorium in URAA matters. You can see in the archives, this is not the first time I'm making such a request. Please double check is it me or you make this matter lose quality by your continuous one side support. Jee 02:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The above selective quotation of the English Wikipedia's definition of vandalism shows pretty clearly that you have no idea what vandalism is—no matter how many IMHOs and cries of involved! you add—and are only too happy to add fire to the discussion, even though I specifically asked you not to do that. I am starting to wonder what is your purpose here, as you seem to be wanting to side track this discussion by accusing me of something I have never done rather than focusing on the real problem. If you think my edit should be reverted but do not want to do that yourself, file a request with any other active bureaucrat: @Daniel, @Eugene and @Michael were all there when I closed the PRP discussion (whose outcome my edit describes), and I'm sure will immediately remove my supposed vandalism when asked. However, please note that all of them also seem to be, as you put it, on the extreme side of the spectrum, so that might not work, really. odder (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
No; I read the entire page and the links. ;)
You are complaining that Yann should not have close the first RfC because he voted there. At the same time you ignore that you too voted there while closing the second RfC with a strange rational that it is cancelling the first RfC. I need not require Einstein level of IQ to find your INVOLVEMENT here. :) Jee 05:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Odder's edit to Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA to me seems to capture the status of the discussion very well... Certainly better than the very biased (or convenient) interpretation that URAA cannot be the sole reason for a deletion request is. --Dschwen (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Odder's edit was on a different page even though your opinion may same. :) Jee 15:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
You're right, I mixed up the links, but that one is the one I actually meant. --Dschwen (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Alexandr DulogloEdit

This is Alexandr Duloglo user's. Can you delete Alexander Duloglo user's belong to the files? Copyrighted have installed dozens of pictures. Show unequivocally that would be good candidates to be notified individually. Good wikis. Uğurkent (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Uğurkent: I am sorry, but I cannot understand what you mean. Would you mind rephrasing your message for me, please? odder (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I'm sorry. I guess I could not tell you exactly. This user has uploaded dozens of pictures. I marked many of these pictures. Pictures on a company's website. I warned both here in both the user. Yet he continued to upload copyrighted content. Can you delete files? Uğurkent (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly news on planetEdit

Hey odder :)

I've been told you helped get the Tech News added to the Planet? I have people asking me to do the same for Wikidata's weekly summary. I have no idea how though. Could you help me with that maybe? d:Wikidata:Status updates is where they all are. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): What you need to do is create a FeaturedFeed for the Wikidata newsletter (see details), create some pages in the MediaWiki: namespace on Wikidata, and then add the newly created RSS feed to a Planet Wikimedia configuration file. This way, folks will be able to follow the newsletter through Planet Wikimedia as well as through individual RSS and Atom feeds, whichever they prefer.
With that said, I haven't submitted any patches to Gerrit since the superprotect controversy, and I'm not planning on doing so now, but please do feel free to have a look at patches #124272 and #138796, and at my latest page creations on Meta to see how it's done. Best of luck, odder (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


to awans czy degradacja? :-) - John Belushi (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@John Belushi: Ciężko powiedzieć, raczej lenistwo administratorów, ale jeśli mam wybrać z tej alternatywy, to chyba awans :-) Generalnie od tej pory Twoje edycje będą automatycznie oznaczane jako patrolowane (podobnie jak to się dzieje na polskich Wikicytatach) i ani administratorzy ani patrolowcy (ang. patrollers) nie będą ich musieli przeglądać pod kątem wandalizmu. odder (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi! Thank you very much for giving me autopatrolled user rights.--Bbruno 07:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bbruno: You are welcome! Thank you for your contributions to Wikimedia Commons, and all the best. odder (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

How can you do this in your role as a 'crat?Edit

Hi odder,

I noticed this morning the following in my watchlist

(User rights log); 05:35 . . Odder (talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Russavia from (none) to administrator ‎(Commons adminship is a community prerogative and lies outside of the remit of the Wikimedia Foundation)

It appears to me that you hereby overrule the WMF Global Ban Policy as Russavia has been globally banned according to this policy. Can you confirm that this change in Russavias group memberships constitutes a disobedience to comply with the WMF Global Ban Policy? If so, how do you see that is compatible with you role as a bureaucrat on Wikimedia Commons, where you are supposed to be a community leader? I fully understand and respect if you do not agree with the decision taken in this case, but if so, is the logical consequence then not instead to either:

  1. Step down from the role as it can be seen as an abuse of 'crat tools. If you disagree with or feel uncomfortable complying with the WMF decisions in you role as a crat, you can step down. If you just bypass the policy you are not showing integrity with the WMF in my opinion.
  2. Work constructively with the WFM to get the policy changed.
  3. Fork the project.

I hope you will answer these questions. Thanks in advance. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi again odder. As I would like to hear the opinion of other 'crats on this group member change, I has created the following new section on the 'crats noticeboard. here. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@Slaunger: Thanks for the brilliant questions and apologies for keeping you waiting — I will answer them all shortly, so please stay tuned. odder (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@Odder:: Thank you. Note that when I wrote my question, I was unaware that the global lock prevailed over the local status. After posting on COM:BN I realise that now. Still, I find you objectives for the change unclear in your role as 'crat. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@Slaunger: Thanks for your patience. My restoring of russavia's adminship was not intended as a sign of disobedience against the Foundation's new banning policy; for what is worth, I welcome the policy as a much needed clarification of the Tems of Use and wholeheartedly support it in its current wording. However, I vehemently oppose the use of the policy to globally ban russavia and, in particular, to remove his admin privileges on this wiki.

As I stated multiple times, neither the Terms of Use nor the privacy policy — the latter on the Foundation's own insistence — allow the Foundation to remove administrator privileges from anyone (it's only breaches of the privacy policy that allow advanced privileges such as checkuser and oversight to be revoked from users' accounts). And although I appreciate that the Foundation might impose bans however they please, this particular situation is particularly complicated, as russavia has been a highly active and dedicated administrator who has often helped to solve some of the most delicate issues, for instance regarding oversight matters; without any evidence to the contrary, it is hard to believe that they engaged in such harassment of other users that would warrant his global ban.

And to answer your main question, I believe that the role of a bureaucrat, among other things, is to enforce and uphold the decisions of their community; as the community has never agreed to remove admin privileges from russavia's account, it follows logically that they should remain one until the community decides otherwise (which might, or might not, occur soon enough). Thanks, odder (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

  • It has been the defacto consensus of the Commons community that Russavia continue as an administrator. For a bureaucrat to follow local consensus is part of the job, the 'crats are elected here, not by the global community or by the WMF, and 'crat and admin rights are locally conferred, not subject to WMF approval. Odder's action does not bypass WMF policy. It simply restores status quo ante, undoing the unnecessary removal of rights, contrary to policy and procedure. No harm can be done by Odder's action. If it does not represent consensus or at least reasonable consistency with consensus, it will be undone, and, in the meantime, it is, as long as the global account is locked, purely symbolic.
  • A global lock disables login. It's a highly intrusive tool, it does not allow the user to view and change their watchlist, nor their email settings, etc. Odder has stated he will start desysop proceedings. That is an option. However, in the absence of a local desysop initiative, I would not do so merely to proxy for the WMF. The WMF is free to start such proceedings. However, it's moot, and should be left that way, and normal policy should be followed.
  • Rather, Commons should consider if it wishes to allow Russavia to be a user here. The global ban does not prevent a local community from considering this, it does not suppress or prohibit the actions of any other user. It only applies to the individual. Prior consideration of global bans has developed an opinion, untested for the most part, that local communities may bypass them, by allowing the user to edit using a new account. This has been done both privately, by agreement among crats and checkusers, and openly. I recommend it be open.
  • A classic way this has been done is for crats, then, to agree to allow a user to edit with a new account. To respect WMF rights, this account should be created through an agreement with the user to not use the account globally at all. Both the crats and Russavia should proceed with caution, and not challenge the legitimate right of the WMF to protect the wikis and users, while, at the same time, not surrendering proper local autonomy. Details will be up to the 'crats and Russavia. If Russavia cooperates, it should be possible to move ahead. If he does not, if he uses the occasion to complain about the WMF, etc., etc., and especially if he edits with the account off of Commons, it may not work. (He will need to be careful! SUL autologin can cause accidental editing.) One step at a time. Historically, Thekohser was defacto globally banned and locked. I created process on Wikiversity to allow him to use a new account (and restricted that account heavily at first, allowing it to only make self-reverted edits that were then reviewed and restored). As a result, a history of good edits was built up and then community process was started to unblock and then detach the local account from global. The latter is not possible any more because of the SUL changes that demolished local account autonomy.
  • Be aware that there will be many local users who will claim that Commons must follow WMF decisions. This same contingent previously argued that Commons must follow Jimbo's decisions. However, the basic wiki structure requires collaboration among equals, not centralized decision-making with an entrenched and irreversible authority. Autonomy is essential to the entire method of operation of WMF wikis, and to the legal theory that protects the WMF. There are forces that will chip away at this, as everywhere in society. One step at a time. Stand for local consensus. Hear concerns. Seek agreement, the WMF is *part of the team.*
  • Thanks, Odder. --Abd (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


I see here you plan to open a de-adminship on Russavia, and ask WMF to "respect the outcome of that discussion". Can you elaborate on what you think "respecting the outcome" means should the community fail to reach consensus to de-admin Russavia? Since the admit bit without editing privileges is merely symbolic, why should anyone waste their time on this? Or do you believe that "respect the outcome" really means "be an admin capable of editing on Commons"? If you think the community discussion has the power to overcome the global ban then I suggest you enquire with WMF as to whether this is the case before raising anyone's hopes / instilling concern. If on the other hand you think this is a demonstration of Commons following its own procedures, even if just symbolically, then please reconsider. As with the previous unwise battle you did with WMF over admin bits, you seem over-concerned about following procedure and causing disruption to make a point. Make your point with words and move on. -- Colin (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Colin: In case the community does not reach a consensus to de-sysop russavia, respecting the outcome of the discussion basically means not removing their admin privileges again, and engaging in a constructive discussion that would allow us all to find a way to solve the issue in such a way that allow both the Foundation's and the community's decisions to be respected at the same time. I do not think that a community discussion has the power to overturn the Foundation's decision, but I hope that, in case the community decides to keep russavia as an admin, we will be able to work out a solution satisfying both sides; @Abd has posted some good ideas above. Thank you for your kind suggestions regarding possible co-operation with the WMF; I will definitely contact them as soon as I can. Cheers, odder (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Odder. I recommend against starting the desysop process. It will not be on-point. (However, anyone may start that, it's just that it could produce much heat and little light.) The real issue here is authority over the Commons user base. This is not the first time this has come up! There has never been a definitive decision, only various cases that went this way or that. Given the expressed WMF position, any way forward must carefully respect legitimate WMF rights and responsibilities. However, if Commons has authority over its own user base, it may assert that in various ways. I've suggested one that would, by design, rigorously respect WMF rights, but would also draw a line in the sand. The WMF has the power to cross that line, but it is far from clear that they would. The basic problem I see here is that the WMF is alleging a harm that cannot be disclosed, for privacy reasons. That can be approached one step at a time. Whose privacy is being protected? There are ways to approach and confirm issues that must remain private. The WMF sure is not going to suggest them, for they obviously would prefer no review at all. This is totally classic, that must be understood. The WMF is acting like an ordinary nonprofit corporation. However, the wikis need an extraordinary corporation, and it is obvious we do not, at least some of us, trust the WMF to be this, without community supervision. In the end, who is in charge here? Again and again, the WMF has claimed that the community is in charge, they are merely serving the community. Well, who decides? How? These are basic structural issues that have often been swept under the carpet. Eventually, the carpet gets lumpy and people trip over it. --Abd (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


  You´re next to be locked
Comming soon by WMF The Photographer (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

Hey mate, thanks very much for the symbolic gesture of reinstating the admin bit. I know why you have done it, and I appreciate it. However, with me being globally banned it is somewhat pointless to keep it. I have asked a steward to remove it. Thanks, Russavia

This was added by 09:11, 19 January 2015‎. It was reverted, I have restored it. On the face, this is an edit by a globally banned user. Precedent is that such edits may be reverted on sight, but may be restored by any user willing to take responsibility for them. I assess this edit as harmless at worst, and possibly helpful; therefore I have restored it. Odder, of course, has final say here, if nobody else is harmed. --Abd (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Odder, if Russavia is willing to cooperate, it is possible to set up what I've described. However, if he wishes to continue an intensive campaign as he has declared, it could be useless or disruptive. It is really up to him, as I see it. At this point, I'd wait. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Abd: Thanks for the messages and for the information you included in your edit summaries. I have seen them all, but since I've been extremely busy in the real life in the past few days (with no prospect of this changing in the near future), I could not respond to them. I will, however, at some point, address all questions and comments that are requested of me, but it's going to take some time. Please do excuse me if I only respond after a day or two. odder (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Question about banned users and emailEdit

The other day, I thought I used the Commons interface to email Russavia, I thought the mail was accepted (though I received no response). I now look and there is no email user option for him. I am not certain that I actually sent that mail, sometimes Stuff Happens. If, however, Russavia did not shut down email before the global lock, he would not be able to shut it down directly. Do you have any idea if he had email enabled? I'm looking around and see some odd stuff, which may mean nothing.... --Abd (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I have a confirmation from another banned user that their ability to receive email was apparently shut down. If this is true, it's chilling. That would probably take developer access. Global locks are poorly implemented, it's been known for years, but who cares? Only spammers and vandals, right? --Abd (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
@Abd: I am definitely certain that @russavia had his e-mail enabled before he was locked, but it seems that global locks disable that feature (ie. the ability to receive e-mails from other users) as well. odder (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
No. I just sent an email to a globally locked user, yesterday, through the user page option to send email, where it was still enabled. I've been doing it for years (attempting to resolve certain problematic global locks). He received it and responded. Global locks are very simple: they globally disable log-in. That is *all* that they do. So the user cannot see their Watchlist or change email settings, but they have always been able to receive email, if it was enabled when they were locked. If you have an email address for Russavia, check with him!
It is appearing that they may be using developer tools to restrict, not the locked user, but us. And it could get worse. This appears to be a more direct attack on the user community than anything I've seen before. It strikes at our ability to communicate. Without this, it's possible to make inquiries of a locked user, and it's completely up to the user whether or not to respond. If it is technically possible to change these settings, then it should only be done on request, and there is a security problem. Basically, the global lock was a quick and dirty way to get global bans, it's long been known to be a problem. There is no legitimate reason to prevent users from changing their watchlist or their email settings. The tool needed would be global blocks
How I emailed the user: wikiversity shows an email option. Checking out what I'd noticed about Russavia, I went to meta and noticed no option, when I knew it had existed. So I went to wikiversity, where the option still existed (and still exists now). It worked, and I asked him, though it, if he'd changed his meta email settings. No, he had not.
"Email enabled" is a per-wiki setting, it's not global, I just checked my prior memory. So unless a developer goes to each wiki, it will remain as before. They have changed, it seems, only certain wikis for certain users. enwiki, for example, has email shut down for Russavia and Leucosticte, I have not checked the others. I'm still researching this. --Abd (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi. I noticed you are semi active, both here and on Meta. Perhaps you missed that some are waiting for your reply on COM:BN? Trijnsteltalk 12:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Trijnstel. I am fully aware of the discussion taking place at the bureaucrats' noticeboard, but I couldn't respond to any of the points raised there before today due to being extremely busy over the past few days (as I noted in my response to @Abd's post above). I am only catching up with all the e-mails, requests, comments and criticisms now. I will post my response on the crats' noticeboard later today, so please stay in touch. odder (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Odder/Archive 011".