Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 28

User:Tarc

What do we have here? [1] I see a personal attack and deformation of Saibo in this comment ("...since his friend Beta M..."), considering previous comments including the words "enabler" and of such kind by Tarc. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 13:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

First off, the odds that this is Saibo complaining about a comment directed at himself is the same as a coin toss, I'm not sure how seriously to take this.

Second, what we have here is Saibo, a user who has been strident and aggressive in his spirited defense of Beta M, going to far as to declare himself a intermediary who will investigate evidence allegedly provided by Beta M in order to exonerate him. I see nothing untowards about my comment, as Saibo's conduct since Beta M was banned has been downright deplorable. Tarc (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

WOW. You just continue the allegations right now. I'm opposed to hear from you that there odds that i might be the same person as Saibo and I'm also opposed to hear that Saibo would support pedohilia, which includes myself in the odds. You should learn when it is enough. For me it is right at this point and I'm not willed to interact with people like you that are only here to discriminate other users or their actions by making vague or false statements. No greetings. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 15:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that Saibo explicitly supports pedophilia, I said that Saibo supports Beta M, and that his incessant demands from the WMF to provide information that they are unable to provide is part of the reason I do not wish to see the block lifted. Tarc (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

and inexplicitly? --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 15:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see evidence and reasons for a block. And I ask myself too: why is Saibo blocked and Tarc not? Sockpuppet of mattbuck? (bah, scnr) --Funfood ␌ 16:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not blocked because I have not violated any policies of this project. Certain people have their hackles raised because I hold an opinion contrary to their own. Tarc (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Because no one felt that Tarc needed a "cool down"? Saibo's block isn't based on policy, so I feel that the block ought to be remove. Let Saibo speak however fiercely as he or she wishes. Let Tarc speak however fiercely as he or she wishes. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Suarez, Saibo's block isn't just for the Beta M stuff, it has to do with his general disruptiveness and behavior in the last few weeks. Read mattbuck's rationale. As for Naibot, this person was just given a 48h block on en.wiki for disrupting Jimbo's talk page with a pedophile-related joke that didn't go over so well with the audience. Both (50/50 whether 'both' is necessary) behaviors are becoming a net negative. Tarc (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

and again and again and again... That block is questionable to the core. I never intended such a usage of the words. All thanks belong to DC for serious investigation and presentation of something i didn't say. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 17:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Tarc, one of the most problematic aspects of your editing on Commons is the import of problems from en-WP to here. Doing that is disruptive to the discussion here. Your accusations may go beyond being ad hominems (which is bad enough), and appear to be actual personal attacks on the Commons users who are getting in the way of your editing goals. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

That is fairly ironic coming from a multiple-times-banned en.wiki editor who has brought those old en.wiki disputes to both Meta and now to Commons trying to get me into trouble. As far as "importing", um, no...the problem is right here at Commons itself and how it deals with problematic users...or how it doesn't deal with them, resulting in global locks. I have made no personal attacks here; in both this and the previous frivolous report, no one has actually be able to identify one. Tarc (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point Tarc. I asked you to stop importing problems to Commons, and you reply by making a personal attack on me, based on issues that you have imported from en-WP and Meta. This demonstrates exactly why I think you should not be editing here at all. The very important pedophilia issue could be dealt with much better by other Commons users who do not share your problematic approach. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I a not "proving" anything, other than pointing out that your claims regarding "importing problems" are demonstrably false. I have a problem with Saibo, Beta M, and Niabot on THIS project, and this project alone. I pointed out, however, how Niabot is becoming problematic on multiple projects. Are we clear? Tarc (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be great...if it were true, but I think it is not. You have regularly attacked those Commons users you think have gotten in the way of your editing goals. Often you have done that by importing issues from other projects. In general, you respond to obstacles to your editing goals with accusations and personal attacks. I wish you would leave dealing with the very important pedophilia issue to more capable Commons editors; and that you would leave Commons also, unless you have some image files you want to upload. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Malcolm, your claims to not reflect any reality of which I am aware. I have condemned a convicted felon and condemned those who didn't want to ban a convicted felon, neither of which qualify as personal attacks. My actions did not contravene any Commons policy, were squarely and completely in the right, I have no regrets, and will continue to do as I did if the need arises. My actions, and those of others (particularly the Wikipedia Review) were ultimately upheld by the Office Action that banned Beta M from the project. The reason I have had 2 complaints filed against me is because there are entrenched personalities in this project that did not like having their anthills kicked over. We all know that, even your friend Mbz1 recognized that above. I will not respond to you after this, as I refuse to be baited any further. Tarc (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

ROFL. I can't take your wording serious if your first comment in this thread was to deepen/repeating the allegations against me, my sock siabo, saibo and saibos sock aka me. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 18:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Tarc, everything I have said is based on edits you have made on this noticeboard. I know nothing about 'Office' actions against Beta M, nor about the history of Beta M; and I gave up on Wikipedia Review long ago because I consider it much more hopelessly defective than WP, which it claims to 'review.' Reading through your edits on this very page are more than enough to convince that you are the wrong person to deal with the problem which you have taken upon yourself to deal with. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Guys, why do not you stop now.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, it should really be stopped now.  Support a one week block for cooling-down, afterwards we all will see, if Tarc wants to contribute to Commons in a polite and useful way. Up to now, there's nothing useful in his whole edits in this project and also not on Jimbos talk page, where he was talking about Commons which had to be reigned by others. No, that's not useful editing here. He puts a big wedge inbetween the community, and the community has to deal with all these accuses and insults all the time. --Geitost ^diskusjon 21:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • This is all this ever amounts to; the same piling on by the same handful of names, making vague waves at "accuses and insults" without actually naming one. It is a fact that Beta M has been locked out of the project by the WMF. It is an opinion, based upon a plausible body of evidence up above that Saibo has been overly-aggressive in his support of Beta M's unblock. I have ruffled some feathers around here by pointing these things out. As I said in the first frivolous filing against me, I do not insult other editors, I do not edit-war, nor do I stalk or harass. Some people do not like the content of what I am saying, it isn't really about the saying itself. That is not a blockable offense on this or any other Wikimedia project, sorry. Tarc (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Hey Tarc, I can not speak for anyone else but your edit summery, "These supports come from those who oppose the message..", does not apply to me, and you know that. My objection is not your message on the pedophilia issue, but rather that your approach is doing more harm than good. Your presence here is, in my view, proving divisive and toxic. Please stop hiding behind the pedophilia issue to excuse your deplorable behavior on Commons. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Malcolm, I will stand corrected, as your "support" is driven by our old en.wiki Israel-Palestine animosity. As for "deplorable", you still cannot point to an actual deplorable comment. Tarc (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Hey Tarc, when I made this comment supporting you [2], I got blocked for a week by Rd232 who wanted the discussion closed. I was not driven by old disputes, but by what I thought the right thing to do. I would still be supporting you now, but have decided that your behavior here makes you the wrong person for dealing with the pedophilia issue. I wish you would get out of the way and let someone more capable deal with that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
        • I am more than capable with dealing with the problems in this project, and will continue to do so. I categorically reject the assertion that the line "since his friend Beta M", the spark for this Niabot complaint, was in anyway problematic. Time to unwatch this page for a bit. Tarc (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Magideleon

Magideleon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), after the removal of some copyvios she made, she wrote this in Pinal.jpg file description: yo misma tome la imagen, hijos de puta (translated from Spanish, it means i took the picture myself, sons of bitches). Allan Aguilar • talk • 23:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

 Comment. There are more insults from this user: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sistermagdolnagabor.jpg Allan Aguilar • talk • 23:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

And again: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sintitulo.jpeg. Allan Aguilar • talk • 00:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

2 semanas de reflexión Ezarateesteban 01:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Mattbuck

Admin Mattbuck blocked me a few days ago because of this announcement. This is very strange and biased because of some points I will conduct now.

(1) Mattbuck was obviously not able to follow circumstance because he assumed me for thinks that never happend. See here.

(2) Maybe it was a misunderstanding or disinterest of mattbuck so he threatened me not to commend QI/FP-statements which he reputed to be personal assaults by me. I never insulted one person because he or she is voting against me pictures. But I surly question the voting if it is smelling like a revenge. And I never did this because of a disagreement which is some months back (like mattbuck tries to imply). But if my behaviour should be culpable than for sure the behaviour of others acting same like Jebulon did should be penaled in the same way. But curiously mattbuck did not noticed this although I pointed this out.

(3) Just a few minutes before he posted his threat at my discussion page he voted at a highly controversial candidature against my picture. Because I considered his acting as a provocation I asked him if I could take him seriously if he is joining a candidature, gives dubiously contra-reason and wants to play a neutral troubleshooter. This gives me strong misgivings - until now.

(4) The high point of this infamy was that mattbuck published without my agreement my mail I have send to him. This infringement of protection of privacy is an ignoble behaviour for an administrator.

(5) Conclusion: I detected now and then that mattbuck is not a very confident and calm admin. But this behaviour is not tolerable that he is blocking me although he is involved because, in fact he conscious get himself involved.

So I request to revoke his rights of admins because he did not expound to handle this rights with care but only for his one conception that has nothing in common with defence of this project. I contributed thousands of pictures to this project, concern other user with respect and await the same to me. Nothing more, but also nothing less. --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This related to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_27#Taxiarchos228. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You repeatedly claimed people were voting at QI/FP as revenge against you for some imagined slight that those people did not even remember. I warned you not to. Yes, I voted against your image at QI, because I did not think it was worthy of QI. As anyone who watches my edits there (none for past week, bad connection) can tell you, I tend to consider any overexposure to be an immediate reason for decline. Your image had overexposure, and was in my mind badly composed, so I voted against it. Your response to this was to send me an email in which you accused me of voting against you as revenge - the exact thing I had just told you not to do. Therefore I blocked you for 3 days. You did not appeal this block through use of {{Unblock}}, and so were unbanned 9 days ago. I see nothing more to discuss. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

(after EC) Comprehension of you was not to await. Please do not repeat untrue myths like some imagined slight that those people did not even remember. You obviously acted biased because you self involved, it was not up to you to make here a decision. It is totaly beside the point how many days this ban is ago because here is a hard aberration and exceeding of your authority. --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

As noted in the original discussion about you, you here and here accused people of voting in revenge. Then in that very topic about you, you did it again and again. Finally after I warned you, and after Walter Siegmund warned you, you did it again, this time via email. Your behaviour was to my mind unacceptable so I banned you. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

And don't forgott this. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

A very wrong block. Abuse of admin buttons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Taxiarchos228; You are welcome to discuss Mattbuck's behavior here, but to remove his admin bit, you must follow the process of COM:DESYSOP. Please note that "this process should only be used for serious offenses in which there seems to be some consensus for removal". --Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Between expiration of the block (9 days ago) and the start of this topic, I see no Taxiarchos228 edits to User talk:Mattbuck. Taxiarchos228, could you try to resolve this with Mattbuck, before you involve the community and propose excessive measures like a desysop? Ices2Csharp (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

What would that be good for? He would clearly risk a new block by Mattbuck! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

...Your opinion of me is that low? -mattbuck (Talk) 22:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

He sent you a wikimail, and you blocked him for that. The other day, I was blocked because I posted on someone's userpage by another admin. It is dangerous. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Was it you, who recently said: "Stop to feel sorry about yourself"? BTW, I thought you know that we use we use this great utilety? -- RE rillke questions? 23:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I created that you know, because Saibo is my sockpuppet and Niabot is Saibo's sockpuppet. I, for the record, am Whitecat's sockpuppet, and I think he's Niabot's sockpuppet. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It's such a pity that I can't be your sockpuppet. *cry* So who’s my sockpuppetmaster now? --Geitost ^diskusjon 00:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that a sockpuppet always has its puppetmasters arm up its behind, do you? ;-). --Dschwen (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think that a block of Taxiarchos228 at the time was justified, as his repeated claims regarding the revenge votes were unwarranted, uncollegial and poisonous to the review atmosphere. But I agree that such a block should not have been done by mattbuck. In my opinion he was clearly involved. I also resent quoting private communications on-wiki, unless there is a clear agreement between the two parties users, that this is acceptable. I would be upset about that, if another user quoted email communications without my explicit acceptance. If I were mattbuck, I would apologize. --Slaunger (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with slaunger here, although I can understand Mattbuck publishing the mail. This almost smells like baiting by Taxiarchos, and then trying to lawyer about breach of privacy is a bit phony. Anyhow, what is the deal with all these very weak calls for de-admin. With the "arguments" presented it looks like demanding the death penalty for a parking violation, at best. Of course there are always the usual suspects to chime in with "lynch the admin" cries. I'm waiting for a few more who apparently didn't get the memo yet! --Dschwen (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Slaunger's comments above are wise as are those of 25 March 2012 (Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_27#Taxiarchos228). To quote Slaunger, "I hope Wladyslaw will take this advice as he is also a great photographer and a very productive asset to the project, which was clear to me when I nominated his first FP on Commons." The quality of our reviewers ranges from high to low. We have only a few who are both expert and have good communication skills. For many photographers, I've noticed that FPC and QI cease to be helpful to them at some point. Taxiarchos228 may have reached that point. FPC and QI are not essential to Commons, but talented contributors are its foundation. Taxiarchos228 would be well-advised, I think, to take a break from FPC and QI. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It's remarkable: every one detects the clear misuse of mattbuck, but no one wants to pull the consequences that should be pulled in such a case. @Dschwen: I never said that mattbuck should be de-admined for ever, there is also the possibility to de-admin temporarily. But until now mattbuck didn't even apologize for his fault. Instead of giving me advices how to contribute in Commons we should stick to the question. Mattbucks misuse is not a single error but a long series of many minor and major faults. For a single fault it never would be worthwhile to write here. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

User:JBarta and File:Biographies of living persons.jpg

User:Dardan007 has uploaded the file:Biographies of living persons.jpg. The name and the English description are rather confusing considering that what we see is just a person with sleepy eyes. Does the image represent a biography cover, biographer or a person's picture from a book with biographical chapters? In this context, I placed a note at the talkpage of the file and User:Jeff G. ツ placed a talkback note at the uploader's talkpage. Since the file was uncategorised, I had added Category:Biographies because of the description. In this context, user:Jbarta has been tagging this file for rename without any target. He has also used derogatory language on my talkpage. I request the admins to help me with the rename issue.

Also, I wonder how a user can call a filemover "silly" (see:User_talk:Hindustanilanguage#rename)when he himself has tagged another file File:Pussy close to orgasm.jpg for deletion citing Commons:Nudity#New_uploads when the clear guideline is available on this very page:
If a file depicts some phenomenon or circumstance which we do not already have representations of (for example, diseases or body modifications) then it should be kept, as it adds to the educational content of Commons. Wikimedia Commons should have media depicting human anatomy in all its variety and diversity.

IS THIS AN ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR ON COMMONS? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC).

The real issue here (the one that caused this noticeboard posting) is over the proper use of the rename tag. While a completely and properly filled out rename tag is a wonderful thing, the tag is designed in such a way to allow simply placing {{rename}} which then calls rename needs target and lets other users see that a rename is requested and then possibly suggest a more proper name. This usage is perfectly acceptable and noted in the template instructions. Hindustanilanguage is resisting this and insists that the only way the tag can be used is to fill it out completely. – JBarta (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope admins will carefully look into the matter and also the language used in the communication. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC).

Update: Another user has renamed the file to a better, though still essentially useless name and has nominated it for deletion. While the rename issue regarding this image specifically seems to be put to rest, the reason for this post (on the acceptable usage of the rename tag in general) could still be addressed. – JBarta (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Good. Now set all your worries to rest and try to do something productive rather than worrying about a redundant file. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC).

No, I think it would be a good issue to resolve. That way one of us doesn't make the same mistake in the future. – JBarta (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Update 2: Seems one of the protagonists has altered the template documentation to more closely fit his views of proper usage. Having tired long ago of wiki-battles, and since admins here seem preoccupied with more important matters, I'll bow out here. From my perspective the issue is resolved. – JBarta (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Mike letto (talk · contribs)

I have immediately indef'd this new user after he uploaded the 2 images File:Pedophile Mug Shot2.jpg and File:Pedophile mug shot.jpg, both images categorized into Homosexuality and Pedophiles and both showing the same fully identifiable person containing the descriptions "Hey kids!" resp. "My dates been in the bathroom for a long time". They were shot in a casual situation, indoor and gave not the slightest evidence of the uploader's claim. I've also deleted both images. A quick Google-images search gave no hits. In addition, I've asked legal/WMF for advise. --Túrelio (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok for me, good idea to ask legal/WMF. Please keep us informed if you can. --PierreSelim (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Creation of Wrong Category by SpacemanSpiff

SpacemanSpiff has created a wrong Category:Sheetal_Mallar. I think it will be appropriate to rename it to Category:Sheetal Malhar. See. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC).

Hi Hindustani, categories and their correct names are to be discussed at COM:CFD. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Creation of "bulk images" category to avoid crowding specific categories.

I'm maintaining Category:Synthesizers for several years. Today, I've created Category:Musicians with synthesizers (bulk images) under Category:Musicians with synthesizers to avoid crowding categories by almost same bulk images. However, administration User:A.Savin revert it and he/she said he/she will block me if I try to it again.

In my eyes, his/her action is not reasonable because he/she didn't try to form consensus through discussion before reverting it.

Is his/her action right as administrator of Wikimedia Commons ? I'm glad if I could read your sincere advices. best, --Clusternote (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Read Commons:Categories. The scope of a category is to make images easier to find according to their topic. Neither Category:Musicians with synthesizers (bulk images) nor Category:Musicians with synthesizers on Schallwelle 2012 which you attempted to create recently seem helpful for that issue. An inferior category should not be created just to split up the superior one. And you should not arrogate to call images "bulk" when they are in project scope and of acceptable quality. - A.Savin 11:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Galleries could be used to gather set of "best" and most representive pictures about given subject. A.J. (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Relevant quote: Categories should contain all files related to the subject while galleries should contain a sample of files related to the subject. Ideally, galleries should contain the best of what we have. All files should be in at least one category, but not all files should be in a gallery.. A.J. (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm calling "bulk images" for almost same images such like below. These almost same images are unnecessary crowding the category and disturb easiness of finding of desired images.

• Schallwelle 2012 - Frank van Bogaert
• 
  File:Schallwelle_2012_Img33_-_Frank_van_Bogaert_01.jpg
• 
  File:Schallwelle_2012_Img34_-_Frank_van_Bogaert_02.jpg
• 
  File:Schallwelle_2012_Img35_-_Frank_van_Bogaert_03.jpg
• 
  File:Schallwelle_2012_Img36_-_Frank_van_Bogaert_04.jpg
• 
  File:Schallwelle_2012_Img37_-_Frank_van_Bogaert_05.jpg

• Schallwelle 2012 - Frank van Bogaert - with Erik Wollo
• 
  File:Schallwelle_2012_Img38_-_Frank_van_Bogaert_06 - with Erik Wollo.jpg
• 
  File:Schallwelle_2012_Img39_-_Frank_van_Bogaert_07 - with Erik Wollo.jpg
• 
  File:Schallwelle_2012_Img40_-_Frank_van_Bogaert_08 - with Erik Wollo.jpg
• 
  File:Schallwelle 2012 Img41 - Frank van Bogaert 09 - with Erik Wollo.jpg

On this situation, by sub-categorizing these almost same images under "... (bulk images)" category, the outlook of upper category became clear, and user can easily find desired image except for almost same images. Also these almost same images can easily find through musician categories (for example, Category:Frank van Bogaert) described on sample image left on upper category, or CatScan utility.

Originally, my intention of creating Category:Musicians with synthesizers is not for the place holder of bulk images, but for the almost unique images of each musicians/instruments pair, as already written on top of category: "There should be only one image/video per each musicians to avoid crowding of category.". And this explicit rule is already accepted on various similar categories including Category:Guitarists with guitars hierarchy, Category:Bassists with instruments hierarchy, etc, etc. --Clusternote (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This "one-musician-rule" is purely your invention, no comparable category forbids multiple files of the same subject. If you want to establish such limitations, you should start a proposal on COM:VP or at discussion pages related to categories. - A.Savin 13:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

+1 to what A.Savin said. I believe Clusternote is confusing categories for galleries. Galleries: Galleries exist to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons. Usually, they are created to give a sample or overview of all the media on a given topic. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, PierreSelim. It is not my original idea. Similar rule is already realized on several other categories, and these are well functioned by cooperation of users. --Clusternote (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, A.J. Thanks for your suggestion. Probably above categories (Category:Guitarists with guitars, etc) may be worked as somewhat "category as gallery" which is not yet widely accepted notion on Wikimedia Commons.

On guitar relating categories, the users are so friendly and almost cooperative, thus, these implicit notion suggested realized by other user have been virtually accepted without explicit discussions.

However, synthesizer category seems not (I didn't know it until today). Probably we need new consensus to create category excluding bulk images (if this idea is accepted). --Clusternote (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Categories are usable through the upload wizard for exemple where users won't see the notice whether it's a gallery category or not (I can think also of cat-a-lot, etc.). It means just this usage is wrong by design, users can and will not see your implicit rules. Really you should be looking for galleries it was design for the usage you want.--PierreSelim (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I know well about these issue. Category:Musicians with synthesizers is not matched with any Wikipedia category, thus, it may be almost ignored at uploading, then volunteers including me may manually copy them to the category if it is appropriate. Therefore, invisibility of notice at uploading may be no problem at all.

On the other hand, gallery on Wikimedia Commons is not what is needed on this issue. The issue to be solved is crowding of category caused by almost same images. best, --Clusternote (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be matched on Wikipedia to be used. One last time you should look for gallery. Your usage is just totally different than the usual usage on Commons, if you want to change things like this you must discuss first (it's not the other way around). --PierreSelim (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your kindly advice. What I explained above is already realized on Guitar related categories by other users to solve several problems, and it seems almost accepted by others including me as practical and rational idea, thus I expect it may be also useful on synthesizer category. However, my expectation seems not appropriate (probably because this idea is slightly hard to understand without enough experience on re-organization of thousands of not well organized or possibly un-categorized media). I withdrew the proposal, and later I'll try to resolve the issue by other means. Thanks. --Clusternote (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

First, indeed, Clusternote maintains the music instrument categories very well since many years. Obviously, "bulk image" categories are not a good idea, basically we should have some stacking system to pile up similar images series (possibly in various file formats). On the other hand, Category:Musicians with synthesizers on Schallwelle 2012 was a good idea. As this does not sound acceptable neither, we have to filter more strongly. I removed some of the Schallwelle images from [[:Category:Musicians with synthesizers as they did not really showed the musician AND the synth; they might basically suggest the presence of a synth or because the author knows that there was a synth. --Foroa (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You could include a gallery in the description of the category ? It would keep the idea of showing a limited amount of picture and won't ruin the category system. --PierreSelim (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Block review of user:Thekohser

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Independent review by a bureaucrat requested

This "consensus" was an incorrect rationale as an unblock justification when it has been already reported as manipulated by a travelling circus.

To then have the person raising the unblock request as the person halting further discussion is out of order. Since when did the off-wiki canvassing mob from Greg Kohs' thekohser's website start dictating how Wikimedia Commons processes ought to work, particularly as it relates to Greg Kohs thekohser himself?

Could we please have an independent bureaucrat summarize what has happened here and confirm or reject the rationale for Zscout370's unblock decision as stated. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is an out and out personal attack by Fæ on other Commons users. Since I am one of the users who supported the unblock, I challenge him to support his accusation against me. In my view, his accusation is both unsupported and vicious, and deserves a block for disruptiveness. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment out of curiosity why asking for a bureaucrat on the admin noticeboard ? --PierreSelim (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • In this context, I believe the role of Bureaucrat as defined by COM:Bureaucrats Community role is suited to the required review here. I can raise a note on Bureaucrats' noticeboard to flag this discussion for attention if you feel it would not be noticed. --Fæ (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think there's any need to take any further action here unless the blocking admin, who made a vague claim to relevant private information but hasn't commented here (I don't know if Zscout did talk to him, as the blocking admin requested), wishes to pursue the matter. Without relevant private information, the block was clearly unjustified, and pointing out that X, Y and Z agree it's unjustified doesn't change that fact. If there is anything so extraordinary here as to require bureaucrat review, it's the block, not the unblock. Rd232 (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The rationale for overturning the block was stated as "consensus", not due to private information or due to the unblocking admin stating the original block was at fault. The discussion has been challenged as being actively manipulated by a travelling circus. An independent review is needed if the community is to have confidence in the outcome. That review may well assess the original block rationale, as well as the unblock rationale. This would address the additional concerns you are raising here. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Though I've no deeply-informed opinion about user:Thekohser and his block, I agree with Fæ that this unblock request was obviously a proof-of-concept study whether the well-known "travelling circus" etc. can influence decision-making on Commons, in which they regrettably have succeeded. If this request had really been about Mr. Kohs being possible to edit on Commons, he could have easily used his second account User:Thekohser (usurped), which had never been blocked. --Túrelio (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

are you really suggesting a user should have used an alternate account to evade a block instead of appealing the block? I seem to have wandered into an alternate universe here - how do I get back home? Rd232 (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to tell you this Rd232, but once you believe in the Kohser's methods, the ruby slippers just don't work any more. I have suggested a different path home on your talk page, it's just not as easy. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Requests for comment/offsite discussions. Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

NB: There was, as far as I can see, there is only one oppose vote. It did not require a "traveling circus" to out vote a single oppose. Of the so called "traveling circus" that supported the unblock, the votes were from a editors who I have not previously seen in agreement on anything. Fæ's accusations seem both irrational and vicious, and I do not understand why he has not been blocked for disruptivness, nor even been given a warning. Considering the speed in which other users have been given blocks and warnings, this has become a fairness issue. Why has no administrator taken action against Fæ? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

---

I'm closing this discussion since the review request has been withdrawn on the 'crat board. If there is a change of heart, I'm willing to do a review of both the block and unblock, if the originating party wishes to disclose the private evidence to me. Otherwise it could be sent to higher powers, but the discussion here has run its course. --99of9 (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Even without a review, I think a (voluntary?) interaction ban between Fæ and Thekohser would probably help all concerned... but that can be discussed in a different section. --99of9 (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Possible account with an intent of impersonation

I've marked the file:Amanda Reznor.jpg for deletion based on the DR Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Colorareznor.jpg. The files are supposed to be uploaded by User:Amandareznor. I searched the internet and found an account on twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/amandareznor . She appears to be a writer. I wonder whether she has created an account or somebody else on her name, given the fact that only two edits exist in her global account.Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC).

Copyvio from [3] --Ezarateesteban 16:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Should this impersonating account not be BLOCKED? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC).

Are you sure it's not the same person ? --PierreSelim (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not quite sure. But please tell me the policy about the files such as File:Combo_RGB_cropped.jpg - Individuals either own or as a reps of organisations/ persons register for Commons only to upload one or two images, if indeed they represent the organization/person. Thereafter, there is no contribution. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC).

Shania Twain Portugal

Shania Twain Portugal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

She still uploads copyvios besides warnings. Ralgis 17:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 Comment Hello! You must tell User:Shania Twain Portugal on his talk page that you have posted a something about her/him here on this noticeboard. --High Contrast (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 Info I've done this on her talkpage for Ralgis. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC).

Perfect. Let's see what she/he is saying to this. --High Contrast (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 Comment Good night, do not understand what is at issue, just published a flickr image with a license different from what was there because in the Commons there was a license that was in filckr, I thought the issue was resolved because the image was deleted. If you are referring to this https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:S%C3%ADlvia_Rizzo.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1, but has been eliminated by that I do not see what problem. All other images are loaded for me in the right way, by the way OTRS, only awaiting verification by a volunteer. So I'm not even notice the problem, I'm sorry but my English is not very good. thanks, Shania Twain Portugal (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Because you tagged the image with cc-by-2.0 instead of the correct cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 (which is a speedy deletion tag due to the noncommercial restriction). --Denniss (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm ok, I understand, is that I had not realized that the license was different from what I put, that's why there did not appear, thanks. By the way, someone could help me accompanying the request for permission to OTRS the following images: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Agarra_que_%C3%A9_honesto.png and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vai_de_Email_a_pior.png, is that I've asked several OTRS volunteers help but none helped me, will you I can indicate some specific volunteer you do not mind helping me? thanks, Shania Twain Portugal (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Lordquinn (talk · contribs)

I have indef blocked this new user, as he tried to use Commons to solicit sexual contacts, either seriously or as a very bad joke, per the descriptions of his 3 low-quality penis-homeshot uploads ("I like it when females make fun of my tiny penis. If you are female and interested contact me via email." and "I like it when women laugh and make fun of it. If you are interested in poking fun at it leave me a message."). Other opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree - pretty sure that is a sock - I eliminated similar sometime in the past couple of months I am pretty sure. Same posting style etc however CU shows nothing for this one - will dig more later. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

inappropriate username Josestalin9 (talk · contribs)

The same as we hardly would accept a user impersonating Adolf Hitler, Josestalin9 is an inappropriate username IMO — notwithstanding the fact the this users only upload was a copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

My first reaction was to agree and move my mouse toward a block, and I don't mean to split hairs, but it is "Jose", not "Joseph" and Google shows that are people of the name "Jose Stalin".      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Jose Stalin is an alternative Spanish transliteration of Иосиф Сталин, as mentioned in Iósif Stalin. The IP address that added the copyvio upload to a Wikipedia article also made this edit. I don't think we lost a valuable contributor here. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

New account Josestalin (talk · contribs) a sockpuppet of Josestalin9 (talk · contribs)? --Túrelio (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Stalin is a surname in Sweden (sv:Kerstin-Maria Stalín for example). I really do not see the problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Problematic category moves by NeverDoING

NeverDoING (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Recently I uploaded some images and created a new category for them [4], and yesterday ‎user:NeverDoING moved them all to Category:Triple spiral. I left an explanation on NeverDoING's talk page [5] explaining why he/she should not have done that. But because NeverDoING is a German speaker, I asked A.Savin to translate my message which he did.

But the problem seems to go beyond language, and NeverDoING has now made a number of category moves that seem problematic. For instance he/she moved 'Category:Historic Buildings in Fort Worth to Category:Historic buildings in Texas', and 'category: Historic buildings in Fort Worth' no longer exists. Actually, 'Category:Historic Buildings in Fort Worth' should have been made a sub-category of 'Category:Historic buildings in Texas' (if it was not already). [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]

Could something be done to restrain NeverDoING's enthusiasm for moving categories until he understands what he is doing? I have notified NeverDoING of this thread. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the category Category:Historic Buildings in Fort Worth never existed in the first place, and this is a common procedure here on Wikimedia Commons to move files from an non-existing category to a more general one (especially when it comes to geography-related categories). A very similar situation applies to Category:Celtic spirals: you had placed many images in a non-existing category, and NeverDoING simply moved them to an existing one, in this case Category:Triple spiral (shouldn't be it plural, by the way?) per the English Wikipedia definition (more details on NeverDoING's talk page). For more information on categorising images on Commons, please refer to Commons:Categories; and please, don't bring such topics to this noticeboard before trying to actually talk to the user in question. Thank you! odder (talk) 08:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I did try to talk to the person in question, to no avail. I also asked an administrator if bringing the discussion to a Commons noticeboard would be the best course, and he suggested I bring it here. I do not know if Historic Buildings in Fort Worth existed as a category, but NeverDoING's edit summaries to 13 files said he was moving them from that category to another. I do know for certain that Celtic Spirals existed as a category because I had created that category myself, and NeverDoING seems to have obliterated it when moving the images I uploaded to category Triple spiral; where most of them do not belong because they are not triple spirals. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

This is actually not true; the logs tell me that Category:Celtic spirals was created by NeverDoING on April 19, and you placed some files into this non-existing category as early as on April 17. Additionally, you have left just one message on NeverDoING's talk page, then asked A.Savin for help with translation, and then asked him again whether you shouldn't bring this topic to a Commons noticeboard, without trying to contact NeverDoING for the second time. I see that A.Savin indeed suggested bringing this topic into here, but it doesn't really justify not contacting the user for at least a second time before doing so (in my opinion). I am not an expert in Celtic symbols, so I won't go into details about the merits, but I believe that NeverDoING acted upon the suggestion of an English Wikipedia article on triple spiral. odder (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Odder, I created the category for these files when I uploaded them, and I intend to add more to Category:Celtic spirals when I can get this mess straightened out. As for your other comments, they are either also wrong, or do not make any sense. All I want is for the Category:Celtic spirals to be restored, and the files returned to them. That seems a rational expectation, and it seems simple and easy to understand. I do not think that is asking for much. (I think NeverDoING has made a mess with other categories that he has moved, but if no one else on Commons cares about that, then screw it.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Let's not exaggerate the problem, Malcolm. You created a number of images with a non existing Category:Celtic spirals. We routinely spot such "upcoming" categories and the first thing we try to do is to merge check if there is a real need for a new category or it belongs rather to another existing category. So NeverDoING was under the impression that it was belonging to Category:Triple spiral, a corresponding Celtic symbol, so he moved it overthere.

Similarly, he spotted the non existing Category:Historic Buildings in Fort Worth with a capitalisation error. There is a debate going on historic buildings as the definition is unclear, and basically, nearly all buildings are historical one way or another. So he moved it to an existing higher level one Category:Historic buildings in Texas; it makes no sense to spread the historic building problem even deeper in the category trees. A move to Category:Buildings in Fort Worth, Texas might have been better, but correct categorisation never ends. --Foroa (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Foroa, I uploaded the files on 17 April. I created Category:Celtic spirals on 18 April. NeverDoING moved Category:Celtic spirals to Category:Triple spiral on 20 April [19]. I explained to NeverDoING that he had made a mistake, but he was not interested. But, you know what: Forget I even asked. The files are in a wrong category, but that's just one more Commons SNAFU. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, there is clearly a valid point here. I am not really happy with the fact that this file is in the category which is included in Category:Celtic symbols. I first thought about recreating Category:Celtic spirals as a subcategory of Category:Triple spiral, but this is also not a good solution since not all Celtic spirals are triple. Celtic spirals seem to originate from the Newgrange symbopls, which are the same but not Celtic. Any ideas how to solve this?--Ymblanter (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It had been my intention to make 'Celtic spirals' a subcategory of Category:Celtic art. Additionally I intended to make subcategories for Celtic Knots, Celtic Step patterns (also called 'key patterns'), Celtic animal patterns, and Celtic 'tree of life'. These are all recognized categories in Celtic Art. All the images I uploaded on 17 April were from a section of the book by J. Romilly Allen (called 'Celtic art in pagan and Christian times') on Celtic spirals, so I kept them together; although the Newgrange spirals could be separated out. Allen's book is still considered one of the best scholarly studies on Celtic art, even though published more than 100 years ago. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have just seen that there are some spirals in the book which are not (or at least do not look like) triple spirals. Otherwise, there could be a category of Category:Celtic spirals which belongs to both Category:Celtic symbols (or Category:Celtic art), and Category:Triple spiral.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. That seems a logical approach. Aside from the two Newgrange images, only one of the other images is definitely a triple spiral. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

As someone who has uploaded a lot of Triple spiral images, they're not all Celtic, and I'm not sure I see any need for a distinctive category for spiral images which are Celtic-but-non-triple. There's also an existing category Category:Celtic knots and three or four categories with "tree of life" in their names. AnonMoos (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

AnonMoos, I have no idea why 'triple spiral' is a category, instead of an image gallery. About the only thing to be found on the subject, in a web search, is the WP article, which is also mostly your own work. There is no apparent rational reason for the category. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what that's about -- there's a Category:Triple spiral because we have at least 63 images of triple spirals (only about half by me). We could create a gallery of some of the best triple spiral images, but that would not mean that the category should be deleted. The article "Triple Spiral" is in fact not really mostly by me, and the Newgrange stone is rather famous quite independently of anything I've ever done. Put "triple spiral" into Google image search, and you can turn up thousands of triple spiral images not by me... AnonMoos (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

revision 70081813 by 200.3.222.40

A user by the IP address cited above attempted to stealthily remove a key argument of the DR Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Carta_a_Videla._Andrés_Belguich.jpg. I've undone this move. I wonder if this represents the IP of the uploader. My main focus here is to inform that the key argument of the DR cited above can now be removed by a person with vested interest to see the file remains intact. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC).

No big deal. The IP just did one edit and this was blatant vandalism. --High Contrast (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Inspite of all these attempts, the file has been deleted. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC).

User:189.70.92.232

Not a vandal, per se, but certainly a troll... Anons should not be closing deletion requests. Also consider his deletion reasoning here... he's arguing the file should be deleted because it's in black and white?? -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 04:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please check suspect contributions from an user

Hello, I'm an admin in it.wiki. I discovered that User:LucaChp loaded several images in Commons in explicit copyright violation (the pictures are all evidently marked with a "©" sign). I was able to mark some of them for speedy deletion, where I was able to evidence it, but this user uploaded also many other contributions, all of them in the very short term. I'd kindly ask the admins here on Commons to have a check also on the other contributions by this user, since I suspect there could be further copyright infringements. Many thanks. --L736E (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I've got rid of a few. Looking at a number of them though the EXIF info is of the same camera and the standard of photography is the same so those ones I guess are legit. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Rename requests of unknown IP address holders

I would like to know the esteemed opinion in connection with an angry message by an unknown IP addressee on my talk page. As a safety measure I refused the renaming requests. But the IP addressee is outsmarting me by reverting my denial and probably unknowingly an admin / filemover would have renamed the files by now. Please advice and look into the intentions of this user. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC).

Should anyone wish to contact me about the above, or any of my other edits, please add a comment to my talk page. Answers may be delayed (dinner time). I am unlikely to check this page for commments. 212.10.73.34 18:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

And by the way, this isn't about "outsmarting" anyone. This is about two files with misleading names, me requesting a rename, and you refusing solely because it was made by an IP (evidently without any checking; you could have asked me or followed the recommendation in my comment on your talk). The files are still on the misleading names, but at least they now have the rename requests. The reverts were also peculiar because the request for rename was reverted, but my corrections to the identification in the Description box and categories weren't. 212.10.73.34 18:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

What stops you from having an account? Consider this: I give a check of $5,000 to John who has some identity (at least name) and another situation where some X comes and asks for same and I blindly had it over to him. Is there any difference? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC).

By the way its post midnight in my country and I'm diving into the bed. Discussions, if any, involving me, shall continue tomorrow. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC).

I do not know this bird, but file:Monasa_nigrifrons_6.jpg clearly does not fit in Category:Monasa nigrifrons. The name must be wrong. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

@Hindustanilanguage: That example ("$5,000 to John") is irrelevant to wikipedia. It appears you are suggesting that assume good faith only is something registered users should expect. IP edits = assume bad faith?! Even if you feared sneaky vandalism, you could easily have done something to actually check this: You did not ask me to provide details for the identification, you did not base the revert on my other edits (~40 edits, none with any problems, before you revert), you did not check the identification yourself (two very different species; dark grey plumage & red beak vs. barred black-and-white plumage & grey beak), and you did not check the flickr source of the files (which has the correct ID). Your edit summary made it perfectly clear why it was reverted; solely because the edit was by an IP. If that was a valid reason, IP editing wouldn't be possible on wikipedia. And when I pointed you to your mistake, your reaction was to add a message here, asking others to "look into the intentions of this user". Contrary to the suggestion in your first post I am not angry (and if it appeared like that, my mistake), but I am certainly puzzled by your actions and hope this is a one-off. 212.10.73.34 00:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

On this very Commons, one user gave threat to my very existence. Another user used the term "riding on a high horse" for my humble efforts to maintain norms. But there are two points which need clarification and probably admins can help us out:

• Should filemovers like myself view the rename requests by IP address holders as much trusted as account holders?
• Opinion of others like Pieter Kuiper with regard to the request.
  
  

I've no ill feeling for 212.10.73.34 (Denmark User). But my friendly and humble request to you is please have an account because:

• Your edits will be viewed more credible.
• Each person can edit from at least four locations (4 IPs) : home PC, laptop, family member's PC and may be office / university PC. Possibility of inadvertent situation where two persons edit from the same IP is high. Whereas your occasional edits even from a totally new IP will be recorded your account. Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC).

Anyone can edit under IP, and you should not assume the quality of the edit by the username or IP. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Congrats, 212.10.73.34, you've made a point. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC).

Regarding the rename request, I would have accepted it, despite the very bad quality of the pictures it's almost certain the IP had the good identification. --PierreSelim (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Since I was busy with other file-moves, categorization and other activities, I didn't carry out the renaming personally but I s'pose someone from our filemovers' brotherhood might have done it already. But tell me Pierre, will you not at all insist on 'desirability' if not 'necessity' of having user-id? Is it really bad that I am tagged as Hindustanilanguage and you are PierreSelim when we could just type and happily be part of our close-knit Wiki World and avail its goodies? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC).

Ottava Rima

Ottava Rima (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Ottava Rima was blocked more than three months ago in consequence of this discussion which asks for a public discussion before an unblock can be done. Some days ago, Ottava Rima posted an unblock request on his talk page with a rationale of "Yeah" which was subsequently declined. Today, Ottava Rima stated that he is ready to open a discussion. Ottava Rima contacted me via IRC, asking for support. I told Ottava Rima that I will post at this board as soon as I see a statement by him in response to the closure that lead to the block. This statement has now been posted at his talk page. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Does "Admins have been so unfair and you shouldn't block a contributor that has uploaded so much good stuff" really deserve consideration?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

He was blocked on the basis of being unable to work constructively with other people. Herby declined the "yeah" unblock as he assumed that Ottava would post a more comprehensive unblock reason, and so thought the account might be compromised. Ottava's response, rather than taking this onboard and coming up with a better reason, was to immediately claim it was harrassment and a conspiracy against him. He has not changed, he will not change, he should stay blocked. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to say that I was probably wrong to decline the unblock request with hindsight. However - to me - an unblock request based on "Yeah" simply was not serious and showed no indication of wishing the deal with the issues that had been raised. Fairly obviously I will not have anything further to do with the unblock request although I think OR is wrong to declare that certain people cannot deal with him - he is a user like everyone else. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

 Comment Ottava Rima was given few second chances already [20], however the discussion closure in January is clear to me, if Ottava Rima would agree on the condition listed here he could be unblock after a month. If he does not respect those conditions we have the possibility to reinstate the block. Now, I'm puzzled because I don't find it clear that Ottava Rima fully agrees with thoses condition while reading his talk page: here he agrees with the conditions, here it doesn't matter what he says, and there he requests a review of the original block. To conclude, I'm not opposed to the unblock however I'm not totally convinced it will last very long. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'd like to hear his "agreement with conditions" in his own words, because I also find unclear exactly what he agrees to or how he plans to behave. --99of9 (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment I'd like to thank Herby for his comment! Anybody could make a mistake, but only fair and brave ones admit they did. mattbuck has no business commenting neither here nor at Ottava's talk page, not after that barnstar he gave to another editor. Now about Ottava, I believe Ottava should be satisfied with Herby's comment and drop his request at looking into original block. Now it is time to look forward, not back. Of course some could say that I did not use my own advise towards Gwen Gale, but there was a different story. If it were concerning only me alone, I would not have submitted the RFC. Only because she has bullied dozens of users, including but not limited to 16-years old kid to the extend he felt as killing himself, and a world known expert who left wikipedia because of her, I did not feel as keeping silent was the right thing to do. I know it is hard for Ottava to admit he was wrong especially, if he's sure he was right. So let's drop the request about admission. If Ottava withdraws his request of looking into original block,and promises to let go on his charges against Herby, I believe he could be unblocked. After all any user could be reblocked by an uninvolved admin, if a problem persist. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  The barnstar was a bit of sarcastic humour, albeit yes, in bad taste. Such humour should not preclude me from being able to comment on matters in which I have been involved. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  That barnstar was a baiting of a blocked editor, and it was not the first time you did it. I believe I read somewhere at that very board that you published an email a blocked editor sent to you. You are an admin, and you should be especially sensitive to these kind of things. It is so easy to become a bully. May I please ask you to read what an admin HJ Mitchell said about never ending bullying of admin sandstein: "The way you dish out blocks is worse than any admin I've ever seen, but you cannot or will not accept that there is a problem. You lack the judgement, and the thickness of skin, to do the job properly; you lack the compassion, humanity and humility to admit it when you fuck up (and we all fuck up Sandstein, even you); and you lack the perspective to be imposing blocks." Although it was said on English wikipedia about sandstein, and about blocking, but sadly it applies to many admins at every WMF project, including Commons, and bullying could express itself differently, not only in imposing blocks. We all should exercise compassion and humanity towards another users human beings, and if we " fuck up" we should be compassionate and fair to admit it just to make this another human being to feel better. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you please refrain from this kind of attacks, that can be read between the lines, which have no correlation to reality and have little to nothing to do with the outrage from Ottava? --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 21:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• The reason I supported Ottava Rima's block was because in what should have been neutral discussions he would quickly escalate to personal attacks and accuse long-term editors of intent to damage Commons. Some people lose their temper and do such things, but even when calm Ottava Rima has never seemed to recognize that his behavior is less than productive. Now that he's been blocked, he posts an unblock message where the closest thing to admitting that he could behave better is basically a claim that he should get a pass for being a good contributor, and says of Mattbuck "Such people should really have no ability to participate in any kind of discussion as they use admin tools as just another way to spread hate."[21] If he's continuing the behavior that got him blocked while asking for an unblock, why should we think that he'll do anything different when unblocked?--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not support an unblock. Looking at his talk page, it is littered with nothing but attempts to find fault at his original block, whether it's how it was applied, who applied it, or who weighed in on the discussion about doing a block. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

 Comment Why was this thread even created? The initial unblock request was so ridiculous the responding admin thought it might be an imposter, and there hasn't been another. Nor has there been a clear statement by Ottava addressing the conditions set out in the Block decision, namely Admits responsibility for, and commits not to continue... (I won't quote the list here). But Ottava's subsequent comments on his talk page give every impression that he does not recognise why he was blocked, and does not intend to try to address the problems. It is also worth remembering that in the past Ottava has been unblocked on the basis of a clear endorsement of an edit restriction, which he then subsequently repudiated (Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_32#Breach_of_previous_restrictions) without consequence. As the lengthy block discussion showed, Ottava has acted in a certain way for a very long time, across multiple projects. There is no sign whatsoever of that changing. But in the absence of a serious unblock request, why are we even talking about it? Rd232 (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Block query

Spotting the latest contributions of this user I've placed a block to prevent further disruption. the name will probably ring a bell with a number of users. The history of copvios and some previous vandalism (combined with the RfA/RfCU etc) suggest to me that others should have some input into this. I really an not sure whether it is time for a much longer block (or indef)? Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I begin to think it's a vandalism-only account. And given the fact he's also blocked indef on en-wiki I'd support an indef block here as well. Trijnstel_talk 13:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed Billinghurst globally locked the account, which means he can't login on any Wikimedia project anymore. Trijnstel_talk 13:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

As this account has been globally locked and Trijnstel 've said above, I have blocked it indefinitely. But please tell me whether the email/talk page function should be blocked or not. Regards--Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

COM:BLOCK gives no support for blocking email and talk page access. And that global lock also seems a bit over the top, to put it mildly. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Given the belief apparently that the account is compromised the lock seems fine for now. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Juicybnana

I believe User:Juicybnana is an alternate account of User:Juicyyummybanana. Juicyyummybanana was previously brought to AN/U (by myself) here, for uploading useless exhibitionist pics. Juicybnana now appears to be doing the same thing. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of multiple account - blocked, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I blocked Juicyyummybanana now as well. Trijnstel_talk 12:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Archiving error

Lots of discussions on this page were just "archived" by MiszaBot, meaning that they were removed from the page. However, it seems that the discussions weren't added to any archive, so something seems to be wrong. See also User talk:Misza13#Archiving error. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Weird. It just created the archive page now. [22] Killiondude (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Suspect uploads may need attention

Can someone please have a look at the contributions of User:Tekxtinct. There are a number of files already tagged for deletion and I have tagged two more as possible copyright violations. I have also had a conversation with this user under his wp account w:User:Vivek Rai in this thread in which his questions and attitude to copyright set me to have a look at his contribution list. It may be that it is just misunderstanding of the copyright rules but of the rest of his uploads a lot appear unattributed on the college website https://www.wix.com/shreejainvidyalaya/project/ so they might be genuine but I can't tell. Nthep (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted the copy vios and listed two others for deletion. Don't have time to comment on the user's page since I'm on duty at a museum in an hours time, would be great if another Admin with time could. Bidgee (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Bidgee : Sir, the two images you have listed for deletion just because I have a history of some cases of copyright violation, is just as like attacking a nation just because it has a history of waging war. The two images that you have nominated for deletion are my work and if you can find them elsewhere on the Internet, the I will myself remove all of the images that I have uploaded to Wikipedia. This is absolutely unacceptable. Tekxtinct (talk) 06:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Nthep : Sir, Simply because I started the discussion does not mean that I'm the convict itself. I was taking examples of possibilities. What you are saying is just like convicting a lawyer simply because he is pleading for another person of guilt. Is this fair too? I accept that some of the the pictures I have uploaded might have wrong licenses. This doesn't mean that whatever I do in my life is a case of someone else's copyright violation. Regarding the Website you have, I would say that my work is NOT derived from there. However, there is strong possibility that his might be. Tekxtinct (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Taking photographs off another website and photographing another photograph doesn't mean or make you own the copyright of the works. Of the two photographs I've put to a DR, my concerns are vaild. Bidgee (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

How am I supposed to upload something that is over 60 years old? Obviously neither the Photographer , nor the subject itself is alive in this case. Tekxtinct (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There are ways of doing it, that we are discussing on en-wp. If you had asked first rather than put an obviously wrong licence on the upload it could have been sorted out before we got to this stage. Nthep (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

HOAupdates (talk · contribs)

Blocked for a day after repeted uploads of copyvios. Yann (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Adultnolveltees (talk · contribs)

Blocked for a day after uploading copyvios from an adult website, with repeated links to the site, which is spamming. I think that the home page of this user needs also to be deleted as spam. Yann (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Fully d'accord. I've speedied his userpage as it was clearly spam. --Túrelio (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Золотов (talk · contribs)

Blocked for a day for uploading many files with a bogus license (bank notes). Clean up needed. Yann (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Need help changing an entry and image title

Hello! I recently created a page "Ferdinand N. Kahler, Sr." and an image of same - using one source of info, I entered the name as "Ferdinand T. Kahler, Sr." for both - but subsequent research proves his middle name was "Nikolas" and therefore, the entry and image titles need to be changed to "Ferdinand N. Kahler" - I'm asking an administrator make the changes so the entries are accurate.

Thank you! WilliamWmArbaugh (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sridhar Babu redux

Sridhar Babu Peram (talk · contribs) is the latest avatar of the sockmaster. One account Sridhar1000 (talk · contribs) has been locked globally, while numerous socks have been blocked here and on en.wiki (that I know of, could include other wikis too). I'm not sure what to make of this, but the new account is reuploading different color versions over uploads from the old accounts and/or nominating for deletion. A fine-tooth comb is probably required to go through the images to check whether the tags are in fact correct (we deleted a horde of copyvios from earlier socks, and almost all content contribution on en.wiki was copyvio). —SpacemanSpiff 11:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Indefed, will nuke all uploads. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Or I would if Nuke was working. *sighs* -mattbuck (Talk) 11:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Thanks, the reason I didn't request nuke yet was that some of the uploads appear to be ok for the Sridhar1000 account, unlike the earlier socks, but then again, it's really a question of whether it's worth spending the time to go through these uploads individually to make sure. I'll leave that judgment to someone who can actually nuke :) —SpacemanSpiff 12:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Gonzaargento

Gonzaargento (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been warned a lot of times and has never been blocked besides all his/her copyvios. Ralgis 17:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Offline for a month. --Denniss (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Azad121

Has been uploading copyvios including overwriting existing images despite many warnings. Also, likely reincarnation of globally locked User:Ali432 (apparently Herby's on a break and I couldn't find the relevant CU filing page, so bringing it here). Some of the reuploads have to be removed as he's reverting back continuously. I've tried to reason with him on his talk page, my talk page and at Commons:Requests for rights#Azad121 but to no avail. —SpacemanSpiff 07:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your report. I've blocked this sock indefinitely. Mathonius (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Chrispilot2293

Chrispilot2293 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Still uploading copyvios besides block. Ralgis 15:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

FredSoft

FredSoft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Still uploading copyvios besides warnings. Ralgis 15:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

O.k., but his latest upload was 1 month ago. --Túrelio (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Socking as "Sbardnafulator"

I'm a formerly active Wikipedia editor who hasn't been on my account since last year. Currently, I'm chanop in Freenode's ##philosophy forum. As a result of the channel becoming moderated and kickbanning two longstanding trolls, these two have mounted a harrassment campaign to call me a "child molester." No one on Freenode takes this seriously (they haven't my personal information), but apparently this has now bled over to someone uploading this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Simulated_child_porn.2C_etc_etc to Commons, apparently under an anagram of my nick (though not my account).

Just a note to disassociate myself from this and to request that you watch the account who did this for abuse/vandalism/harrassment.

Thanks, Snardbafulator (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Impersonator account indef blocked. --Denniss (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible non free images

Recently, user Jesu el1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has uploaded a bunch of pictures of a famous Spanish actor from his Flickr account. He also has been contributing to this actor article wikipedia:es:Alvaro Armand Ugón in the Spanish Wikipedia. I´m afraid that many of his contributions in the past where deleted for violating the original copyright, but now he seems to have uploaded pictures from internet directly in his flickr account and realeased the rights, so they can be accepted here. I highly doubt that he is the original photographer or that has the rights over promotional posters.--Ileana n (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

User blocked and images tagged by Túrelio.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 20:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Socking as "Sbardnafulator"

I'm a formerly active Wikipedia editor who hasn't been on my account since last year. Currently, I'm chanop in Freenode's ##philosophy forum. As a result of the channel becoming moderated and kickbanning two longstanding trolls, these two have mounted a harrassment campaign to call me a "child molester." No one on Freenode takes this seriously (they haven't my personal information), but apparently this has now bled over to someone uploading this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Simulated_child_porn.2C_etc_etc to Commons, apparently under an anagram of my nick (though not my account).

Just a note to disassociate myself from this and to request that you watch the account who did this for abuse/vandalism/harrassment.

Thanks, Snardbafulator (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Impersonator account indef blocked. --Denniss (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible non free images

Recently, user Jesu el1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has uploaded a bunch of pictures of a famous Spanish actor from his Flickr account. He also has been contributing to this actor article wikipedia:es:Alvaro Armand Ugón in the Spanish Wikipedia. I´m afraid that many of his contributions in the past where deleted for violating the original copyright, but now he seems to have uploaded pictures from internet directly in his flickr account and realeased the rights, so they can be accepted here. I highly doubt that he is the original photographer or that has the rights over promotional posters.--Ileana n (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

User blocked and images tagged by Túrelio.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 20:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"Nacht und Nebel"

Hello everybody.

There is a problem in this this page.

I personaly notified [23], as a courtesy, to the author of the picture, that his photograph was on the way to be delisted as FP.

In my opinion, the delisting process was normal, and nothing was hidden.

Since this notification, this user asked to some other users, in german (not sure it is canvassing, because he did not asked clearly for a "keep") in order to obtain their opinion about this delisting nomination.

His messages were called in german "Troll Abwahlaktion", which means "Troll delisting action". Please read here, also here, and here, and here.

Those user's page are public.

My first question is: is it acceptable to use the word "troll" in this case, and if not, what to do ? Is it a personal attack ?

My second question is far more serious. In the messages, the words "NACHT-UND-NEBEL AKTION" were used, qualifying Elekhh's action. Nacht und Nebel means Night and Fog, but is famous enough to deserve his own article in the english Wikipedia under the german words, please see en:Nacht und Nebel. I hope nobody in the world ignores these words. But I'm sure no german speaking/understanding user can ignore the historical and tragical meaning of these words, which refers precisely (and only) to the holocaust of the jews ~political mass deportations, to be precise, my mistake, sorry ~ (and please, do not joke with the Godwin's law I know pretty well).

In my opinion, Elekhh, as he was supposed to do a "Nacht und Nebel Aktion", was assimilated to the authors and to the responsibles of the jewish Holocaust nazi political mass deportations, nothing else, nothing less. Then comes my second question: is it a personal attack ? Should we admit that a normal and public action of a user in "Commons" could be called "Nacht-und-Nebel Aktion" by another user without a very strong reaction of "Common's" administrators ?

Thanks for answer.--Jebulon (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

There are only two things to say:

(1) I not called Elekhh a troll but I called his delisting action so. His delisting action was respectless against all that voted just a few months ago Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hohenschwangau - Schloss Neuschwanstein1.jpg with a big majority for this picture. The only one that voted against was himself. He did not informed the origin of the image (creator, uploader). Usually a delisting will be done for images that are elected years ago that may not fit to changed standards. Within a few months there has not changed any standards. In fact both pictures of Neuschwanstein Castle (Elekhh's favourite and mine) was uploaded nearly the same time last year. So why did Elekhh did not nominate this picture last year? Instead of this he ignores the FPC delisting guidance and choose not to inform me.honest

(2) This kind of activity is not honest and I feel this delisting action as a kind of deception. So I called his action a "Nacht und Nebel Aktion" withs is in german a regular term for doing something under-the-counter. Jebulons german skills are either not enough to appaise this because he suppose a historic context that is not given here or he construes some absurd theorys which is sadly not the first time. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

"he construes some absurd theorys which is sadly not the first time" is a personal attack, which is sadly not the first time. I refer to the english WP.--Jebulon (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

If you like to learn German, go ahead, but preferentially with real educational books or native speaker. This phrase is in a regular and absolutely uncontroversial use. Give us a break with your inventions. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Troll, and Nacht und Nebel are controversial, full of sense everywhere (apparently not in Germany, a pity !), a very very little bit offensive, and not an invention. The next time one of your FP will to be delisted, i'll surely not inform you, anyway !! Give us a break with your always offensive behaviour and words (please).--Jebulon (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be characteristic to you to ask circumstances on the one hand and adhere on the other hand. No native speaking German implicates this phrase with the historical background. I would bet that most of the German speaking not even know this context. Though your language skills in German are obviously not enough to judge you contrive a context that does not exist. The phrase is banal and you find it in the DUDEN (German standard dictionary). I linked this already but either you ignored it or you don't understand it.

And for last my dear Jebulon: parts of the family from the father's side was murdered in the KZ Mauthausen-Gusen. I despise everything radical and never would use Nazi jargon or trivialize the barbarianism of the Nazi regime. So please contain yourself and don't inflate a linguistic bagatelle. Your behaviour is beyond all bearing and is getting more and more ridiculously. The only one that has to calm down is you. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to go as far as on en wiki. - Benh (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between calling someone a troll or to call a single action as trolling. Nacht-und-Nebel-Aktion is trying to keep an action secret/under the hood. No admin action required. The highly controversial delisting nomination without informing at least the uploader is something that should not happen, especially if the image had a broad range of supporters and was elected just a short time ago. This may also called a biased nomination (I wan't call it revanche foul) as Elekkh voted against this image in the original nomination. I suggest both participants calm down, BTW there's no need to cite many months old comments from another wiki. --Denniss (talk) 10:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not very difficult to be an administrator of "Commons". You need only to know two sentences: "No admin action required", and "I suggest both participants to calm down".--Jebulon (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It's also not very difficult to get a temporary block at Commons, it just depends on the chosen wording. --Denniss (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, is it a threat ?--Jebulon (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

My opinion on this discussion:

• I reject the assertion by Denniss of "biased nomination" which he/she "wan't call it revanche foul". While reading Wladyslaw's statement it might appear is a personal dispute, for me it is only a debate about the merits of an image and whether or not we need to feature three nearly identical versions of the same subject. The nomination is consistent with my previous position, with my position throughout my past participation in FPC, and that with other participant's, who first suggested a delist. To be clear, I always review the image, and not the skills of the author. I expressed that many times, and everybody observing my activity on FPC would be aware of. Suggestions to the contrary, I perceive as offensive.
• I reject the accusation of disrespect to others. Having a different opinion does not mean disrespecting others' opinion.
• I am puzzled about the explanations of Denniss and Wladyslaw that calling someone a troll and calling someone's action trolling is so "different" in their view, but I am open to learn.
• I did not perceive "Nacht und Nebel" as a sinister allusion, but the accusation of being dishonest by trying to hide anything I consider very offensive, although nonsensical. As I already emphasised the FPC nominations page is a public page, visible to everyone. Additionally to that I did post a public notice at the related FPC discussion as well. I never notified personally a creator or uploader when nominating an image, as I think we all shall discuss images based on merit not based on anybody's interest.
• As I stated previously, I have no interest in any conflict, and precisely for that reason, and given the kind of treatment I am receiving from Wladyslaw since a long while when I critique any of the images he is author of, and given that the community did not sanction such behaviour in the past, the best option for me is to withdraw from participating from FPC as well. FPC is a forum where people participate voluntarily, and if there is no expectation of civility I am not interested in participating. I do feel sorry to have to do this, particularly to all the inspiring people I met here, and I apologise for giving up at this stage. Sincerely. --ELEKHH^T 22:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a compromise to make. Elekhh is more careful with his nominations (we have at least 2 pictures that are FP and not as good, why don't start with them?) and anybody, including Elekhh, calms down. The battle is over anyways. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 23:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You must have misunderstood something: (1) I am calm, despite you recently accusing me of "trolling and stalking by Elekhh is disgusting" (2) I never been in search for a "battle", (3) nothing changed in terms of what I can expect would I continue to participate. It puzzles me how your recent contribution to the debate by calling someone "stupid" would help things calm down. --ELEKHH^T 23:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Niabot called somethink and not someone stupid. I guess you are NOT stupid so you will make the difference. --84.174.246.61 18:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous blablabla.--Jebulon (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Change of license from CC-BY 3.0 to PD-Shape

Hello. A user, Jbarta, changed the licenses of some files of mine. Their SVG files are under the CC-BY 3.0 license, but that user has ben changed by the Public Domain without my consent. I want help. Can he do that? My files not are… my files?

The discussion is taking place in: File talk:Gota01.svg.

Thanks in advance. — Zóram Hákān _Talk 23:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think, you are right, I've removed {{Wrong license}}, because it's not wrong. 1) I don't believe the image is trivial (gradient is quite complex), 2) SVG code is not trivial and 3) it makes absolutely no sense to change the license from CC-BY to PD-ineligible (because CC-BY is a free license as well; the threshold of originality is different in different countries -- while in some countries it could be PD-ineligible, in some other countries -- it could be a copyright infringement to use it without complying to CC-BY; changing of the license could piss off the authors without any benefit to Commons, and so on). It's not the first time I see something like this, so think it should be added to Commons:Threshold of originality or somewhere -- that users should not to change valid free licenses to PD-ineligible. --Trycatch (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

wrongful closure of DRs by Logan

I am surprised to see that Logan closed three of my recent DRs Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Felix45.PNG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Feedingfingers-promo.jpg‎ and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fcpune-chem.jpg‎ with the remark "Uploader requested" without realising that I am just the deletion requester and not the actual uploader. I request the admins to be careful in closing DRs in the future with factual comments. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC).

Especially as "uploader requested" is rarely a reason for deletion. --  Docu  at 08:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. @Hindustanilanguage: This is a ordinary copyright violation - as you found out from here. Please use for such cases {{copyvio|reason}} instead. Thanks in advance. --High Contrast (talk) 08:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you talk with Logan about this problem ? Discussion seems still possible. --PierreSelim (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems a bit strange to see administrators make such closures. This is obviously of more general interest. Seems like Jameslwoodward made an interesting point at Commons:Administrators/Requests/Logan. --  Docu  at 09:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, sorry about the late response. I uploaded these files, and I agreed with the reasons for deletion that Hindustanilanguage proposed, so I deleted them as uploader requested deletions of unused files. I'll leave them open for discussion in the future if that's more apropos. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Logan, for promptly responding to a friendly reminder on your talk page. Like you, I was trying to examine the utility of some of the old files, categorizing a few of them and making DRs where I felt files were unneeded. I also agree that a few aberration here and there should be used to negate the good uploading of files you've done. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC).

User:Martin H.

Hello, It is not in my habit of reporting people here, but I find that the repeted deletion of information by Martin from File:Diego de Alvear y Ponce de León.jpg is completely conter-productive to the work on Commons. I have asked him 3 times to create a DR if he think this is not sufficient. Instead he keeps deletion the actual source of the image, and other information I provided. Yann (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Since Martin refused to create a DR, I did it myself. Yann (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, he's right. The new "source" link added is a link to a website that had copied this very file from the Commons file [24]. It's like saying that that file on Commons is its own source. Which is equivalent to still having no source. Only it's worse, because that linked webpage is obviously not the source. We might as well leave it as no source. I understand that the point of Martin H. was not to request the deletion of the file. The original work is likely in the public domain. But his point was to remove an incorrect information from the description page. That is certainly a good thing. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

In cases where the source link would be an actual source link this would be inappropriate. But because the link actually says in it that it gets its stuff from Wikimedia and Wikipedia, re-adding it is foolishness. Killiondude (talk) 05:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Then what do you suggest as a constructive contribution? I feel that just deleting the link to the website where the image comes from is certainly not the solution. Yann (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That link is *not* "the website where the image comes from". That website merely copied the file from Commons after it was already here. It doesn't make sense to falsely claim it as a source and to create a circular pseudo-sourcing between Commons and that copy from Commons. Inserting a false and useless information to deceive the unsuspecting users is certainly not an acceptable solution. An acceptable solution could be to find a plausible source, where the image existed before the Commons version. It could be a printed publication. But if we don't know of any source, then that is that, and it's better to be honest about it. If a plausible source of the reproduction is not found, we can try finding at least information about the original work. If all research fails, someone motivated enough could try and contact José María Moncasi de Alvear [25], who often posed for photographs with that painting and with reproductions of that painting and who can certainly tell whatever information is known about the original. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This does not help Commons, especially because there are more than one file involved. I think there are 2 ways to make a valuable contribution here: 1. find the real source, 2. create a DR to get a larger debate. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Diego de Alvear y Ponce de León.jpg. Other contributors there seems to think that there is no problem with the current description. Yann (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The absence of a source for the reproduction is a problem. But addding a false information does not solve that problem at all. It only creates a much worse problem. In some cases, Commons can possibly do without the actual immediate source of the reproduction of a very old work that is known to be into the public domain, as long as there is at least some information about the original work to tell that it is in fact in the public domain, and if we transparently admit that we do not know the source of the reproduction, which in the present case was not disclosed by the uploader, so that the potential reusers can know the correct facts and informations to determine if they can reuse or not that reproduction in their country, in full knowledge of the situation. But deceiving the users by adding a fake source is completely unacceptable. Finding a valid source would be better, but at least removing a fake source is certainly helping Commons and it is a step in the right direction. It would be even better to find a better reproduction of the original work, well sourced. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Wikinamaste

New editor. Found 4 of his 13 uploads as copyvios. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged a few more as copyvio. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Kacnepcku-Cp6uja's extreme ownership, trolling, and abuse of process

Kacnepcku-Cp6uja has expressed an extreme ownership problem over one of his files, and has also abused the Deletion process three times, and the WikiLove templates twice.

The file in question is File:Standard of the Prime Minister of Republika Srpska (1995-2007).svg. The user uploaded the file on March 28th. On the same day, I later added a fringe, as according to the two sources (1 and 2), as well as for the visibility facter as this is a white flag. The user has constantly removed the fringe in an attempt to exert extreme ownership over the file. I have attempted to engage the user on his talk page, which he just recently blanked out. Kacnepcku-Cp6uja first directed me to Presidential Standard, a non-descript English Wikipedia page which is merely a list of articles on presidential standards. I again asked him (and have continued to ask him) for a reasoning to exclude the fringe when it's sources say it's there. The user then claimed that no other flags on Commons have fringes. I gave him a list of ones that do, and he then accused me of uploading them all myself in an attempt to skew the issue. The fact is I have only uploaded one flag with a fringe prior to this dispute, all the others in my list were made by others. After that, Kacnepcku-Cp6uja stopped replying, and simply reverted the file to remove the fringe, with and without edit summaries, either repeating me, or accusing me of vandalism. This has since taken a turn for the worse, when Kacnepcku-Cp6uja nominated his own file for deletion, calling it a "fake". As I explained on the DR page, and several edit summaries, that if he truly believes it is a fake and should be deleted, then he shouldn't care about the file anymore. For that reason, I have again reverted to add the fringe, and Kacnepcku-Cp6uja has continued to edit war on the file to remove the fringe, proving that he simply used the DR process as an attempt to exert ownership of the file. Since then, Kacnepcku-Cp6uja has attempted to remove the DR three times (1, 2, 3) despite multiple warnings on both the revision of this action and his talk page, explaining that action is only allowed by an admin once the DR has been closed. Furthurmore, Kacnepcku-Cp6uja has abused the WikiLove template twice on my talk page. The first time was reverted by Admin:Zscout270 as trolling, while the second one is still there, which he added to my page after I told him a third time on his talk page that he can not remove DRs. Because he's chosen the "no spam" barnstar, he is therefore accusing my final warning on his talk page about abusing the DR process, of being "spam".

For these reasons, and ample warnings, I am forced to report this user as disruptive, abusive of the process, and trolling on my page. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The user has also removed my notice of this AN/U from his talk page. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Without taking sides in this particular dispute (or attempting to be excessively sarcastic) -- Have you ever stopped to wonder why you continually find yourself in similar kinds of disputes with a number of different people? The majority of active Wikimedia Commons users don't seem to... AnonMoos (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm abrasive at times, but that does not excuse this behaviour. I was polite in the beginning, I asked him for a reason why he feels the fringe should be excluded from his file despite the sources, he responded with accusations and aggressive reverting to control the file, followed by nominating it for deletion because he'd rather have it gone from here than anybody else touch it, and trolling on my talk by abusing the WikiLove templates. I don't think anybody would get along with another user on Commons who subjected them to such treatment, without at least some frustration, even you. I am polite to those who are polite to me. I can be civil, but have no obligation to go out of my way to be polite when I am attacked. I may have been stern, but I remained civil with this user throughout this nonsense. I gave him multiple warnings and explanations not to remove his DR tag until it was closed by an Admin, he continued to repeat that action 3 times. He used the WikiLove as an attack on my page a second time after an admin had reverted the first one as "trolling". I believe I've been extremely patient with this user, abrasive or not. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This kind of edit war is not acceptable. Both users have been blocked for one day. Learn to sort out your problems without use of the revert button, and definitely do not continue the bad behaviour after bringing up the issue at AN/U. Fry, you have been warned about this many times before.--99of9 (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Say what you want about my use of the revert button, I don't abuse the DR process and WikiLove, I don't troll on people's pages, i don't accuse them of ill-doing in an attempt to get a leg up, and I always ask a person for a reasoning, and accept other valid reasonings. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The user has again reverted the file without an explanation. Please do something. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked Kacnepcku-Cp6uja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for three days as they have just come off a one day block and File:Standard of the Prime Minister of Republika Srpska (1995-2007).svg has been protected by Zscout370 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for indefinite. Bidgee (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Procedurally it should be standard to revert to the pre-dispute version and split the subsequent version into a separate file, or upload the new version separately. If we protect the new version then we reward the reversion war behavior, and probably drive away the contributor. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, I deleted the file that Kacnepcku-Cp6uja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) nominated for deletion due to copyright issues (claimed own work when it wasn't). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• I too are getting sick of seeing exactly the same sort of dispute and edit warring. There is absolutely no need for it. The required process is very, very, very simple - If you upload a new version of a file, and there is a dispute that can not be amicably resolved, then upload the new version as a separate file. There is no need for an edit war, no need to vote on which is more 'correct', no need for admin intervention. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That is not a solution and never has been. We can't just have 20 different files with everybody's preferred little differences, it's completely impractical. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I expect that there is virtually no difference in the resources consumed by having them as separate files. We certainly do have many files with multiple different versions. If the differences are minor as in "preferred little differences", then why is there a dispute? Obviously the differences are significant to someone. And note, I am not suggesting that every revision be a separate file, only when there is a dispute that can not be resolved by calm discussion and logical arguments. What we can certainly do without is 57 revisions of File:Standard of the Prime Minister of Republika Srpska (1995-2007).svg for no productive purpose!

If the cost is that some people upload files and everyone elses revisions need to go under a new name, then so be it - that is a very small cost compared with the alternative that results in this sort of disruption. Save individual users time, save unproductive disruption, save alienating contributors, preserve an enjoyable working environment - at the trivial cost of consuming the scarce resource of original file names --Tony Wills (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It is absolutely infantile to think that having two (or more) versions of a file floating around here is a long-term method of dispute resolution, and that "everyone can be right, nobody is more right than anyone else". If the source says the flag is red, yellow and purple, then it's red, yellow and purple. If the source says the purple is a specific shade, that's the way it is. There's no room for personal preferences (against sources) and "pick whatever one you like" on an encyclopedia on which so many people rely on for information and learning. Furthermore, you seem to ignore the nasty extreme ownership behaviour espoused by Kacnepcku-Cp6uja, who would rather have the file deleted than allow it to be on Commons in any way he doesn't approve of. That is not acceptable here, and I can already think of atleast one user who was banned from Wikimedia for that form of extreme ownership. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If the purple has to be that shade, then we better start offering to mail them a printed copy of the picture, because file formats and computer equipment don't remotely reproduce shades precisely. It's even more infantile to think that a revert war is a long-term method of dispute resolution.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

First off, if a source gives specific RGBs for their flag, that can easily be translated into a computer. Second, this was not a simple revert war obvious by the fact that I contacted the user many many times trying to engage him in discussing the change and why or why not he feels it is neccessary. HE CHOSE to act like a child, spam my page, and to nominate the file for deletion as a method of exerting ownership control over it. Whether or not you like how many times I reverted him, I did everything else right. Look at the diffs, and you can see that clearly. Fry1989 ^eh?=

I agree with Tony Wills and others above. Fry1989, you would be well-advised to embrace "do not overwrite". --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I will not upload a separate file of something every time a change needs to be made, and any other user (including admins) involved in the flag and coat of arms department of Commons is well aware that if a source says a file is a certain way, we have to make it that way. I'm not the only one who says that, or implements it. This user was asked a variety of times to discuss why he feels the change is not neccesary. He refused to give a reason. As per the rules, you do not own anything you contribute here, anybody can edit and contribute to this colaborative project. If he gave me a reasoning, I would have been more inclined to not revert and seek some consensus and maybe even upload a second version (things I have done in the past, it's not like I'm alien to the concept), but you can not simply tell me to bugger off "your file" like you own it, and refuse to allow anybody else to touch it, under threat of trying to get it deleted. That's selfish and petty to the project. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not an encyclopedia we can have as many red yellow and purple shaded flags as we like. This is a media repository, this is a separate project from the 'pedias, we store the files, others choose what they wish to use. Flag/COAs/Maps etc creators tend to work on their own sub-projects (flag and coat of arms department) and by their own rules, but those rules are not how the rest of the project operates, and when they become dis-functional they are no longer tolerated. It is nice to believe in a world where there is one correct version of something and all others are wrong. Use your arguments about what are valid sources, correct colours etc when selecting an image for an article (different projects may accept different sources). Document the sources on the image description pages. Mark disputed versions as such. If a Flag/COAs/Map is offensively wrong enough, fictitious etc, it can be nominated for deletion. As for addressing "extreme ownership behaviour", we have a block, which could so easily have been avoided.

How about looking at it from another angle: The whole concept of Commons is that as a society we build upon the work of others, here we are striving to add to that wealth of common material. In adding a new illustration of a Flag/COAs/Map I see that the bulk of the work is generating the initial SVGs, our project should welcome as many contributors in that field as possible. We take that generously contributed 'sweat of the brow' (even if not 'creative' in the sense of an original work) and we build upon it by the important work of tweeking the colours, and cleaning up details, matching it to a documented source etc. It is good that people take pride in their work, and put in an effort to do it well. That may mean that they initially take undue ownership of that work, but is it better to fight them over it or encourage them to contribute yet more of their freely given time and effort on more SVGs? By simply uploading disputed changes as a separate file we have gained a satisfied illustrator who is probably willing to contribute more and we have yet another illustration ready to use. --Tony Wills (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Commons is a media repository, upon which all of Wikimedia (which is indeed an encyclopedia) depends on for a broad majority of it's images. As that is the case, we have an obligation to them (as well as ourselves) to be accurate in our representations of media. It's not like with photographs, where you can take any amount of different angles and crops and environment conditions. If a flag is prescribed to be "this, this and this", we are obligated to show it like that. By telling me to "build upon others work, don't knock them back", you fundamentally misunderstand the point of what I do here. I work to build upon what we have, to improve where possible the quality of, and when there are errors to correct them. If there are various people who think there are different ways of doing that, I will discuss with them the process, and I have done this many many times. This was not the case. This was one user, who absolutely refused to discuss in ANY manner his file and how it should be, who ignored his own sources, and who feels that he has the right of ownership over that file, to such an extent that he can have it deleted from Commons over "allowing" other users to edit it. I tried talking to him, not once, not twice, but many many times. It was like talking to a brick wall. I have no obligation to leave a file alone just because the uploader feels he owns it. That goes against not only what I believe, but the rules of the project. I wouldn't dare tell someone they can't touch my many files simply because I don't like it, if they have a better source or a source saying I made a mistake, and I absolutely reject that attitude by other users. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Don't feel like trying to intrude my comments into the above; however:
Fry1989 -- About there being only one set of "correct" colors: Most of the time, official flag color specifications are stated in terms of device-independent colors (Pantone, etc.), while computer monitor RGB colors are inherently device-dependent. There is no one single conversion between device-independent colors and device-dependent colors. Any "correct" conversion is calibrated for a particular monitor's display characteristics in a particular set of ambient lighting conditions, and would be incorrect for other monitors in other ambient lighting. So the matter is by no means as simplistic as you claim.
Tony Wills -- You're ignoring the psychological factor of which file version gets the main or default name. If there's "File:Flag_of_the_People's_Republic_of_Dogpatchistan.svg" and "File:Flag_of_the_People's_Republic_of_Dogpatchistan_(alternate_variant).svg", then there could still be a bitter dispute about which file should get the shorter (main) name, even if everybody finds it acceptable to have two files... -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

---

• wikimedia is not an encyclopedia, go look at some of the other projects [www.wikimedia.org]
• Commons is also a free media repository for all the world, not just wikimedia projects
• we are not obligated to do anything, we are all giving our time freely, and contribute in our own way. If we damage the projects we will probably be reverted and ultimately blocked.
• your work is appreciated, but it is a mis-understanding that Commons requires us to only have one 'correct' version of anything, including SVGs. You can 'correct' errors by adding a new file instead of overwriting. Just because a sub-project has adopted certain ways of working doesn't mean there is only one way of doing things.
• yes, the user's response was poor - your normal approach sounds great but if it's not working don't keep pressing on. From your past experience you will know that pushing them will ultimately result in them being blocked. If that is not your goal then try a different approach in those cases (eg new file). If you like getting people blocked then let us know and we can evaluate your actions accordingly.
• what is better for the project, two useful contributors, one original upload, and one corrected version and a pleasant atmosphere, OR one blocked contributor, one useful contributor, and one file contained the two versions, and an unpleasant atmosphere? --Tony Wills (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Whether you think we are obliged to be accurate according to our sources or not is your problem, not anybody else's. You've already been shown by myself and an admin that we do have to follow the sources and be accurate. Keep to your pictures, cause your anarchist views on flags and coats of arms, that we can just have as many as we want with all differences and "everybody can just get along with nobody being more right than anybody else" is detrimental to the service Commons provides. Every day, flags and coats of arms and other files are updated and changed according to official sources, this is a fact, and when people don't like the changes aesthetically and try and revert to a different version they think looks better (or what ever reason they have in their head), they are reverted back to the officially soured version, and some files are even protected to maintain what the source says it has to be, which completely goes in the opposite direction of what you think is done here. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a fringe. You didn't edit war over anything in the flag, you edit warred over whether it should have a fringe. You're pissing people off left and right; apparently non-Fry1989 contributors don't matter in your question to make flags and coats of arms look like Fry1989 (who thinks we can express shades of purple accurately in JPG and SVG files) thinks they should.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to express my state of mind like you can read it. I don't care if I piss off some people, this isn't a friendship competition. I also have alot of people here who appreciate what I do and have expressed thanks and stood up in my defence many times as well. It's insignificant to me if a few people get their panties bunched up because another user expresses the right to edit one of their files, which is completely in my freedom here if I see a problem with that file. You're still ignoring the behaviour of Kacnepcku-Cp6uja. If you think it is acceptable to express extreme ownership of your files, to spam another user's page twice because the two of you disagree, to nominate your own file for deletion in a further attempt to control it, then remove that very same DR notice from the file page 3 times after realizing the absolute stupidity of that action, then maybe you don't belong here either Prosfilaes. I've already said here that if somebody thinks they can improve one of my files, go the hell ahead! I'll most likely even thank you for fixing an error I wasn't capable of. But I will not be bullied here into not touching anybody else's file out of fear that they will get pissed off. I've made almost 50,000 edits on Wikimedia, countless updates and changes to files on Commons, and only a fraction of a fraction of people have ever had a problem with it, I could probably count them all on one hand. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Why should I give a damn if you think I should be here? If you were someone interested in working with me, then I might be concerned, but you aren't. They posted on your page pissing you off? So? You don't care if you piss some people off, why should they?

The behavior of Kacnepcku-Cp6uja does not justify your behavior. That's a simple universal concept. Kacnepcku-Cp6uja did improve a file you uploaded by removing the fringe and you edit warred to get your preferred version. I have no doubts that you would do the exact same to a file where you were the first uploader. You keep showing up here, and when people tell you that edit warring is not acceptable, you blow them off.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"Why should I give a damn if you think I should be here?"? Because you seem to think I should care if a couple people get pissed off because I, in a free colaborative project where anybody can edit anything, have the audacity to touch their file. That's why. I don't keep showing up here anywhere near as much as you think, and you really don't know anything about the matter, but you seem to think you have not only the right to make excuses for Kacnepcku-Cp6uja's infantile bahaviour, but to mock me when I tell you that we have to follow sources, even though I'm not the only one who says the same thing. You think you can mock me, and yet you get touchy when I tell you, under a qualifier, why you may not belong here? Get off! I'm not going to be intimidated by you. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• @Prosfilaes: Point of information - the file was originally uploaded by Kacnepcku-Cp6uja, it's just so far back in the edit war history that it no longer appears on the first page. Fry added the border. He claims the "original source" had one. I haven't looked hard, but I haven't seen a source (the author link doesn't get me there). Fry, could you please point us to what you think is the "original"? --99of9 (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

99of9, at this time, the only source I am aware of is FOTW (which is usually accurate), and our raster file on Commons came from there. I'm not aware of any photos, but since the Srpska emblem was rulled unconstitutional in 2007 by the Bosnian Supreme Court and a new symbol was adopted after that, it's probably gonna be hard to find any pics. In any case, per my diffs, I explained to Kacnepcku-Cp6uja that I added the fringe for two reasons; A: the sources say so, and B: the flag is an all white flag, so a border of some sort is usually preferred for visibily reasons where the file is used. I asked him many many times to explain to me why he feels the file should not have one, since he refused to give any reason whatsoever, he had no right to tell me to leave his file alone just because he's the original uploader. That's an ownership excuse and not only do I reject it, but Commons rejects ownership attitudes. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what he's done; his behavior doesn't justify yours. It's a concept most people learn in kindergarten. I'm not sure you know what collaborative means; it means you work with other people. If you're pissing them off, you're not doing a good job of it. @99of9: I understand who originally uploaded the file, but reverting dozens of times on a file is an ownership attitude, no matter who originally uploaded it, and doesn't convince me that he would behave any differently if he had originally uploaded the file and the other person had thought it better without a yellow strip along the outside.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. I slightly misread your previous comment sorry. --99of9 (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Prosfilaes, GET A FRICKEN CLUE! I never said anything of the sort to claim that his behaviour justified mine, and infact I was punished for it too. However, my "behaviour" pales in comparison to Kacnepcku-Cp6uja's. I may have been in an edit war, something I have never denied here, but I also tried at least 4 times to engage the user in discussing the file, and got nothing in return but accusations and spam on my page and the file being nominated for deletion. You trying to use my participation in an edit war as an excuse (and that's EXACTLY what you are doing) for Kacnepcku-Cp6uja to do what he has done is bullshit. This isn't just my word against his, there are plenty of diffs, and if you spent half the time you do critisizing me at looking at them, you'd see that I TRIED talking to him (something you seem to deliberately overlook), and he didn't give ANY response.To work with people, they have to respond back, it's not so simple to just talk to a brick wall, something you should have learned in kindergarten yourself. He does not own the file, and if he wont give me any reason for it to exclude the fringe, he has no right to tell me to leave it alone. That sort of ownership attitude is disgusting, arrogant, and not allowed on Commons. IF he had been willing to discuss the file with me, rather then just revert blankly 20-40 times, then he and I could have resolved this very quickly and easy. But you can't just tell me to leave "your" file alone because you're the original uploader. Lastly, whether you think I would let someone edit my contributions or not means nothing to me, I've already said that if someone thinks they can make one of my files better, GO AHEAD, and infact, it's already been done before, which proves your cynicism wrong. So get a clue of the facts, or leave this discussion because I'm not going to put up with lies and accusations from someone like you. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"my "behaviour" pales in comparison to Kacnepcku-Cp6uja's." <---- Justification. "if you spent half the time you do critisizing me at looking at them" <--- Justification.

"You trying to use my participation in an edit war as an excuse (and that's EXACTLY what you are doing) for Kacnepcku-Cp6uja to do what he has done" I don't give a damn what he's done. He's not posting here. He's blocked. Since that's done, let's talk about what you've done.

Nobody has a problem with someone else making their files better. The question is if the situation had been reversed and someone had removed the fringe from your file, what would you have done? What about after they pointed out that it was a piss-yellow edge to something that may or may not have had a fringe that looked nothing like that. Apparently not got a third opinion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

If you don't give a damn what he did, then stop giving a damn what I did!. It's that simple.

And if you can't even get the simplest of facts about this dispute right, then damn right I'm gonna call you out on it. You said I should work with people. You conveniently ignore the fact I tried to and got nothing. You say that nobody (which obviously would include me as a member of this community) cares if someone else can make their file better, but at the same time you say that you don't think I would have allowed someone to do it to one of my files. Your contradictory cynicism about what I would have done if the tables were turned is nothing but imagination on your part. You claim that I'm justifying my participation in an edit war with what Kacnepcku-Cp6uja has done, yet at the same time you're using what I did as a justification for Kacnepcku-Cp6uja far worse behaviour, another contradiction from you. You can't get anything straight, so fop off why don't you. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Yerevanci

According to the statement of User:Yerevanci, User:Yerevanci and Hovik95, who had been blocked with an expiry time of indefinite, are same person. Takabeg (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Add a request here. I'll do it If you have difficulty. Geagea (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The last edit of User:Hovik95 was made on 15 May 2010. of As long as I know, there is no record of IPs that had been used by User:Hovik95. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I made Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hovik95. add more info if you have. Geagea (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Users entire contributions may be reviewed? Users uploads seem to be predominately maps of various styles. Some look like scans. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 12:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The question is if user that was blocked permanently is realiy blocked permanently indeed, that according to the CU can't check users that did not logeg three months back. Theoretically after three months blocked user can return under a new username. And another question is what to do in this case as we understand this is the same user according to his statement. Geagea (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Millosjuancho

Millosjuancho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Copyvios besides warnings. Ralgis 19:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Done: blocked for 3 days by Turélio. Mathonius (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Jean acarlos

Jean acarlos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Another copyvio after warning. Ralgis 20:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

On vacation for a week. --Denniss (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Company username

Though User:Floatspa has only made three uploads, all are from the company of the same name and the images have no evidence they are freely licenced especially as they all show company watermarks. According to policy they should be blocked. Ww2censor (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Handcuffed

I'm not sure about all the files user Handcuffed uploaded: Special:ListFiles/Handcuffed. Sexual content is accepted usually, but of some I doubt if it violates the privacy of the photographed people. Could another admin take a look at it please? Btw, two are nominated for speedy deletion at the moment, this and this one. Thanks in advance. Kind regards, Trijnstel_talk 12:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Andrew J.Kurbiko

Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User:Andrew J.Kurbiko uploaded three redesigned maps to improve three older maps:

• Original: File:Cyprus SBAsInRed.png, new by Andrew J.Kurbiko: File:Akrotiri and Dhekelia.png
• Original: File:PN -A.png, new by Andrew J.Kurbiko: File:Map of Pitcairn Islands.png
• Original: File:Gibraltar map.png, new by Andrew J.Kurbiko: File:Gibraltarapl.png

Then he uploaded his new maps over the original maps, too. That was reverted by User:Trijnstel and me with links to his new maps. I asked him not to do this again because it would be senseless and told him that this would leave to problems with the license, too, as his map of Gibraltar cannot have the {{PD-USGov-CIA-WF}} license [26]. He reverted again (except for the Gibraltar map) and gave me this answer. I don't speak any Russian but if Google Translator isn't wrong at all [27] I am sure that I am unwilling to ignore that. NNW (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• The answer is a strongly worded insult. The user must be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

After translating it in Russian, Ukrainian and Belorussian (different parts of the sentence get translated into English depending on what language you use), I agree with a block. Direct and personal insults. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week as an interim measure. I have also reverted his edits to those 3 files, and upload protected them for a month. There may be other things in his past that need sorting. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Note, I do see this as an interim measure, and would welcome more discussion. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Aman87

New user with 4 out of 6 copyvio from net. Please check. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Nuked. Thanks for the note. -- RE rillke questions? 19:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Shizhao

User:Shizhao is making a systematic insertion of the “wallpaper” tag into all FP files, against the consensus of the community. I have warned the user twice and pointed to this discussion, with no visible results. Being an administrator on Meta and Commons, this kind of behavior is difficult to understand. It should also be mentioned that this is not a pacific subject, which has caused serious trouble (and victims) in the past. It crossed my mind that the user does not understand enough English to read my warnings. But how can a user with no knowledge of English be an administrator on Commons and make this kind of systematic changes? I sincerely hope that I’m not the one being sanctioned for this! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, have stop tag “wallpaper”--shizhao (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Will you please revert all changes? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Why? Why can't tag wallpaper? There images not wallpaper?--shizhao (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

These images could be wallpapers, anyway, I assume the mention of wallpaper depends of the screen users have. I have a 16:9 screen, the two following pictures can't be a wallpaper on my screen. Besides, if I use a mobile phone I assume I couldn't use a 16:9 picture. I really think that the wallpaper category is a POV one. That why there is some conflicts and long talks. I hope all this stuff won't hurt you, Shizhao. Otourly (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Undo revision 71031257 by Shizhao (talk)revert trolling
• Undo revision 71031439 by Shizhao (talk)revert trolling

I am appalled at the abuse of Alvesgaspar when using the revert tool. Revert should be a last resort particularly if done through scrips. Alvesgaspar typically doesn't justify reverts or justifies them once. People are supposed to check his entire contributions to "find" the reason. Alvesgaspar is trying to enforce his interpretation of a May 2008 poll through reverts on "his" images. I'd like to ask how are those two edits classifiable as "trolling". Lastly, this is not an English-only wiki.

Shizhao was carrying out a routine task in a non-controversial manner which Alvesgaspar tried to turn into a revert war.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 22:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh and just a note Shizhao aside from being a local Administrator here at Commons is also a Steward. He had been so more or less since May 2005. He is among THE most trusted users out there. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 22:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Stewards have no special authority on categorization issues on Commons, so that is a complete red herring. Jafeluv (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• This type of "argument of authority" is not helpful. Yes, Shizhao may well be a notable user in the world of Wikimedia. Still he has to respect Common’s ways, probably even more than the other editors. Ignoring the polite requests of a registered user in his talk page, made while he was editing, and only reacting (very quickly) when the subject was brought to COM:AN/U doesn’t seem typical of a respected administrator. The same goes for his apparent refuse of undoing the previous changes or even his apparent lack of interest on the matter. I wonder if it crossed the minds of the many admins who have read this thread to try to contact him. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Consensus can change, and it appears that Alvesgaspar is currently the only one clinging to the four year old decission. I suggest gathing some new opinions rather than trying to enforce the old one with "tooth and nails". Apparently nobody besides him really cares about the issue so far. In that light I find it a bit over the top to take this to ANU. --Dschwen (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, consensus can change. That is why I have already suggested (for the fourth time now?) that a fresh discussion on the subject is started. Unless you consider that the lack of interest in the subject is a tacit approval of the changes that are being enforced against the previous consensus. That would be a twisted interpretation indeed! Especially when we consider that the two users approving those changes are precisely those involved in the creation (Dschwen) and improvement (White Cat) of the Assessments template. And what about the opinion of the two other users who recently (see discussion) dispproved the changes? Anyway this is not the right place to discuss the issue, only to assess the behavior of the admin in the thread's title. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
    • You stated that you do not care one way or another. You are disrupting commons to illustrate a point. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 20:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
    • It is news to me that I created that template. My only contribution (if I recall correctly) was suggesting a name for it. You are giving me too much credit here. And you are also oversimplifying my position on the template. I think it is great to compress and unify the featured pictures. I would not mind the inclusion of QIC and VIC now. I was a bit annoyed at first, but white cat was already helpful in making sure the bots would contimue to work with such a modified template. As for wallpapers, I just don't think it is that big of a deal. Mainly I feel a bit sorry for Shizao, for sumbling into what I can now only describe as a hornet's nest. The issue at hand (adding a wallpaper flag to the templatefor some images) is so incredibly minor that warnings and an entry on ANU are completely over the top. I feel he now became the scapegoat for the frustrations with the assessemnt template as a whole. --Dschwen (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• It looks to me as though User:Shizhao has unintentionally walked into the middle of something. He may wish to explain why he didn't at least try to find out what the problem was, but now that he has stopped there doesn't really need to be any more action.
• The whole idea of tagging images as "computer wallpaper" appears to be uninteresting to most as it is fairly meaningless. The only consistent criteria appears to be the image aspect ratio, if that is the only criteria, then a bot can do the job and categorise millions of suitable images. Most computers, whatever the screen, can handle any image as a desktop wallpaper/background through cropping/stretching or tiling, aspect ratio is not crucial. The only other criteria mentioned appears to be "pleasing", which is so POV as to be of little value (I expect most images are "pleasing" to someone :-)
• The issues about incorporation of a meaningless "assessment" into the Assessments template is another discussion and doesn't appear to be related to the actions of *this* user. --Tony Wills (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Details of the Wallpaper/Assessments template "dispute" is not the point of the discussion here. This thread is to discuss user problems. Please stay on topic.

I agree completely, please do stay on topic. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• The unreserved use of revert tool by Alvesgaspar worries me. Alvesgaspar's revert summaries calling good faith edits "trolling" worries me further. Just because Alvesgaspar uploaded so many FPs, QIs and VIs does not grant him the right to do as he pleases.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 20:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stay on topic this is not a complaint about the actions of Alvesgaspar, nor とある白い猫 for that matter. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a complaint at all. This noticeboard is meant to be part of dispute resolution. Actions of all involved parties should be considered. You cannot call peoples good faith edits "trolling" then complain about them and then object to this being brought up. Alvesgaspar's conduct is just as relevant as the person he is complaining about. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 22:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I assume that Alvesgaspar assumed that User:Shizhao was deliberately using the vigorously disputed 'feature' of the {{Assessments}} template rather than the {{Wallpaper}} template to promote {{Assessments}}'s use. I assume that from User:Shizhao's good standing that this wasn't his intent, and I expect that he is somewhat bewildered by the whole thing. This is a multi-lingual project, so I invite User:Shizhao to reply in his own language if he prefers (of course some of us might need to get a translation if babblefish etc aren't sufficient :-)

I expect that Alvesgaspar will happily withdraw and apoligise if my assumptions prove to be true (I think a simple statement from Shizhao would be quite adequate).

But the whole episode demonstrates exactly why additional 'features' should not be tested on a live template (same goes for other unwanted features). --Tony Wills (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

So you are posting a response based on the assumption that someone else is assuming something while disregarding the evidence put forward? That is a very weak way to construct an argument I believe.

Your other argument is based on false assumptions as well. Wallpaper was never an additional feature of {{Assessments}} as it has been in use on more than half of the pages wallpaper templates appeared on. The feature existed since 2008. People have added it to templates all the time. Alvesgaspar stated (diff):

“

... You are quite right, I don’t give a s* for whether the wallpaper thing is put inside the template or not (though it seems a useless piece of information if applied this way, and only to FP). I am indeed talking here about being right and about proper procedures. We both know what is being tried here: to circumvent the result of the last discussion, to avoid that a fresh one is started and to force the use of the template as it is being designed now. Still such procedure contradicts the normal Commons' ways (the ways of any respectful human organization, for that matter), as decisions are taken democratically (or by consensus, if you like) and applied strictly afterwards, until a new decision is made. ...

”

Alvesgaspar decided to enforce one template over another through the [ab]use of the revert tool on "his" images. He is doing this to enforce an obscure poll from 2008 which had been his main argument even though he stated that he does not have a preference over one template or the other. The user wants to enforce the 2008 poll (of 6 votes) for procedural reasons until another poll overrides it over such a minor issue. His actions are hence in conflict with Commons:Do not disrupt Commons to illustrate a point.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 08:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I just tag wallpaper for some FP image, According to common sense, the use of a template better than the two templates, and I do not know in which there is a dispute --shizhao (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the explanation, Shizhao. A link to the discussion on the use of the template was in the very first message that I left at your talk page, as well as in the beginning of this thread. Is there anything in it that you don’t understand? It never crossed my mind that your edits weren’t made in good faith or that you were involved in any kind of conspiracy. The main reason for bringing the issue here was because that was the only way that I saw for stopping the edits (250 of them, in a period of 4 hours). Which you did already. Sorry for not feeling obliged to apologize; I was not rude, did not offend anyone and have already justified why this thread was started. Maybe you could still explain why my two messages were ignored and the edits weren’t undone yet. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

  A revert with a summary "revert trolling" hardly assumes good faith. You were quite rude, you did offend at least me (I can only speak for myself), and you failed to justify anything. People aren't required to revert edits just because you order them to do so. You do not own these pages. Frankly your high and all-mighty arrogant attitude is disturbing. Apologizing is the least you can do. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 10:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Tvstrela

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

Please block this user for continuing to upload copyrighted material after many warnings. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

He/She had only 1 upload in May, blocking doesn't make much sense here. In addition, my superficial impression is that the problem may be simply ignorance, not bad will. --Túrelio (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You're kidding me. The user had an end of copyvios warning in January, another copyvio, then a one week block, followed by more copyvios, then another warning in his/her own language about fair use, followed by another two copyvios just uploaded, and you're saying the user is ignorant? Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how much experience you have with copyvio-uploaders on Commons. So excuse me, if this is already known to you: but a user who writes by himself "author=© 2011 Disney Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved." into the description of his upload is surely far less a danger than the many others who upload scores of copyvios but claim them as own works, which means lot of additional work for the new-upload-patrollers. For example Korckole96 (talk · contribs). Blocking on Commons is — at least in theory — to prevent damage from Commons, not to punish. --Túrelio (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I guess I'll have to ask an admin who has the balls to do what's necessary. Unlike you, who apparently aren't willing to block even after a billion messages and a previous block. I think you're a bad administrator. Thanks anyway. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's go over the history here:

• 5 Copyright violations uploaded. Some stick around for months before deletion. Received a warning.
• 3 More copyright violations uploaded. Not caught for two weeks. Received a "last" warning.
• Another copyright violation uploaded. Not caught for over 24 hours. Blocked.
• 2 more copyvios uploaded. Not caught for over 72 hours. Received a custom message asking to stop.
• 2 more copyvios uploaded.
• Literally zero non-copyvio uploads.

But I guess users who contribute nothing but copyright violations and who ignore message after message on their talk page which stick around for months are worth keeping. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth I am inclined to agree with Túrelio. The user is not bright but a block on one recent upload does not seem justified to me. It is for preventing damage. Not wildly keen on your language and what I see as an attack on Túrelio either. The report is appreciated - the rest less so. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I guess that makes two incompetent admins. Fancy that. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Were all your anger comes from? I thought you are more sensible. If you encounter one more copyvio by Tvstrela he/she will be blocked until responding on his/her talk page. But you should also be aware that new users, especially young ones have to learn about copyright and how to do useful stuff. Again, we are instructed not to punish but to prevent harm from Commons. -- RE rillke questions? 19:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

How many times does a user have to be told to stop uploading copyrighted content before we realize that user is not ever going to pay attention to the warnings? Ignoring the fact that it's plastered all over the upload screen (something which the majority of us caught right away), the endless talk page messages in one's own language should be enough to help someone get a clue. This user is plainly not going to respond to anything we message him/her. It's not about punishment; it's about making sure that copyright violations don't keep getting uploaded and sitting around for months at a time. I don't know that is anything but clear. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. What's the old saying, the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting a different result? Warnings warnings warnings, block, warnings warnings warnings, no change of behaviour. From past uploads, this user is not a regular Commons user, and only comes by every few weeks to upload a copyvio. I see no point waiting for the next time. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Turning the photo

Hello, dear administration! I am writing to you asking to rotated File:Chernobyl memorial Bor.jpg into the correct position.--Stanislavovich (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Rotatebot will do it, wait a moment Ezarateesteban 00:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually Rotatebot's contributions stopped on 11 May. William Avery (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I have emailed User:Luxo William Avery (talk) 08:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Thekohser

Could someone please explain to Gregory Kohs that it is not acceptable to tamper with other people's opinions and comments without permission, without having the courtesy to notify them, or necessarily to comply with policy. He has done this on more than one occasion to change the meaning of my comments and to make it appear that I have been striking my opinions with regard to his website, recent examples being here and here. --Fæ (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Warned here. Feel free to undo his striking of your comments on the relevant thread. russavia (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Fæ

Could someone please explain to Ashley Van Haeften that it is not acceptable to accuse other people of publishing inflammatory epithets like "faggot" (in quotation marks), when the content that was published was "It looks like Fae got upset with my post to his Talk page." The word "faggot" was never used. He has done this on at least one occasion to change not just the meaning of my comment (as a playful joke, for which I apologized), but ascribing to me an actual offensive term that I did not publish. -- Thekohser (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Even if this word wasn't part of the page, the other words - that can still be found - are even worse. Since the page is registered on your name, you should be the one responsible for this additional project disruptions. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 16:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Consider yourself blocked for a week. This pathetic baiting of Fae will no longer be tolerated. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Pathetic block. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Motivated by nothing but a personal grudge. De. Sys. Op. These guys already.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather vote for a longer block - enough is enough. --Denniss (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Calling everyone that stops trolling and project disruption an enemy won't improve anything. Call yourself lucky that I'm no admin. I would have blocked you even longer for questioning this block and calling for a desysop. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 20:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Whom did I call an "enemy"? Quit making stuff up. And thanks for clarifying the fact that there is no notion of "uninvolvedness" here on Commons and apparently an admin can block people on a whim or simply because they hold a grudge against someone. Apparently questioning the reasoning behind a block is enough for a block itself. And this from a guy who runs around crying NOTCENSORED. That's a thing about bullies, they can't stand it when their actions are called into question - what thin skins you have. Jeez this place is pathetic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

... --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 22:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If asking Fae to correct misrepresentations in relation to offsite issues is blockable then I need to be blocked too. I asked Fae to strike the remark he made in the offsite discussion RFC saying that I was a Commons trusted user so involved in off-wiki attack websites. This phrasing repeats his ongoing theme that everyone is responsible for everything that happens on every website they post on (as well as mischaracterising a general discussion forum as an "attack website"). Fae's response to this request was (i) to try to defend the claim that site in question is an "attack website", (ii) to wrongly claim that I'm a "regular contributor" and (iii) to imply that I've raised things offsite which I should not have. I responded to all 3 of these issues 2 days ago, but Fae has failed to reply, despite being active. As for thekohser's offsite "fae got" (with 'fae got' bolded in a sentence, creating an allusion to the insult "faggot") - this was removed by moderators, but Fae continues to claim that the insult itself was used, instead of merely alluded to, and declines to acknowledge the removal, repeatedly claiming the site endorses such things. Only a week ago Fae started a thread at COM:AN (Commons:AN#Allegation_of_libel) when thekohser remarked that this claim (that the insult itself was used) was libellous. If anyone is disrupting Commons, it's Fae, for repeatedly failing to be accurate in his characterisation of issues on this topic, and for generally evincing venom and antipathy to anyone who does not share his extreme views on this topic. Rd232 (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but i don't agree with your words. You seam more and more to be in favor of people that attack Commons users without any true reason or evidence. That makes you really a bad example for an Commons admin. Shouldn't you just switch over to WR or WC and ask them for adminship? ;-) --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 22:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You seam more and more to be in favor of people that attack Commons users without any true reason or evidence. - of course you and Fae have similar views on this, so it makes sense that you respond to my complaint about misrepresentation by... misrepresentation. Rd232 (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about misrepresentation. It's about the fact that you play the marionette for off-wiki trolls by defending them in every possible way, even so they harass, discriminate or attack our users and contributers. If that's the role you want to play, then i can't help it. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 23:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about misrepresentation. [more misrepresentation]. Nonsense - as you can see from the various arguments I've made every time this has been discussed. No-one has ever asked me to post on Commons about this topic. And by the way, although some of my responses to offwiki comments are public, others are not. You don't know the half of what I'm doing to respond to negative and incorrect comments offsite, so I'll thank you for not claiming that I support them. At the same time, I must repeat again that it is not acceptable to generically attack people in terms such as "off-wiki trolls" who post to certain websites. You can criticise specific people for specific acts, if you wish. Rd232 (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Depending on the overall wording and writing style on that pages i can't follow you weak argumentation. I don't care about what you have written in private off-wiki. I criticize your on-wiki behavior to justify dirty comments and attacks against our users (including Fae, me and others), even when it is more then obvious who are the persons/users responsible for this actions. At least the admin of the external pages bears a good amount of responsibility for the content of his own website. You ignore that fact entirely, showing how biased you are. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 07:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I criticize your on-wiki behavior to justify dirty comments and attacks against our users - really, if I had the time I would ask for you to be blocked; these serial, baseless, evidenceless attacks on me are unacceptable. And by the way, I'm sure you've seen me repeatedly telling Fae that registering a domain name is not the same as owning or controlling a site; and FYI thekohser is neither an Administrator nor Moderator of wikipediocracy's forum. Rd232 (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I think your definition of "used" is pretty strict. That's not an allusion, anymore than pr0n is an allusion. That's a use of the word, even if it's misspelled for punning purposes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It's an allusion which I and others missed until it was pointed out. In the original context, it certainly wasn't blindingly obvious to everyone. That may be hard to understand now that's it been pointed out, and without seeing the original context. Rd232 (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If I were to ask you "When you're reading Screw in bed, do you find it more comfortable to lie pr0n or supine?" would I be "using" the word "porn", or merely alluding to it? Would it make any difference if I had omitted the third and fourth words of the question?

I'm afraid I can't see how the word "faggot" was any more being "used" in Gregory Kohs's offensive remark ("It looks like Fae got upset with my post to his Talk page." ) than the word "porn" is being "used" in either of my two hypothetical questions.

In fact, the remark by itself seems to me to be completely innocuous. What made it offensive when it appeared on Wikipediocracy is that Mr Kohs deliberately chose to draw attention to the juxtaposition of the words "Fae" and and "got", and its similarity to the word "faggot", by placing those two words in bold type. It seems to me to be all rather pointless to now quibble over whether this was just as offensive or not nearly so offensive as actually calling someone a "faggot". The fact is that it is offensive, it was promptly removed from Wikipediocracy, and Mr Kohs has apologised for it.

However, to claim that Fae was actually called a faggot, as he himself has done, also seems to me to be a blatant falsehood, and I can perfectly well understand why Mr Kohs might find that just as offensive as Fae did the original bolding of the words "Fae got".

David Wilson (talk · cont)

Hello, you do not appear to have contributed very often to Commons, so may not be aware that calling something a "blatant falsehood" by in turn misquoting someone is poor practice. The link you gave actually stated that I "have been called a faggot on Wikipediocracy by using a pun on my name" which appears entirely accurate and hardly libel as Kohs has attempted to claim. --Fæ (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how the amount or frequency of edits to Wikimedia Commons affects how one may or may not be aware of the supposed poor practice you refer to. Or are you casting aspersions about those who may not edit Wikimedia Commons as often as you'd like? Should we limit conversing to people who have more than x edits? Mr. Wilson has several thousand edits on the English Wikipedia if that helps in your judging of him as a person worthy of participating in an open discussion on an open wiki. Killiondude (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This was his 58th edit to Commons and it is quite reasonable to help by pointing out how misquoting evidence is not appropriate on this specialist noticeboard. Commons is not Wikipedia, a principle that many Wikipedians who are used to policies there may get confused about. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Where is misquoting evidence appropriate? Killiondude (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy, where facts do not have to get in the way of 'lolz', allegedly. Oh, and a lot of it goes on at quite a few Wikimedia drama-boards when folks get over excited and start jumping to assumptions. I just had this in the British Pakistanis debate where some seem to call 'Pakistani' a race rather than a nationality.

Just to repeat, as this is a major diversion, my actual quote was that I "have been called a faggot on Wikipediocracy by using a pun on my name". Not sure why anyone would believe that I have to apologize for stating that fact. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I flatly deny that I "misquoted" anyone, and the assertion that Gregory Kohs called you a faggot by using a pun on your wikimedia username still looks to me like a blatant falsehood. You may quite truthfully say that Mr Kohs made an offensive allusion to your presumed sexuality by using your wikimedia username to construct a pun on the word "faggot", but I'm afraid I can't see that that's at all same thing as using that pun to call you a faggot.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 09:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

As usual, as soon something is going in the wrong direction it is all just an evil interpretation. The intent of the formating is more then clear in this case. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 10:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my sexuality is not presumed, that's a fact, one that many on Wikipediocracy seem to find fascinating, along with a couple of internet stalkers. I am a great big super duper 100% confirmed gay man. Even my husband of over 22 years says I am. That does not make it acceptable to find novel ways to call me a faggot, either as a pun or an "allusion" or in the form of interpretive dance. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Unblock Thekohser

Once again mattbuck turned to a bullying tactic and blocked a user improperly. Fæ is well known to accuse the users needlessly. Actually let me please use the language of wikipedia co-founder Jimbo Wales:

"Fae in particular is hereby formally invited to permanently stay off my talk page. Your false insinuations about other users, and badgering responses, are exactly what stand in the way of thoughtful progress on this and related issues."

•  Support unblock.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral Greg clearly like to engage Fæ in a pointy manner and Fæ also has a problem misrepresenting people's comments. I would therefore be supportive of some sort of mutual topic ban on both parties that prevents them from mentioning activities and conversations that take place at, or originate from, WR/WC. MBisanz ^talk 16:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't support attacks against our users, permanent project disruption or canvasing, neither on-wiki nor off-wiki. Thats why i can't support an unblock. That the unblock request actually starts with further allegations against Fae is the tip of the iceberg. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose as blocker - I blocked thekohser for his continual harrassment of Fae - this thread was started just after russavia warned thekohser to stay away from Fae, which thekohser clearly saw because he removed it from his talk page, calling it "unwelcome". Then he starts this thread, using what he claims is Fae's real name, when Fae has repeatedly, ad nauseam in fact, told him not to. Yes, there's probably some blame for Fae too, but to me this topic seemed deliberately provocative. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "using what he claims is Fae's real name" - say what? Fae, the chair of Wikimedia UK, claims the same on Wikimedia UK website so whilst the use by thekohser of the real name rather than the nick was gratuitous and probably a strong contributory factor in the decision to block, let's not imply that there's outing going on here. Also I'd take issue with the idea that the topic itself was deliberately provocative - it was clearly a direct response to the ongoing argument, which Fae brought to AN/U in the immediately preceding thread. Rd232 (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• User has not posted an unblock request, so this is moot; and the request here doesn't specifically address the block reason anyway. Rd232 (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Wrongful double-DR closure by User:Russavia

Russavia has twice closed this DR speedily for the wrong reasons. The file was a Wiki-EN local copy of our Commons file that has been here for four years. It was brought here to Commons only a week and a half ago (My 6th) after spending who knows how long in English Wikipedia's backlogged Copy-to-Commons category. I re-opened the DR after Russavia's faulty reasoning for the keep, and he's speedily kept it again. There was already a AN/U about an Admin speedy double closing a DR without allowing a discussion, and that admin was admonished for it, Russavia should know better. I tried contacting him on his talk page before I opened it a second time, pointing out the facts about the file, and he ignored it. Per my arguments on the DR page, the file has no purpose here, and it is a 100% uncontroversial deletion nomination. Russavia should have left the second DR alone and allowed a community discussion about it, and allowed another Admin to make the call, not speedily close it a second time. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I blocked Fry1989 indefinitely. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

And what about the additional rights of Fry1989 - autopatrol and filemover? Trijnstel_talk 19:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

They can be removed. I did not know if blocking would stop those rights or not. (I honestly didn't think of that). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That seems a bit sudden. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I know, but I dealt with this user for years in his disputes (either (un)blocking him, telling him he is wrong/right) and just coming to ANU for every single issue and for every minor thing is just something I took upon myself to say enough. As always, the block is under review and ya'll are welcome to overturn if it is harsh. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Per that, I've unblocked, with log entry no evidence of consensus to indef-block an established contributor, or of pressing need to to block before seeking such consensus. If you think the community will support an indef-block of Fry, then propose it, don't just do it because you've had enough. Rd232 (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Some things never change... - A.Savin 22:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely correct: it does not change that we do not indef-block established contributors without either demonstrated community consensus, or pressing need (in which case the pressing need should be well-argued, and a case for longer-term or permanent sanctions brought for community discussion). In short, individual admins do not get to indef established contributors on a whim. Rd232 (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that there is no policy provision for speedy closing deletion requests as 'keep'. None. Beyond that, there is no reason for the same admin to close the same DR twice - there are enough admins active to permit a second opinion. Rd232 (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: the Fry-related thread up the page, #Wrongful DR closure by User:KTo288 relates to another "speedy keep" DR, by another admin. Do we need a general memo to admins there is no speedy keep for DRs? Rd232 (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps admins are trying to send a general memo to Fry that we don't delete the "wrong version" of files with different versions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Prosfilaes, your ability to read my mind is amazing, but like Miss Cleo, your readings tend to be wrong. This was not about getting the file deleted or kept. This was about the community discussing the file in the DR, just like ANY OTHER DR on Commons. Not only did Russavia speedy keep the DR, he did it under faulty resonings. He said the file was in use, but it wasn't. I nominate probably up to a hundred files for deletion a month for a variety of reasons, some are deleted, some are kept. The point is, the community discusses the DR and once consensus is met, a decision is made. No admin should speedy keep a file, especially twice, without allowing a discussion to be made. Ironically, Russavia said there was no consent for the file to go. Well how could there be? He kept closing the DR before anybody could say how they feel one way or the other! It's not a crime on Commons to want a discussion, as in keeping with all other DRs, and it's deffinately not a blockable offence to bring up an AN/U when an Admin wrongfully speedy keeps a file twice. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Point of order: only the second closure was a speedy close - the first was an ordinary one. (You made the same mistake in the comment which started this thread.) Rd232 (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I consider it a speedy because nobody had said anything either way. It wasn't a speedy in the strictest sense, no. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's not re-define what "speedy" means... Rd232 (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Fry, your ability to read anything seems pretty limited, as the sentence you responded to speaks about what message admins were trying to convey, not what you were trying to convey.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

YOU'RE the one who seems to think he can read my mind, and that the only reason I did this was because I want it deleted because I don't like it. If you can't handle yoru mistakes and misinterpretations being pointed out because your readings are wrong, then stop trying to play Miss Cleo with my mind! Fry1989 ^eh? 00:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) If that is the intention, there are two ways to do that: (i) User talk:Fry1989 (ii) COM:AN/U. Speedy-closing DRs as "keep" is not one of them. Rd232 (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Fry1989 did not wait any reasonable length of time to wait for a response before they "re-opened the DR". Yes, I did close it a second time, because the re-opening of the DR was disruptive on the part of Fry1989, who as noted above seems to have a habit of coming to the AN/U dramuh boards for every issue he doesn't get his own way. I don't know how to make it anymore clearer to Fry1989 that if files are significantly different, we leave both files and let editors choose which one they want. Also, as the file in question has been superseded, we require consent before deleting superseded files -- that being the consent of the uploader/creator. The file in question was created before the file Fry1989 wants to keep as our only one. We did not, and still do not, have that consent. Is there any reason why Fry1989 has yet-again re-opened the DR, for a third time? That is pure disruption. russavia (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

First off, it's not "dramuh" when you keep a fiile twice without allowing a discussion, while simultaniously complaining that there's no consent for it to be deleted. You kept it, by that action you didn't allow any consent to take place! Second, when you kept it the first time, I went to your talk page and told you why I felt your reasons for the keep were faulty. You ignored that for four hours, and didn't reply back on your talk page until after I had re-opened the DR because you were ignoring me. You caused this drama, if you had left the second opening alone and waiting for a third opinion or a proper discussion by other Commons users, none of this would ever have happened. If a group of users said delete it, then it would go, if a group of users said it should stay, it would stay, but YOU DID NOT ALLOW THAT, TWICE. That's why I brought this to AN/U, Fry1989 ^eh? 23:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no provision for speedy-closing DRs as "keep". Introducing some subjective claim of "disruption" doesn't help with that. If it rises to the level of vandalism, you can revert the DR, but not speedy close it. Nor is there any reason to close a DR a second time when you've already closed it once. And if your explanation had been clearer to Fry, maybe we wouldn't be here. PS I don't think dismissing these dispute resolution venues as "dramuh boards" is really appropriate for a Commons bureaucrat. Rd232 (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

So are you claiming that it's acceptable behavior to repeatedly open DRs on a file and that admins can't respond to that? Or that Russavia made a technical error by closing instead of reverting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

No, he's saying Russavia should have left it alone and allowd another admin to give a ThirdO or for the normal practice of people saying delete or keep to take place, like any other normal DR. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it may be acceptable (not always, obviously) to repeatedly open DRs on a file, since re-nomination is the correct way to appeal a "keep". We don't have a "deletion review" mechanism for "keep" outcomes (we have COM:UDEL for reviewing "delete" outcomes). This may not be the ideal way to do things, but that's how it's currently done. That means that an admin who closed the original nomination should not close a renomination, because this may be in effect a review of their decision (it needn't be, there could be new info, say). Rd232 (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Question: as the file in question has been superseded, we require consent before deleting superseded files -- that being the consent of the uploader/creator. - I expected to be able to find support for this in policy, but haven't. Can you point it out? Rd232 (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't even understand how that would be relevant. This wasn't an image that was here and then superseded at a later date. This file has only been here a week and a half, the other was here for 4 years. This was nothing more than a local copy. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

While it says at Commons:Superseded_images_policy that any sort of deletion of superseded images "has been discontinued" it doesn't have to require any sort of consent at all. Though, with this case being colors again, there is no proof of which one is right or not and a deletion will not serve to prove who is right. It is a tough one, but it depends on how you interpret it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 00:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This isn't even about what one is right and what one is wrong. I've never even brought up accuracy or sources or anything else. This is simply a matter of duplication. Don't put words in my mouth. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This is nothing you have said, this is something I have observed about the files (and bringing comments from the DR by others). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 00:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no duplication here. File:Sila o Tonga - Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Tonga.svg is 138 kilobytes. File:Coat of arms of Tonga.svg has multiple revisions but none of them is 138 kilobytes. Thus, the files are different. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• User:Rd232 asserts that there is no policy to allow for speedy close. Policy is no more than formalisation of how we do things, speedy close is an existing practice that certainly makes sense. If we have a mistaken deletion nomination (eg a photo of the Mona Lisa is nominated as a violation of Leonardo's copyright), then why wouldn't we speedy close - we have enough backlog as it is. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• As to speedy close in the second instance, in general if no new deletion argument has been added then re-opening would appear to be disruptive - it is a judgement call, is the re-nomination disruptive or is there a case that needs to be discussed further. But sometimes the same arguments discussed by a wider group comes to a different conclusion. It is a balance between dissuading people from just renominating something for deletion until they get their way when there is no compelling reason for deletion, and allowing for re-nomination when some compelling reason for deletion has been missed. If we insist that a different person should close subsequent re-openings then we just encourage re-opening until someone who agrees with the nomination closes it as delete. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• We do not have a compelling reason to delete the file in question (no legal danger). Closure was unremarkable. I think User:Fry1989 has to step back and wonder why he is continually told that his assumptions about the way things are done are wrong. User User:Russavia's actions are not particularly note-worthy in the case of a low priority deletion discussion about an un-important file. If anything, more files should be speedy kept and our attention focused on deletion requests that actually merit consideration by busy people here. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

If my "assumptions" are continually wrong, why am I consistantly vindicated? Fry1989 ^eh? 20:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I hope you don't consider being blocked, then unblocked as "vindicated", more a shot across the bows. If you mean your views about retention of "other versions", overwriting files and what constitutes a duplicate, then I would be interested to see the examples you are referring to. --Tony Wills (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I was blocked as "expending Community patience", when the reality was that I had just woken up after a night's rest, and re-opened a wrongfully closed DR that was Speedied by the same Admin who closed it the first time before any form of discussion about the nomination could take place. The block was indefinite, and within 2 or 3 short hours I was unblocked without a second look as the block was deemed over-reaching and inappropriate. It's furthur coming to light that I was right, there is no provision for an Admin to speedy kept a DR, and I was right in not only re-opening it for scrutiny, but bringing it to AN/U as an abuse of position. That's a vindication if ever there was one. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, if a DR nomination is disruptive enough to close early, then the nominator should be blocked for disruption (or at least formally warned), and the DR should be reverted as if it had never been made. If an admin wanting to speedy keep is not willing to do that because they think the DR was made in good faith then they should leave well alone and let the DR run the minimum length prescribed. DR is one of the few situations where individual files get collaborative scrutiny, and closing such discussions early is a bad thing. In short, there is no policy support for speedy close as "keep"; there are good reasons for that; if you want that to change, propose it somewhere appropriate. AN/U is not the place to make policy, I'm just pointing the lack of policy in this instance. Rd232 (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the first part, but you are defining "disruptive" in terms of good faith, whereas people can be doing things in good faith (but ill informed, or without care) and be disruptive. But I don't wish to see anyone blocked unless absolutely necessary, and I agree that process is important - it's not so much where we get to but how we go about getting there :-). I certainly complain about poor process (especially involving deletion of things) myself, so will concede that while I see speedy keep (policy or not) is appropriate for clear cases of deletion nomination on bogus grounds, it should not be used for a subsequent re-nomination. Either the nomination should be reverted and the user warned, or the discussion should be left to run. I am not sure why you say "there are good reasons for" no policy support for speedy close as "keep", but as you say that is for a discussion elsewhere. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)