Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 61
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
User:Rosanna48
Hi, his only contributions are the set of protected images Rosanna48 (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) --2003:4D:2C7B:4494:A893:F55E:8FAD:ADD5 06:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Done Last upload deleted, user warned. lNeverCry 06:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Andresc30
After a one-week block from INeverCry, it seems they are back to upload copyright violations from Flickr here again. I suspect that this user is involved in Flickrwashing. ★ Poké95 05:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Done nuked and blocked. Next time I throw away the key. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Vahram Mekhitarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
There are two files of carpets made in Azerbaijan. This and this. The main source (website of Victoria and Albert Museum where these carpets are located) say that the place of origin of both of them is Azerbaijan. That is why I suggested to rename these files and made some edits to the description. But user Vahram Mekhitarian continuous to falsificate the place of origin pushing "Armenian" and trying to rename files,he also removed the links to the museum's site where true place of origin was written. Please stop user Vahram Mekhitarian from reverting the false information about these carpets from Azerbaijan and adding renaming template with a false name. I think user Vahram Mekhitarian needs to be warned for adding false description and false name. --Interfase (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
,_19th_century,_Nagorno-Karabakh,_wool,_cotton,_red_warp,_249_x_100_cm,_T138-1959.jpg){kind=link}
Comment -- I am a bit reluctant to conclude that Vahram Mekhitarian's behavior is disruptive but looking at the thread here and the sources provided above by the OP, I have to agree with the OP that Vahram Mekhitarian's edits are not constructive. Wikicology (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Dear Wikicology, until 1920 not have historical references to the territory at this region under the name of Azerbaijan. It was created in the period of the Soviet Union in 1920. These photos , of carpets the period of 17-19 century, can not be have the name of Azerbaijan. The true origin and type of these carpets are described in an article "Caucasian Carpets in the Victoria & Albert Museum, by Donald King, Michael Franses & Robert Pinner, Hali magazine, Jul 22, 2013, pp. 95-115". Specifically, there is indicated Karabakh territory. Of course, no mention of Azerbaijan in this article does not exist, and renaming files is an attempt to falsify the history of the region. The image source is not a WP:IRS. The carpets described as an "Armenian", so as the Armenian population of Karabakh lived there and weaved carpets for thousands of years. Vahram Mekhitarian (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- "until 1920 not have historical references to the territory at this region under the name of Azerbaijan" - not true. For example, Encyclopaedia of Islam (1986, Vol. I., P. 191) tells that according to Yakut (13th century) Adharbaydjan extended down to Bardha’a (this is a territory of Azerbaijan). "A History of Qarabagh: An Annotated Translation of Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi’s Tarikh-e Qarabagh" (Mazda Publishers, 1994, p. XV) also confirms that the Safavids included some of the lands north of the Arax river (modern territory of Azerbaijan Republic) as part of the province of Azerbaijan.
- "no mention of Azerbaijan in this article does not exist" - not true again. Let's read what is written in this article (page 97): Thus, our regional treatment is quite similar to that of Kerimov who has classified the carpets of Russian Azerbaijan into the Genje-Kazak, Kuba-Shirva and Karabagh regions
- "Armenian population of Karabakh lived there and weaved carpets for thousands of years" - for "thousands of years" is your original research. But Azeri population also lived in Karabakh and also weaved carpets. And their carpet weaving in Caucasus was more significant than the other people's. Iranica, e.g. tells in the article about Caucasian carpets, espescially about the 19th century: The main weaving zone was in the eastern Transcaucasus south of the mountains that bisect the region diagonally, the area now comprised in the Azerbaijan SSR; it is the homeland of a Turkic population known today as Azeri. Other ethnic groups also practiced weaving, some of them in other parts of the Caucasus, but they were of lesser importance. As we can see even in 19th century the main carpet weavers of the Caucasus were Azeris, and others has lesser importance. If after all these sources you have again some doubts about carpets from Azerbaijan of that period, let's see what historian Ronald Grigor Suny writes in his book "Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: A Country Study" (Diane Publishing, 1996, P. 108): Carpet and textile making, both of which are ancient Azerbaijani crafts, fluorished during the medieval period, and Azerbaijani products became well known in Asia and Europe.
- But where is it written that these carpets are from Karabakh or weaved by Armenians? There is nothing about it on the description of the carpets. But we can easely read the place of origin: Azerbaijan. It may be Karabakh, but maybe other region of Azerbaijan as well. Any way we should put that name which is described on the main source. And the main source is the web-site of Victoria and Albert Museum. I think, that the Museum knows better, where their carpets came from, than the user of Wikimedia. --Interfase (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Dear Wikicology, until 1920 not have historical references to the territory at this region under the name of Azerbaijan. It was created in the period of the Soviet Union in 1920. These photos , of carpets the period of 17-19 century, can not be have the name of Azerbaijan. The true origin and type of these carpets are described in an article "Caucasian Carpets in the Victoria & Albert Museum, by Donald King, Michael Franses & Robert Pinner, Hali magazine, Jul 22, 2013, pp. 95-115". Specifically, there is indicated Karabakh territory. Of course, no mention of Azerbaijan in this article does not exist, and renaming files is an attempt to falsify the history of the region. The image source is not a WP:IRS. The carpets described as an "Armenian", so as the Armenian population of Karabakh lived there and weaved carpets for thousands of years. Vahram Mekhitarian (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
@Vahram Mekhitarian: @Interfase: This appears to be a 'good faith' content dispute, and not vandalism. You were both edit warring, which is unacceptable.... cease doing so, or sanctions will be applied as needed to stop disruptive behavior. Discuss the issue at a talk page, or a project discussion page, and find a consensus that describes the status of the works as neutrally as possible, including a mention of the dispute, and address the subject of how the images are used at the relevant projects. Please. @Marcus Cyron: Reventtalk 02:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- (further comment) I've protected both pages at the 'status quo', which is of course The Wrong Version, for two weeks, to force a stop to the edit war. When you reach a consensus, ask for the pages to be fixed with {{Edit request}}. Reventtalk 02:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- If I get this right, this is a file moving wheel war? That is disruptive on so many levels. Whatever is the national origin, there should be reliable sources for it. If we have a reliable source for both claims, then handle it like all the other past similar cases. For example, why not call it just a "Dragon carpet with swastikas, 17-18th century, Nagorno-Karabakh, 212 x 184 cm, T84-1909.jpg"? There seems to be an agreement that this carpet is from a specific time period at a specific location. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 18:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- But the sources don't claim that these carpets are from "Nagorno-Karabakh". They claim that they are from Azerbaijan. They can be from Karabakh theoretically, but Karabakh carpets also from Azerbaijan, as we can read in the David Long's article. Anyway the name "from Azerbaijan" is not wrong and complies with the reliable sources. There is not only renaming problem. User Vahram Mekhitarian deletes also categories and description relating to Azerbaijan and adds categories and description relating to Armenia for some reason that is not complying with the sources. --Interfase (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- @とある白い猫: Presumably the people that moved the images were taking the requests in good faith, and didn't realize they had been repeatedly renamed. As far as the 'content dispute', I really have no opinion, but it needs to be settled by discussion, and this page really isn't the right place for that. Reventtalk 14:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Can't say much more in this case than this, was I said before in my discussion page. Carpets are not my working area, neverless the Armenian/Azerbaijan conflict. With reanamigs we have to trust the expertise by the users up to a point. I re-renamed, because of bring it back to the starting point, so that there a discussion can start by those, who know about the toppic. Marcus Cyron (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
A.Savin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Complaint about unjust deletion requests
As a famous person, or formerly famous, of minor but nevertheless reasonably notable fame, I think I am being subjected to abuse regarding the deletion request process, in relation to my fame and the controversial nature of my fame (public nakedness).
For example one image currently listed for deletion was previously listed in 2011 for deletion but the ruling was to keep. Surely it is not right for an image that has previously been successful kept to be again listed for deletion?
As far as I am aware if an image was previously ruled "keep" then an appeal is the only way to challenge that, and it can only be renominated for deletion if there have been changes to the image (there have been no changes to the image in question), so you can imagine why I am feel I am being victimised.
Wikimedia states regarding appealing deletions: "Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone."
Oddly the Administrator User:Jameslwoodward who previously ruled to "keep" my image now wants to reverse that decision because apparently I am not noteworthy enough, despite having a Wikipedia page about my campaign and despite at one time having a Wikipedia about myself which I asked Wikipedia to remove due to stress (they complied with my removal request).
Of the five items listed for deletion one was previously ruled a "keep" in 2011, and three were nearly removed in 2011 regarding a request for copyright-ownership permission, which I sent. Surely if the images were unsuitable in 2011 that should have been noted, via deletion request, at the same time as the missing copyright permission issue?
One of the five images listed for deletion is COM:INUSE regarding The Freedom To Be Yourself so that clearly seems in-scope, thus perhaps corroborating my allegation of abusiveness towards myself?
All the five images (currently flagged for deletion) were uploaded in 2010, but the reason for the current (2016) deletion request is in relation to an image (a sixth image of mine listed for deletion), which I uploaded on 3 Nov 2016. It seems by uploading an image this has caused my old images to be re-evaluated, which does not seem proper. Must I have ALL my images re-evaluated every time I upload a new image?
The bias and prejudice, the personal attack, regarding these deletion requests seems clear regarding how User:Hedwig in Washington referred to me mockingly as "Mr. I M Important." in the edit summary. The word "garbage" also seems a personal attack when applied to my identity, a self-portrait. If the image is out of scope then say so but the "garbage" pejorative seems to be personal attack.
The argument of advertisement or self-promotion (out of scope) shouldn't apply to self-portraits by a famous person who is famous regarding their identity, regarding campaigning (noted in the worldwide international media) for identity (self-awareness) issues. Please can you investigate the possible abusiveness, the abuse of deletion process. If I really wanted to promote or advertise myself then I wouldn't do it via the backwater of Wikimedia were there has been minimal awareness of my 2010 images over the past six years.SRHSP (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that comments have been made in a mocking way. This is unhelpful as rather than diffusing the situation, contributors who should know better have inflamed it rather than just sticking to explaining policy and guidelines in the deletion request. --Fæ (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, to be factual, it was User:SRHSP who already in his first comments to the DR of his uploads questioned the nominator's motivation and accused him of "abuse of process", "trolling" and "malicious abuse of process", and "frivolous case". One can hardly expect a too friendly answer to such attacks. --Túrelio (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Fæ. And Túrelio my response would be to state my accusations were civil and not without evidence of potential abuse of process, or at least evidence of carelessness, considering the blanket nature of the deletions, which included one previous "keep" from 2011; furthermore the previous 2011 "keep" and another 2010 image are currently COM:INUSE thus clearly not liable for deletion. I think it is valid to speculate upon the nature of how the deletion requests occurred and the method of the requests being implemented, which due to the quickness (15mins after I uploaded) I think some type of bot-automation error or abuse happened. Also two wrongs do not make a right, so if I was wrong to raise the criticism then simply say so instead of being abusive.SRHSP (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Do you think I should submit a request for comment regarding the 2011 keep currently being contradicted? Wikimedia policy seems clear on this, that if the image has not changed and not been appealed then a new request for deletion cannot be made to counter the old (2011) keep. SRHSP (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
User:GSFPage is back
After their block (see AN thread here), they don't seem to have understood why they were blocked and they are back uploading watermarked images- "File:SandeepSej.jpg" and "File:Manish Rawat.jpg". Both on here and en.wiki (where there are numerous copyright problems to do with text) they seem unresponsive to queries and don't seem to have actually used a talk page before. Jcc (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Done Deleted and blocked. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Dj-sajid
Should be warned or outright blocked for spamming --Denniss (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Огородник Максим (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Permanent copyright when downloading photos. --Mykola Vasylechko 14:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Just... what? The editor is User:Shmanʹkivtsi - Chortkiv, but has his user and talk pages redirected to a non-existent account name, which breaks all kinds of things. Someone who knows what language this is, so they can communicate with him, needs to move the pages to the right place and explain the matter, I think. Reventtalk 14:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- The language is Ukrainian--Ymblanter (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- I not about user account. I about uploaded photos of user. See User talk — more 57 images in violation of copyright. User roughly violates regulations Commons. We must take action. --Mykola Vasylechko 19:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Микола Олежчук (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- @Ymblanter: This User:Shmanʹkivtsi - Chortkiv created new account name and uploaded new image — violation of copyright. User roughly violates regulations Commons. --Mykola Vasylechko 18:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Why do you think this is the same user?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Per work. File:Домашня газета.png added to article User:Shmanʹkivtsi - Chortkiv. This is Sock puppetry. This files to remove. --Mykola Vasylechko 19:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Ralf Roletschek
Just a couple of days ago, we had an issue with obvious personally motivated revenge voting by Ralf Roletschek on Quality Images candidates. Now this very same behaviour appears to continue and I hereby kindly request a sysop to finally consider a block of this user because of long-term harassment. Thanks --A.Savin 20:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sonst hast du keine Probleme? Ich habe halt eine Meinung zu einem Foto, wo ist das Problem? --Ralf Roleček 21:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Could an admin please intervene? I don't think me and other fair-playing users at QIC have to tolerate the lies by Ralf Roletschek again and again. The photo in this nomination is fully OK, there is no "distortion", I didn't even correct the perspective. --A.Savin 21:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- According to the EXIF that photo was taken with a SIGMA 8-16mm lens @ 9mm (13.5 in full-frame). The perspective distortion of an ultra-wide-angle lens isn't to everyone's taste. I've even opposed my own en:wp FPC of a wide angle photo of St Pancras railway station. I think you need to find a stronger example of unreasonable opposition at QI. And while revenge-voting (if that is what this is) is unacceptable, please avoid using the word "harassment" for such. Nobody is being threatened or fearful for their safety and no police have been informed, so that kind of language shouldn't be used. -- Colin (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- It does no matter, which method (tilt/shift, portrait orientation or photoshop), a 100%-distortion looks unnatural. --Ralf Roleček 08:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - A.Savin, this is not a kind of behavior I would normally considered harassment. Hey....Ralf Roletschek! Look here, behavior like this is unhealthy for a collaborative community like Wikimedia Commons and therefore unacceptable. Wikicology (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's unhealthy to have a opinion? This opinion (too much distortion) i'm writing since years. Maybe, ist unhealthy to ha a opinion other than A.Savin. --Ralf Roleček 09:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Revenge voting is against the spirit of collaboration and may be considered disruptive which is a ground for blocking. Wikicology (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment As Colin commented above, this is not a good example to assume "revenge voting". Some people like it; some not. Jee 09:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- In the past i have often vote "too strong distortion". Since years. This isn't a question of photographer rather motiv. See and as only two examples. The 2. is a DIliff. --Ralf Roleček 14:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- And now there are 3 vs. 3 Votes at QIC - I'm not alone with my opinion. That has nothing to do with revenge. --Ralf Roleček 23:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- In the past i have often vote "too strong distortion". Since years. This isn't a question of photographer rather motiv. See and as only two examples. The 2. is a DIliff. --Ralf Roleček 14:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Plainte contre décision abrupte et déplacée, sans égard sur le fond de la question soulevée, par l'"administrateur" P199.
ResolvedPlainte contre décision abrupte et déplacée, sans égard sur le fond de la question soulevée, par administrateur P199.
Bonjour,
Objet: plainte pour abus par un administrateur, en l'occurrence l'utilisateur P199
Le cas suivant, simple, se présente comme suit:
1) Je note que le soi-disant drapeau de Moresnet neutre n'a aucune valeur historique, ni légale. voir à : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Moresnet.svg
2) La présentation du drapeau est donc abusive et crée la confusion.
3) J'en demande la suppression dans les termes suivants à https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Flag_of_Moresnet.svg
Ce fichier a été proposé(e) à la suppression depuis le 19 octobre 2016. Pour en discuter, merci d’aller sur la page de la demande. Ne retirez pas ce message tant que la demande de suppression n’est pas close.
Raison pour la demande de suppression : "Moresnet-Neutre" était un territoire communal disputé par les Pays-Bas (puis la Belgique à partir de 1831) et la Prusse de 1816 à 1919. Ce n'était pas un état indépendant et il n'en avait ni les attributs ni les symboles (drapeau et hymne). Le projet utopique du mouvement espérantiste est une chose. La réalité historique en est un autre. Le drapeau de Moresnet-Neutre n'a jamais (et n'aurait pas pu légalement) existé. Il relève de la fantaisie d'activistes espérantistes actuels.
4) l'administrateur P199 (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:P199) intenvient:
- déclare que : Kept: in use; the discussion whether or not it is valid/legal should not be held here. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC).
Aucune autre intervention, et pour cause.
Conséquence: "LE DÉBAT EST CLOS "! ...avant d'avoir commencé. "Débat" qui n'a pas eu lieu !
- et P199 ferme aussitôt la discussion (qui n'a pas eu lieu).
Résultat: ce drapeau continue à être présenté faussement comme celui du territoire, en fait communal, de Moresnet neutre, et ce, dans de nombreuses versions linguistiques de l'article.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Flag_of_Moresnet.svg
Cet administrateur fait mal son travail et abuse de ses droits !
J'ai d'autres exemples d'interventions abruptes et définitives par des utilisateurs qui se considèrent propriétaires de pages ! wikipedia est une immense bureaucratie où énormément de gens dépensent leur énergie à épiloguer sans fin, dans des "guerres d'édition", un vocabulaire guerrier extrêmement courant mais dont le MOOC ne souffle mot....MOOC qui nous présente une version idyllique et fausse de Wikipedia.
C'est cela le fonctionnement de Wikipedia/Wikimedia ? La présentation par le MOOC de ce début 2016 était tout à fait surfaite !
Bien à vous,
--AIlurus (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Élève WikiMOOC 2016 "J'ai appris les subtilités de la contribution sur Wikipédia en suivant le WikiMOOC 2016 (cours en ligne)". Tu parles !
- AIlurus : Bonjour,
- Merci de ne pas accuser un administrateur sans raison. La fermeture de cette décision est la bonne: suivant les règles de Commons, le fichier étant utilisé et n'ayant pas de problème de droit d'auteur, il peut être sur Commons. Son utilisation est à discuter sur Wikipédia. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- User:AIlurus clearly doesn't know or doesn't understand Commons policies and guidelines. My advice to him was to renominate the file for deletion again, which he did. The next closing admin came to the same conclusion as me. This is purely a case of complaining of an user not getting his way. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
harass-accounts w. inappropriate username blocked
Just for the record: I've indef-blocked the 2 recently created, but inactive accounts User:Molly White breast-feeding me by holding my head on her bosom and User:Molly White is my dream girl, which werely likely created by the same person in order to harass an :en arbitrator. I was notified by 3rd party about the first one and found the 2nd one by myself. I've also deleted the related user talkpages. --Túrelio (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for acting fast on this. I don't think anyone would object to a block like this. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Complaint about a user through OTRS
Dear administrators, as OTRS-volunteer I forwarded a ticket, ticket:2016111710008268, with a complaint about a certain Commons user to the commons maillist in German. Can please a German speaking administrator look into this question, please read my note (in English) added to the ticket. Sorry, my German is not sufficient enough... thanks and kind regards, Elly (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Ellywa: Done. Next time just move it over to info-commons and unlock the ticket. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Trylie
Take a look at User:Trylie contributions. –Makele-90 (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- You forgot to inform user about this discussion
- I see nothing that requires an admin action
So, @Makele-90: could you be more precise? Ankry (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Some very strange edits, but also some constructive ones. Does not look like a total newbie to me, first edit was to add {{SVG}} to a file. Not sure whether this is a troll or a genuine account. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked Sockpuppet of Vexillographer. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Ellin Beltz
User:Poco a poco
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Hey guys, could you just be aware of the behaviour of the Poco a poco, he used a very racist therm here: "If we all would behave like this, it would be a jungle." , this is use to diminish part of Africans, and part of Latin American countries, and especially Amerindian peoples, as if we are minus, just for not being European (or live near by forests). Plus, in this statement provide by him, he lies, exclude part of the information to manipulate it, and them, not happy enough he accuses my vote to be a "kiddish revenge" in FPC.
I don't see this as a acceptable posture of a volunteer, let alone from a Administrator. I just don't want this to scale, he may have things outside Commons against me, as I do not agree with most of his friends actions from WMES and other Ibercoop members, because here I not even get in touch with him more them 2 times (never outside, as far I remember); but this is not a excuse to act like that.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 07:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- It is really sad to read such accusations below the belt against me. I am a very open minded person and the people who know me by person can confirm that.
- It's shabby to fabricate such a racism accusation out of a word. When I used the word jungle I did it in the contest of law of jungle, what does actually suit to your behaviour in POTD.
- Regarding WMES, Iberocoop and others, to be honest, I didn't even know that you are active there, nor I know either whether you have black-, white- or yellow-colored skin, that is irrelevant to me. If I'd have something against the user groups in Brazil I wouldn't have probably been a jury member of WLE in Brazil this year, don't you think so? In addition, I have a good relationship to all Brazilian users I know (to mention some: Rodrigo P., Beria, The Photographer, Jonas...). And although I am more that sure that the offense you talk about is made up, if it really isn't I apologize as I've never intended to discriminate you in any form.
- Whoever takes care of this case, please, don't get mislead by this user, and start it from here. As I mentioned there I expect that he re-schedules back the POTD that he just swept away and gets a ban from POTD. Thank you. Poco2 07:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- "he just swept away and gets a ban from POTD"
- Ban? For what? Who will do that? You? Based in?
- What I did was entirely inside our rules Commons:Picture of the day/Instructions#Changing picture of the day, you not liking don't give you the right to ban anyone.
- As we are not under the "law of the strongest", as you said, you forcing this this law here.
- And the "kiddish revenge", is another expression?
- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 08:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Are the last 3 sentences of the POTD rules not understandable to you? That is exactly what I referred when I talked about (the law of) the jungle.
- There are rules here that are the base for to all other policies or instructions, and the most importants are those dealing with the relationships between users here: assume good faith and behave civic. If a user cannot do that in an area of the project a temporary ban is a possible solution to limit damage.
- I don't force any law anywhere, you brought an unfounded accusation here. Poco2 08:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- So you are saying that you not wrote "kiddish revenge", "I brought this complaint here because it shows IMHO exactly how it shouldn't be. If we all would behave like this, it would be a jungle.", and now you are not yelling at me: .
- And what damage I'm doing here?
- I already deal with that: Template:Potd/2017-05-20, if this was the only problem, why didn't assumed good faith, talked to me in a civic manner, on my talk page, remind me that?
- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 08:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think at all this is a racist sentence nor a discrimination. "The law of the jungle" is a very common expression to mean the law of the strongest. By reading "...it would be a jungle" I clearly understand "It wouldl be the brothel and the law of the strongest". Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Christian how can you define what others see as disrespectful? You are not in their skin...
- And it would be a jungle, is away different from "will be adopting the judge law". And put in the contest, I'm a simple volunteer, against "The photographer who has taken the most featured pictures on Wikimedia Commons" and sysop... so I already lost, don't make sense.
- The jungle there was clearly used as a "an uncontrolled or confusing mass of things" , also very common expression, and based in racism. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 08:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- This accusation of racism and/or discrimination in the purpose of harming a user with whom there is a conflict looks as a conflict slippage and this is clearly disruptive for the project and for the community. I do not take sides regarding the POTD conflict, but that you are wrong or right, you do not serve your cause with this kind of argumentation. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Indef block of Reiner Stoppok
Reiner Stoppok (talk · contribs) whose last edit at Commons is from 28 January 2007 was indef'ed out of sudden and without any explanation on 3 June 2015 by Denniss with the rationale Intimidation/harassment. I asked Dennis for the background of this block but got no satisfying response. Denniss refered to supposed insults on de:wp refering to Commons users but provided no difflinks. Reiner Stoppok is a prolific contributor at de:wp since 2006 (more than 112,000 edits) but indeed not without controversies. In 2014, the de:wp community banned him for two years. This ban has now expired and Reiner Stoppok would like to continue contributing and is (like me) wondering about this remaining block at Commons. There are just 11 contributions of him at Commons. One file was deleted where he forgot the license template for the scan out of a book published in 1910 by an author who died in 1927. I would suggest to unblock him as I do not know of any wrongdoings of him at Commons and as we should not block here anyone for offenses done at other projects. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Support unblocking. Yann (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)- Support unblocking. Local on-wiki blocks should not be automatically propagated to other wikis. IMO, if there is real need to set a multiwiki block, it should be made by a steward or WMF staff, or at least precise explanation should be provided. Ankry (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support unblocking. Behavior on another Wiki is in itself no reason to block. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support terrible block. Though we can block people for offences at other projects on rare occasions of course. Merely insults isn't one of those occasions. Natuur12 (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support as others --Hubertl 10:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Done - per consensus - there was no valid reason at all to block in the first was. Blocking admin has been consulted and apparently could not remember any valid reason either - Jcb (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Estela.rs
Estela.rs (talk · contribs) is, I believe, a sockpuppet of blocked user Vs.abbott (talk · contribs) (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Vs.abbott). Their uploads are of no encyclopaedic use, often null images, and solely for self-promotional spam in the file description. Could an admin take appropriate action please? Optimist on the run (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Done Uploads nuked and both accounts indeffed. lNeverCry 20:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I heard you guys don’t like insults…
User:Pannam2014
Musa Raza
Musa Raza (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) This user removes information from file descriptions, and try to change the "own work" claim of his/her uploads with speedy deletion nominations. All the edits and uploads need review. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Only 4 remaining files: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shyam actor.png, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Musa Raza. Yann (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest restoring the recently deleted files. I also have doubts concerning earlier nominations: they requested deletion of an OTRS verified image as a copyrighted one exists on enwiki. IMO, that should not have been accepted. Ankry (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Yann, Why not consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page before reporting them here? Wikicology (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Yann, Ankry, and Wikicology: All of my uploads (except verified OTRS/Flickr) are copyright violations I don't own the rights. Many of my uploads have been deleted previously because of copyright violations. I'm not lying it's up to you that you believe me or not. If you want to keep these files then keep them but it will be copyright violation. I tagged them with deletion tags just because they are copyright violations but you removed my edits. So now I'm not doing anything you can do whatever is right. Thank you.--Musa Raza (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/08/Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard
Can I help user Tm with removing Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard using Cat-a-lot? Johnny8181 (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked. --Krd 13:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Who is blocked and why? --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Tm for running an unapproved bot which edits to fast. Natuur12 (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, I see. Also, according to Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/08/Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard, the answer to the original question is "no". Also, why would a likely sock-puppet with no previous edits ask that question? --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Tm for running an unapproved bot which edits to fast. Natuur12 (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Who is blocked and why? --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Related. Bot operators should follow so manners while using their bots. Refused to accept their mistakes even after asked is very rude as McZusatz is doing now. Jee 16:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Tm used cat-a-lot . The block rationale of "unapproved bot" isn't true. Krd threatened to block me for the same thing. I used VisualFileChange, so again "unapproved bot" would've been false in my case as well. Tm did a whopping 1800 edits in a half hour BTW. As for McZusatz, he's always been a relaxed and reasonable guy, and the discussion pointed to looks to be pretty calm. He's trying to help out, and it's certainly nice to be able to edit a summary than the whole page. lNeverCry 00:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
User:AkBot is filling my watchlist with edits that only remove this "Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard". This seems to me to be blockable per above discussion and very very undesirable. Surely we all have better things to do (and to burn CPU cycles on) than removing some unimportant category from millions of files. Please can someone block this and post a notice wider to discourage this. -- Colin (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC) User:SteinsplitterBot also. -- Colin (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Colin: I am runnung a cleanup script, can you please give me a difflink where a file hasn't been cleaned up. Thanks! :-). --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- this edit. Seem only concerned with removing the phased-out category. It's the only one in my watchlist. -- Colin (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- The edit is correct, the wikitext does not require other cleanup. A number of bots are doing this task right now, i see no issue. A bot got approved recently for exactly that Commons:Bots/Requests/HiW-Bot. You can hide bots from your watchlist. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm seriously confused. The linked discusion said "If a bot is tasked to remove the categorization, it should only do it together with other fixes in the respective file. Editing millions of files just because of a superfluous cat seems a bit excessive." The reply, from the guy who created the deletion request, was "Absolutely agree. Above point is very important to whoever actions this.". So why was that file edited with the only change being to remove this category? I'm not that concerned about my watchlist. I'm rather more concerned that people seem to think removing this from millions of files is a good use of resources and/or their limited time on earth. And with that, I'm unwatching this -- do what you like. -- Colin (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- I share Colin’s confusion. The mentioned guideline, calling to join several minor changes in one same edit and to avoid edits that perform only one of such changes (and I presume, be it done by bot, by gadget, or manually), seems eminently sensible, and yet, judging from my own watchlist only, there’s a handful of bots and admins doing exactly that. Here’s a few examples from today’s crop: HiW-Bot, YaCBot, SteinsplitterBot, AkBot, INeverCry, and Czar. These have been going on for a long time, and yet when Tm does something like that (not even to mention the context of other edits), he gets immediately blocked. One more block to his list, for no good reason at all, enabling people later on to persecute him over his «lousy blocking record» (and compare with this expunged block, admin to admin). In the same context, nobody seems to notice that Tm got hit with something as unpleasant as a block, while multiple voices were raised deploring that Krd (who was elected to deal with stuff) was as much as mentioned at BN. So, no admin cronyism running rampant hand-in-head with a hamfisted approach against regular users, especially the maligned so-called power users — or am I confused? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have better things to do on a Friday evening than discuss the UploadWizard category removal! But since I was pinged by Tuvalkin, I wonder if using Catalot is more resource-intensive than using a bot. I don't know much about how either work, but would the former require each page be downloaded, edited and saved, whereas the latter could be done on the server? If that's so, I can definitely see why using a browser-based tool to automate editing some of 5 million files would be very very unwise. -- Colin (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- I share Colin’s confusion. The mentioned guideline, calling to join several minor changes in one same edit and to avoid edits that perform only one of such changes (and I presume, be it done by bot, by gadget, or manually), seems eminently sensible, and yet, judging from my own watchlist only, there’s a handful of bots and admins doing exactly that. Here’s a few examples from today’s crop: HiW-Bot, YaCBot, SteinsplitterBot, AkBot, INeverCry, and Czar. These have been going on for a long time, and yet when Tm does something like that (not even to mention the context of other edits), he gets immediately blocked. One more block to his list, for no good reason at all, enabling people later on to persecute him over his «lousy blocking record» (and compare with this expunged block, admin to admin). In the same context, nobody seems to notice that Tm got hit with something as unpleasant as a block, while multiple voices were raised deploring that Krd (who was elected to deal with stuff) was as much as mentioned at BN. So, no admin cronyism running rampant hand-in-head with a hamfisted approach against regular users, especially the maligned so-called power users — or am I confused? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm seriously confused. The linked discusion said "If a bot is tasked to remove the categorization, it should only do it together with other fixes in the respective file. Editing millions of files just because of a superfluous cat seems a bit excessive." The reply, from the guy who created the deletion request, was "Absolutely agree. Above point is very important to whoever actions this.". So why was that file edited with the only change being to remove this category? I'm not that concerned about my watchlist. I'm rather more concerned that people seem to think removing this from millions of files is a good use of resources and/or their limited time on earth. And with that, I'm unwatching this -- do what you like. -- Colin (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- The edit is correct, the wikitext does not require other cleanup. A number of bots are doing this task right now, i see no issue. A bot got approved recently for exactly that Commons:Bots/Requests/HiW-Bot. You can hide bots from your watchlist. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- this edit. Seem only concerned with removing the phased-out category. It's the only one in my watchlist. -- Colin (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Colin: I am runnung a cleanup script, can you please give me a difflink where a file hasn't been cleaned up. Thanks! :-). --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- You have to love the double standards on here - You block TM for mass removing the category yet at the same we have what 4 or 5 bots removing the exact same category and at the same time filing up my watchlist .... Surely Steinsplitters bot is enough ? ... how many more bots are going to take up my watchlist and or remove this category ? ... It's ridiculous - One bot is sufficient. –Davey2010Talk 18:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- There's an obvious difference: Tm and Havang(nl) aren't bots, and can't mark their edits as bot edits, and flood watchlists. As for AkBot @Ankry: please mark its edits as bot edits. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Zhuyifei1999: They are generally marked. Mabe except few testig ones. I noticed that cat-a-lot does not mark edits as bot edits, even if run as bot account. Is it intentional? Or am I missing something? Ankry (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oops, perhaps I mislooked, sorry. As for cat-a-lot, the api call data near line 504 does not include "bot: true", and perhaps mediawiki defaults that parameter to false. Do you think that should be added? (IMO, it's a bot weird when cat-a-lot isn't a bot framework, but that flag is ignored anyways when the user doesn't have the bot permission, iirc) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Zhuyifei1999: Unsure. I talked to Steinsplitter about this, and he suggests that cat-a-lot is not useful for massive task in any case as it is too resource-consuming. However, I think there should be a better way to prevent such an action than RC monitoring. Just noticed that it is not logical that massive action made by a bot account is not bot-marked. Ankry (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oops, perhaps I mislooked, sorry. As for cat-a-lot, the api call data near line 504 does not include "bot: true", and perhaps mediawiki defaults that parameter to false. Do you think that should be added? (IMO, it's a bot weird when cat-a-lot isn't a bot framework, but that flag is ignored anyways when the user doesn't have the bot permission, iirc) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Zhuyifei1999: They are generally marked. Mabe except few testig ones. I noticed that cat-a-lot does not mark edits as bot edits, even if run as bot account. Is it intentional? Or am I missing something? Ankry (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- There's an obvious difference: Tm and Havang(nl) aren't bots, and can't mark their edits as bot edits, and flood watchlists. As for AkBot @Ankry: please mark its edits as bot edits. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- I switched off my bot from doing that task, i am tired with this absolutely unnecessary drama. And by the way: Cat-a-lot is ignoring mw:API:Etiquette by flooding the api with x-requests per seconds, and of course cat-a-lot is parsing the page and then changing the category - there is no way to do it server-side. Cat-a-lot, hot-cat, etc. are java script client side tools written by volunteers not directly affiliated with mediawiki. A number of users are thinking that cat-a-lot, hot cat, et all are part of mediawiki but that isn't true - it is just java script, nothing on server side. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Steinsplitter - FWIW I have no issue with your bot whatsoever, Your bot is the only one that should be running it IMO. –Davey2010Talk 18:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Steinsplitter has asked me a few days ago to disable cat-a-lot usage on that category. I initially refused so users can have more freedom, but if this has to be done, I will do it. (VFC won't be exempted) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- I got automatic notification of this discussion. I was the one who asked for using cat-a-lot before I started using it. I did 40.000 edits in one hour manually, thinking to be helping. I was higly surprised to get blocked without warning by [User:Krd]]. User:Steinsplitter let me know it was a misunderstanding and I was soon unblocked bij Krd. Now I just remove the cat from templates with included category, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Adamantane_tricyclo_nomenclature.svg&diff=214910176&oldid=206430453 . Can an admin adapt this sort of templates in a way that the cat-inclusion is annulated? --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Please could the edit summaries be clearer when this category is being removed? Just saying "category deletion" as @AkBot and Ankry say, or "Bot: Removing phased-out category." as @SteinsplitterBot and Steinsplitter say, or "Bot: Removing category per discussion" as @SchlurcherBot and Schlurcher say, or "Removing phased out category." as @HiW-Bot and Hedwig in Washington say, is not great when you have many images in your watchlist where this category is being used, and you have to check to see if it is *this* category rather than another one that's being edited. Please could the bot operators add the name of the category into the edit summary? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Mike Peel: There's a link to the community decision under this text. Is in not enough? Ankry (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- The link is definitely good, thanks for including it. However, it doesn't help too much when looking through a long watchlist since you have to click on it to find out that it's about this category. Is adding the category name into the edit summary a big job? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I will add in next run if it does not exceed changelog entry size. Ankry (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you! Mike Peel (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Updated my bot's changelog as well. Thanks for linking my name, so I could find this discussion. --Schlurcher (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you! Mike Peel (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I will add in next run if it does not exceed changelog entry size. Ankry (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- The link is definitely good, thanks for including it. However, it doesn't help too much when looking through a long watchlist since you have to click on it to find out that it's about this category. Is adding the category name into the edit summary a big job? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Mike Peel: There's a link to the community decision under this text. Is in not enough? Ankry (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Too many bots are running this useless job too quickly. In recent hours User:YaCBot and User:akBot have been most prominent on my watchlist, so the best thing they could do is stop. Probably other criteria would indicate additional ones. Perhaps there are many bot operators who have nothing useful to do and want to participate in this. They could take turns, each running on a particular day. Or they could collaborate on one, more sophisticated bot that would combine this useless task with a few slightly useful ones. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Jim.henderson: As it is noted above: You can hide bots from your watchlist (if you wish). There were at least 4 bots working on this task today in various parts of this category. AFAIK all bots are performing other minor cleaning together with this task. But most files do not require any other cleaning. If you wish to remain them untouched, maybe for next few years, requires this decision to be changed, I think.
- Moreover, if you still wish to receive notifications from bots, I can't understand how receiving 50,000 notifications one day is worse than receiving 5,000 notifications per day in 10 subsequent days.
- Note also, that too many fixes in a single edit often results in unpredicable and unexpected effects because of bot software undocumented bugs of just unnoticed mistakes. Ankry (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The best part of this is the information that it's approximately a ten day job, at current speed. That means it will finish next week sometime. I don't know where to find the information for a calculation, and feared that the onslaught would continue at high intensity for many weeks. Yes, doing it in a single day would be better, and stretching it out to a few months would be better yet. As it happens, I found a slight benefit. With all (or almost all) my old pictures appearing once and only once on the watchlist, I could check each picture for location errors, inadequate categorization and so forth. Temporarily. The rate soon increased until it was faster than I can check. Hiding all bot changes has the disadvantage of hiding also the changes made in the day or several hours before the bot, but that's what I have been doing. My best solution has been to suspend most category diffusion and similar Commons maintenance activities. After the disruption ceases, I'll gradually increase those activities, but remain aware that more powerful users have little respect for manual curatorial work like mine. Jim.henderson (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- good and then start in on Category:UW uploads using a custom license. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 13:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
User Crossswords
- Crossswords (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Serial copyright violator.
Uploads multiple files with asserted "own work" that are NOT "own work" but are instead blatant copyvio.
Warning -- data uploaded by user may be inaccurate -- Quite likely related to form of propaganda pushing by Trolls from Olgino, more info at .
Sagecandor (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- User reverting copyvio tags, most recently at File:Video game rating systems in europe.JPG. Pushed that one into deletion discussion. Disruptive. Sagecandor (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- how are world maps made by me in MS Paint violating copyright? Youre clearly harassing me and vandalizing my work for the one subject and dissagrement we have of the Fake News article as those pictures have nothing to do with your agenda--Crossswords (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Admins Pi.1415926535 and Ankry would appear to disagree -- the first deleted copyvio at File:Traffic for the term fake news.jpg, and the 2nd reverted user disruption at File:Video game rating systems in europe.JPG . Sagecandor (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- User warned. @Sagecandor: be more careful with your nominations: data is not copyrighted, only images are. There is no evidence that the map were copied from external source. Unjustified nominations can be interpreted as harasment and are also reason to block a user. Please move political discussions somewhere else. Ankry (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Ankry: I apologize if something was mistakenly tagged, to which image are you referring that was not copyrighted? Sagecandor (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sagecandor asked me to comment here. I can only speak to the two files I came across browsing the administrator's backlog: File:Traffic for the term fake news.jpg (an obvious copyvio) and File:Gdp per capita shown in Western Deutsche Mark for the year 1965 in a western german schoolbook.png (not a copyvio so far as I can tell, but I cannot speak for the accuracy of the information). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Ankry: It appears I may have been mistaken about File:Gdp per capita shown in Western Deutsche Mark for the year 1965 in a western german schoolbook.png, but glad the other valid concerns about copyright were addressed. Thank you for warning the user. I'll take more care to check copyvio images. Sagecandor (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sagecandor asked me to comment here. I can only speak to the two files I came across browsing the administrator's backlog: File:Traffic for the term fake news.jpg (an obvious copyvio) and File:Gdp per capita shown in Western Deutsche Mark for the year 1965 in a western german schoolbook.png (not a copyvio so far as I can tell, but I cannot speak for the accuracy of the information). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Ankry: I apologize if something was mistakenly tagged, to which image are you referring that was not copyrighted? Sagecandor (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- how are world maps made by me in MS Paint violating copyright? Youre clearly harassing me and vandalizing my work for the one subject and dissagrement we have of the Fake News article as those pictures have nothing to do with your agenda--Crossswords (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- its from a german school book, harms geschichtsatlas nr 440--Crossswords (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
User:Kayesh
Kayesh (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
- probably also Tawhid Rahman parvin (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
Can someone look at their contribution? Looks like cross-wiki spam on translation page(s). A translation admin needed to revert / delete. A MediaWiki bug Ankry (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
User:Kumarappanghelliah & User:Kumarappavelar
- Kumarappavelar (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
- Kumarappanghelliah (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
Both accounts are uploading alot of personal photos. I already sent a notice to Kumarappanghelliah for possible deletion of unused personal selfie photos. I think Kumarappavelar is a sockpuppet of Kumarappanghelliah. Ninja✮Strikers «☎» 10:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Done Deleted a ton (selfies, duplicates, low quality), left the rest alone. Warning left on both talk pages. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Dardn2015
This user repeatedly uploaded movie related (poster etc). copyvios, as judging by his talk page. I guess that he isn't aware of the inexistence of any fair use rule on Commons. Administrative watching may be warranted. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Slowking4
Slowking4 keeps adding clearly erroneous author/source information, see here, after clear instructions here. Can somebody explain to Slowking4 that a 2D reproduction of a 1931 work, by an author who died in 1938, is not own work from the uploader and that the uploader is not the author? Jcb (talk) 08:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Commons:Own work may be relevant here. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Slowking4, the context of "Own work" on Wikimedia Commons refers to works that you explicitly created yourself. "Own work" means you owned the right and that is not the case here. I understand that the works in question are out of copyright, but this does not simply suggest that they may be uploaded as own work by anyone. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Slowking4: and @Jcb: If you want to distinguish between the creator of the 'depicted artwork', and the 'photographer' (which is not a bad thing, for clarity), please use {{Art photo}}, which allows you to give the information seperately, and in a more clear manner. And don't edit war. Reventtalk 09:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- I've fixed this to use {{Art photo}}, so hopefully people can stop arguing (and, hopefully, fix whatever other images you have done this to). Unfortunately, nobody fighting here fixed the actual problem... that the license had been changed, and was clearly wrong. @Hadi: You changed this from {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} to {{PD-Art-two-auto|1938}}. This was wrong.... the image is not a 'faithful reproduction of a 2D work of art', as it contains the frame, and so a license from the photographer is required unless the frame is cropped out (and revdel). Also, your license indicated that the painting (produced in 1931) was PD in the US because it was published in that country prior to 1923... both without evidence, and physically impossible. Please be far more careful if 'correcting' licenses. Reventtalk 10:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- thank you for the great honor. whenever you would care to block me in order to delete a file, i would be much obliged. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 22:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
User:Revent misusing the Close-discussion template
- The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.
The purpose of adding comments when closing a discussion is to summarise the community consensus of the discussion and/or to note what, if any, action is required. It is not a tool for admins to add their own contentious comments and have the luxury of the final say. Further, it is not a place to continue novel analysis and to make personal threats that do not reflect any documented community consensus.
In his closing comments, Revent does not summarise any documented community consensus nor does he stick to summarising the facts. He makes several comments that are untrue but significantly also engages in speculation about my motives. It is interesting that around this time, Revent criticised me elsewhere for speculating about motives. This is hypocritical to say the least, and certainly should not form part of any closing remarks. I do not object to closing that section -- it is clear nobody was going to take any action. And that is all that needed to be said "Closing because it is clear there is no consensus or willingness to discuss this further or take action". Neutral.
Despite Revent claiming "Closed is closed", he went on to add further comments after his closure. His remarks here deliberately and wrongly chose a definition that seeks to medicalise an everyday expression in order to make a block threat against me. I objected to Revent's "post-closure note" by adding my own here where I explain the perfectly acceptable meanings of the term that INC used and I repeated and Revent choose to take offence with.
This is a clear abuse by Revent. While anyone may close a discussion, Revent is acting like a super-user here, as an admin, and adding contentious comments of his own while at the same time not permitting the civil act of allowing a response. This is very discourteous and his revert of my text with the shouted edit text "Closed means CLOSED. This was a further comment by the closing admin. Open a complaint about me at the proper venue if you want." is rather hypocritical since he himself added contentious remarks to his closed discussion.
I request that my response to Revent be restored as it is only fair that I be permitted to disagree with his objectionable and incorrect opinions. Revent should be reminded when closing discussions to stick to summarising community consensus or making neutral comments. No admin is superior to another user and must not abuse his position to edit war in order to have the final say. -- Colin (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- To be honest, i see no misuse or abuse. He closed a unnecessary drama at AN/U. Unfortunately, it looks like the drama is now continuing here. Imho this section should be closed as well. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment I was away for four days and there seems a lot of things happened in several discussions I was involved, including Livio's unblock and INC's resignation as a side effect. I'm not very happy with the way all those things happened and I can see a lot of my friends in both sides, facing a lot of discomforts. I don't think this is good for Commons and wonder why these can't be avoided. This is an area where admins should use their people handling skills.
I just read the closing note in this case. The first paragraph is OK as it is evenly handling both users. But the next paragraph "I would say, however, that the header of this section is itself an unacceptable personal attack, apparently against several different people." destroyed the every merit of that neutrality and made that closing note just an opinion. He didn't even mentioned there that he warned Colin there. Later he added that he had warned Colin and he reverted it. Note that many user including Fae had commented earlier that a user who removed a warning from his talk page can't be considered wrong. He had re-reverted me earlier when I restored such a warning in a user's talk page. If I remember well, Revent to agreed with Fae's stand in that case. See now Revent edit-warred.
Further it was proved that the use of "Pathological dishonesty" was originally by INC; Colin just re-quoted it. Instead of accepting this mistake, Revent warned INC too to hide his mistake. This is terrible incompetence of an admin who now become anoversighter too.
I've no clue why Revent split "Pathological dishonesty" into two words to find a meaning. For me, "Pathological dishonesty" is more related to Pathological lying. I may wrong as I'm note a native English speaker.
Now I'm more confident that my stand on Revent's RfOS is true. Jee 05:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Whether it is a medical term or a common expression, an expression that is intended to disparage someone is not welcome on Wikimedia Commons, even less in the adm. noticeboard and even less as a title in this noticeboard. Seriously what kind of administrative action can be done?! oh yeah cool, we have a case of "Pathological_dishonesty", let me jump on the block button to stop him. The paragraph had no real utility, did not deserve any administrative action and of course it should have been closed. And now it's done it's fine. And the way it have been closed is also fine for me. To search to be unpleasant, even against someone one do not like, here or in the real life, is not a good thing. And to search to be unpleasant on a voluntary basis is not far to fit the definition of that. And when they exist, this kind of thing have of course to be stopped. Revent comments and actios are currently fine for me. And this can also be closed. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- I did not 'note' that I had warned Colin when I originally closed it because I had not yet done so. It was after he reverted the warning on his talk page, and after I restored it, and then reconsidered that action and reverted myself there. Reverting Colin on his talk page was indeed a mistake, and one that I myself fixed. Noting at the closure that a relevant action (warning him) had been taken was appropriate, and is done all the time. I would not have done so, however, if Colin had either not removed the warning from his talk page, or archived it. I think it's rather apparent from what followed that I was correct in assessing his action not as a 'acknowledgement' of the warning, but instead an 'rejection' of it. "I didn't hear that" is not an acceptable response to a warning.
- I did not, and have not, read the entire Tuvalkin thread. I was aware that INC had used the term (because I looked at the bit that Colin quoted) and was also aware that INC had then apologized. Since he had apologized, I didn't think a warning was needed, but I left him one when it was objected I had not. This wasn't 'hiding' anything. I'd also point out that if I'm going to warn someone for something, that does not mean I must first seek out every instance of that same behavior in the history of Commons and ensure that every single person was warned for it. That is, frankly, absurd.
- As far as the terminology, "pathological lying" is simply a particular type of pathological behavior... "pathological liar" is actually cited in dictionaries as an example of using the word pathological to mean "obsessive or compulsive". Describing 'any' behavior of an editor (lying, overcategorizarion, whatever) as pathological is a personal attack. Even if you ignore the separate meaning of the word pathological, and just look at the enwiki article about 'pathological liar', you will see that 'mythomania' is considered to be a form of mental illness, described in the DSM. I cannot comprehend how you think that describing another editor's behavior as being due to a mental illness is not a personal attack.
- To return to my mentioning it in my initial close.... there is a long standing and widespread community consensus that ascribing the behavior of other editors to some form of pathology or mental illness is not acceptable behavior. The point does not have to be re-argued every single time it happens, just as we do not re-litigate every single copyvio speedy to determine if there is a community consensus to delete copyvios. Reventtalk 06:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- I too not supporting to name anybody based on their behavior as its a bad practice and should be avoided. What I said was those words when considered together may have a different meaning. Leaving it as I'm not a language expert. I still believe your closing note will be better and that discussion may be stopped there if that last sentence singling out Colin was avoided. Here we can't blame Colin if he felt only he was criticised leaving Fae. Jee 06:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Jkadavoor: If Colin's intention was indeed not to make such a personal attack, then he should have accepted the warning and avoided using such language in the future (and IMO apologized, though that's not required), as the actual 'dictionary meaning' is an unacceptable personal attack, and IMO even using the phrase in the 'non-medical' sense is offensive. Colin himself then 'doubled down' on this by (in my read of the situation, which I think his later actions confirmed) attempting to reject the warning, which prompted me to believe that warning him at a community fora was needed.
- Frankly, I 'closed' the discussion, instead of simply letting it pass on to the 'death by archiving bot' to which it was clearly fated, because I felt it was important to publicly state that such pathologization of the behavior of other editors is unacceptable. The community has said so many times in the past. My impression is that most readers of the board simply did not wish to engage with Colin over the issue... and I think that is understandable, given how he responded to me.
- I accept that my handling of this raised complaints from some parties, but I think that so far the responses of others have been generally approving, and that this was the best way I know to handle this. Actual constructive criticism about how I could have done better, while still 'condemning' the description of other editor's behavior as pathological, are welcome. Reventtalk 07:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- I too not supporting to name anybody based on their behavior as its a bad practice and should be avoided. What I said was those words when considered together may have a different meaning. Leaving it as I'm not a language expert. I still believe your closing note will be better and that discussion may be stopped there if that last sentence singling out Colin was avoided. Here we can't blame Colin if he felt only he was criticised leaving Fae. Jee 06:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I have to laugh at Revent's crticism of my "unreadably long wall of text" when Revent dumps an even longer screed here, with lame attempts to medicalise everyday expressions. (hint: just because a medic uses a word, doesn't mean they own it) I've already explained to Revent about how to use a dictionary properly, but he doesn't want to learn.
But this section isn't about an everyday term of English and Revent's bullying threats. It's about abuse of the close template in which to engage in novel analysis and add personal opinions when closing a topic. Admins have no special authority. You should add your opinion courtesouly like any other user, with the opportunity for response. The closing comments should be a summary or neutral. You failed to do this. Face it Revent, you got angry when I undid your message on my talk page, and thought that adding a further clause to your close notes would be a suitable revenge to "win" your argument in a way that I could not defend. It's just abuse. -- Colin (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Colin: Whatever. Unless the community decides otherwise, the warning stands, and you will be blocked for a personal attack if you describe another editor's actions as 'pathological', or attempt to subvert that warning with evasive language that implies the same thing.
- BTW, 'even longer' is amusing... your post to AN:B was +10,892 bytes... my longest post here was far shorter (2,727 bytes, to be specific). Reventtalk 09:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Revent, please step back and relax. You're going aggressive either due to emotions or lack of experience. Please meditate on what you had offered in your RfA: "My 'philosophy' is that in most cases where good-faith contributors get into conflict it is mainly because of a lack of communication, and that a major part of the role of an administrator is to be a somewhat impartial voice of reason when such issues arise." But now you're rowing the boat in the exact opposite direction. How you think you are qualified to block Colin considering the long time conflict of opinions between you? Even here you can see many admins commented that INC's use of admin right there is inappropriate as he may be considered having COI. Please read my reply to you on my talk page too. Jee 09:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sure the only one beating the dead horse here is Colin who likes to bait editors and admins into his feud and then claim to be the victim. Its hilarious and sad at the same time. The decision has been made and unless something new turns up, it will stand and if Colin has something new to tell us, its best that he does so in the very next post of his and if not, he should just drop it. Its obvious he has issue with people in authority and reading through everything that has happened, he should count himself lucky that Revent or any other admin did not block him for 'attacking' another user with his 'innuendo'. Please Colin (possibly the first time i have used those 2 words together here), drop it and move on as nothing good will come out of this.--Stemoc 10:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Jkadavoor: I'm not particularly eager to block Colin, both because he is a useful contributor and because I am indeed 'involved' due to our past personal interactions, but I think that warning him, and stating that he will be blocked if he does it again (by me, or someone else) for a specifically defined behavior that is clearly unacceptable (describing the behavior of other editors as pathological) is not problematic. If he has been clearly warned that he will be blocked for a well-defined behavior, and does it anyhow, a block is appropriate, from any admin. A warning is not a sanction. A block on the basis of a warning that has been discussed at a community venue can be implemented by any admin, as per consensus. My warning, at this point, seems to be per consensus (given that describing the behavior of other editors as due to pathology has been repeated condemned by the community in past discussions).
- On a personal note, I think that we should be wary of editors that (intentionally, or otherwise) effectively avoid blocks by having a personal conflict with any admin that might do so. From private communications, I'm well aware that a number of admins (and non-admins) think Colin should be indefinitely blocked for his ongoing pattern of confrontational behavior... he has avoided this merely because the specific people feel 'involved'. The only real solution to this, that I see (pragmatically), is to restrict his behavior with specific community-reviewed warnings. This is one.
- As far as a 'lack of experience', I have been involved in the management of various online communities since long before Wikipedia existed... I could (if it would not out myself) point at Usenet posts from the late 90's. I have been using the internet since before the existence of the web. I feel quite qualified to asses when a particular contributor is toxic, and it is clear that Colin has avoided sanctions repeatedly merely because various admins feel that they are 'involved'. This is not a sanction, but a well-defined warning about clearly unacceptable behavior. Reventtalk 10:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sigh. The biggest problem with trying to reason with Revent is that he avoids the point. This section isn't about his block threat. It's about his abuse of the close template, his voicing personal opinions and novel thought when closing a discussion, leaving no opportunity to respond, and his edit warring to enforce his closure, after he'd already added more to the closure himself. Does he argue these points? No, because they are not defensible. Instead he argues about something else and is now simply engaging in a nasty smear campaign.
- Revent, please step back and relax. You're going aggressive either due to emotions or lack of experience. Please meditate on what you had offered in your RfA: "My 'philosophy' is that in most cases where good-faith contributors get into conflict it is mainly because of a lack of communication, and that a major part of the role of an administrator is to be a somewhat impartial voice of reason when such issues arise." But now you're rowing the boat in the exact opposite direction. How you think you are qualified to block Colin considering the long time conflict of opinions between you? Even here you can see many admins commented that INC's use of admin right there is inappropriate as he may be considered having COI. Please read my reply to you on my talk page too. Jee 09:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Stemoc, the last time someone suggested that certain people on Commons had "issues with authority", they were threatened with a block by Revent. I suggest you read Commons:Administrators where you will learn that Administrators have no special authority on Commons. It isn't up for debate. As usual, off-wiki discussions are cited, from the very people who moan about transparency and openness.
- I came to AN to complain about someone repeatedly being dishonest about me. This false statement in particular is troubling for me. It claims that Fae has successfully avoiding making nasty comments about me for most of the year. It is this sort of untruth that Ellin repeated when blocking me. That's why I care about it. -- Colin (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Colin: I'm glad to hear that this is not about the warning, though due to your reversion and attempt to add a comment to the closure (instead of appropriately appealing it to the community) it certainly seemed that way. As far as the argument about me abusing the close template, the community so far seems to disagree... I indeed mentioned a widespread consensus that had not been discussed (that the description of an editor's behavior as pathological), but admins are expected to be aware of previous consensus. My mentioning of it was not IMO out of line, and I have yet to see anyone else state that it was. The community has repeatedly opined that describing another editors behavior as due to a mental illness is unacceptable, and I find it incredibly hard to imagine a valid defense for it.
- You say that "the last time someone suggested that certain people on Commons had "issues with authority", they were threatened with a block by Revent.". I honestly have no idea what you are referring to. Please let me know. I think people that know me, and my opinions, know that I have serious objections to any 'argument from authority'.... if I have been guilty of that, I seriously screwed up. Given our history, however, I think it's somewhat likely that you misinterpreted me.
- I closed your complaint because it was doing to die due to a lack of activity anyhow, and I felt that the personal attack implicit in the section header deserved a response (and a warning). I know, from private comments, that multiple admins had failed to respond because they did not want to engage with you (as they felt they would be personally attacked, by you). I 'bit the bullet', and did so, and was attacked. I know that that last comment is a bit of an appeal to 'off wiki statements', and thus unverifiable, but it is also true. Reventtalk 12:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I've been thinking of what to say, since this discussion started on my talk page. I'm genuinely lost on what to say as I think everybody has a valid case to present. Colin has not unreasonable concerns with Fae (and Ellin), Revent has not unreasonable concerns with Colin, Colin has not unreasonable concerns with Revent. It feels like the scene in Reservoir Dogs where there's a circle of people with guns trained on each other. I think Revent needs to accept Colin's concerns about Fae are valid, even though the choice of the word 'pathological' is not what others would do, I think Colin needs to accept the closure (primarily because the discussion didn't develop despite ample opportunity) but should consider drafting a more thoughtfully worded statement which we could consider going forward, having been made aware of concerns regarding the use of the word "pathological". I do think we need to look at the way in which users, whether it's Fae, Tuvalkin or others can fall into the w:Texas sharpshooter fallacy where it becomes easy to conclude there's discrimination and negative bias, and begin to protest incorrectly about what they perceive. I think we need to work on some guidance on how the issues which have caused this discussion (most recently, Tuvalkin's accusation of racism) are handled; how accusations are treated and what the expected way to report these concerns is. That's a discussion for another time and another place (but soon). Nick (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Nick, that's a truly excellent summary. I don't contest the closure at all, just the way Revent did it. I'm aware of Revents's concerns about words and of course I won't repeat that phrase. I wish Revent would agree that both INC and I used that everyday phrase with no intention to ascribe to mental illness, and that reasonable people can disagree on what words mean, and he should consider, that focusing on the most unfortunate possible meanings makes him look bad faith. Instead, consider whether it is reasonable for me to hold my different view. That's a better test than requiring to agree with my different view. Nick/Revent may remember a debate on "ejaculatory" and the possible Portuguese usage of that word, and that everyone differed on the degree to which they believed/feared the term to have been used as an insult. Commons:Administrators expects admins to work constructively with others. I see only Nick here achieving that. -- Colin (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Colin: I understand that you might not have intended the term as an actual personal attack, and that is why I merely warned you (and INC, when prompted) to not use it again instead of actually sanctioning you for it. I understand that the way the closure was handled was not ideal, I just don't know of better way to handle it (and am open to any suggestions). At the same time, I find it really hard to interpret any of the definitions of the term as not constituting an unacceptable personal attack, given that the community has decided in the past that 'pathologizing' the behavior of other editors, by describing it in the language of mental illness, is unacceptable.
- I (truly) do not think that your complaints regarding Fae are unreasonable... I can see where you are coming from, and somewhat agree. I simply think that the methods of argumentation you tend to use themselves create more conflict. I'm glad that you will not use the term in the future, I just believe that if you accepted that it was objectionable you should have taken the warning about it as intended, instead of creating more drama. Reventtalk 12:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Revent, this is the first time you have remotely indicated any willingness to see things from my point of view or to accept any flaw in your behaviour. You see, the difference between whether you can block someone for making a personal attack is "intention". If there is no "intention" then it is a misunderstanding, and possibly an unfortunate use of words. But you wrote that it was a personal attack and you did not "merely warn" me, but made a very personal threat.
- As for learning lessons, then you could learn a lot from Nick's comments above. In your closing remarks and all the screeds of text you have writte subsequently, where have you tried "to work constructively with others"? This is required of you, as an admin, and you have failed. Instead, you have become more and more unreasonable and today engaging in nasty smears that expose your feelings towards me for all to see. As for "creating more drama", Revent, you in the last few days, have demonstrated the "lighter fuel and matches" approach to handling an admin stituation. Again, you could learn from Nick's comments above.
- If you are genuinely "open to suggestions":
- When closing a discussion, summarise the documented community consensus and state in neutral terms what action is required or not required. There should be no surprises or contentious remarks.
- When closing a discussion, do the originator the courtesy of actually reading it rather than making TD;DR insulting comments.
- If you wish to add to a discussion with novel analysis or personal opinion, do so like any editor, and do others the courtesy of permitting them a response.
- Learn the difference between warning a user and threatening them. The latter abuses a position of authority, and admins do not have a position of authority.
- If it is possible for you to consider another's position as reasonable (even though you disagree with it), and in doing so you can avoid conflict and an escalation towards blocking, then choose that option.
- If someone comes with a complaint, indicate that you have understood them and wish to help to the degree that is reasonable. All problems can be resolved given willingness and patience. If you do not have that willness or patience, then find something else to do with your time.
- As an admin, you are compelled to try to work constructively with others and find resolution and agreement where you can.
- All admins should learn about the "Angry Customer" and how to deal with one. See this page as one of countless examples. You will face people who are upset, who use suboptimal language when upset, but who have a genuine grievance, and they expect you to help. Criticising the "angry customer" for their language is a 101 beginner failure, as well as a argumentative fallacy.
- -- Colin (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Colin: The possibility of misinterpretation is why I simply warned you, instead of sanctioning you. The warning was intended to remove any possibility of misinterpretation.... if you describe another editor's behavior as 'pathologicial' in the future, I will block you. It's a clear and unambiguous statement. The community has repeatedly decided in the past that such statements are not acceptable. Do not do so in the future. Reventtalk 12:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Revent, there isn't a single word above that you have not said several times already. I'm tired of your threats. Go read my bullet points and make a New Years resolution to be a more constuctive admin who deals with upset people with consideration and respect rather than insults and threats. Bye. -- Colin (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Colin: The community had obviously... through a prolonged failure to respond, at all... disregarded your complaints. I think that is not because they were necessarily invalid (as Nick noted) but because of how they were stated. That was not my decision, I merely summarized why, in a closure, so I could address what I considered to be a blatant personal attack in the section header. I did not sanction you for it, I merely warned you. The community seems to have (to some degree) endorsed that warning here. I have admitted that my initial revert on your talk page was wrong, but I myself fixed that before anyone had a chance to complain.
- The 'angry customer', in the context of Commons, applies to people who are not 'socialized' with how Commons works. That obviously does not apply to you, you are quite experienced. I do not think you are 'wrong', with regards to Fae.... I think that it's impossible to determine who is 'right', at this late date, and the community clearly declined to comment on the issue at the ANB thread. That does not excuse the personal attack.
- The 'pragmatic' solution (which is what matters to Commons, really) is that you simply stay away from each other. You are both valued contributors, when not arguing with each other. Just stop doing so. Reventtalk 13:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Dealing with people who are upset or have the feeling that their complaints are not taken seriously can be difficult. A lot of our admins don't know how to deal with such situations and compared to the majority of admins we have Revent most definatly is one of the more capable ones when it comes to dealing with user problems. My apologies to my fellow admins if I have offended them with this statement but we all know that our overall score for community management sucks.
- Revent, there isn't a single word above that you have not said several times already. I'm tired of your threats. Go read my bullet points and make a New Years resolution to be a more constuctive admin who deals with upset people with consideration and respect rather than insults and threats. Bye. -- Colin (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- This said, we can't simply use the anger customer approach since this is a public website. Sure, we can use this approach at venue's like OTRS, even user talk pages but not at places where our newbie editors make requests. You can compare it to a store in which the customer starts shouting and is disrupting the other costumers. Surely the customer will be asked to leave the store. And well, we don't have managers nor can we simply give in when people are angry and apologies since that would be rewarding bad behavior. (Of course we should apologies of we actually do something wrong.)
- When issuing a warning to an adult I tend to avoid the word block. Using the word block will likely make people even more angry than they actually which results in ineffective communication. When dealing with kids or people who aren't that intelligent it is a different story of course since those groups of people might not understand a warning if you don't explicitly state what the result will be when you issue a warning. Just some food for thought. Natuur12 (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Obviously there are aspects of any particular "angry customer" dialog example on websites that do not fit with Commons. But Revent's comment about needing to be "'socialized' with how Commons works". Well sorry that's what's exactly wrong. Revent seems over concerned with determining wrong and right (or failing to) and keeps repeating himself as though he might get me to agree he is right. For example, until Nick's comments, there was absolutely nothing from Revent to indicate he took any part of my complaint seriously, and plenty indication (explicit and implicit) that he had not in fact bothered to read it properly. Natuur, if you think the Angry Customer approach is about giving in and apologising then you don't understand it. It is about starting from a position of respect (rather than a position of regarding the other person as toxic). About establishing that you undestand the complaint. About focusing on the nature of the complaint rather than the language and words. About dealing with the important issues rather than getting bogged down in irrelevances. About not getting so upset you insult the customer. About not making threats. -- Colin (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Colin: I'm sorry if it seemed that I had not read your complaint, or do not understand or sympathize with your problems with Fae (I indeed do). I read it, and feel that there are issues with the behavior of you both.... as I said, it's impossible to determine who is 'right' at this point, as you have both been out of line at various points in time. (Who started it is not the answer.) The community clearly declined to address your complaint... my closure stated why I believed that was the case, and addressed what I feel was an unacceptable personal attack on your part... while accepting (by merely warning, instead of simply blocking you) that it might have been unintended. Since you have now been warned, that does not apply in the future if you repeat it. I do not know of a good solution, here, as you are both valued contributors when you leave each other alone, other than to set bounds on how you can interact with each other. This warning was one.
- At the same time, you cannot simply 'reject' a warning. You can appeal it to the community, but you cannot simply pretend that it did not happen merely because you disagree with it. If you do so, that is itself disruptive behavior. I have repeated myself simply because you seemed to be repeatedly rejecting that the warning was valid. It is not, unless the community decides that is the case, and that has not happened. Reventtalk 14:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Revent, I have not read the above paragraph by you and do not intend to, for I fear it is more auto-repeat from someone who has made it quite clear they regard me as toxic. Stop pinging me. -- Colin (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Posting to my talk page, immediately before telling me here that you will not read what I said (and saying 'go away' in your edit summary) does not indicate a reasonable attitude, IMO. Reventtalk 14:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oh dang, I read that and now I have to reply. I'm strugging with the word "immediately" here. Are you confusing me for someone else? I replied to your talk page comment early this morning and have tried my best to be civil to you on this page throughout the day, which isn't easy after your "toxic" comments, and when you asked for suggestions on how to handle it different I gave you some in good faith. But you dismiss them and have done nothing but repeat yourself since. I fail to see what is "reasonable" about your attitude or style of argumentation, which seems to be to repeat the same thing until I prostrate myself before you and glorify your name, while shrieking "Forgive me for I am a sinnner". It isn't going to happen. Deal with that. -- Colin (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Echo notified me about your last comment on my talk page about five minutes before your comment above. Sorry, it happens sometimes. I've had cross-wiki notifications take weeks to show up.
- I have absolutely no interest in seeing you engage in the behavior you describe. It takes two to argue. You've repeatedly claimed that I was abusive to you, and the community does not, so far, seem to agree with you. When I repeat myself to you, it's because I'm trying to assume that you simply, in good faith, do not understand, and so trying to explain it differently and as explicitly as possible.... the alternative would be to assume that you are being deliberately obtuse, and I'm in fact trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. When you then repeat the same claims, you are doing exactly what you are complaining about me doing... simply repeating yourself. The difference is that several people have said that I was not being abusive. Reventtalk 23:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Colin: I was merely stating my dislike about step 6 at wikihow. The strategic apology. Natuur12 (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oh dang, I read that and now I have to reply. I'm strugging with the word "immediately" here. Are you confusing me for someone else? I replied to your talk page comment early this morning and have tried my best to be civil to you on this page throughout the day, which isn't easy after your "toxic" comments, and when you asked for suggestions on how to handle it different I gave you some in good faith. But you dismiss them and have done nothing but repeat yourself since. I fail to see what is "reasonable" about your attitude or style of argumentation, which seems to be to repeat the same thing until I prostrate myself before you and glorify your name, while shrieking "Forgive me for I am a sinnner". It isn't going to happen. Deal with that. -- Colin (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Posting to my talk page, immediately before telling me here that you will not read what I said (and saying 'go away' in your edit summary) does not indicate a reasonable attitude, IMO. Reventtalk 14:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Revent, I have not read the above paragraph by you and do not intend to, for I fear it is more auto-repeat from someone who has made it quite clear they regard me as toxic. Stop pinging me. -- Colin (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Obviously there are aspects of any particular "angry customer" dialog example on websites that do not fit with Commons. But Revent's comment about needing to be "'socialized' with how Commons works". Well sorry that's what's exactly wrong. Revent seems over concerned with determining wrong and right (or failing to) and keeps repeating himself as though he might get me to agree he is right. For example, until Nick's comments, there was absolutely nothing from Revent to indicate he took any part of my complaint seriously, and plenty indication (explicit and implicit) that he had not in fact bothered to read it properly. Natuur, if you think the Angry Customer approach is about giving in and apologising then you don't understand it. It is about starting from a position of respect (rather than a position of regarding the other person as toxic). About establishing that you undestand the complaint. About focusing on the nature of the complaint rather than the language and words. About dealing with the important issues rather than getting bogged down in irrelevances. About not getting so upset you insult the customer. About not making threats. -- Colin (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- When issuing a warning to an adult I tend to avoid the word block. Using the word block will likely make people even more angry than they actually which results in ineffective communication. When dealing with kids or people who aren't that intelligent it is a different story of course since those groups of people might not understand a warning if you don't explicitly state what the result will be when you issue a warning. Just some food for thought. Natuur12 (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Hmmm; I'm not very well after the butterfly survey and was taking rest. Saw the further developments now.
- First, I would like to thank Nick for the excellent viewpoint presented here. What I missed in Revent's closure is exactly the same. His close was one sided, making Colin felt injustice happened to him. It leads tothis thread. Instead of accepting this mistake, Revent repeatedly issuing more block warning here.
- I saw Christian replied to my early comment that he feels the use of "pathetic" is not acceptable and Revent's closure is fine. See, INC used it first and Colin re-quoted it on November 30. Where were these people still December 4? If the use of that words were a serious offence, it should be questioned immediately which was not happened here. So I will say this is something "newly invented".
- Revent replied tome that he knew he can't block Colin due to strong COI. He said he just warned and it is not wrong. If the first is wrong, second is also wrong. Further I saw here Revent again use "I will block you". How pathetic.
- Revent stated that there is a consensus for his action here. Where? I didn't see a single comment in that AN/B discussion. If he was referring IRC, I've nothing more to add. Any discussion should be transparent here. You can ask for advice in IRC or personal mail/chats; but has no role in consensus here.
- Revent said many people here want Colin being indefinitely blocked. May be as many people wish somebody having better reputation here need to be eliminated. Many people may feel jealousy on his current achievement too. There is no easy medicine for it. (The same applicable to other users too. There may a group of people wish users like Fae or Tuvalkin get blocked. But what we expect from admins is to row against these type of emotions. They need to have the emotional maturity to act out of wish of the crowd.)
- Natuur12's attempts also seems fine. It seems he said Revent usually good in problem solving;but failed a bit here. He also accepted that "our overall score for community management sucks." I had said it years ago when Odder interviewed me. The weakness of Commons compared to Wikipedia is here the content creators are maintenance volunteers are very much disconnected. So people in each group think they are important and others have no community supports. That's why Revent said Colin has no community backup. In fact Colin is very strong among content creators. And Fae may strong in maintenance section. We need both typed. We need to encourage healthy discussions between them. I'm Happy that nowadays we have some admins like Christian and A. savin who are also content creators. But it's still lagging. Jee 04:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- In response to "Where were these people still December 4?" : 1/ sadly I can not see every thing, furthermore 2/ I'm a volonter and I am not guilty when I chose for a reason or another to do nothing and 3/ "I've the right to do it because my little sister did it the December 4" is a child answer.
If there is no consensus in a way, there is even less consensus in the other way, and the case Colin/Fae, at this point can not/will not be resolved, one must be blind not to see it. And the question for why to insist so much can be asked. What is the purpose? Did not Colin see that no administrator will resolve this? Is it a kind of intimidation? some users says some administrators are bad administrators? please take the administratorship yourself, and show us how to deal with this kind of situation, trust me it is a bit easy to criticize when you're are not. If Colin were a victim then I am very sad of that but the defense of colin was so extremely virulent that is now impossible for us to see who is wrong and who is right. And he continue in that direction. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Christian Ferrer, that comment by INC and Colin are at AN/B, a board every active admins are supposed to be watching. We've 100+ admins and we expect at-least one active admin every time. It's the board where all pattrollers report incidents which require immediate action. So if a case remain unattended there for three days, it is indeed a failure from our side. For your other comment, I've no problem to become an admin if some one else nominated me. But, as I commented earlier, I will resign if the community has a "reasonable/marginal" disagreement with me/my actions. 3. You said the community rejected to discus on what Colin raised. Where you see Colin or me complained about it. If community refused to discus, the discuusion should be archived without a closing not; or a mere closure stating "closing as no community input/off-topic". Here Revent injected some nasty accusation against Colin and closed without leaving Colin any time to reply. Please undo that closure and allow it to die naturally. Jee 08:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Jkadavoor: The thread at AN:B had been open for the better part of a week, and the community had declined to discuss it. There was clearly a consensus not to do so. Other than the single comment by Fae about the last time he remembered interacting with Colin (which appears to have indeed been incorrect) all of the evidence presented was from months ago. There was also a demand that Ellin retract a statement that she long ago retracted and apologized for, with a link to exactly where she did so.
- I'm aware, offhand, of at least two different threads in the history of this board where the use of mental illness as an insult was discussed, and the community decided it was unacceptable. I'm sure there have been others. Interestingly, the two I am thinking of were cases where Colin himself asked that other editors be blocked for doing so. He is obviously aware, and has been aware for a long time, that it is unacceptable.
- I should not, and will not, simply 'decide' to block Colin... as I have stated, I have a COI. He has, however, now been told clearly and unambiguously that if he describes the behavior of another editor as 'pathological' he will be blocked for it. If he does so, it will be a deliberate choice on his part to take a specific action that he knows will result in a block, despite his 'rejection' of the warning, and for behavior that he himself has repeatedly asked that other editors be blocked for (attributing the behavior of other editors to a mental illness). There is precedent for such a block, and he has been warned. Reventtalk 07:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Revent, 1. I remember the example which was directly linked to a Wikipedia article. Here it is not and not initially used by Colin. Fae already responded to INC; but not complained. 2. You're still splitting the two words which would have a different meaning. Even the word "pathology" is both applicable to physical and mental issues. I'musing "issues" because many "abnormalities" are not deceases; we can't even call some of them as "abnormalities" too. Fore example, my wife passed away due to Endometrial stromal sarcoma which later metastasized to lungs and then to brain. It's also found by FNAC which is part of pathology. Here, in this case, INC's and later Colin's use seems more related to its third meaning which is "compulsive/obsessive". Colin seems well presented it and Nick seems agreed with that analysis. 3. Then you are picking that word again and again and demanding an apology where Colin seems again and again trying to state that he doesn't mean it. Why are you demand Colin to agree something he didn't intended? Note that Oversighters rev-deleted a block log that you recently used against another admin when demanded. I think Colin has every right to rev-deleted that the text Ellin used too. 3. You agreed that you can't block Colin. Why? Because you need to evaluate Colin prior to block. But previous COI prevented you from evaluating Colin as the result can be biased. The same applicable to your warnings too. You need to evaluate Colin prior to issue a warning. You can't evaluate him as result can be biased due to your previous COI. This is simple logic in rational thinking. That's why I'm doubtful on your competence in logical thinking and problem solving skills. Jee 08:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
This thread has become significantly derailed from its original purpose, which was to discuss the use/abuse of the close template by Revent. As far as I can see, only Steinsplitter and Jee have commented on this matter and there is no consensus. I am pleased to note that the threat made in the closing statement by Revent "If Colin .... I will block him" has been retracted and Revent agreed he must seek community consensus prior to making contentious blocks, particularly on editors where there he has a COI. Recent blocks and unblocks discussed on this noticeboard demonstrate how dimly the community views admins who take matters into their own hands, especially when there is COI. I end with a reminder that administrators are required (per community agreed guideline Commons:Administrators) to work constructively with others towards our project goal, and they themselves have no special authority by virtue of their position. -- Colin (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
{{End closed}}
- Involved parties do not get to close threads, especially not with a closing statement. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 09:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: Note that Colin seems withdrawn the request against Revent considering his reply to me: "I should not, and will not, simply 'decide' to block Colin... as I have stated, I have a COI. He has, however, now been told clearly and unambiguously that if he describes the behavior of another editor as 'pathological' he will be blocked for it." I think "now been told" means opinions of other people in this discussion. とある白い猫 undone the closure, stating "Involved parties do not get to close threads, especially not with a closing statement." Colin tried to revert, stating I opened this section so I have a right to close it. Zhuyifei1999 undone it again stating something I didn't understand. I agree with Colin that he can withdraw a self request and agree with とある白い猫 that the withdrawal should not be with a "closing statement". Anyway, in the end, Colin had withdrawn his request based on Revent's last statement. So this discussion is now unfathered . Feel free to continue or close. I'm unwatching as I'm not very well. (This note is just to make people reading this discussion that Colin already withdrawn this request.) Jee 12:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think this discussion is going to be fruitful or positive. It is already very long, and all what can be said was said. Nick made a good attempt to bridge the gap between parties. For the sake of Commons atmosphere, it is most probably better to close it. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.
User:Ariam and User:Disembodied Soul working for/with User:Svensson1
Conduct of User:Colin
User:とある白い猫's block of Colin
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I am filing this over my own conduct. Any admin action I take must be at the complete scrutiny of the community.
- I have made an observation (09:03, 6 December 2016) on the conduct of User:Colin based on my interaction with the user in the past three days. This is visible above.
- I have also reopnened (09:07, 6 December 2016) the discussion as Colin, an involved party also closed the discussion prior (there was an edit conflict here).
- Colin removed (09:28, 6 December 2016) this observation of his own conduct. His edit summary reads as follows which stands for itself:
- Undo edit by WhiteCat. Closed is closed (I'm quoting Revent). I opened this section so I have a right to close it. Open another if you wish to discuss something else.
- Zhuyifei1999 reverted (11:25, 6 December 2016) this action.
- I blocked (12:00, 6 December 2016) Colin over his disruptive conduct for 24 hours.
- Bear in mind I have told (11:59, 6 December 2016) Colin that I would unblock him myself if he agreed to cease his conduct and also agree to explain what the dispute is about. Might I note that he has removed my attempt to communicate with him before (part of my observation post).
- Yann closed (12:03, 6 December 2016) the discussion 3 minutes later. Yann clarified (12:07, 6 December 2016) his point further 4 minutes later.
- Taking on Colin's advice. I segregated my request (12:22, 6 December 2016 ) since it had nothing to do with what was said in the previous section.
- Yann closed (12:55, 6 December 2016) my segregated section of my observation of Colin's conduct 33 minutes later.
- Colin filed (12:57, 6 December 2016) an unblock request 2 minutes later.
- I cannot summarize the long block of text in the request but all I would have expected was a polite message along the lines of "I will not remove other peoples comments but the dispute is already resolved, you can ask Revent" which would have been more than enough for me to carry out the unblock myself. He did not make any attempt to communicate with me. His unblock rationale stands for itself.
- Yann granted (13:06, 6 December 2016) and unblocked (13:05, 6 December 2016) Colin 8 minutes later (roughly an hour after my block).
- This is the second unblock of Colin by Yann, previous one was on 13:41, 14 March 2016, I do not know the circumstances. I do not know if this makes Yann more involved.
- Later in the request Yann asks Colin to stay away from AN/U and states Some of your complain(s) may be justified, but I feel that, at this stage, bringing them forwards may not be fruitful and further added he still hopes that some understanding between all people engaged is possible.
- Colin responds (13:21, 6 December 2016) to Yann with the below message which stands for itself.
- It was indeed my intention today to close the current AN/U dispute and agree that the issues are not likely to be dealt with sympathetically any time soon. I shall be archiving the unpleasantness dumped on my talk page shortly. Thank you Yann, for your actions today.
- Colin archives (13:27, 6 December 2016) a number of posts including the block discussion while excluding much older posts. Basically only leaving barnstars and discussions pertaining towards them.
Given how quickly my admin action (block) was reverted by a more experienced admin, I am under the belief that I have severely abused my admin privileges. I am bringing this matter to the scrutiny of the community. However same scrutiny must be applied to Yann as well just like any other admin action involving a user.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
- Just stop this. There was no abuse of admin tools by either off you. Though I do disagree with the original block. There is no point in perusing this any further. There is nothing to win, only to lose and damage to be done. Natuur12 (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) My opinion is already here. Nothing more I have to say; just saw this when I'm going to switch off my computer. Jee 15:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I really don't want to comment on the underling issues but I like to remind all involved parties that drama does not make anyone better. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I can't beleave the quantity of time consumed in banal derived discussions. With the new premise that blocking Colin has now become a regular and part of the game. --The Photographer 18:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you will read this, とある白い猫, as it already now exceeds your attention span of ten words or fewer, that you asked Colin to boil a very complicated matter down to. I am not an admin either.
- Since you are asking for feedback, I think you made an incredibly bad block of Colin - almost as bad as the previous one done by Ellin Beltz (who still has not repaired the damage done to Colins online reputation). First of all you came out from the middle of nowhere recently and described Colins concern for the edit pattern of a clearly overworked and now retired admin as "quite creepy". I do not know about you, but if a person who has described your actions as "quite creepy" approached you with the apparent intent to "help understand" a problem, would you trust such a person? Personally I would ignore such a contact altogether, and that is exactly what Colin has done. He sees you as clearly involved and he is right.
- Colin (and you can add me to the club after that linked discouraging communication we had on your talk page) evidently do not trust your personal judgement nor your unbiasedness. Secondly, that you ask him to explain himself in 10 words is just an insult. It appears from such comments that if something cannot be expressed as a one-liner clickbait headline, it is beyond you to deal with. I can see the verbosity there was high, and it did not lead to any response as it was not clear what Colin wanted as response from the community. If you do not have the time to actually understand the situation, that's fine! Then don't!
- My experience from interacting with Colin is that he is an extremely helpful and caring editor, who is willing to invest many hours and resources into giving advice, raising funds, work hard for the community.
- Colin has in my opinion a very low tolerance to what I would call bullshit, or dishonesty, and unfair "let's speak bad about Colin again" mentality, which is prevalent, as he bluntly points out issues, which do not look well for certain highly profiled users, be it showing a profound, persistent dishonesty, a deviation from established guidelines or abuse of power. Colin is no diplomat. He gets to the point.
- Colin is entirely correct in pointing out, that a new section should be opened if a user has an issue with Colin. The section in question was an issue Colin raised another admin (Revent). Nor do I see a problem with him closing the thread as Revent had changed a formulation and the discussion was not going anywhere.
- The entire admin conduct here has been rather discouraging, except for Nicks analysis and Yann lifting the block, undoing this mistake. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Hope the OP already received enough review on his recent actions. Now this is going off-topic to this board (needs an administrator's intervention). Can ask somewhere else if more advise is required. Jee 09:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- This thread isn't closed until I say so, I need to be satisfied with the level of scrutiny. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 10:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- I recommend closing this and stop beating the dead horse. There's no point on this. Yann is correct in unblocking Colin, as there was no disruption made by him. Colin just closed drama that is already resolved. What White Cat doing here is reopening unnecessary drama. He was also involved in blocking Colin, adding to the point that the block by White Cat is inappropriate. What we should probably do now is to make a wish to Santa to end these drama on Commons. ★ Poké95 10:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
とある白い猫 doesn't own this board. He can accept his mistake, make an apology if he wishes. Nobody care whether he do it or not. But Commons has better things to do than educating him. Jee 11:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- No, I don't but I seek proper scrutiny of my admin action. I will not be denied this. I will not let you sweep this under a rug. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 12:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
All people except とある白い猫 have said that this thread is going nowhere. I don't see any reason to let one admin own this board. Yann (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- I will reopen this as many times as you close it. This is over my conduct. Stop trying to sweep it under a rug. Issue has not even been discussed for a day. This issue will not go away as long as I breath or see a satisfactory level of community scrutiny. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 12:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
There is a visible peanut gallery effect in this thread with regard to governance of administrator actions, built on the unnecessary drama started in earlier threads. This effect is clearly not evidence of consensus, primarily because most administrators do not want to see their names on these discussions. This was previously referenced by Revent in an earlier thread due to the number of opinions expressed by administrators off-wiki on email and IRC. I suggest とある白い猫 approaches a suitably independent bureaucrat for advice by email. In the meantime, it is clear that Yann is overly involved in various ways to continue repeating their closing down of governance discussions relating to their own actions. Unfortunately Commons' policies with regard to how 'uninvolved' administrators ought to be, are absent. It is useful to compare to en:Wikipedia:Administrators#UNINVOLVED to consider whether Commons would benefit from adding to COM:Administrators to make this area more definitive and not down to individual tastes and good conscience of those with sysop rights. --Fæ (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Your conduct is nothing you have to worry about. The block was borderline, so you can expect getting yelled at. Especially if you block such a controversial user with a very vocal entourage. Borderline block, could have been handled differently but wasn't. There's no need to lose any sleep over this, AFAIK you don't make m(any) mistakes. Learn and carry on. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Hedwig in Washington: Indeed, that's why I tacked a number of special conditions to the 24hr block itself for an easy unblock. I even made sure I posted on the users talk page first and then enacted the block to avoid any confusion over my intent which was simply to make him stop removing other peoples comments (a pattern I observed for days) and him to explain the issue so that I can try to figure out why a user is removing other users comments. Any normal unprivileged user would simply state that they wont continue the clearly disruptive behavior and explain the situation briefly and get promptly unblocked. The block itself would not have been enacted had the user not remove the analysis of his conduct, another discussion Yann was also quick to close. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Request for immediate block followed by a de-sysop request against User:とある白い猫
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Recently User:とある白い猫 blocked User:Colin to win in an edit-war which is a misuse of admin rights. At the very moment Zhuyifei1999 told him that "Just noting that from my perspective you're quite involved as well. Being ignored & reverted can induce annoyance / anger (perhaps there's a better word, but I can't think of it right now)." The block was lifted later on request. All related discussions are archived by the unblocking admin. But User:とある白い猫 one discussion and started another tread in ANU for community opinion. Their Natuur12 stated "Though I do disagree with the original block." The Photographer said "With the new premise that blocking Colin has now become a regular and part of the game." Slaunger gave long reply and explained how and why User:とある白い猫 is wrong here. But instead of accepting his mistakes he found one word and started joking: "Ten words or fewer. There wasn't an explicit ten word requirement." Upon noticing it I understood that his intention is beyond COM:AGF and tried to close it without any remarks as it seems a waste of community time. he re-opened it stating that "This thread isn't closed until I say so, I need to be satisfied with the level of scrutiny." User:Pokéfan95 stated "I recommend closing this and stop beating the dead horse.". I closed again and asked him to stop in his talk page. He reverted it. But User:とある白い猫 re-opened again stating "I will not let you sweep this under a rug."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkadavoor (talk • contribs)
- He is pushing his POV against community consensus. This is not the first time he is doing it. He recently made a near-threat post at Commons:Village_pump#Scripted_.26_automated_tasks_on_human_accounts when community rejected his request. I think the community need not tolerate to such threats.
- He had a previous history to that when we editing templates. I had explicitly asked about it on his Rfa. He had promised he will respect community consensus whenever achieved against his POV. But he failed.
- I think it is enough and the time exceeds to de-sysop him. Jee 13:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Aftermath: While I was preparing this request, Yann had tried to close that discussion again and White Cat reverted it. He reverted my notification about this discussion too. So he reverted me two times in ANU and two times on his talk. He reverted Yann two times in ANU in two separate discussions. I'm noting this here as I would like to use this as a reference as many admins are showing different viewpoints on how to consider reverts here and on talk. Note that the initial action by Revent against Colin was based on his view that he considered Colin's revert on his talk is acceptable. He corrected it later when I questioned. White Cat's block on Colin was for revert against by Colin against White Cat. Here White Cat is allowed free to revert different people as many times as he wishes. Jee 03:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Immediate block and de-sysop. Jee 13:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable 猫 cruft. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)- Support It looks quite obvious the abuse of the tool and not only in Colin case --The Photographer 13:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Inacceptable conduct. --Krd 13:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Krd: So you, a sitting bureaucrat, think that my attempts to discuss issues (by simply re-opening the prematurely closed threads) is unacceptable? Bear in mind, what is being discussed is MY conduct over my use of the admin tool. The thread has been there for only one day, not a week.
- Do you also agree that Colin's conduct of removing other peoples comments is acceptable behavior? That people should not be blocked for such conduct, particularly if it involves an analysis of their conduct posted on a noticeboard? Also how long is this block going to be?
- -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Over-inflation. Mutually assured destruction is not what is needed, we have already seen INC resign rather than deal with emotive dramah. Handing out larger spades so folks can dig bigger holes to fall into, is not a way to restore a mellow non-hostile environment. With respect to "pushing his POV against community consensus", a peanut gallery is definitely not a consensus and asking for a review of your own admin actions is a good thing, even if this noticeboard was neither the right place or at the best time. --Fæ (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)- Comment. Not sure about the block (should be preventative not punitive) but unfortunately I
tendto Support de-syso process unless we hear another music from User:とある白い猫. -- Geagea (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Geagea: What music this supposed to be? I blocked a user over poor conduct where he removed comments of others (including from a noticeboard). The block itself had simple conditions 1) Promise you won't do it again 2) Explain what's going on (so I can help you). If met I would have unblocked the user myself. User was promptly unblocked without a discussion. I was not even notified of this. Then I filed a case against my own action asking for community scrutiny which has been prematurely closed by multiple involved people.
- Now I am up for a deadminship and block. This is the first time we will de-admin and block a user over their attempts of seeking an editorial review. And I mean genuine review, not exclusively by people involved in previous disputes siding with Colin. We have a lot of users, they should come to the same conclusion. If not, then there is a different problem.
- -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- My suggestion would be to give とある白い猫 a few day to come to his senses. We can all have a bad week after all and this is the first incident in which とある白い猫 acts poorly in his capacity as an admin. Natuur12 (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- 84,112 edits. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 16:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- +1. My thoughts exactly. Storkk (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- I am perfectly calm and collected. Please read my reply to geagea above. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Whether you are calm and collected, or you just think you are (it is an extremely common human trap to genuinely believe one is being calm and rational when one is angry), you do appear to be acting POINTily. Now, you aren't the only one who appears to be acting POINTily, but it doesn't help. Your request for a "genuine review" was clearly taken by some as an attempt at validation or point scoring. Whether it was or not, meh: not really relevant at this point. It should probably have been requested privately, rather than where you should have known that whatever the outcome, it would be incendiary. No, it's not fair. No, it's probably not worth a de-sysop. But please have a hand in damping the drama rather than stoking it. Storkk (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Why should an issue as severe as an alleged admin abuse be handled in a hush hush manner? All I ask, expect and will absolutely enforce against premature closures is a genuine discussion by the community over my conduct. If no one responds to it for say a week, then issue would drop. Consensus cannot form when discussions are not permitted to continue. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Whether you are calm and collected, or you just think you are (it is an extremely common human trap to genuinely believe one is being calm and rational when one is angry), you do appear to be acting POINTily. Now, you aren't the only one who appears to be acting POINTily, but it doesn't help. Your request for a "genuine review" was clearly taken by some as an attempt at validation or point scoring. Whether it was or not, meh: not really relevant at this point. It should probably have been requested privately, rather than where you should have known that whatever the outcome, it would be incendiary. No, it's not fair. No, it's probably not worth a de-sysop. But please have a hand in damping the drama rather than stoking it. Storkk (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- I am perfectly calm and collected. Please read my reply to geagea above. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- We can give cool-down block to ordinary users. But how can we take such risks when he is holding the admin tools. See, every sentence he used against me contain at least one offensive word including his inappropriate vote here. And why should we allow him to threat the community as he did in VP. he said he has no plans to use the admin tools. We need not have to beg him. Let him go if he can't respect the community consensus. Jee 13:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, hence my 24 hour cool down block to Colin with an easy way out. Standard practice on every other user. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- とある白い猫, this discussion is not about your action against Colin. This is about your refusal to respect community consensus when challenged. You must respect it irrespective of whether or not you're right. (See Commons:Blocking_policy: "cool-down blocks are not condoned". It is a last resource when people loss their control as happened here.) Jee 14:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Jkadavoor: Do you always contradict yourself like this? You yourself recommended it against me. Also within the sentence above you stated that this discussion was not over my action against Colin and then talked about how my block of him was not condoned. I respect community consensus when one is allowed to form and not prematurely closed. I do not respect tag teaming where a group of editors side with each other. Less so if they want to disallow comments from rest of the community. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Jee: of course we should not tolerate this kind of behavior but there is no way to correct this behavior as long as someone is acting irrational. Someone gave him some pretty good advice on IRC and I hope it sinks in soon. Letting stuff cool down first and talk about it later is like magic pixie dust. And the VP debate, well. It is a bit annoying but that's all there is to it. Natuur12 (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Natuur12, I respect my colleagues like you and we have some nice interaction when I was in OTRS and IRC. We know evil will prevail when the good people keep silent. I need not have to open this request if you (or another one of my colleagues) re-closed that threads and asked :とある白い猫 to move on. Your silence make him think no one is going to touch him. Sadly he still thinks so from his comments here. Jee 14:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- とある白い猫, this discussion is not about your action against Colin. This is about your refusal to respect community consensus when challenged. You must respect it irrespective of whether or not you're right. (See Commons:Blocking_policy: "cool-down blocks are not condoned". It is a last resource when people loss their control as happened here.) Jee 14:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, hence my 24 hour cool down block to Colin with an easy way out. Standard practice on every other user. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Of course. An admin claiming he only is allowed to close a report on AN/U can't stay admin. Not to mention the abuse of his admin right in blocking Colin for no reason when he is involved in the conflict. Yann (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose This is just silly drama-mongering. Deleting other peoples' comments on a noticeboard is frowned upon, or should be. The block may have been slightly excessive, but it certainly isn't abusive. The Wordsmith (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- 64 edits. Natuur12 (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Your point? I've been a member of the Commons community for years, if rarely active. The Wordsmith (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- 64 edits. Natuur12 (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose After taking the time to read the original incident, the responses made by both this admin and others on the project, and the noticeboard posts I'm inclined to agree with The Wordsmith - whereas the block may have been a stronger than perhaps necessary response, I don't believe this requires a desysop Samtar (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- 19 edits. Natuur12 (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out, and that Commons isn't the English Wikipedia - does this make my opinion invalid here? Samtar (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- I thought you might confuse our noticeboard with an en-wiki noticeboard. Since surely you don't mean to get involved in disputes at wiki's where you are not a community member? Natuur12 (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- We are a community of communities serving all communities. Having feedback from other wikis shouldn't be frowned up on unless they are being disruptive. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 16:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- (ec) With enwiki and Commons being so heavily linked (literally as well as metaphorically!), why does it matter that someone active on enwiki (but not so much here) has something to add to a debate? Mike1901 (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Because とある白い猫 started complaining about what is going on in the en-wiki IRC-channel. You don't want de-wiki, nl-wiki or users from another wiki that don't edit en-wiki to start intervening with your local community matters merely because someone complained via an offwiki venue like IRC don't you? Natuur12 (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Would it not be easier to take the merits of the remarks? Regardless of its source? Do we care more about the source or the remark? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 16:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- I have to say that opinions of people who come here after you did forum shopping on IRC have little merit, specially when they are not contributors on Commons, and therefore they do not know the history of the issue. Then you doing forum shopping is another reason you should not have the admin bit from now on. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Would it not be easier to take the merits of the remarks? Regardless of its source? Do we care more about the source or the remark? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 16:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Because とある白い猫 started complaining about what is going on in the en-wiki IRC-channel. You don't want de-wiki, nl-wiki or users from another wiki that don't edit en-wiki to start intervening with your local community matters merely because someone complained via an offwiki venue like IRC don't you? Natuur12 (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- I thought you might confuse our noticeboard with an en-wiki noticeboard. Since surely you don't mean to get involved in disputes at wiki's where you are not a community member? Natuur12 (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out, and that Commons isn't the English Wikipedia - does this make my opinion invalid here? Samtar (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- 19 edits. Natuur12 (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I think everyone's actions here have been excessive, but I don't think any have been malicious. I haven't read every sentence of every comment and accusation by every user involved here, but I've interacted with many of them, here or on IRC, and I believe all of them contribute a net positive to the project. When I decided to join the Commons community several months ago, it was better at dealing with problems like this than enwiki's was. They have the reputation for drama, not us, and I don't think we need to change that. KSFT (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks Natuur12 and Yann to inform us that White Cat used IRC to canvass people for him. So the discussion is compromised. A note for the closing crats. (I've no plan to add a notice in FPC and QIC to bring people for my side. White cat alredy proved he is ineligible to held the flags. Meanwhile I processed and uploaded this
) Jee 17:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC) - Oppose My views on admins being held to task being pretty well known even I think this seems excessive. If you want to block them for a couple days as punishment then that's fine but a desysop at this point is too much IMO. Reguyla (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose immediate block because とある白い猫 has not done any edits disrupting Commons since his block of Colin. There is no reason to block a user if they are not disrupting the project. The strong difference of opinions stated on these noticeboards, and the controversy over when and who can close discussions are not blockable IMO due to lack of clear community policies. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- ..and Oppose desysop request now. I think a desysop request is premature based on incidents until now. For me, I saw it as positive that とある白い猫 opened a thread about his own conduct in this matter after another admin had reverted his admin actions. I offered my opinion, which is critical towards this admin action by とある白い猫, and positive about the admin action of Yann, but I also acknowledge that other users see it as a less severe action than I do. I was very puzzled by the responses of とある白い猫 to my feedback indicating he did not reflect upon the critique, but was more concerned about a little detail regarding 'ten words' vs 'ten words or fewer'. Several users were then very eager to close the thread saying it appeared to go nowhere, and とある白い猫 found the closure was premature, leading to a mutually silly revert war over that. I do not understand what would be so terrible about letting it be open for some more time, if the objective really was to do scrutiny of とある白い猫's actions and get input from wider sections of the community. An editor proposed that とある白い猫 seeked scrutiny privately from a 'crat by email. とある白い猫 thinks it should be in the open, and I agree with that. What I really dislike though are the things going on behind the scenes in the parallel closed IRC circuits, from which logs are not public, canvassing and complaining. If とある白い猫 is sincere about the request for scrutiny, close IRC for some days. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- For information, I have the Commons IRC channel in a window and I don't see anything posted there today that would change anyone's view that has not been said more clearly here. As for canvassing, that is literally not against Commons policies but can easily backfire as a post on an IRC channel or elsewhere may attract more negative votes than positive. In previous discussions about canvassing, the general conclusion was that it can be a good thing to (neutrally) attract attention to some votes, for example the recent Oversight vote was promoted on the Village pump. I believe Commons could do with some guidelines about appropriate canvassing, and would support improvement proposals. But as of now, anything that とある白い猫 wants to post off-wiki is up to their discretion. Similarly if anyone wishes to post counter-arguments in the same places, they are free to do so without fear of being subject to action, though it may backfire in the same way. --Fæ (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- ..and
- @Slaunger: Most of the 'private' IRC channels are quite inane. The 'admins only' channel is almost entirely simply a bot telling us about edits to certain pages. Most discussion of anything is in the public channel, and most of that is simply random people seeking help. People do indeed sometimes have private conversations, but such discussions could easily occur via email as well. There are people on both sides of almost any significant issue present in the public channel, and most private channels as well. IRC is simply a more efficient way of having actual conversations, and anyone who is suspicious of it can simply join. I have never (and I was active on IRC before wikipedia even existed) seen it used as a tool of any conspiracy. Reventtalk 09:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support not acceptable behavior -jkb- (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose no rationale was provided that the topic was already resolved or inapropriate. Ankry (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ankry, please let me know what more explanation you required. See comment by Pokfan below too. Jee 10:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Jkadavoor: I do not. My position is that an admin whose decission was challenged without any public discussion has the right to demand explanations. Refusing him this right and openning this discussion seems to me to be a kind of revenge action. Ankry (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- There is no admin action challenged. The unblock granted after enough explanation. And we've separate boards for block discussions and COM:AN/B is explicitly for it. ANU is not. I remember Krd closed posts at COM:BN as off-topic to this board. My closure was too with "Hope the OP already received enough review on his recent actions. Now this is going off-topic to this board (needs an administrator's intervention). Can ask somewhere else if more advise is required. Jee 09:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)". He can ask admin opinions at COM:AN and community opinion at COM:VP. What he did is a self request against him that I close as no action required. He revert-warred and begged for an action. So this. Jee 11:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Abstain TL;DR, just like few similar threads. --jdx Re: 20:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- +1 Very good point; this history is longer than reasonable. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Colin is a troll who likes to 'bait' and 'Goat' users (admin and editors) and then tries to get them banned with the help of his 2 friends, one of which is an admin. He could not do it on Revent even though he tried many many times but has been successful on other editors and a few admins. I'm sorry, but Commons is a laughing stock because we refuse to block the "real trolls" on the project and admins who develop the BALLS required to do so are either attacked by Colin's supporters or get desysopped because this project belongs to the trolls obviously. Cat's block was not out of order, I'm just shocked that no admins who were following the recent drama had the balls to block him earlier even after he attacked not one but 2 editors, including an admin, PATHETIC is how i would describe how Commons is being run. I used to hate Jimbo when he said Commons was a bad place and he does not want anything to do with it, I now think he was right. This is the one project I have seen where they "literally" feed the trolls in the open because obviously, they run the wiki,the rest of us are just those "Extras" in a movie that that gets killed in the beginning of a movie for no apparent reason.--Stemoc 01:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Mostly per Samtar and KSFT. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 02:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Please, not more drama from the drama queens and kings. Tm (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - In short this is just a mountain out of a molehill, Colin was blocked for an hour ... I'm sure he'll live, とある白い猫 - Please don't block those with whom you're INVOLVED with - It'll only end badly and more to the point it's common sense my friend, Right can I suggest this gets closed and everyone gets back to editing the project. –Davey2010Talk 03:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC) (Updated 11:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC))
- Oppose in strongest terms possible. This is taking a piss-train to drama-town, with population of fear-mongers. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose No evidence has been provided that ToAruShiroiNeko engaged in behavior meriting a block... he blocked an editor, and then asked the community to review his action. The demand that he be blocked and then subjected to a de-RFA where he would be unable to respond sounds like a star chamber proceeding. Reventtalk 08:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - What is going on here? Wait....Let me use my glasses. Oh... Now I can see a block and desysop request. Well, this does not make any sense to me, maybe someone will come here to claim I was canvassed or that I only made 21+ edits on Commons and Indefinite banned on En Wiki. Lolz! Wikicology (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support We don't need an admin who jokes around sensitive matters like this. Oversight is a very sensitive matter as it involves handling of personal information. This is not something we should joke around like we do in IRC sometimes. Also he doesn't respect community consensus, he (still) insist that the discussion above this thread must remain open despite experienced users saying leave the resolved as resolved. He also act like that he is superior than other admins as evidenced by the above thread "User:とある白い猫's block of Colin". No admin is superior to another. Even crats are not being superior to admins or ordinary users sometimes, as evidenced by Krd's vote above (of course, they need to be "superior" when in complicated issues like admin v. admin, otherwise no solution can happen). Oh, and I haven't accessed IRC for a long time, but since Natuur12 and Yann, whose admins we (or atleast I) trust stated above that White Cat forum shopped in enwiki's IRC channel, this is totally unacceptable behaviour. ★ Poké95 09:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- And what is your opinion on editors like Colin and Jee? I'm sure if we have more people with a 'stick up their rear', wikis will become very very boring place to be. Comedy keeps the wikis alive, He was not voting on an important issue, it was an RfO, Not an RfS or RfCU which I feel are far more important rights when it comes to wikis. Even i do a 'comic vote' on RfX's all the time. People should really stop taking the projects seriously, does it put dinner on your table? cause last i checked, people who are paid to be here are doing more damage than those that are volunteering. If we start getting rid of ANY and EVERY admin that has a fight with Colin, we will become an 'oligarchy' in no time--Stemoc 09:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- We are not talking about Colin nor Jee, so that part is a tangent. RfOS (or RfO) is not like RfA nor RfLR where you can joke. LR doesn't handle personal information (obviously), and admins, although they have a right to revdel revisions, are not as sensitive as oversight. Again, oversight is one of the user groups which are sensitive (steward, oversight, and checkuser), as it suppresses personal and private information which shouldn't have been public. Of course joking is welcome, even in admin noticeboards, as long as it is appropriate, which in this case is not. ★ Poké95 10:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Well said, Pokéfan95. He joked around to a very serious reply by Slaunger above: "Ten words or fewer. There wasn't an explicit ten word requirement. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 21:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)" Slaunger politely replied: "Corrected. It now says ten words or fewer. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)" His humiliation continued: "Great! I hate it when people state "ten words or less". I blame Weird Al for this one. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 09:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)" he voted here as this is not a thread where can vote, "Delete Non-notable 猫 cruft. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)" One user thought he just made mistake and tried to fix it. He restored his joke. Jee 10:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- I find it interesting that you were serious when in the thread above you described actions by other volunteers on this project with "We know evil will prevail" and today you described IRC as "IRC or any other wicked channel" . I had ignored these in good faith as a parody or weak joke rather than personal attacks, however as it seems you were serious as you dislike to see jokes, can you identify who is evil or creating evil by their actions on this project, and exactly which forms of communication are wicked channels? No doubt even writing this makes me evil or wicked, and I would like to understand exactly what you mean by using those terms to describe other volunteers. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- I understand Pokéfan95's position on this user's behavior and I tend to agree with them that such jokes are just ridiculous but do you consider a "joke" as something terribly bad and users should be blocked or desysoped for that? Wikicology (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- I've good sense of humor and can enjoy it. I too can ignore mild humiliations. But suppose when a user asked for a review and someone spent a lot of time to give a through review. Then joking on it is not acceptable. It is verymuch like the Wolf! Wolf! story. Nobody is going to care when he needs a real help. Nobody is going to approach him for help too. (My reply is for Fae's too, above.) Jee 10:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Well, that's your perception and that doesn't reflect the opinion of others. Let's play fair. I have not seen anyone who comes here to say "Contributing to Wikimedia Common put food on my table"? Please, let's keep things cool. Wikicology (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. Biblical language, such as calling people sinners, evil, wicked, or similar, when not some form of obvious joke, should be treated as intentionally offensive, and when targeted at individuals are personal attacks to deliberately malign the character of a colleague. Thanks for the clarification that you are not joking nor making parodies. --Fæ (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know where you see biblical words in my reply to Wikicology. I forgot when I read it, last. Will check today, night. Jee 11:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- The most obvious sources for biblical definitions of the words you have used are "Evil" as most obviously defined in Genesis, and "Wicked" is a direct synonym for sin which has multiple uses in several books of the Bible. If you intended to use these words in a different meaning, it would be helpful to explain your source at the time you use them, as the biblical definitions are the most obvious for any reader. --Fæ (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry; our traditions are much older than that; or at least, we claim so. Jee 11:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, but it's the reader that is important to understand and their reading of modern English. This is a tangent, so if you continue using loaded words like "evil" to describe other contributors or their actions, and are certain to be offensive, I suggest that is created as a specific thread to handle it. --Fæ (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry; this is against wmf:No discrimination policy. We've our right to protect our interests. Jee 12:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- WMF policies are not an excuse to defame other volunteers as wicked or evil. If you are in doubt, then write to WMF legal for a clarification. Should you continue to create a hostile environment for other contributors, then a request for action will be necessary. --Fæ (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please stop your attempt to deviate from this discussion. What you're trying to bring now is what I said to natuur yesterday which was a famous quote of Edmund Burke. What it means is a community will be self destroyed if good people keep silent. Admins's and other selected volunteers are supposed to act and keep vigilant to protect this community from destruction. I very well know what free cultural movement is and strive for it in heart. I represent the community in Spain with rented cloths. My wife took her last breath and closed her eyes laying in my hands. Still I'm representing the movement with all my limitations. Don't come to me with your tactics. You already well aware that what the content creators are going to decide on how to handle future cases when we face this type of reckless incidents. Nothing more I've to say to you. Jee 12:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- WMF policies are not an excuse to defame other volunteers as wicked or evil. If you are in doubt, then write to WMF legal for a clarification. Should you continue to create a hostile environment for other contributors, then a request for action will be necessary. --Fæ (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry; this is against wmf:No discrimination policy. We've our right to protect our interests. Jee 12:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, but it's the reader that is important to understand and their reading of modern English. This is a tangent, so if you continue using loaded words like "evil" to describe other contributors or their actions, and are certain to be offensive, I suggest that is created as a specific thread to handle it. --Fæ (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry; our traditions are much older than that; or at least, we claim so. Jee 11:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- The most obvious sources for biblical definitions of the words you have used are "Evil" as most obviously defined in Genesis, and "Wicked" is a direct synonym for sin which has multiple uses in several books of the Bible. If you intended to use these words in a different meaning, it would be helpful to explain your source at the time you use them, as the biblical definitions are the most obvious for any reader. --Fæ (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know where you see biblical words in my reply to Wikicology. I forgot when I read it, last. Will check today, night. Jee 11:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- I've good sense of humor and can enjoy it. I too can ignore mild humiliations. But suppose when a user asked for a review and someone spent a lot of time to give a through review. Then joking on it is not acceptable. It is verymuch like the Wolf! Wolf! story. Nobody is going to care when he needs a real help. Nobody is going to approach him for help too. (My reply is for Fae's too, above.) Jee 10:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Just to clarify here, I cast an invalid vote intentionally. It was not meant as a joke. It would have been the lamest joke. Humor has no place on this wiki.
- As for the "ten words or fewer" remark, I do not see why you think that is a joke. I did not ask for an unreasonable exact ten word reply, it was mostly to mean that a short reply would be preferred. It is not like I would actually count the words.
- I just want to avoid walls of text when reviewing a users conduct as a starting point. No one likes walls of text. I would rather have multiple back and forths where a misunderstanding is limited or eliminated. We call these a discussion. A wall of text is a monologue.
- To be honest, I am rather disturbed by the emphasis on the "ten words or fewer" remark by a number of editors. When an admin is reviewing a block, they do not need to know every detail. A ten world limit means you can write a simple statement to be unblocked without spending the time of a detailed response which can be stressful. I suppose I could have stated "around ten words".
- Comment: I recommend some admin close this. It was created to inquire about a desysop of an admin and it's clearly not going to get enough support to pass. At this point it's only generating anger and insults and we all need to use the Frozen rule and Let it go. Reguyla (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Jan Arkesteijn
Please block Jan Arkesteijn for violating the community approved edit restriction (... must not overwrite any file on Commons that is not their own original upload...) here and here, after two previous blocks. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I fail to see the problem here. The user fixed the colors of two pictures. Jcb (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Jcb: Did you read the edit restriction? Apart from that i don't think that the colours has been fixed. This has been discussed often enough. Please follow community consensus. Thanks :-). --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- The restriction was the result of extensive discussion and community consensus. It is in nobody's interest to have that discussion all over again. Jan Arkesteijn is free to appeal if they wish to have it amended. In the meantime "Should Jan continue to overwrite files uploaded by others they will be subject to an escalating series of blocks due to their edits being disruptive, in accordance with COM:BP" is extremely clear.
Info query/7585 gives a search of overwrites. --Fæ (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm heading out, so won't be the one to place a block (don't like blocking and bailing) but what would be an appropriate duration to block ? 12 hours, 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, what ? And should there be an escalating block duration or not ? Nick (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Done 1 month. Last block lasted for two weeks so a one month block seems reasonable. By doubling the block I am following a practise used at the Dutch Wiki where Jan Arkenstein also edits. This way the block length shouldn’t be a surprise for him. There is no excuse for this behaviour. Especially regarding File:Ujkigyos.jpg in which the upload history shows previous reverts after overwrite attempts. Natuur12 (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- I've reverted the other change - It is an improvement however the user should've either discussed it or uploaded a new image, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Protected Ujkigyos.jpg for til March next year. Removed file mover, patroller and rollbacker bits since he's obviously not trustworthy anymore. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - To be honest, the removal of their user rights appears to be a punitive action to me. Hedwig in Washington, could you point to any misuse of the file mover, patroller and rollbacker bits or otherwise explain why they cannot continue to be held by the user? Wikicology (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with misuse and is not punitive. The extended rights are granted to experienced and trusted users. Jan Arkenstein is experienced, but fails the trusted user test. Therefore the extended rights have been revoked. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Generally, user right should not be removed unless there is a clear abuse of the rights. Why do you think they can no longer be trusted to use the tool? Because they violated their editing restriction? The user has been rightfully blocked for a period of one month for violating their editing restriction, I don't see how this correlate with how user rights are granted and revoked. Wikicology (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- As Hedwig correctly points out, extended rights (privileges would be a better word) are given to trusted users, not users who have not violated that privilege. Jan Arkenstein is clearly not a trusted user anymore, having abused the trust placed in him by the community multiple times. Correct decision by Hedwig. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict)The user demonstrated clearly that he doesn't care about rules and regulations, there's no room for even a tiny bit of AGF. The edits of this user need to be patrolled by the community for longer than the block lasts. Where do you get the idea that we can't revoke the extended rights w/o abuse? Extended rights are for TRUSTED users only. You can apply for the bits for him if you like, I won't processes the requests. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Admin who blocked a user in a case they are involved is trusted to keep the bit, but a regular editor who violates their editing restriction is not trusted to keep their minor bits. Well, I would have to agree with Stemoc when they said the rest of us are just those "Extras" in a movie that gets killed in the beginning of a movie for no apparent reason. Wikicology (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please stop bringing other, completely different, but highly contentious cases into this. We've had enough drama recently. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- I can understand your position. Wikicology (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- This discussion seems to have derailed completely, since it has devolved to what amounts to personal attacks. All points seem to have been made. I am out. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Disagreement is not the same as personal attack. Warm regards. Wikicology (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- This discussion seems to have derailed completely, since it has devolved to what amounts to personal attacks. All points seem to have been made. I am out. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- I can understand your position. Wikicology (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please stop bringing other, completely different, but highly contentious cases into this. We've had enough drama recently. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Admin who blocked a user in a case they are involved is trusted to keep the bit, but a regular editor who violates their editing restriction is not trusted to keep their minor bits. Well, I would have to agree with Stemoc when they said the rest of us are just those "Extras" in a movie that gets killed in the beginning of a movie for no apparent reason. Wikicology (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict)The user demonstrated clearly that he doesn't care about rules and regulations, there's no room for even a tiny bit of AGF. The edits of this user need to be patrolled by the community for longer than the block lasts. Where do you get the idea that we can't revoke the extended rights w/o abuse? Extended rights are for TRUSTED users only. You can apply for the bits for him if you like, I won't processes the requests. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- As Hedwig correctly points out, extended rights (privileges would be a better word) are given to trusted users, not users who have not violated that privilege. Jan Arkenstein is clearly not a trusted user anymore, having abused the trust placed in him by the community multiple times. Correct decision by Hedwig. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Generally, user right should not be removed unless there is a clear abuse of the rights. Why do you think they can no longer be trusted to use the tool? Because they violated their editing restriction? The user has been rightfully blocked for a period of one month for violating their editing restriction, I don't see how this correlate with how user rights are granted and revoked. Wikicology (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with misuse and is not punitive. The extended rights are granted to experienced and trusted users. Jan Arkenstein is experienced, but fails the trusted user test. Therefore the extended rights have been revoked. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)