Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 60

Why I previously had so many copyright violatons

You may have noticed that I previously had many copyright violations. Herbythyme left me this message:

{{autotranslate|base=end of copyvios}} This is probably because the Upload Wizard does not let you specify higher advanced copyright information. If you could let us specify that in the Upload Wizard, that would fix the problem. Sorry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeonardoIannelliCOMPUTE (talk • contribs) 00:41, 06 September 2016 (UTC)

Really? I've never had problems with the Upload Wizard. Please explain the problem in detail. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

If the upload wizard does not provide the options that you need (and there are many, many not in it) you can just edit the file page immediately after upload and provide the correct information, or use one of the other upload methods that lets you manually fill in any license. Revent^talk 09:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:GSFPage

Hi, excuse me if I've posted this in the wrong place, but I've been going through User:GSFPage's edits on Wikipedia, as it really is a case of the fact that the user doesn't get the idea of copyright- they continue to copy and paste in articles. I then noticed that they've been contributing photos, and surprise surprise, their Commons talk page is littered with warnings and they're on a final warning given by User:Herbythyme. I can see however from their contribution history, that they've continued posting photos that are obviously not by them (some still have watermarks on it); for example, their latest contribution, File:PoojaArcher.jpg, is directly copied from here (first image). They just don't seem to get it, on here and on en.wiki, and so I'm asking for a block until they at least respond to the concerns on their talk page. Jcc (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done User blocked and copyvios deleted. Эlcobbola _talk 15:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Are EthanMars and CraigMackie the same copyright infringer?

Hi,

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3AFrank+Iero+2008.jpg

At the sight of this re-upload (from memory, this is not only the same file name but also the same image), I found interesting to compare Special:Contributions/CraigMackie and User talk:EthanMars: there is in both some Frank Iero with the same way of naming files.

Still from memory, I'm pretty sure that File:Frank Iero 2008 Live.jpg = File:Frank Iero 2008.jpg. This last image is said coming from Flickr but the exact source isn't given. If it's https://www.flickr.com/photos/leman/284932676/in/faves-114216699@N08/ this is not compatible with Commons but I can't say if this Flickr account is the right author.

I think this should be further investigated by an user enable to see more history (maybe deleted files); And if I'm right, this accounts should be both blocked.

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@INeverCry: You have deleted several files by EthanMars and might be well placed to study this case. Can you look at it, please? --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Both accounts share a couple images and filenames. A+ on the duck test. I've blocked them. INeverCry 19:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@INeverCry: Please, look at Special:Contributions/GregMartin Same user name template, same activity (example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3AFrank+Iero+2004.jpg). --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed. For the Nth time, suspected abuse of multiple account should be reported at COM:RFCU, not admin noticeboards. Noticeboard requests make it much more difficult to track problematic users. Эlcobbola _talk 14:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: Thank you for the tip and your action. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Archaeodontosaurus

I'm working on paintings and other artworks to link them to Wikidata. It's going quite well, we're already well over 50.000 files. Today I ran into Archaeodontosaurus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). This user seems to have some ownership issues and engaged into an edit war by undoing my conversion twice on the 5 files files:

• File:Duomo (Treviso) - Interior - Annunciation by Titian.jpg
• File:Right transept of Santi Giovanni e Paolo (Venice) - Cima da conegliano, incoronazione della vergine.jpg
• File:Duomo (Verona) - Cartolari-Nichesola Chapel - L'assunzione del Tiziano.jpg
• File:San Salvador Interno - Annunciazione del Signore Tiziano.jpg
• File:Frari (Venice) nave left - Altar of Madona di Ca'Pesaro.jpg

I already tried to explain the user that he doesn't own the files, but my impression is that this user barely understands English. Judging from the user's talk page, the user is generally a productive contributor. Can an administrator, who speaks better French than me, contact this user and explain that this is behaviour is not very nice? Multichill (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment Certainly I regret not speak English. It is even possible that we were quarreling on a point of detail. I'm very favorable to take the opinion of a referee. This user wants to impose the use of a model "Artwork" whose use is not obligatory. His behavior is aggressive and condescending.

The model imposed is not practical it is extremely poorly filled and misused. I only claims the ability to make the most comprehensive captions possible with ease without not pass this module. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict) This is ANU; not a place for friendly discussion which should be the first case. Did the bot has explicit permission for such edits? Did this community ever discussed this? Don't jump in or attack a highly productive contributor here, without friendly discussions which should be on talk pages. Jee 15:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Firstly, before all I agree with Jkadavoor, and also see our policies "(...) it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her — regardless of whether he or she "owns" the article or not...", this is even more true when the editor is a great contributor and Archaeodontosaurus is great contributor.
  Secondly, the edits of your BOT are wrong and the reverts are currently fine. Except for one of the photos above, all includes 3D areas therefore are photos of art, your BOT replace the information templates with the Template:Artwork wich was clearly made for 2D works "Copyrightable photos of 2D art and photos of 3D art (sculptures, structures, coins, gems, etc.) require a licence for the depicted artwork and a licence for the photograph itself. In such cases, Template:Art Photo is recommended...". The BOT put the name of the photographer in one of the field Artist or Author and this is clearly an issue, indeed the photographer is not the author of the depicted artwok :

Artist

Artist who created the original artwork. Use {{Creator:Name Surname}} with {{Creator}} template whenever possible. blank field presented as: "Author". optional 

Author

Author For some objects "author" is more appropriate term than "artist". In most cases either "author" or "artist" should be used, not both.

@Multichill: As your template is currently not suitable for the files of Archaeodontosaurus, and are in no way mandatory. I advice you not to go yourself in an edit war and not to arm my colleague. The files are now in my watchlist and I currently not agree with the change made by you and by your BOT. Don't revert again. Regards, Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Christian Ferrer. I had asked the crats to review the Bot. It needs prior community consensus prior any such bulk edits. I'm not against Wikidata; but there should not be any friction as these are separate projects. Jee 03:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. The dialogue will always remain the best way forward. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Ozinho

User keeps adding spamming texts on images despite a previous block of three days. Tm (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 22:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)+

Nyttend

User:Auntof6 and I were creating Category:Municipal buildings in Alabama categories (and all other states) and placing both City halls and Town halls under the category. City halls are different than town halls, they are not the same. User:Nyttend has undone a lot of what was created without reason. I'm going through and undoing his/her work as there is no reason to place everything under Town halls in (state) categories. --Mjrmtg (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought that "town hall" and "city hall" were just different names for the same thing, at least when they are in cities. What's the difference? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: I bet that this is because there is difference between terms "a city" and "a town". However, what's important, there is no such difference in many countries/languages. --jdx ^Re: 05:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

It depends. Sometimes it is a matter of size, but a lot of times it is a matter of the form of governance itself, and the name means something legally. In the US, for example, towns have managers and selectmen, but cities have mayors and city councils. The fact that this is a US-centric cat means that it really needs to adhere to what the US designations are. New York City isn't a town, and Los Gatos, California isn't a city. Neither can have something defined as the other category. By the way, "municipal" is really vague, too, and is probably too broad a category to be useful. MSJapan (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

In California, there is a large difference between "cities" and other populated places as shown in our Category structure. In California most if not all of the counties follow this format whenever they have both cities and CDP's (Census Designated Places): Category:Cities in Riverside County, California and Category:Populated places in Riverside County, California A "Town Hall" is not the same thing at all as a "City Hall"; the latter is a place of municipal business, offices and so on, a "town hall" is a place where people who live in the area can congregate for parties, weddings, events and so on. There is a huge difference between the two. This system of "cities" and "populated places" (also called CDPs) persists across the United States and I really think that any actual "City Hall" should be in a city hall category not lumped with the dance halls and pavilions of town halls. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Mjrmtg Any reason for that you neither pinged nor notified Nyttend of this thread? --A.Savin 07:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

BTW...There is a thread at user talk:Nyttend#Mjrmtg. Wikicology (talk) 09:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know how to ping someone. I thought as an admin, Nyttend monitored and would have saw their name here. --Mjrmtg (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. Use either {{u| Nyttend}} or {{ping| Nyttend}}. Please, note that Nyttend is not under any obligation to monitor all your edits. Wikicology (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I used the notify template in the section header now. I didn't mean to imply they were monitoring all of my edits. I thought admins monitored the Administrators' noticeboard/User problems area. --Mjrmtg (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Weather they monitor it or not, it is appropriate to notify them when you raised a concern about them here. I do hope you will take this into consideration in the future. Wikicology (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Now that I know how to notify / ping, I will do so in the future. --Mjrmtg (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Jcb unproductively tagging up official United States military emblem image files

Official United States military insignia are always in the public domain as work-for-hire for the United States government. User:Jcb is now going around tagging the image description pages of such files with "no-source" etc. tags, even though source indications were not really strictly required on such files in the past, since it was understood that by their inherent nature they're PD. In effect, User:Jcb is now trying to cause a change to long-standing de-facto practices and customs on Commons (one which could result in the deletion of heavily-used images), without having previously discussed such a change with anybody. I wish somebody could get User:Jcb to restrain his zeal for attacking individual files, until and unless the broader issues are first discussed more widely. Thanks. AnonMoos (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out at my user talk page, you have failed to provide a link to show that File:30ArmoredBdeDUI.jpg is indeed an Official United States military insignia. Without such a link, the file lacks the necessary source information. Jcb (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, you're missing the point yet again. There's a long-standing de facto practice of many years on Commons, and you're proposing changing that practice, so therefore you need to give some kind of reason for changing that practice, and not just mechanically copy-and-paste something from the guide to newbies by rote. If any military emblem image is a hoax, then it should be nuked immediately -- but I feel no particular inclination to run around the web in search of stuff just to cater to your personal attitudes... AnonMoos (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

What you call a "long-standing de facto practice" is in fact a "long-standing backlog". The obligation of adding proper source information has not been absent for the past decade. Jcb (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but if a certain class of files have not been commonly nominated for deletion or commonly deleted for 8 to 10 years, regardless of whether or not some of the paperwork formalities may have been defective, then there's a "long-standing de facto practice". Almost all such JPEGs were originally downloaded from Pentagon or veteran's association websites, though many of the URLs from which they were downloaded have now changed... AnonMoos (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• If you have a GF reason to question the veracity of a unit badge like this, then raise a deletion request for it. That encourages some discussion and permits a chance to research it. Tagging it as "no source" instead is a shortcut to immediate deletion without either time or consensus. Commons is already rife with this problem and your actions here are encouraging it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• I am not seeing any counterproductive edits here. BTW...I think this is a minor issue that should be addressed on talk page. If it doesn't help, I'd really be interested in second opinion at Commons:Village pump or any other suitable venue rather than this report. Wikicology (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I'll be leaving any additional comments on his user talk page until he starts archiving, because it's getting tedious to load the whole big thing every single time. But Village Pump is the whole point -- if he wants to change a long-standing de facto practice on Wikimedia Commons, then he needs to make a proposal and discuss it in a prominent public place -- not just attack individual files... AnonMoos (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

What you suggest is just not true. Over the years we have deleted many files with unsufficient source information. Supposed (but unverified) military files have been no exception to that. The only thing is that we have a huge backlog on this, but you can't call that a 'long-standing practice'. Jcb (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Your first substantive sentence is correct but utterly irrelevant (since not U.S.-military-emblem specific), as you already knew. The last two sentences, insofar as they refer to official United States government military insignia (not just vague "military files", whatever that may mean in that context) are also wrong, as seen from many files which have been on Commons from 8 to 10 years without having been tagged or deleted. AnonMoos (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• @AnonMoos, you MUST stop now with edits like this. You are adding vague source claims that cannot be verified, while removing the problem tag needed to track the file. Jcb (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, you have created a big honking mess in the military files you have edited -- by ignoring the source indications which were previously present, by general sloppiness and making stuff up ("USGov"), and by trying to impose your personal preferences in place of long-standing de facto practices which have been in place for many years here on Wikimedia Commons. So far, you've proven your personal prowess as an edit warrior, but you're achieved a big fat zero when it comes to improving Wikimedia Commons. I continue to feel perfectly free to clean up all the messes which you have created without any reference to your attempt to unilaterally impose a personal change on long-standing de facto Commons practices. However, I don't feel like descending to your level of edit warring at the moment. But that just postpones the confrontation for at most 7 days, because NONE of the military emblem files which you've marked up with your worthless and useless tags are going to be deleted as a result, unless there's a drastic change to long-standing de facto practices which have been in place for many years here on Wikimedia Commons. AnonMoos (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• I'm also concerned about edits like these [1] [2], see User talk:Jcb#Inserting bad metadata. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• I converted some tags of Jcb to DRs, while removed one tag. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 00:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment. This is not the whole story. OgreBot 2 is the first step. See examples:

• File:309tfs-tuyhoa1.jpg ==> first step: OgreBot 2 removing info and then No source tag by Jcb
• File:Red Army in Tiflis Feb 25 1921.jpg (already deleted) ==> OgreBot 2 removing info and then No source tag by Jcb

Both of the files has source in original upload log section so the removal of OgreBot 2 was wrong. If we want to do it correctly the bot should replace the "Transferred from en.wikipedia" with the source info from original upload log.

I agree that some files that moved from en.wiki have no source and the info that written in the source field cause them not to be taged as no source. But not all of them have no source. and the "Transferred from en.wikipedia" is not wrong. And if I see that in the source field i'm checking the original upload log section for source.

Yes, Jcb should check before tagging the files as no source. But mistakes can happen. We are only human. The consequences were that the second file deleted and the first almost deleted.

pinging @Magog the Ogre: . -- Geagea (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

True, everyone can make mistakes. However not everyone can recognize that they are mistaken. There have been a series of contentious issues with Jcb's actions and competence in dealing with requests from other contributors in the last fortnight. It would be jolly nice if Jcb could recognize that they are not infallible and reverting others and telling them off (or even blocking their accounts) is not the way to reach a consensus, neither does wearing a sysop hat make your decisions automatically correct and worthy of respect. Per COM:Administrators, "administrators have no special editorial authority by virtue of their position". --Fæ (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not there are "long-standing de-facto practices and customs", they cannot override written policy, which requires evidence that files are freely usable. As I see it, Jcb is not the one trying to change the way it's done. KSFT (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi KSFT, I'd be interested in taking a look at the policy you are referring to. Could you provide a link? The example I have been checking over meets COM:L, which is considered sufficient. We do not want to be in the position where correctly licensed public domain works are getting routinely deleted because the source was "weak", or a link no longer exists, which will happen to the majority of our hosted images at some point. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it is COM:EVID what KSFT is talking about. Yes, it is a policy, but we should not forget about common sense. Policies are just created by human, and they can be changed over time. And written policy can be overridden by community consensus, so someday, COM:EVID would be different than it is now. If you will see English Wikipedia, they rarely use policies in community discussions and debates, instead they use community consensus. Most community consensus don't turn into policies, since it takes a long time to make a policy. Okay, so if Jcb is still insisting that there should be a strong evidence that a file is freely usable, then why not Jcb just find the correct, strong, and reliable source instead of just tagging files as no source? Sometimes, semi-automated tools are just making us lazy instead of being more productive. Hope we don't make semi-automated tools be their purpose. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 12:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If the policy is Commons:Project scope/Evidence, then it is worth highlighting that this boils down to:

* the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed, and

* that any required consent has been obtained

The example of File:302 FS.jpg had a source declared that would make it Public Domain. There was no link, but then the policy does not say it needed one (and any direct link to a military site from over 2 or 3 years back would be broken by now). I see that after 3 days, Jcb has back-pedalled on their templating of the image and said "revoking nomination, on a second look the source for this was good enough" (diff). Hopefully this puts an end to Jcb's personal campaign and mass reverts of other contributors, which never appeared to be supported by policy. --Fæ (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

KSFT -- If there's genuine doubt about a claimed US official military emblem, or some evidence of a real problem with a file, then no amount of "long-standing de-facto practices and customs" will do anything to save it, of course. However, for uncontroversial files (where there's no evidence of any problem) -- especially those are in use on Wikipedia -- such practices and customs become quite relevant. At an absolute minimum, User:Jcb should show discretion and selectivity in dealing with US official military emblem images, since he's retroactively applying a source-enforcement standard which is quite different from the source-enforcement practices which were in place when the images were uploaded 8 or 10 years ago. Mechanically and robotically applying no-source tagging to all files indiscriminately really accomplishes absolutely nothing in improving Wikipedia Commons in any possible way. There are also other problematic aspects to User:Jcb's actions, such as his claim that a working URL is supposedly the only acceptable source... AnonMoos (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

To reply to those above and clarify my original comment here, I did not mean to comment on whether I agreed with anyone's actions here; I just didn't like the wording people were using that implied that de facto procedures could be used as an argument against following policy, especially where the procedure is only done implicitly, by not making certain edits. KSFT (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that if the sole problem with an image of a United States military emblem is the absence of a source (not serious doubts as to whether the image is genuinely an approved insigne), marking the image for deletion is both lazy and inappropriate. In the first case above (30th Armored Brigade), it took about two minutes to locate [3] and less than that to find [4] for the 302d Fighter Squadron. I'd suggest doing something to improve the Commons is far more productive, rather than deleting images of US military emblems because a source isn't listed. A lot of these also lack authors. Since the 1920s for US Army and US Air Force, it's been en:United States Army Institute of Heraldry (later date for Navy) and {{PD-USGov-Military-Army-USAIOH}} is the appropriate marking, since under US law, even though they are PD, there are legal restrictions on their use. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Ras67

Resolved

Ras67 has been cropping images that quite honestly don't need cropping [5][6][7][8][9][10], As per COM:OVERRIGHT crops should be uploaded as new images however this user is cropping about 1-2% of images and overwriting the existing ones which is quite frankly pointless, He's also retouching some of them, I've reverted about 6 edits but I have no idea how far back this goes so figured I'd bring it here, I'd left a message after reverting 3-4 but realized this seems to go on and on and on so yeah figured I'd bring it here, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Forgot to add I'm not specifically looking for any admin actions however I'm not entirely sure if anything should be done, If an admin believes nothing needs to be done then I'm absolutely cool with that, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 20:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• The removal of the watermark/border from the image seems fine to me and is directly supported by COM:OVERWRITE as a "Minor improvement". I've made many crops like that myself. BMacZero (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• BMacZero - This is precisely the reason why editors would use better summaries, I had absolutely no idea they were removing watermarks at all, I even compared 2 images and still missed it, It just looked like they were cropping the picture and that was it .... Ah right well in that case my apologies, I'll self rv, Anyway thanks for replying, –Davey2010^Talk 23:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Altsprachenfreund altering permissions on previous uploads

 Done, no problem here.

Altsprachenfreund created a template: User:Altsprachenfreund/Hinweis that limits commercial and other uses of images that they have previously uploaded. Their native language is german so I would prefer a german speaking admin talk to them about this. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 22:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but I don't see a problem here. He's not restricting the reuse of his photos. It's just a hint that there may be non-copyright restrictions for commercial uses of the photographs that have been taken in the premises of Deutsche Bahn, which is true according to German law. Quite the same as {{Personality rights}} The hint can be helpful for users of his photos. --Code (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Morgankevinj: Why you reported the user here instead of asking him on his own talkpage, please see COM:DISPUTE? Why you haven't notified the user about this complain here? Regarding the template, i agree with Code (Commons:Non-copyright restrictions). --Steinsplitter (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 20:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

203.145.95.224

Resolved

The user of this IP address vandalized a couple of pages on Mandarin Wikipedia, then got blocked. Now he or she is leaving insult words on my Wiki Commons user pages. ZhengZhou (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

203.145.95.0/24 blocked for 2 weeks + short semi-protections of the vandalized talk pages. INeverCry 02:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Sqm1999 false uploads

Resolved

• Sqm1999 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Can an admin wipe this users uploads? They're all clear screenshots of video footage that they didn't produce. Thanks.--JacktheHarry (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Images also used to vandalise en.wiki. [11][12] Эlcobbola _talk 14:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

CEOINFO

Resolved

Hi, CEOINFO (talk · contribs) doesn't look like someone making positive contributions. Probably a sock of some serial copyvios uploader. Opinions? Yann (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sigajefinho. CU unfortunately not helpful in this circumstance, so action(s) will need to be bahaviour-based. That said, per this comment, and contribs at pt:Iraquara, this is a DUCK. Эlcobbola _talk 18:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Mukund2

Resolved

All of Mukund2's uploads are blatant copyvios (small exif data, all available online with larger file sizes). I've started going through and tagging them (example: this image), but there are so many an admin would be better off going through them and deleting. A photo I tagged earlier in July was similarly deleted. Best wishes, Jcc (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Copyvios deleted and user warned. Эlcobbola _talk 18:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Shvarts 007

Five porn image this user has uploaded have been deleted three time but they keep reuploading the same images, now for the 4th time. See the most recent entry in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Unsourced Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR and then view the log for any of the images listed there. My opinion is they should be blocked indef. Ww2censor (talk) 11:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Copyvios deleted, user blocked. Эlcobbola _talk 14:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

These have now been reuploaded but under a new user name Diego Mendysabal, presumably a sock of Shvarts 007. Ww2censor (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed, blocked, deleted. Thanks, Эlcobbola _talk 21:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

PrinceNijam

User:PrinceNijam has repeatedly changed the author of files, such as File:Moju chowdhury hat.jpg, to themselves and then changed the licensing of the file without holding the rights to the file (also on File:Tara-masjid.jpg & File:Shat Gombuj Mosque (ষাট গম্বুজ মসজিদ) 002.jpg). They have been warned against doing so, acknowledged the warning, then continued to do it. The user also has claimed that they are a license reviewer or admin on images (that don't need Flickr review) such as File:Wikipedian Prince Nijam.jpeg, which I left as shown to be an example. I would like to request admin intervention, possibly even blocking the user, for these issues. Elisfkc (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a couple weeks. I deleted a few obvious copyvios. I guess Nijamahmed is an old alternate. The prince is certainly great at making a mess. INeverCry 21:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The prince claims, that his home wiki is en.wiki, but he is indefinitely blocked there as sockpuppet: en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mojuchowdhury-hat/Archive. I edited his userpage, where he claimed to be active since 2006 (correct is 2016), a steward and license reviewer. He added license in file:মোহাম্মদ নিজাম উদ্দিন.jpg, although the file does not look like selfie. Taivo (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I've created Category:Sockpuppets of PrinceNijam and blocked the 3 other socks. I used PrinceNijam as the master since it's the easiest name to remember. I've also deleted the above image as a copyvio. INeverCry 08:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Tomthegg (talk · contribs)

User has received a last warning for copyright violations on 21 April 2016, yet continues to illegitimately upload works without permission. Latest copyright violation was File:Carmella render.png, uploaded on 29 September 2016. Previous copyright violation was on 19 June 2016. No legitimate uploads from this account at all. 80.221.159.67 02:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the acct for 3 months. If there were more than 12 uploads, I would've indeffed him as a copyvio-only account. He'll likely end up indeffed anyways, but we'll give him one more shot. INeverCry 03:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Tuvalkin using mental illness as an insult

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.

user blocked/unblocked by me https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tuvalkin&oldid=208226643 Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 04:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

---

People with a mental illness/disorder are ill. They are not bad people. They have a serious disabling condition that is orders of magnitude worse for them than the little foibles we all have and get frustrated with in ourselves and others. So when people carelessly use mental illness (or other serious medical conditions) as an insult, it is extremely hurtful to who have to live with it. Labelling people OCD because they are a bit tidy or obsessed. Calling someone autistic because they have done something socially awkward. Or schizophrenic because they changed their mind. Or bipolar because their mood has shifted. Such behaviour might be accepted in school playground, but absolutely isn't acceptable in a community of adults behaving with any respect for others. If this is news to anyone here, I suggest Googling for "mental illness as an insult" and variations on that theme.

When Tuvalkin criticised Jcb's motivations on this project, and suggested he "need[s] to go", Tuvalkin linked to the Wikipedia article Obsessive–compulsive disorder. This is more than just a careless use of language, but a clear link to this medical condition when talking about another user. Either Tuvalkin is stating he believes Jcb has a mental disorder, or Tuvalkin thinks it acceptable to use a mental disorder as an insult to describe someone's harmful motive on this project, and why they should "go". This personal attack is such a huge breach of COM:AGF, which requires us to "avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence", and a breach of all acceptable discourse among respectful adults. Subsequent comments at the noticeboard do not demonstrate any understanding of what they have done wrong. A block seems necessary, for Tuvalkin to reflect on what he has done wrong and work avoiding a repeat, and this community should make it clear that such behaviour and language has no place here. -- Colin (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI This block of Stemoc is relevant, and where the community agreed that using mental health issues as an insult, or making claims that others have mental illnesses, is unacceptable and blockworthy. -- Colin (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

FWIW: recent failures of COM:AGF towards those with whom he disagrees, and veiled (and unveiled) insults/attacks, have not been limited to mental health:

• "[T]hus unmask yourselves as moved by bad faith and disregard for the project" [13]
• "Actually, I find it deplorable, not funny, but this kind of downplaying helps me keep some sanity when dealing with these cases of… lets go with «casual negligence», to keep me off admin bullying" [14]
• "You and Jee read Fæ’s defense of a photo and immediately saw an opportunity for scoring points by favouring its deletion";
• "[B]ecause Taivo, an admin, has no clue about what scope is — incompetence is also something I don’t enjoy witnessing";
• "[C]ombined tides of deletionism of some (omg so many files we need to keep these numbers down!!) and the cronyism and vanity of others" [15]

(Note the last three are the same diff, just separated out to show a personal attack of Taivo sandwiched between bad faith.) While perhaps not egregious in and of themselves, these diffs should be considered in aggregate with Colin's comments above. Impugning the motives of others, personal attacks, and the obvious chip on the shoulder indeed undermine a "collegial atmosphere", a consideration in COM:BLOCK. Эlcobbola _talk 19:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Done Blocked 2 weeks, as it is not the first time that he have such behavior. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Regardless of if there is a continuing issue with Tuvalkin, Colin bringing this particular complaint here, now, is simply forum shopping. The discussion of this statement at ANB was over twice as long as the original discussion, and Colin himself said "Several admins are present on this page, naturally, and yet Tuvalkin remains unblocked and without any warning." This was an implicit acknowledgment that several admins did not consider the comment worthy of action, and yet here we are. I submit this specific complaint has more to do with Colin and Tuvalkin's personal issues, without 'prejudicing' the evidence for a continuing problem raised by elcobbola. Revent^talk 21:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Christian Ferrer: Not to be rude, but such a block is unlikely to resolve the ongoing interpersonal issues. Short 'civility' or 'cool down' blocks are rarely effective. Revent^talk 21:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Then the blocks will escalate until one that is final. The price "useful contribution against undergo attacks and insults" is not a good deal for me... Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The beatings will continue until the moral improves. This is not a good approach, we need Tuvalkin to understand the issues with their comments and to appropriately modify their behaviour because they want to, not because they're forced to do so under fear of escalating blocks. Nick (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Christian Ferrer: (Edit conflict) I was not saying you are wrong, I have not looked at Tuvalkin's history in detail, and Elcobbola cited examples that had (apparently) nothing to do with Colin. I meant that such a block, which it might cause an editor to reconsider specific behaviors, will not resolve any long-standing history between specific people... it will, instead, possibly provide more ammunition for such a dispute. The original complaint brought here by Colin was, imo, purely personal. And what Nick said. Revent^talk 21:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually they should be indef'ed, as there is a long-term pattern of insulting behaviour. --A.Savin 21:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, yes, the examples above are unrelated to Colin ("Elcobbola cited examples that had (apparently) nothing to do with Colin"). They are from UnDr and Jameslwoodward's talk page, both of which I watch. I was actively contemplating how best to address them when Colin made this post. As others have said, this is indeed a long-term issue, and additional examples from this month alone are readily available:

• "Still clueless about scope, User:Taivo, I see." [16]
• "Where were these zealous defenders when serial vandal Fastily wreacked havoc in Commons with his admin-bit powered deletionist agenda?" [17]
• "I see that you now took upon yourself the task to dismantle what I did, and put Category:10 (number) back in its original state of disarray and unusefulness. Understandably, I’m not wishing you well in this endeavour." [18]
• "[I]nsisting on deletion of this media item is mere vandalism." [19] Эlcobbola _talk 22:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• I wonder what could push him to want such a thing "modify their behavior".... The block has indeed nothing to do with Colin nor I want to resolve any long-standing history between specific people. The block is to stop the current behavior shown by all the links provided above, and this is far not the first time, see block log, past blocks take the warning role, my blocks excluded, he have been blocked several times for the same things. And how many times he has escaped blocks? He is far from "modify their behavior because they want to", therefore, and as he is not able to modify their behavior himself, we have to do it. I've not the right to say the things he says, you have not this right, and he have not this right. He is as experimented as us, (more?), and he know this is prohibed very well, therefore he assume now. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Christian Ferrer: I was not saying the specific block was not justified, though I doubt it's efficacy....I was saying that the original complaint here was due to interpersonal drama, and a short block will not fix it. Revent^talk 22:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Guys, examine the facts, not the perceived motives for person making the criticism. For doing so is simply an ad-hominem and you fall into the same trap as Tuvalkin of questioning someone's motive without clear evidence, and demonstrating a lack of AGF. Revent's comments here, such as dismissing this as "interpersonal drama", are simply ad-hominem and a continuation of his blinkered and biased approach to obvious personal attacks made in his presence. My comment at ANB wasn't "implicit acknowledgment that several admins did not consider the comment worthy of action" but specific criticism and shaming of those admins present, including Revent, who choose to look the other way, or who, like Nick, throw ridiculous hypocritical obstacles in the way. AN/U is the correct forum and the original topic at AN/B concerned Jcb's admin actions, so it is precisely appropriate that this forum instead is the place to discuss Tuvalkin's insulting remarks. Nick continues to lecture us on what to do yet I see no attempt by him to counsel Tuvalkin as to what instead he should have said or what he should now regret. Of course Tuvalkin should not be "beaten" and "forced" and it is quite ridiculous and insulting on us to suggest a block does this. Tuvalkin is not forced to participate here and did not need to make the comments he did. Anyway, the stubbornness of an individual to mend their ways is quite irrelevant as to whether a block applies. That's why sometimes the community chooses to make it indefinite. This block confirms that this community will simply not stand for certain behaviour, regardless of whether the person being blocked is capable of amending their ways. I am pleased that some admins, at least, recognise when a line has been crossed. -- Colin (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Colin. I did not throw ridiculous hypocritical obstacles in the way, I've simply asked you to discuss your concerns directly with Tuvalkin, because I feel it would be beneficial. I was hoping the issue could have been resolved without the need for a lengthy block, and I had hoped Tuvalkin would have involved themselves in this discussion. That's not possible because of the two week block, but I will attempt to discuss the issues (as I perceive them) directly with Tuvalkin over the next two weeks. It's a great shame you're unwilling to at least explain to Tuvalkin your concerns with their behaviour, because I can only express my perspectives and my thoughts.

I also think it would be useful if you were to put some effort into improving your relationship with Tuvalkin, but it's entirely up to you whether you're going to engage with Tuvalkin.

I would also ask that you cease portraying any user who dares to disagree with you in such negative terms. The beauty of this project is we all have slightly different ideas on how best to achieve the same aims. I can see from your block log that some of your ideas didn't quite go to plan, I know that some of my administrative actions haven't worked entirely as I intended them to, but we all learn and move on. Nick (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss this further, then invite me to your talk page, otherwise I have already said and provided enough evidence of the "hypocritical obstacles" you posted on AN/B and have no wish to keep repeating them. -- Colin (talk) 06:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: That you attempt to 'shame' people who disagree with you, or do not do what you want, is a fair description of part of my objection to your long term pattern of behavior. Revent^talk 14:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Revent please don't mischaracterize my words. I have not shamed someone who disagrees with me or didn't do what I want. I say shame on those who behave shamefully. An admin who willfully ignores clear personal attacks, clear demonstration of bad faith, and clearly using mental health issues as an insult, is behaving shamefully. And your actions here have been nothing but ad-hominem attacks on me, trying to turn a discussion on a block on Tuvalkin into a discussion on me. I repeat. Shame on you. -- Colin (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The edit summary here by Colin is un-mellow and un-collegial. Needless to say that Colin is putting oil in the fire again and again. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Steinsplitter, this is a discussion on Tuvalkin's block. Not on me. Could you focus on that? Revent's series of ad-hominem attacks on me are absolutely forbidden in policy, and an attempt to make this personal about me, and detract from a serious issue. I did not make this discussion about me, Revent did, and once again slurs me about some "long term pattern of behaviour" in completely the wrong venue and without supplying any evidence. That's "un-collegial". You might want to address that problem rather than joining in with the "lets say horrible things about Colin" game. -- Colin (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

My series of 'ad hominem attacks'? Links, please. I have done nothing but criticize your behavior. Revent^talk 18:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Revent, I'm not going to continue your game of derailing this section to become about me, and provide an excuse for you to continue to repeat slurs about my participation here. The links are already on your talk page, and you know it. Now, unless you have something to say about Tuvalkin's use of mental illness as an insult, this discussion is over. -- Colin (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Hmmm; only today I looked in detail on the comments that Tuvalkin made against me/my intentions. English is not my language; those comments are split into different places. This is not the first time s/he looked me with bad faith. (The earlier case was when I removed a PA from his talk page. He restored it even without reading what I removed.) I never came here requesting a sanction against people who insulted me. Little chances for that in future too. I believe it is duty of the colleagues (per DefendEachOther) which is what Elcobbola did now. What Nick and Revent doing here is disappointing. Jee 01:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• And what about people really suffering from Obsessive–compulsive disorder or from other mental disorder? We let them read that a user is able to use their disorder to insult/harass other users?apparently no one here is suffering from this. People who are sick are suffering enough with their disorder, we must not categorize them and we must not use their pain to reduce other persons, the insult is there, and is at the level of the one who did it. This is currently intolerable and inexcusable, and must be stopped. Furthermore, as he took time to tie his sentence with the article in Wikipedia, I assume he found this funny and smart... but this is not. Feel free for the blocked user to contribute in a good way after the block expire. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 04:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Thank-you, Christian. There is at least one admin seeing the facts of this situation without using it as an excuse to smear me. -- Colin (talk) 06:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Jkadavoor If someone insults you in future, I sincerely hope you would report it in broadly the same manner Colin has - just because Revent and I didn't immediately jump and block Tuvalkin doesn't mean we don't find the comment he made concerning, it's just that we were choosing to deal with the situation in a different way. Nick (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Nick, unless there's been some off-wiki communication between you and Tuvalkin, then you haven't been "choosing to deal with the situation in a different way" until 8:42 this morning which is 24 minutes after you posted the above, and long after I suggested that you might be the person to engage with Tuvalkin if you are so full of ideas about how to amend his behaviour. Unless, that is, your interpretation of "a different way" is to turn a blind eye. I note that in your post to his talk page, you suggest the problem was a consequence of humour that translated badly online. Not it isn't Nick. I suspect you still don't appreciate the problem. It's that a user here thinks that mental illness is something to joke about and that it is acceptable to use mental illness as an insult with which to attack a contributor here. There's nothing "online" or "translation" about the issue here. Perhaps you find it OK to joke about OCD with your mates, but it certainly isn't here, and in the UK I'm quite sure it would generate disciplinary action should an office worker complain to HR about the "jokes" they've been getting from colleagues. It doesn't matter what language people write in or understand. I hope that is clear, if it isn't, google a few mental health charities to read about the consequences of the stigma and hurt generated by people using "humorous insults" with mental health. I do wish you well in modifying Tuvalkin's behaviour, but you need to understand the problem with what he wrote, which you don't yet appear to. -- Colin (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Nick: just one word to clarify a bit. I've nothing against you or Revent, your views are defensible. I don't care about potential conflicts between Colin, JcB and Tulvakin or somebody else, nor I'm aware neither I want to solve this. However, discrimination is a terrible thing, and one of more serious harassment possible. What is discrimination? discrimination is a distinction made against a group of persons. No matter if it is about ethnicity, mental health, gender, or physical appearance... this is not acceptable. By insulting Jcb in that way he have insulted all persons who are really suffering about this. How do you know I'm not suffering about this? how do you know I've not also suffered to be a bit "different", and now, here on Commons, the answer should be "wait he stop himself?" and how do you know if Jcb suffer or not this disorder, and about a potential discrimination? And what? people suffering of that disorder are potentially inclined to do bad things? What is this fucking point of view? Damn not! we have not to wait he stop himself, he will stop that's all, in a way or in another. @Tuvalkin: you're are warned, if you harass someone else by using any kind of discrimination, you will be blocked exponentially. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Christian, you are ranting and choosing to add the word "fucking" when addressing someone you have blocked and cannot reply, is not why this noticeboard exists. Please take a wiki break and get some perspective. I respectfully recommend you avoid taking any further administrative action on this matter. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You're recommendation is well received and will be well ignored. To think people suffering about a mental disorder are potentially inclined to do bad things, and in any case are quoted pejoratively as an attack (or as an exemple to illustrate something wrong) is indeed, for me, a "fucking way" to think and in no way acceptable. I confirm. End of discussion for me. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for at least taking my advice and avoiding this discussion from here on.

I do not appreciate your defence of using the f-word to insult others when in your authoritative role as an administrator giving advice to other contributors they have blocked for being insulting. I do not appreciate the f-word word directed at me, even obliquely, this is never justifiable. It is disruptive and you have damaged the communities trust in your emotional capacity to comply with "Administrators are expected to understand the goals of this project, and be prepared to work constructively with others towards those ends" per COM:Administrators. When you have had time to get some perspective, perhaps you will be able to read this again and understand my point of view. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Christian Ferrer, one word of advice from me. While the F-word is often considered to be quite innocent slang in non English countries using the F-word in some English countries can be seen as quite severe. US television even censors the word in series like South Park and Family Guy. It is best to avoid the F-word all together since it can be offensive to native English speakers while you probably see no harm when someone uses the F-word. Natuur12 (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Two points. Christian was talking to Nick when he used the F-word, he was not "addressing someone [he] blocked and cannot reply". Nor was Christian using the F-word "to insult others". The phrase was "fucking point of view" and the f-words was an adjective that referred to the idea "people suffering of that disorder are potentially inclined to do bad things". That is of course, a point of view we can all feel is totally unacceptable and one for which reasonable people might get angry and upset. And when people get angry and upset they can swear. The f-word was not used as an insult towards a person. It is clear Christian is upset with Nick not getting it. The tone police can stand down, and need to get a lesson in how to respond to angry people properly. Christian has communicated his opinion about this point of view with absolute clarity -- we all get the message he is angry and upset about it, and with Nick. When someone is upset they need to feel they are being heard and understood, and absolutely do not need some "calm down dear" public display of tone criticism. A quiet word is better here than some public shaming because someone who is angry and upset said a bad word. And no, swear words when angry are a totally different thing from what this section is about, which is someone who has unenlightened views on mental health, and a huge dollop of bad faith. -- Colin (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment Although I don't wish to report any attack against me, I usually interfere when noticed anything similar to others. See this and how that user responded to it. Here this generosity is not happened from the user in question, unfortunately. Christian Ferrer, you need not take too much strain to explain/convince all. Your action is well justifiable. Jee 12:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: IMO, the question isn't if a block was justified, but if just 'two weeks' is likely to accomplish anything. Revent^talk 19:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not certain about the intentions of your and Nick's early comments here; but they look like an attempt to weaken the confidence of the acting admin (Christian) here. Fae, as with a usual tactics, made fabricated accusation that Christian accused the user who can't edit here and asked to refrain from further use of his admin tools here (which Colin well corrected/explained later). Anyway now I'm happy with the progress and thanks Nick for that. I believe in second-chance and hope Tuvalkin still has time to change and continue editing here. Good luck. Jee 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Correction - Jkadavoor, please take on board Christian's words "Fæ and Natuur12 are right", it's just below in this thread. I made no "fabricated accusation" of any sort and I am getting tired of seeing false allegations in discussions where I am being pinged, like I am a free Commons punch bag when no actual evidence is being supplied of any evildoing and there are no repercussions for attacking me. If you wish to waste your time making allegations, open a section and ask directly and unambiguously for administrator action against my account and supply meaningful diffs, not hearsay, otherwise what you are doing is tangentially misusing this noticeboard for false and defamatory character slurs. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

See this. Re-read Christian's comment where f-word is used and check to whom it was addressed. There is separate part in that comment addressing the user now blocked. Jee 13:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

This is off topic, but it appears I need to explain further or appear tacitly to accept your allegation. You are stating that I lied, that's what making "fabricated accusation" means. Christian's words were hard to deconstruct, presumably a result of English not being their first language, so doubtless my understanding of the paragraph can be argued back and forth which I don't feel is in anyone's benefit. If you wish to pursue me for fabricating evidence and making false accusations, then create a thread, provide the diffs and ask for administrator action. Alternatively you could make a presumption of good faith and accept that Christian's apology closed the issue, as indeed I thought was the case. --Fæ (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Fæ, two aspects of your complaint about Christian are 100% factually incorrect in important ways, and I explained already why in my post. The statement "choosing to add the word "fucking" when addressing someone you have blocked and cannot reply" is simply untrue. He was addressing Nick, who last time I checked is unblocked and quite able to reply. Nor was he "using the f-word to insult others", but instead as an adjective about a detestable point of view. You may choose different language but it was not used as an insult of a person. Nor was the "f-word word directed at [you], even obliquely". Directed is of course incompatible with "obliquely" so the statement makes no sense. Once again, when Christian was addressing you, was describing a detestable way to think (equating mental illness with being a bad person), and not at all suggesting you think that way -- so absolutely not "directed" at you. Your text contains so many important errors that cause your argument to collapse. You could have simply said, please don't use swear words and left it at that. But by claiming Christian was using swear words to insult a person he has blocked, and thus abusing his role as an admin, is absolutely not supportable by the evidence and you should retract it. I also direct you to Christian's comment thanking me for my edit and summary of what actually was said/meant.

I agree that Jee's use of the word "fabricated" implies a lie and so should be retracted as bad faith. However, Fae, you will only develop a reputation for honesty by being careful when describing other's words faithfully and accurately. You have not done so here, and to claim this is Christian's fault because he is French is preposterous. The section is clearly label "Nick" and the other part clearly labelled "Tuvalkin". Any misunderstanding is yours. -- Colin (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Christian's use of that word is inappropriate and need to be redacted. But there is nothing difficult to understand there as he addressed people individually. He seemed frustrated on the fellow admins who didn't support him when there was a need. It is the most unfortunate moment when the confidence of acting admin is destroyed, especially by fellow admins. So they should be careful and only do so when the acting admin is critically wrong. Here his action is well justifiable considering the additional evidence by Elcobbola. That's why advised Christian "no need to take strain to explain/convince all. Your action is well justifiable." Here Fae asked Christian to refrain from further actions whereas Revent commented "It's up to the admin who blocked him, imo." How an admin can act on his free will when his confidence is challenged? Please avoid it. Jee 15:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: That I would 'attempt to weaken Christian's confidence', and then later say that I felt any further action should be up to him, is nonsensical, and to be honest, you're pretty much accusing be Nick and I of acting in bad faith here. Christian said to Nick, "I've nothing against you or Revent, your views are defensible." If he had no problem with it, there's little justification for you trying to make it an issue. Revent^talk 15:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, your comment here and all related discussions, including your talk page are full of nonsense. Jee 15:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• I suggest, given that a block has been applied and it has consensus, that this section be closed. -- Colin (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• To all the community, I was indeed wrong to use the F-word, or at least this was wrong without further explanations, Fæ and Natuur12 are right. I added the sentence and the edit summary containing the F-Word after to have write the former sentence. At that time I was thinking not to insult anybody, but more to show to the community the reasons of my actions here, and in what extend I think the topic is not harmless. The F-word (in french putain) is sometimes (often) used as an interjection, specially in the southern France, I think this can be called an en:Ejaculation (grammar). Though I can not promise I will manage to temperate my feisty personality, I can promise, as this is ambiguous in some langages, to not ever use once again the F-Word. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Colin, it is indeed about a good summary, it is sometimes frustrating not to be understood. Though I am not angry about Nick, it is indeed true that I wanted to be enough expressive to be well understood. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to indef block due to Tuvalkins continued slurs on his talk page

A.Savin proposed an indef block above. I think we use indef blocks too little. Often an editor should not come back until showing a sincere will to change the behavioral patterns leading to a block. If that takes only a day, and it is convincing, fine, lift the block. If the blocked user keeps on with the disruptive behavior, maintain the block until a sincere will to change has occcured, to avoid further damage to the project. Earlier today on his talk page Tuvalkin made this edit, where he clearly singles out a single user (Colin) with a clear personal attack.

In my defense I can say that I think I would have retracted that unethical mistreatment of OCD sufferers later, either on my own volition or after being called off, but having been called off by that particular person blinded me from acting as I think I should have, as it was a case of obvious baiting: After all, this is the person who not only once got away with uttering the phrase «raging gay» (wich is always a no-no, regardless of context) but even had the gall to counter-attack, playing the victing for having been called a homophobe.

Such people in our midst make it hard to maintain a collegial atmosphere above what would be otherwise mere disagreements about procedures and goals of Commons.

So, here Tuvalkin says Colin is baiting him, because Colin is the user first critizising Tuvalkin for linking to OCD. That is just a ridiculous claim, and it is Tuvalkin after all, who linked, yet he is just blaming Colin. Next they go on with the recurring raging gay conflict. As the analysis in the link shows, these two words were written by Colin in November 2015 in an "as if somebody" analogy and not intended as a direct personal attack. Later in November 2015, Colin apologized to Fæ for causing offence, an apology that was finally accepted by Fæ in July 2016. It is a case closed by both parties, yet Tuvalkin tries to dig up drama again. Let us just remind ourselves, that Tuvalkin has previously called Colin an "insufferable wanker" and never apologized for that personal attack. Next, Tuvalkin accuses Colin for playing the victim for having been called a homophobe. Totally disregarding that Colin has repeatedly been described by Fæ in a series of cleverly crafted association fallacies by all the traits and characteristics of a homophobic person, with a clever avoidance of not using that word explicitly. So, Tuvalkin just continues the bad prevailing habit of speaking bad about Colin, when Colin points out actions which are offending, thereby trying to censor Colin by singling him out. That is very uncollegial, and as long as Tuvalkin does not show the faintest sign of wanting to change this attiitude, I think they should be remained blocked. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I have asked Tuvalkin to redact their comment concerning Colin, which is clearly not acceptable. I guess if the comment isn't redacted in a timely fashion or there are further comments of this nature (or indeed, a combative attitude towards Colin) then an indefinite block would make sense and is something I would support. I really hope it isn't necessary, of course. I would ask that if the block on Tuvalkin is increased to indefinite, talk page access is maintained, so I can continue working with Tuvalkin, in an attempt to remedy their behavioural issues. Nick (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, we have been discussing Tuvlakin's abuse of his talk page to continue attacks at User talk:Elcobbola#User:Tuvalkin's block. I did not want to bring it here, because I felt this page had already become derailed, and it was a separate issue from the mental-health-as-insult one. And because I am embarrassed to repeat Tuvalkin's insult. But here goes: "the smarmy ejaculations of a poseur who uses 100% of his Commons time to «harass and intimidate»". While User:Elcobbola is trying to assume translation difficulties are responsible for that "unfortunate" term, it appears the word has exactly the same meaning in Portuguese and so is a en:double entendre of the most offensive kind. One could not use that word in English without generating schoolboy sniggers, and unless a native Portuguese speaker can correct my dictionary lookup, I suspect it generates the same there too. I agree with Nick that it is worth waiting to see if his request for a retraction is met, however I do not support retaining talk page access if it is not. While Elcobbola argues this may merely be giving him en:WP:ROPE, it is also a public venue for him to continue to abuse me and others. I see no reason why Nick cannot conduct his remedial work off-wiki. -- Colin (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Not to try to get into dissecting Tuvalkin's statement, but it makes far more sense if you consider it as the 'grammatical' meaning of the word 'ejaculation'.... it's rather nonsensical the other way. It was still, however, clearly an insult, and that he would use his talk page access to make the statement while blocked is not promising. Revent^talk 21:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Revent, I think you've rather missed the point of a double entendre: "Typically one of the meanings is obvious, given the context whereas the other may require more thought. The innuendo may convey a message that would be socially awkward, sexually suggestive or offensive to state directly...A person who is unfamiliar with the hidden or alternative meaning of a sentence may fail to detect its innuendos." -- Colin (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: I know what the term means... it's just not particularly sensible, IMO, if taken that way. Irrelevant, really, since it was an insult either way, but typically in a double entendre the 'less obvious' meaning is the sexual one. Revent^talk 22:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: You are completly wrong about your statement that the portuguese ejaculação or ejaculation is a "en:double entendre of the most offensive kind". This word is never used in portuguese as an insult even if it has a [[:en:double entendre]. Try the portuguese expression "ejaculação mental", if you can understand portuguese, to understand what i mean. Tm (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Tm, it isn't used "as an insult" in English either. But in both languages it has the same two (or more) meanings, one of which is sexual. It's a perfectly fine medical term, but when utterly surrounded by insulting adjectives and comments, I'm not in any doubt, and have a hard time accepting that this rare word is the only non-offensive word in the sentence. -- Colin (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: Your getting around the issue. You said that the word ejaculation, in the context of the phrase above, "it appears the word has exactly the same meaning in Portuguese and so is a en:double entendre of the most offensive kind", yet "unless a native Portuguese speaker can correct my dictionary lookup". If still dont know i´am a native speaker of portuguese as i´am, as Tuvalkin, Portuguese, so thats the reason i´am correcting you as you asked.

As i said the word ejaculation in that context does not have a sexual inuendo when used in a portuguese text. Portuguese can be a very tricky language on its layers, contexts and subtleties. For example what in english would be usually a gross isult like m*th*rf*ck*er, in Portugal depending of contexts can be the greatest compliment or the greatest insult.

The word ejaculation, if you use a good portuguese dictionary of proferir or utter\pronounce or an acto de expelir abundantemente (ex.: ejaculação discursiva) or "act of expel abundantly (ex .: discoursive ejaculation)."=discursive blabbering. So, as you can see this word was not used as an sexual insult but a categorization of someone (stated to be a poser) using verbal blabbering to attack («harass and intimidate») other users. Let me state this again to you as i said a few months ago, Tuvalkin i and I are not in good terms, as we had previous clashes, but in all fairness his language can be harsh but he never has intentions to insult in our exchanges and, frankly, i prefer his harsh but straight, honest and to the point that other users that pretend to have concerns with other users behaviours or administrators do not follow Commons policies and when called to reason try to sweep said warning to under the rug. Tm (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Tm, the whole point of a double-entendre is that the word in that context has a perfectly innocent meaning, and if challenged, the writer can point to that meaning and claim innocence. It's the same in English: the word means a verbal outburst. But as your Portuguese dictionary shows, it also has the common alternative meaning, which unless one is discussing biology or porn, would be an offensive way of describing someone's contributions to Commons. English also has "layers, context and subtleties" and words that can be both friendly or insulting, such as "bastard", but I'm quite sure the word you cite could not be used in polite society, professional business, or against someone you are in angry dispute with, without the greatest offence being taken. It is one thing to use cuss words to ones mates in a jocular fashion. I'm afraid "he never has intentions to insult" is rather unbelievable given the abundant evidence, both in the other words in that sentence, in the paragraph that Slaunger quotes, and indeed, in the situation that got him this block in the first place. I am in agreement you that harsh honest language is acceptable at times and people whose sole complaint is that someone used an angry tone or bad word when upset are falling for big fallacy that says much about them. And I remind you of COM:AGF policy which requires to "avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence", and this is not what Tuvalkin is doing: no diffs, no specifics, no quotes, just general bad faith. -- Colin (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I can confirm the retraction was undertaken [20]. Nick (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, now that Slaunger threatens an indef block, Tuvalkin has blacked-out part of his talk page. Well, who wouldn't, if facing an indef block. Seems to me the most grudging possible "redaction", as the text is all still there. Black insults on a black background. Anyone reading the page only has to select the text and all is revealed. Really, Nick, Tuvalkin is just going through the motions. I'm not impressed. So I concur with Slaunger, A.Savin, that enough is enough. An indefinite block is not permanent, but it is up to Tuvalkin to demonstrate he has changed, not merely that he's capable of grudging responding to threats of longer blocks, and being spoon-fed by Nick as to what he should do and say. -- Colin (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I did ask Tuvalkin to redact the comments prior to the threat of an indefinite block hanging over their head/account, and I have to accept some blame regarding the redaction method - I neglected to explain how to redact comments (which is why I left a comment about the use of the {{Redacted}} template). I don't know if their method of redacting an unacceptable comment is a sneaky way to retain the personal attack, or can be attributed purely to inexperience at redacting a comment, perhaps someone remembers if Tuvalkin has made a redaction previously and the method the used ? Nick (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but he only did so after Slaunger's indef block threat. Nick, come on, Tuvlakin has 200,000 edits according to Elcobbola, I don't think he needs to be spoon fed about how to do a retraction or is "inexperienced". You are making excuses for him. And what would Tuvalkin's previous "redaction"s tell you, other than that he tried the same game before. It is about as convincing a redaction as collapsing the page with the expand-text "Open here for a good laugh". -- Colin (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Tuvalkin claims not to have known about the {{Redacted}} template - I'm trying to ascertain if that's the case, and to understand the circumstances any previous retractions have been carried out. Is he prone to rapid removal of comments only when threatened with administrative action, or are they likely to be co-operative and redact comments when issues are raised, for example. Nick (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

In all fairness, it should be noted though, that Tuvalkin also striked the text, so if you mark the black text, it is striked. Making it black and striked is for me almost the same as making the text grey and striked as the {{Redacted}} template does. At least close enough for me, and I did not know of the redacted template myself, although I have been around for 9 years here. Whether the redaction is sincere or not is for me uncertain. I cannot read Tuvalkins mind. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'm prepared to accept the redaction was clumsy rather than, to use Nick's phrase, "a sneaky way to retain the personal attack". A lot of talk of AGF recently and I'll admit the evidence of a deliberate not-really-a-retraction is weak and so, well, I'm glad it is gone now. Thank you Tuvalkin and Nick for that positive step. There is still no evidence of any change of heart in the recent statements he's made on his talk page, and if "there are further comments of this nature" would result in Nick also supporting an indefinite block. -- Colin (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose for now, considering the progress (redaction in his/her talk). Let us give another chance. Jee 04:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose - I don't see enough reason for an indef block and I don't think it's the best way to resolve this issue. Wikicology (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose per Tuvalkin and Nick's recent positive actions. Hope this will not happen again and let's move on. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 12:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose AGF allows for commonsense. Double entendres on a user's talk page are not grounds for making indef blocks, especially in the context of the same thread, we see the blocking admin using the f-word and we correctly accept their apology. Less drama please, and if someone wishes to make assertions about another volunteer, let's just stick to asking concisely for admin action, listing the diffs required to prove that administrator action is necessary and give them a trout slap and collapse any tangential discussion if allegations are made and unproven or based on he said/she said arguments. --Fæ (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose AGF and agree with Fæ, Pokéfan95, Wikicology, Jee wrote above and Stemnock wrote below. Message placed above Stemnoc's to stay out of the subsequent thread. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose AGF and agree with Fæ, Pokéfan95, Wikicology, Jee wrote above and Stemoc wrote below. Message placed above Stemnoc's to stay out of the subsequent thread. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Meh, just Colin playing "I'm a victim, save me, save me" card for the umpteenth time.. nothing to see here, move along..--Stemoc 14:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You do realise, Stemoc, that the top-level section was created by me because Tuvalkin used mental illness to insult Jcb with . And this subsection was created by Slaunger when Tuvalkin responded to his block with more offensive insults to me. And Tuvalkin would likely have been indef blocked last night if he hadn't finally redacted his insults. Both, complaints per DefendEachOther, not as you describe and not "nothing". But then, why let the facts in the way of being nasty to me when the opportunity arises. -- Colin (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Well if you did not do this every so often, people would actually take you seriously, If Tuvalkin insulted Jcb, how is that your business? If Jcb was offended, he should have told Tuvalkin to apologize or redact his comments, who are you to get involved in this? Are you an admin? an elected police officer on commons? I don't think any admin would have indeffed Tuvalkin for his comments. It was OK and it would have been dealt with in a professional way but you had to exasperate the situation further by goading Tuvalkin which led to his block..I don't like talking to you because I think you enjoy the attention.... an advice though, as it is with life, You should learn to mind your own business and not try to add salt to the wound...as the saying goes on enwiki "drop the stick and walk away", Tuvalkin has been blocked hours ago, what more do you want?--Stemoc 15:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It is quite obvious you did not read/understand the link I gave. Tuvalkin was blocked solely and totally on the words he said to Jcb before I even began commenting on the matter. I did not "goad" him into insulting Jcb. Stemoc, you need to get familiar with the facts, and stick to the topic, rather than just using the opportunity to mock me. -- Colin (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Stemoc, your comment here and here are full of errors and so self-humiliating. Jee 15:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Aww cute, A Tag team..shame, I prefer to work alone...You can't really use the same trick twice on me but thanks for trying and proving my point....toodles..--Stemoc 15:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment I believe my proposal to indef block Tuvalkin is moot since they have redacted the comments I complained about. I opened the section stating I think we should use indef blocks more, and maintain the block until the blocked user appeared to have acknowledged the problem, and indicate it would not happen again. Tuvalkin has indeed done so now on his talk page. Some are concerned that it is not sincere, personally I am in doubt, but in accordance with AGF I think the block should be lifted now since what lead to the blocking has been acknowledged by Tuvalkin as not acceptable. I do not see any particular point in maintaining it for two weeks now. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support, even though it's useless and too late... --A.Savin 19:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Self-image deletion request

Please delete previously uploaded old 2 self-images on File:Abhiriksh.jpg which I had uploaded for user page. Please keep current image only. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks. AbhiRiksh (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done by Túrelio. Taivo (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Verdy p

I have been having a disagreement with User:Verdy p about sort keys for metacategories. What I would like your help with is his/her use of personal attacks against me both in our discussions and in edit summaries where he/she has reverted edits that I made. Some specific examples:

• [29] [30] [31] Edit summaries of "stupid bot" where Verdy p reverted some of my changes (I was not using a bot, by the way)

  You're wrong: AWB is a bot and you used it massively on thousands of categories that were scrupulously sorted and now transformed in a mess.

  There was a discussion about the change you wanted (initiated by you) and you did not even hear what others were saying to you, you sent your AWB bot to change everything without even looking at what it was really doing.

  So yes, you abused. verdy_p (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

AWB is not a bot. It is a tool. It can be used with bots, but I wasn't doing that.

The sort keys in question here are for metacategories. When working on those, I did not use AWB on thousands of categories. There were fewer than 600.

The discussion I started at the Village pump was about a different sorting issue, so I did not "send" AWB to do anything with that.

I would also like to repeat that I stopped my changes when you objected so that we could discuss the issue. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• [32] Telling me I can't understand things
• [33] Calling me lazy
• [34] [35] Calling my changes abusive
• [36] Calling my changes stupid and abusive, and calling me an abuser
• [37] Deciding that my changes weren't just stupid, but REALLY stupid

Besides all that, there seems to be an ownership issue, as indicated with this edit, among others.

I'd appreciate any help you can give. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Auntof6, I have crossed paths with P.Verdy in several other projects (i.I.r.c.: vexillology, calendaristics, and Unicode) and I should say that he comes across, to me at last, as a difficult personality. He’s not one who’s views can be safely dismissed as an harmless eccentric, though, as more often than not he has interesting points to share. He’s however consistently “complicated” in a way that seems to be purely personal and not in any way made necessary by the subjects in discussion. (I confess that I do skip his posts in threaded mailinglist discussions to avoid excessive eye-roll and head-shaking.) Those are discussion/forum projects, though, not content-building projects, as we have here — and I’m not recognizing in the utterances quoted above the usual stance P.Verdy takes in his e-mail posts, where he’s usually coy and timid, even if somewhat smug.

The matter of your disagreement is notable, I agree (I’m right now in the process of engaging another user about multiple removed prefixed spaces in parent category keys under Category:Roman numerals…), and it should be discussed in a broader manner. I did avoid engaging P.Verdy in the VP discussion before, as I fear (based on the mentioned experience with him) that it would/will be tiresome, regardless of finding him in agreement or disagreement with my own views on the matter, but, as you explain above, the issue seems to have slipped off from mere technical disagreement into the realm of intimidation/harassment (and some would tell I’m an expert in those, too).

That’s the help I can give — sorry that’s not really helpful at all. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: Here on this page, I was trying to leave aside the substance of the conflict, but I appreciate your insights. I'm hoping that an admin will be able to help somehow. I would welcome any other topic-related comments you might have, perhaps on my talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment @Verdy p: This edit is problematic, as you're beginning to comment on Auntof6 personally rather than her actions by calling her "an abuser". Using words like stupid or abusive in discussions with other editors is inappropriate and nonconstructive; using words like that to describe Auntof6 herself are personal attacks, and will get you blocked. If you disagree with Auntof6's actions, you need to discuss this with her in a respectful manner without using insulting language. You can also begin a discussion at COM:CFD or COM:VP to get the opinions of others. Again, please be considerate toward Auntof6 and don't make personal attacks. lNeverCry 21:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

  Visibly you've not followed what happened in the correct order. And no these are not personal opinions about that user about about what he did massively after he started reverting things I made correctly, and that was discussed with others (when he complained) telling him there was nothing wrong in what I did and it was correct, and then decided to use massive automated edits without looking at the effect. No, he did not discuss anywhere his massive counterproductive edits breaking months of work by many people fixing pages one by one, and merging unrelated categories (e.g. mixing Aquitaine and Nouvelle-Aquitaine, which are unrelated). I received many thank you whane I cleaned up the French regions, and then he isolately used automation to break everything done page by page, without telling anyone (and ignoring even the discussion he had started himself).

  So the comments are directly about these massive edits for what they are: yes he abused his privileges for using AWB massively and breaking months or years of patient work by many people (not just me). verdy_p (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Tangent: Verdy_p, please note that an aunt is a she, not a he. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Verdy p: I haven't followed what happened, as my concern isn't with the category issue, it's with your behavior. Using words like stupid and abuser aren't helpful. They don't resolve issues, they make them harder to resolve. You may be right or wrong, that's not my focus here; this is the admin's noticeboard for user problems. Behavior of users is what's important here. Discuss problems, disagree with others, make your argument, but do so in a respectful way. I can understand if you're frustrated, but Auntof6 is an experienced and mature editor. I'm sure you can resolve the above issues calmly and without any personal attacks. lNeverCry 23:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Experienced and mature, just like me, but better informed than her about how France is structured and that she broke with an automated massive edit using some weak pattern matching and not looking at was really done with her bot, launched when there was already a discussion (but in much fewer categories than what was then performed, cancelling years of edits by many people). verdy_p (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Ezequiel Batista Mora

This account was created yesterday, and immediately uploaded more than a dozen blatant copyvios (speedied), and other copyvios/SCOPE violations with pending DRs. All of the user's other contributions have been bizarre, long religious rants ([38][39][40][41]), some of which vandalized/removed existing content, and the (since deleted) articles Ezequiel Batista Mora and Los misterios del Apocalipsis, which were more of the same. This seems to be a case of NOTHERE. I would be included to indef block pending acknowledgement of the copyvio/scope issues, but bring it here for further input. Эlcobbola _talk 20:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

 Support This user is obviously not here to be a constructive member of the community. Best to limit the damage with an indef block. lNeverCry 22:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Indefinitely blocked. The massive religious screed posted to his talk page would itself have been sufficient evidence, IMO. Revent^talk 23:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Watchduck; categorization expert(s) needed

Could anybody investigate this user producing numerous edits to image description pages and categories? A person making such things shouldn’t do categorization (note that an explicitly worded notice about opposition to Category: Images with dihedral symmetry was present), whereas I don’t edit wikis actively anymore, hence won’t participate. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind if someone looks into categorization work I have done. (User:Watchduck/cat is a place where some of my work is mentioned.) But I would like to mention, that the situation I had found here was much more convoluted than what I normally encounter and deal with.

There was a note that "Chiral images with rotational symmetry" "is opposed to" Category: Images with dihedral symmetry and its subcategories. What is that supposed to mean? If something has chiral and rotational symmetry, it has dihedral symmetry. So the name was counterintuitive, and there was no further explanation. What is "is opposed" supposed to mean? How about an example what belongs in this but not in the other category? Needless to say, that the images in this six years old category had nothing in common that those in Category: Images with dihedral symmetry did not also have in common. Watchduck (quack) 19:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Watchduck: Open any damn dictionary and look for the word “chiral[ity]”. Then open any damn encyclopedia and read what the “dihedral group” is. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

You seem to imply, that "Chiral images with rotational symmetry" is a perfectly self-explaining name. Maybe you could just assume for a moment that it is not, and give us some examples of images that are chiral with rotational symmetry, but do not have dihedral symmetry. I do not doubt that what you are saying makes sense, I just doubt that it is self-explaining. And I can assure you, that the category was a mess anyway, and that there was the same kind of content as in the other one. Watchduck (quack) 19:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I seem to imply that images (as well as subcats) from Category: Chiral images with rotational symmetry were indeed chiral, whereas images (and subcats) from Category: Images with dihedral symmetry were not chiral. Now the latter category and its descendants are, obviously, contaminated and dislocated by Randy edits like this (possibly already not so, 08:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)). Again, chirality is the antonym to mirror symmetry. For whom on Earth was it counterintuitive?! Now all the Commons can see how Watchduck engages in pointless sophistry instead of apologies for disruption and starting to fix the damage. Should one entrust him categorization of images and, especially, maintaining the categories’ structure? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I find this quite creepy. You wrote to a user, because you saw on my talk page (when you wrote me), that he had an argument with me before. I see this as an attempt to make this as personal and emotional as possible. Watchduck (quack) 19:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I wrote to AnonMoos because trust him, and don’t know about your arguments, really. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

That category included things like Category:Triskelion, Category:Triple spiral, Category:Roundabout mandatory signs, , , or . No mirror symmetry here.
Anyway, I think I see for what kind of images you must have originally intended that category: Images like , or that have rotational symmetry, but are almost chiral. (One might define them as "things with rotational symmetry that throw a shadow with dihedral symmetry".) If you had written that on the category page, people might have used the category in the way you had intended. With proper restrictions ( but not ) it may be useful to put these images in their own categories, and I am willing to help.
But I maintain that my change was by no means a terrible one. What I have removed was not what you had intended it to be, but what it had become. Watchduck (quack) 20:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I indeed should not have moved to 4-fold dihedral symmetry. I moved Borromean crosses to 2-fold dihedral symmetry now. Watchduck (quack) 13:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

This looks now some bit better. I don’t have a strong opinion how some specific things (such as Borromean crosses) should be categorized. May be a separate category of “things with rotational symmetry that throw a shadow with dihedral symmetry” is warranted, may be it isn’t… anyway, “chiral” was a valid classification property for rotationally symmetric pics where dihedral symmetry (= “¬chiral”) is rather ubiquitous but is missing dramatically from many important cases. Some efforts were applied to classify several categories and numerous separate images to either of two sides. Watchduck destroyed one of the branches, making no attempt to improve or duly discuss the chiral/dihedral point, until just now. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Could you please just give some clear examples of images that are chiral with rotational symmetry (as opposed to having dihedral symmetry), and that in your opinion are currently miscategorized? Watchduck (quack) 16:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

They are not categorized now; this branch of categories is removed outright. There are some categories (e.g. Rotation symbols) where one could look for (some particular cases of) chiral rotationally symmetric images, but few such categories are accessible from Chirality, whereas under Images with rotational symmetry a surfer has no option related to chirality. Or am I missing something? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Some observations:
1) I would have come to this page whether I was summoned or not, since I'm going to open an unrelated case.
2) I'm not really an expert in the mathematics of symmetry, (as opposed to someone who has uploaded a lot of abstract images with different types of symmetry).
3) Incnis_Mrsi seems to have a consistent vision that the farther down something is in the category tree, the more symmetry it inherits. So Category:72-fold rotational symmetry is a subcategory of 36-fold rotational symmetry, 24-fold rotational symmetry, 18-fold rotational symmetry, 12-fold rotational symmetry, 9-fold rotational symmetry, 8-fold rotational symmetry, 6-fold rotational symmetry, 4-fold rotational symmetry, 3-fold rotational symmetry, 2-fold rotational symmetry etc. If User:Watchduck has a different vision, he needs to articulate it and express it.
4) A chiral image is one where reflecting it in the mirror results in an image which is different from the original, in the sense that no amount of rotation or moving (translation) of the flipped image will allow it to be superimposed over the original. Therefore, something with dihedral symmetry is by definition NOT chiral, while something with rotational symmetry without reflection symmetry IS chiral. Of course, something can be chiral without having any rotational symmetries at all (as in left-handed glove etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: Not necessary [more] symmetry; just more specific categorization property. We’re discussing wanton disruptions under Category: Chiral images with rotational symmetry (namely, whether this particular property was helpful for classification), not special problems of nesting categories. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to the comment by AnonMoos I actually understood the problem now. I was indeed wrong about the meaning of chiral. (Because two chiral objects are mirror symmetric, I had falsely equated chiral with mirror symmetric.) Sorry for that.

Anyway, the only actual difference that we have here is that I think that e.g. images with only 4-fold rotational symmetry should be directly in that category, and only categories like 4-fold dihedral symmetry or 8-fold rotational symmetry should be nested under it. You seem to want that no images are directly in 4-fold rotational symmetry, but that the ones that are not dihedral should also be in a nested subcategory 4-fold rotational symmetry only or Chiral images with 4-fold rotational symmetry. I generally don't think that "this but not that" categories are a great idea, but they can have their uses.

Concerning "They are not categorized now": I have simply moved images with only 4-fold rotational symmetry to that category and images with 4-fold dihedral symmetry to that one. I find the idea that everything that is not mirror symmetric ought to be categorized under Chirality a bit over the top, but why not... Watchduck (quack) 12:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Darn, one of the images in w:Chirality (mathematics) was even added by me. Watchduck (quack) 12:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

How about looking what does a freaking category contain next time, before mass edits and making redirects? There is even safer rule: don’t touch when don’t understand. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Yes, the redirect was wrong. But contrary to the impression that is created here, I have not miscategorized anything. I have simply used the default way of categorizing things by the properties they have, rather than by the properties they don't have.
The consistent vision that the farther down something is in the category tree, the more symmetry it inherits makes perfect sense. It is also realized in a way that makes sense: Images that have only 6-fold rotational symmetry are directly in that category, while 6-fold dihedral or 12-fold rotational are nested below. What would not really make sense would be categories like 6-fold rotational symmetry (but not more than 6-fold) opposed to 12, 18, 24-fold rotational or 6-fold rotational symmetry (but no reflectional symmetry) opposed to 6-fold dihedral. Because we usually don't categorize by what something is not. The category I have removed was "Images with rotational but no reflectional symmetry", and I don't think we really need that - just like we probably don't need "Images with reflectional but no rotational symmetry". (We also don't have Non-Communist red stars or Non-Nazi Swastikas - although this exception exists.)
Anyway, I don't have a strong opinion on this. If there is consensus that not having reflectional symmetry aka Chirality should be treated like a property in it's own right, that's what we will have. But then we should also have proper subcategories like the beforementioned. Chirality contains mainly molecules and knots (and probably should contain Chiral polyhedra like the Snub cubes), but it would be very strange if all images without reflectional symmetry were in there. Watchduck (quack) 17:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I was rather annoyed when "Category:Non-Nazi swastikas" was deleted -- I thought it served a quite useful purpose for years (see [42], [43]). The word "chiral" comes from the Greek stem for hand (χειρ-) and a Latin adjective suffix, and so is a fancy way of saying "handed" (as in "left-handed" etc.) AnonMoos (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

For the messy real world categories like Non-Nazi swastikas are quite unhelpful, I think. E.g. someone else may think that Hindu vs. Non-Hindu swastikas is the major distinction, and that would lead to complications. More importantly, some people may found a Hindu-Nazi organization and use swastikas, and then you have Hindu-Nazi swastikas both in Nazi and in Hindu swastikas - through which they would also be in Non-Nazi swastikas. When people are involved, better expect the unexpected.

But for mathematical topics the approach of partitioning a category into all possible subcategories from the very beginning can have some merit. E.g. for Polychora I would prefer a partitioning into convex/nonconvex, uniform/non-uniform, etc. But in this case I would find it consistent to go deeper in the category tree only when more symmetry is added.

BTW: I would prefer if 6-fold rotational would not directly contain 24-fold rotational, because that's already in there through 12-fold rotational. Technically this is over-categorization. To me it would seem enough when all of them (and not just the prime numbers) are in Rotational symmetry by order. Watchduck (quack) 23:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Kanonkas not active

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.

See below --Jee 12:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

---

This post follows a brief discussion at Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard# User:Kanonkas. The formal definition at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship states "An "inactive admin" is one who has made fewer than 5 admin actions on Commons in the past 6 months." I believe User:Odder does periodic scans of activity and handles retiring those inactive admins. However, it has come to our attention that User:Kanonkas is not really active in any dictionary definition of that word. On both Commons and Wikipedia, he appears to be keeping his adminship by making the technically required edits/actions every six months.

• He's made no contributions to Commons since June 2015 and only 56 contributions since November 2010. His last engagement with the wider community here was in February 2012 and since that time, a couple of posts on User:Natuur12's talk page in July 2014 is the total extent of his interaction with any Commons user at all.
• He's uploaded nothing to Commons since 2009.
• His admin log shows he has only performed 102 admin actions since November 2010 and these come in bursts lasting merely minutes and roughly six months apart. User:Stemoc notes that many of the actions are "blocking proxies which don't even edit on commons". This can only really be described as gaming the system to retain the admin bit.

The roles at Commons:Administrators and Commons:Bureaucrats expect "experienced and trusted members of the community". It can't really be said that Kanonkas is any longer a "member of the community" but merely an occasional visitor who doesn't even say hello to anyone when dropping in. Since the automatic process is not applicable, I suspect we need to go through a community request for de-adminship. This post is therefore to determine if there is consensus for that step. There is no abuse of tools or mistrust involved and so Kanonkas may re-apply through the regular process if he decides to become active again.

I don't personally see much point in merely requesting only a de-crat (or having an additional de-crat discussion/vote) since I believe it is pretty clear adminship is not appropriate any longer. I will post a message on his talk page and send an email. -- Colin (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

•  Support de-admin  Support de-crat; Per above. And why he is blocking this IP (there are more examples) as open proxy? I see no edits and abusefilter log entry's. It looks to me like he is just making +5 (unneeded?) admin actions to keep the bit. Not the behavior which i expect from a crat. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support de-admin and  Support de-crat. Honestly, the only admin actions he makes don't make scense at all. Inactive for 6 years. Natuur12 (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support both. I brought this up originally at BN as a possible 'oversight', since I noticed he had not 'edited' for well over a year, but withdrew that 'prodecural' request when it was pointed out that he'd met the technical criteria to retain his rights... in, however, the most minimal way possible. Note that his most recent 'edits', however, were merely flagging the IP talk pages as open proxies.. the short conversation with Natuur in July of 2014 was his last interaction with the community.. well over two years ago. Note that Kanonkas appears to be using the same tactic to retain his adminship on the English Wikipedia, where he's not been truly 'active' since 2009. While this is within the rules both places, and not evidence of bad faith or abuse, it's also pretty clearly gaming the system while not contributing significantly to either project. It seems exceedingly useless to have him listed as an active crat, in particular. Revent^talk 16:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support both as well unfortunately for the same reasons mentioned above. Just enough log actions to keep the A&B statuses and some of those actions appear to be just checks in the box to keep the access. With the frequent policy and software changes these days its best to have admins with more familiarity with whats happening on the projects.Reguyla (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment I have send them a mail with a pointer to this discussion, as I would find it weird if my actions were discussed online without anyone notifying me about the discussion. After all, Kanonkas was back in the good old mellow Rocket000 days very active and served the community well, and it would seem more polite and courteous to give them a chance to request change of 'crat or admin status themselves without doing it forcefully. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, you do have a point but the hint given by Stein at his talk page a year ago was pretty obvious. Natuur12 (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, and I had also overlooked that Colin had placed a new notice on his talk page, so it was not an entirely fair criticism, sorry about that. Anyway, it is perhaps not that likely that the talk page notices are seen, thus the email. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Slaunger, I also sent an email, which I mentioned above. I agree that the best thing would be for them to give up the badge voluntarily, though one wonders why go through all that hassle of doing 5 minutes pointless admin on Commons and Wikipedia every six months. -- Colin (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Colin Indeed you did write above that you had send an email. My apologies for also overlooking that. I agree that given that there seems to be no will to turn in the badge voluntarily I also  Support removal of the 'crat and admin bits. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support removing rights. We need active admins, not dormant accounts. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support de-admin/de-crat per others above. Admin/crat in name only for quite a while now. I never see this person around. lNeverCry 22:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support--Jarekt (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support opening a de-admin cum de-crat discussion. Jee 13:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support both. Frankly, it's hard to understand why tools are claimed if they used only for sake of claiming. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support de-crat and de-admin. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 11:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose I suppose I have to oppose... I never understood what harm hardly active admins did to a project and I suppose I never will. Yes, I about do the same amount of admin actions as Kanonkas above, and yet, I am here. I answer to pings, I monitor my talk page, and I do, time allowing, my 10/20 admin actions a year. I do them well too. I don't just delete copyvios, but I go and ping users on their home wiki, annouce that an image is being deleted etc. Oldschool. So sure, you can de-admin us, or up the threshhold, but what will the project gain? In my opinion, nothing, on the contrary. It will lose those one or three hours of my time a year I give every time I do my admin actions. De-admin people who don't answer to pings, who don't react to emails, who don't bother to go and sign where it is required, this I can understand. De-admin people because they don't do "enough", I don't understand. Some is better than not at all, no? I am not holding on to the tools because I am power hungry, or want some kind of status. I am holding on to the tools because for the past... 12 years (yes, twelve) almost to the day (my first edit dates back to Oct 31st 2004), I have cared for this project. At first from very close, and now from further away, because I have little time and it's gotten complicated to be really active here. But I am here, I care. And who knows, maybe one day I will do more than 10 admin actions a year. Hell, I even made Wikimedia my day job! All I ask you is to consider the people behind the tools and the nicknames. Ask them why they want to keep the tools, before all flocking here to de-admin someone who has cared enough, and even more than thousands of people on here with a red link for their user page, and who has come back every six months to do their "admin actions". This is a conversation as old as the wikis...-- notafish }<';> 22:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

  Sorry, turning up every six months to do the bare minimum to keep the sysop hat for several years in a row, just gives the appearance of gaming the system. It's frequently said that holding sysop hats should be no big deal, neither should handing them back if you are honestly not using them. Admins that hand back the mop when they are busy with other things in their lives, rarely have an issue getting through a reconfirmation RFA when they have the volunteer time to be active again. --Fæ (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

  @Notafish: Doing the bare minimum causes several problems. First, it gives our community an inaccurate idea of admin participation. People see that we have a count of 234 admins, and many will think we should have no problem with backlogs. They don't realize that 75% or more of the work is being done by the most active 10 or 20 admins. This can lead editors to be very demanding with active admins thinking we're brushing them off or not taking them seriously enough, when the truth is that we're just very busy, and it can make it harder to recruit new admins, as they may not see the need, nor might RFA voters. Second, I don't understand why or how inactive admins show up only once per six month period? Why not once a month or every couple weeks? If someone is so busy in day to day life that they can only spare a few minutes or hours in 6 months to Commons, that's far from being a dedicated participant in the project. Third, how do inactive admins keep up with the progress of the community; licensing changes, new tools, active sockmasters, etc? Fourth, If you do things in a slow and "old school" manner because you've only got a few deletions to do, what happens when other editors expect someone like me or Jcb to notify them on their home wiki, even though we do thousands of deletions each week? Fifth, I can carry all the inactive admins easily; someone who does 10 log actions is wasting their time. It's like helping someone dig a deep hole by removing a spoonful of dirt as you stroll by. lNeverCry 23:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

  User:INeverCry, I think it only fair to say I think spending a large amount of one's day on Commons, on a regular basis, probably isn't wise either, both for one's own "work/life" balance but also in terms of attitude of importance. I'm not saying one develops a big head, but that one then finds it hard to take necessary breaks, because you feel you are letting folk down or that the huge backlog cannot possibly do without you. It happens to, for example, doctors and nurses who become over-worked and feel that taking any sick leave or holidays is unfair on their colleagues. It is much healthier to realise the difference between being greatly appreciated and being vital. Nobody on Commons is vital and none of us gets paid! But at the other end of the spectrum, while I accept Notafish does hisher admin tasks diligently, it's pretty clear from the contribs and logs that Notafish is playing the same game wrt keeping hisher admin badge, and apart from those actions, participating on the POTY vote is pretty much the only community interaction he'sshe's done for years. I do consider there is a person behind Notifish account but as a non-admin myself, I don't consider being an admin a "promotion" or a better class of user. I suspect Notafish does, and so is hurt at the suggestion the role isn't appropriate for himher any longer. -- Colin (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

  Hello, Colin. notafish is a she, to start with, and no, she's not keeping her admin status to be part of a select club, but because it does *make* her do things on Commons she probably wouldn't do otherwise. Consider this a kick in the **** rather than some kind of aspiration to a "better class". To suggest otherwise is putting intentions into my actions that are simply not there. I thank you for refraining from this. Also, thank you for paying attention to the blanket statements you use, such as '"apart from those actions, participating on the POTY vote is pretty much the only community interaction he's done for years"'. I think I have done and I'm doing my fair bit of community interaction altogether, even if not exactly and only here. Following a few links might have given you a hint as to how dormant I really am. I do appreciate you pointing out that doing too much might have a strange effect on attitude in the longer run, though. This said, I want to thank INeverCry for providing reasons why being a "dormant" admin might pose a problem at all. I don't agree with all of them, but at least some do make sense, and will make me less angry for losing my admin rights at the end of this conversation (I mean, it looks like it's going this way...), on the contrary to unstructured arguments from other people seeming to imply that all of us dormant admins are just doing it for the good looks. -- notafish }<';> 11:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

  Sorry about the he/she mistake. I have looked at your Commons contributions and logs and really, that's all that's relevant to you being a Commons admin. It's fair to say this is your only interaction with the Commons community in 2016. I see from the Wikimedia newcomers session slides you admit to being a "somewhat dormant Commons admin". I think it would be accurate to say you care about the wider Wikimedia project and engage with the wider Wikimedia community (of which there is some overlap) but that your interest in the Commons project has waned to the point where you aren't really active here. Your handful of admin actions, carefully done they may be, are a drop in the ocean as INC explains. Can't you be happy to be a Wikimedian rather than holding onto a position that you would certainly not gain if you requested it today. You've spent more effort explaining why you should still be an admin than actually being an admin. Which is why I question why you are so keen not to become merely a "User" on Commons. Btw, your username, I discovered this summer that Colin=Hake in French. So iamafish! -- Colin (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

  lol @ iamafish. Yep indeed, it is a fish. It's also a very beautiful first name in French (you'd pronounce it differently than in English). Well, you totally hit it there with your comment '"you've spent more time defending your adminship than making admin actions"'. Yep, I was thinking this myself. But maybe I'll never have to spend time again doing admin actions, so... maybe this is worth it? :D. Oh well, I'm very alone in this (which I hope is winning me cookie points because all of the other people listed below have not reacted to the ping :P). We'll see where this leads us. Just make sure that we are pinged about our fate. -- notafish }<';> 13:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

  Sorry, but to be honest i agree with Colin. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

  No need to be sorry! -- notafish }<';> 13:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

  Commons could have the equivalent of these lists, where activity is more obvious... with popups one can also see when the last edit was without even clicking. -- Mentifisto 02:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

•  Support I do not generally support applying stupidly the rule, but here it's clearly a case where user is not active for a long time and just perform the mandatory actions to keep the status. --PierreSelim (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Defining not-really-active admins

Should the Commons community decide that Kanonkas has not been active enough to justify retaining sysop rights, then the same standard should be defined in a measurable way, and applied fairly and equally to all administrators. For the purpose of discussion and the production of useful statistics, the two lists below show the least active administrator accounts based on the simplistic measure of number of edits made on Commons as queried from the wiki database today:

Administrators with fewer than 10 edits in the last 12 months:

1. JGHowes
2. Mentifisto
3. Wuzur
4. Alpertron
5. AzaToth
6. Kwj2772
7. Davepape
8. Kanonkas
9. GifTagger
10. Siebrand

Administrators with fewer than 40 edits made over 2 years:

1. JGHowes
2. Mentifisto
3. Alison
4. Wuzur
5. Notafish
6. Angr
7. Tom
8. AzaToth
9. Kwj2772
10. Klemen Kocjancic
11. Yuval Y
12. Bastique
13. Davepape
14. Kanonkas
15. Alno
16. Polarlys
17. Siebrand

The levels of contributions to Commons from these accounts are extremely low. In the light that re-running RFA for an administrator that has rights removed due to inactivity should be non-controversial, it seems reasonable to either set the minimal bar slightly higher to demonstrate an active interest in Commons, or to ask these administrators to reconsider holding the sysop tools on Commons. --Fæ (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

See my comment above. -- notafish }<';> 22:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

As an addendum, an alternative metric would be to check numbers of admin actions. This is already how inactive admins are identified, but changing the minimum threshold may prompt recently inactive admins to reexamine whether they should hand back their sysop tools if they are going to stay relatively uninterested in admin tasks. This table shows sysop accounts that have made 10 or fewer admin actions in a year:

Administrators with 10 or fewer admin actions in the last 360 days.

Account	Actions
Elya	5
Geni	10
Tom	9
Okki	8
Dantadd	7
Alpertron	0
Sandstein	9
Waldir	7
Elitre	9
Putnik	8
CommonsDelinker	0
Wuzur	8
KrinkleBot	0
Mono	6
PumpkinSky	7
GifTagger	0

The bot accounts in this list stand out as being candidates to check with the operators if the sysop rights are relevant any longer. --Fæ (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker's admin bit should not be removed, since the bot is using it for COM:CDC. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 11:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I have always said that we need a higher threshold of activity for admins. But admins loosing the right for inactivity should be able to get it back without a new vote, after a period of activity (3 months?, or one month with a support by 2 other admins?). Regards, Yann (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

This is very easy to bypass the threshold, some admins (won't say who and they are not in this list) only use their tools on their own files and never participate in backlogs, DRs, AN matters/requests, community discussions or anything. That's a shame. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 12:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Thibaut120094: using admin tools only on their own is nothing wrong IMO, unless we have too many admins and the others are looking for extra job.

It is question what is better: less number of admins or less job for an admin.

I think, that if they are still active users and they are tracking rule changes so their admin actions are OK, there is nothing wrong here.

Ankry (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the six years of inactivity for Kanonkas is exceptional and a good case made that the user is no longer part of the community (few people know him and he knows few of us). If that's at one end of the spectrum, and the threshold used by the semi-automatic six-month threshold policed by Odder is at the other end, then perhaps we should have a policy for the community querying an admin's qualification to retain the tools that doesn't require misuse of tools or distrust. Any hard threshold is possible to game but query-results like above can be useful to determine accounts worth investigating and having a word with. A quick glance at the first list showed GifTagger and Siebrand are inactive enough for me to think it worth querying with them. I think an admin should demonstrate a mix of admin log actions (meaningful blocks, deletions, etc) and also user/community interaction in their contribs. Yann's suggestion of not requiring a vote to return, I'm not sure about. If someone drops off the radar for six months, they can already appeal against Odder's axe, but if they've been pretty inactive for a year, then a vote is required. The community churns and people change and I'm not sure "admin for life" is a healthy approach. -- Colin (talk) 12:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm very favorable to harden the activity threshold which is (a bit ridiculous) currently about "5 admin actions on Commons in the past 6 months" and to change it to 30 (or 50) admin actions on Commons in the past 3 months. Which is very reasonable considering the number of copyright infringement that are uploaded every days, not counting the other admin actions that are likely to be done. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • How about those who only like handling spam? If it's just copyright then sysop bots could be more efficient. -- Mentifisto 17:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
    • We have plenty of them which should be deleted as well but you aren't active in that area either so your comment is a bit inappropriate. Natuur12 (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to say this without being rude, but... your log of admin actions clearly shows that you also know how to count to five. Revent^talk

@Mentifisto: To be honest, after reading your comment above, i think you should retire as a commons sysop. sorry. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

...what's wrong with it, the suggestion of automation? -- Mentifisto 00:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mentifisto: This comment confirms my concerns. Apart from that you activity here is very, very, very low - imho not enough to keep the tools. And last but not least: The fact that you are popping up here to defend yourself ins such a way is imho shocking. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, my apologies if commenting here is offensive, but if everyone else can comment I don't see what's so shocking about simply giving my opinion. I'm not defending my inactivity, I'm simply adding ideas to the formation of some consensus. -- Mentifisto 16:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Being an admin involves engagement with the community, not just deleting a few files or blocking a few IPs every six months. Someone who hasn't talked to anyone else on Commons since March 2015 isn't really a "member of the community". -- Colin (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

What difference does talking make in a wiki that is mostly about files? -- Mentifisto 23:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The files here are mostly uploaded and maintained by human beings, and/or are sorted, categorized and maintained by human beings. People are important here, just as they are on any WMF project. People often need help with technical matters, advice about categories, answers to copyright questions, help from admins with trolls and socks that're causing problems, and many other things that require discussion. lNeverCry 00:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with INeverCry. I'm afraid that your comment about user engagement being unimportant in a project mostly about files tells me all that is broken about Commons attitude to Adminship -- we promote folk who have made lots of edits to files or uploaded lots of files or made comments about files, and often completely ignore whether this person is personally suited to handle the people on this project in a manner that the admin tools require. -- Colin (talk) 08:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

But... the central theme of Commons is files... if it was a Wikipedia then presumably people have some standards on how to write, but the only equivalent of that here would be photography skills... other than that, it seems to me, it's just a variable 'x' people have standards for. -- Mentifisto 16:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Basic statistics: Mentifisto passed an RFA in 2009 when they had made 1,049 total edits to Commons. As of today, 7 years later, they have made a total of 1,548 (not counting deletions). That's 7 years of wearing the sysop hat with a mean average contribution of 71 edits per year. --Fæ (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

 Comment On a slight tangent, to address the point raised, the last time this was discussed (not long ago) it was estimated that it would cost the WMF over a million dollars, a year, to use software such as the TinEye API to attempt to automatically flag images that were previously published on the Internet, and that this would still not be able to consider the vast majority of the factors that need to be considered when assessing such images. Revent^talk 21:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a bit different topic as non of them mentioned above are crats. The scope of such a discussion is at COM:VP or COM:VPP. Jee 13:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Jee. Do people think it worth having a community discussion on what level of activity/engagement is expected of admins/crats. Since the policy requires "experienced and trusted members of the community" it seems to follow that anyone lacking significant up-to-date experience or who isn't engaging with the community is no longer qualified to be an admin, regardless of their merits as a person. -- Colin (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This project, unlike enwiki tries to reduce its 'bloated' administrators by removing those that choose not to be active, adminship is not permanent...there is a saying in rugby "Use it or lose it" in regards to possession, same should apply here, its sad that 2 very inactive admins are opposing this because obviously it affects them...I remember being part of a similar discussion on enwiki 8 years ago which was overturned by inactive admins unwilling to get rid of their rights due to inactivity, lets hope it does not happen here...Wikis are larger now so its really hard to fathom why it would be hard for administrators to makes no less than 100 admins actions a year without the need to block IP's as proxies as Proxies are blocked by stewards globally already...It should also not just be limited to random admin activity but also community engagement as Colin pointed out above..An admin not willing to be part of a project regardless of their standing on wikimedia is not an admin that deserves to be part of this project..or any project for that matter..--Stemoc 03:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

In en there was a problem with getting an inactivity policy in the first place, here there is one, which should have its own discussion if it needs changing. I'm merely commenting, not opposing. -- Mentifisto 07:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree the case of Kankonas (who I had much contact with way back when) is exceptional. But for the rest of these cases this is just looking for a problem where none exists. Unless these people are doing something wrong, there is no problem. PumpkinSky talk 12:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

One think I would argue is that common's cross project role means we should at least consider how active people are elsewhere. If someone is only slightly active on commons but say highly active on the welsh wikipedia they are likely still being useful for both projects.Geni (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• Why so? Taken to the extreme, that argument could be used to defend that being very active in one single project makes it a good idea to give someone admin rights in all other projects, which is patent nonsense. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Images from say the French wikipedia can't suddenly appear on the welsh wikipedia. Vandalism to images on the English wikipedia doesn't have much impact on the German wikipedia. Its also the best hope commons has for dealing with the "we need someone who speaks Ukrainian" problem.Geni (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• Not to mention that there’s activity, and there’s admin activity. If a Commons admin is extremely active in uploading and curating but doesn’t use their tools, then they have no business being an admin. This should not be an issue. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Why? Someone having access to the tools doesn't in itself do any damage. Issues only arise when they are not engaged at all.Geni (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

An example of how it can be bad

The need to fulfill a number of admin actions in order to keep the “hat” may lead a user to engage in deterimental edits. While I wanted to steer away from this dicussion (since nobody has the guts to address the elephant in the room, making this an exercise in pointless pontification), I just got this in my watchlist:

• 2016-10-14T11:54:24 Klemen Kocjancic (talk | contribs) deleted page Category:2016 in Sintra (Empty category: content was: "# Sintra", and the only contributor was "Tuvalkin" (talk))

Now, Sintra is a town visited by roughly one million tourists yearly, some of which do licese their photos through Commons, so populating this category would be trivial (took me a two minutes to open the parent cat, open its javascript:GalleryDetailsLoader, search for "EXIF time: 2016:", and move 58 files to the deleted cat).

Why then would Klemen Kocjancic delete one cat, adding only 1 to his edit count, instead of populating it in the most trivial manner (dissimination from cluttered parent cat), adding 58 to his edit count? Well, because a deletion is an admin action and categorization is not. And here’s a case that shows the ugly underside of the problem: While some will fill their minimum quota with useful actions, others are so obviously moved by vanity and laziness that wont even bother with fiding something useful to do and will go instead for the easiest admin action, which is «mantainance clean up».

(And, of course, deleting empty cats is non controversial when they are empty for a good reason, like Category:Spheres by number of vertices — which is not the case of Category:2016 in Sintra — nor likely the case of other deletions Klemen Kocjancic might resort to in order to keep his admin bit.)

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• For the record: Klemen Kocjancic’s recent deletions: These are mostly empty cat deletions that would have been trivial to made non empty by dissimination from parent cat or are otherwise likely to be useable soon. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• If I follow you you say:

quota = bad or controversial admin actions so bigger quota = bigger number of bad or controversial admin actions

yes, maybe, that's indeed possible, but in an other hand it will be easier to see the "good" from the "bad" administrators... By "good" and "bad", I mean those for which the tools are really useful, therefore to see what users are useful to the community as "administrators". Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Christian Ferrer, I don’t think this is about quota. I think the case above is a counter example to the notion, upheld above, that the more admins the better, because even if they engage in a mimimum number of actions those will be better than zero. That’s the case of NotAFish and, I hope, most of the admins listed above, but not the case of Klemen Kocjancic (and, yes, this is not the first nor second time I see such empty cat deletions made by him) and possibly a few others.

I hope it is uncontroversial to say that an empty cat deletion that gets undone after a few minutes of due dilligence is a waste of admin resources, defeating the argument mentioned above, not to mention deterimental for the project at large. As a solution for these cases (indeed for all cases noted above) I’d suggest not a change in the quota, but, since the affected are but a handful and each case is probably unique, individual RFdAs.

The underlying issues are, of course, the fact that many users see the admin flag as a form of upper class distinction, and the discrete cronyism that keeps some admins effectively above scrutiny. Either way, for some, being an admin is seen as a caste token they don’t want to be parted with. (No ideas on how to fix that.)

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Summary

I see support for opening a de-crat / de-admin request for the affected user Kanonkas, and a general discussion about the de-adminship policy that is misplaced in this user problem and should be reopened at another venue, and I suggest to close both aspects accordingly. --Krd 10:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree. I think a de-crat / de-admin is usually opened by a crat. Krd, could you take care of it? Jee 11:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm don't think this has to be opened by a crat, anyway I did this now, please double check. Thank you. --Krd 11:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Link: Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Kanonkas (de-bureaucrat)‎ --Krd 12:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

---

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

User:Joaquinito2050

NOTE: All links are in Spanish, I'll try to translate them here, but knowledge of what's written there would be thanked when deciding about this user. Also, please read ALL the message before opening links, thank you.

It all started some time ago when one of the several puppet accounts of Joaquinito02 (a blocked user in the Spanish Wikipedia) called Gusgus2024 reverted two of my editions,[44] and [45]. The first one is a diagram of a Spanish sign which I changed the font to make it look like the real ones and the second one was simply an update in my user page. As those reversions didn't have any clear reason (in the first one, I simply made it look like the real ones, and even the original author thanked me, and the second one was in my user page), I made a message in Gusgus2024's talk page asking for the reasons [46], which was never answered, remade my edition, and forgot the topic overtime.

Today, while I was updating some more signs, I found a new message in my talk page. The account which made them is named Joaquinito2050, and the name suspiciously matches also one of the puppets of Joaquinito02 in the Spanish Wikipedia. (List of puppets here: [47])

This account, apparently created today, asked me in my talk page to normalize a motorway indicator from the A-49 motorway [48](second message). As there wasn't any linked file, I started writing an answer asking for it, but then I realised some of my editions were being reverted at the moment. Those editions, also in Spanish road sign files, were adding them to a category where they would be more easily findable (the signs were Province and Autonomus Comunity indicators, so I added them to the category Diagrams of province road signs of Spain and Diagrams of autonomous community road signs of Spain (these are the signs where I added the categories: [49][50][51])), and in one of the signs I moved one tilde that was displaced (here's the file: [52][53], it looked like "ARAGO´N" instead of "ARAGÓN"). I also added to the same category and moved the tilde in this sign: [54], but it wasn't reverted.

As I didn't find any reason for those editions, I added in my answer asking for the link of the file to normalize an asking of the reason because they were reverted[55] (First message), and I remade my editions after checking the username, thinking it would be like with Gusgus2024 (He/she reverts, I leave a warning and remake my edition and nothing more happens).
But Joaquinito2050 re-reverted me in the S-540 sign [56], and left a message in my talk page with the link to the file to normalize (which didn't had any actual problem) [57] (Third message), but in his message there was no answer for the reason of the reversions.

Then, I left him another message where I said that in the A-49 indicator there wasn't anything to normalize, and -another time- to please stop reverting me and give me some reasons of that. I also said that, in my honest opinion, my changes were helpful to find those signs and that I couldn't find any reason for reverting them [58] (Second message). After that, I reverted Joaquinito2050's reversion and waited for the answer.

But Joaquinito02 kept without responding to my enquiries, and made his/her third revision, making the issue a real edit war. In the reason field he/she threatened me, writing: "Como sigas así, estás bloqueado" (If you keep like that, you'll be blocked) [59]

Fed up with him, I re-re-reverted him saying in the reason field: "No entiendo por qué voy a estar bloqueado, si voy a añadir la señal a una categoría donde será más fácil de encontrar y usar por otros usuarios. Por favor, deme un motivo para sus insistentes reversiones. ¡Gracias!" (I don't understand why I'll be blocked, because I'm gonna add the sign to a category where it will be more easy to find for other users. Please, give me a reason for your insistent revision. Thank you!) [60], and decided to notify here.

At the moment of writing this, he/she hasn't changed the file anymore, but I believe is a matter of time one of the Joaquinito02's puppets will make more reversions to my edits without any reason, as they've done already both the puppet-users Gusgues2024 and Joaquinito2050, as that is what they done in the Spanish Wikipedia with other users, and what made them to be blocked.

Because of that, I ask you for help with this user and his/her puppets.
I'm not sure if my behaviour was correct at all because I'm not very experienced on dealing with this kind of conflicts; if my behaviour wasn't good, I'm so sorry for it and willing to hear your advice for being a better user the next time.

I don't know what can be done to make him/her stop reverting me, and I leave it to your choice. Maybe a warning, or the protection of files, but I believe the best solution is to block the user Joaquinito02 and all his/her puppets [61] also in Commons.

Kind regards, --Ce Ele 415 (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

CU note: from Commons-only edits, it's Possible that Joaquinito2050 = Gusgus2024 (but apparently confirmed on es.wiki - they have more contributions to work with) and Confirmed that Joaquinito2050 = Josan Spain Autovía (CAMINOANDALUZ). I'll leave blocks, if any, to others. Эlcobbola _talk 18:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Socks blocked. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 22:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

user:Sherman2000

That user keeps uploading several cropped/uncropped images with/without watermark, grabbed from websites, and television screenshots everywhere. HarvettFox96 (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The website the last lot were taken from says all rights reserved in Persian.Geni (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sherman2000 opened. Revent^talk 16:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedily deleted by User: Natuur12. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Last (c)vio deleted, warning left. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 20:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Zarateman

Please see the history of File:Ronda - window view.jpg. User:Zarateman seems insistent on removing Category:Facades in Andalusia, even though this is a façade in the narrowest sense of the word: a wall with the building removed. Nothing could more belong in the category. Zarateman refuses to discuss the matter (see User_talk:Zarateman#Façades; I've let Zarateman know I'm bringing the matter here).

I realize this is a minor issue, but as the photographer of the image in question, I don't like having a correct categorys removed and, given that Zarateman is simply reverting me without being willing to discuss the matter I see nowhere to bring it other than here: at this point, if I were simply to revert again, I assume that would constitute edit warring. If there is a different venue where I should take this, let me know. - Jmabel ! talk 03:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• I’m having a similar issue here. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 04:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I blocked Mark Marathon for 3 days due to removing valid categories. In addition to cases mentioned by Tuválkin he removed more than 50 files from category:Landscapes. Taivo (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I unblocked Mark Marathon and this can be taken as warning. Taivo (talk) 08:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• So will someone please restore the category, since I gather it would be considered edit-warring for me to do it? And will someone other than me please address Zarateman about this? (an otherwise excellent contributor, by the way, but I believe he's dead wrong here.) - Jmabel ! talk 16:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 19:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

WB 4829

All of this new account's uploads are pretty clearly unacceptable; there is simply no evidence that the images are free. The image sources provide no information whatever about the date or circumstances of the original publication. After I nominated their uploads for deletion, the editor removed the reports from the deletion request list, falsely claiming "vandalism".[62] The editor is clearly not interested in conforming to very basic standards, and should be blocked. This may be an alternate account of an editor under uploading limits/bans. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't personally guess 'who' this might be, but removing DR notices from the daily list, and adding the tired 'film stills were never copyrighted' boilerplate to the files, does make it kinda apparent it's not someone new. Revent^talk 00:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The Big Bad Wolfowitz clearly vandalized my contributions to the Faye Dunaway article on Wikipedia. He deleted everything I wrote, calling my contributions "unencyclopedic textual additions/modifications," which is a proof that he didn't read anything of what I wrote at all, as I greatly improve Dunaway's page — following Wikipedia's encyclopedic rules. I felt he did the same thing with the various images I uploaded. I uploaded those images based on the Gena Rowland and Angie Dickinson pics I saw (here and here). If the images I uploaded are not free, then I apologize. It was a mistake and I will be more careful now. However, deleting my contributions to the article was vandalism. --WB 4829 (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@WB 4829: To the best of my knowledge, despite the similar usernames Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (who edits the English Wikipedia) and The Big Bad Wolfowitz (who edits Commons) are not the same person. Revent^talk 00:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, "we" are the same user; way back when, it wasn't all that unusual for en-wiki users to use a different (but often related) username on Commons, the theory being that it made it easier to distinguish image-related work. Maybe not such a good idea now that accounts have been cross-wiki unified. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

(to continue) Unfortunately, we've accumulated quite a few such images, over time, that we probably should not have, that have 'snuck through'. Sourcing such material from eBay, where you cannot usually see the entire 'physical object', and where the seller usually doesn't provide the kind of information you need to know if something is copyrighted, can be a good way to 'get into trouble'. At the very least, we need to be able to see the entire front and back of the image, with no copyright notice and evidence that the photo was actually 'published' at the time. Modern reproductions don't work.

Also, the 'generic' argument (that people have used, repeatedly, over time) that such images were 'never copyrighted' doesn't meet out standards... we need to be able to see evidence that the specific image is PD or freely licensed. Revent^talk 00:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: Thank you for your explanation, I should have known better before publishing those images. I apologize. However, I don't how it can be proved, but it seems clear to me that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and The Big Bad Wolfowitz are the same person. When Hullaballoo Wolfowitz deleted my contributions on the Dunaway article on Wikipedia, he also wrote: "substitution of potentially nonfree image in infobox" just a few minutes after The Big Bad Wolfowitz reported the images on Commons. Too much of a coincidence to be a coincidence, or maybe I'm wrong again.--WB 4829 (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@WB 4829: Again, I really don't know, and there are a lot of people with similar usernames... unless he 'is' and uses both accounts on one or the other project in a way that breaks the rules, it's really not something that matters. We are separate projects, and nominating the files for deletion here was within policy. As far as the English Wikipedia, I would suggest you read en:WP:BRD and discuss edits that are reverted before you reinstate them. Revent^talk 01:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Fry1989

That user uploads a file for a sovereign state here without showing their sources. In the first time I open a discussion here and I showing the document of the official website of the government. He ignored the discussion and uploads a version without showing their sources again. Please take the necessary steps. Thanks. --IM-yb (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't have the PDF any more, but my revision is superior. I worked rather hard on fixing a symmetrical shield and leaves, which the previous version did not have. I do not understand what your problem is. Fry1989 ^eh? 15:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

You change the official emblem elements (colours) without showing your sources. We have the version of the official website. You do not participate in the discussion and restore a version Ι not found anywhere published ([63], [64], [65]). Are you the authority and need not follow the rules? --IM-yb (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The only colour I changed was the orange/copper, and I changed it to match File:Flag of Cyprus.svg. Everything else is the same. And there is no need to get sensational. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I belive that the Wikimedia Commons has rules, and which are not traded. --IM-yb (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Well you seem to support the copper colour on the flag. Should the flag and coat of arms not match? Fry1989 ^eh? 00:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

IM-yb, is there an official document which specifies the yellow color accurately (e.g. in RAL)? The Yeti 03:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, is here (presidency.gov.cy).

• Pantone 1385 για την ασπίδα (shield)
• Pantone 574 για τα κλαδιά ελιάς (leaves)

Are the official colours. According to this source, the logo uploaded by Fry1989 is indeed consistent with the original. I restore the Fry1989 version. The Yeti I hope any change in the future be based on official published sources. --IM-yb (talk) 10:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

IM-yb, I’m glad to see the matter is solved, in what concerns the file itself — and especially so, as a vexillologist myself. It would be the end of it should this discussion have been held at the file’s talk page, or at a generic discussion venue such as COM:VP. However you brought it here to ANU, where Fry1989 plays the role of the “defendant” and admins are asked to “judge” his case. Given the substance and outcome of said case, I think that a clear apology to Fry1989 is in order, as well as to all (needlessly) involved admins. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I belive that the Fry1989 had to apologize for his behavior. I invited him to talk and he answered only with reverts. Fry1989 talks only here. My view is that this behavior does not help to resolve problems. I spent my time to find sources to support the version of the CoA. I would like to thank The Yeti to the idea that concerned them RAL. Helped much. But once Tuválkin wants me to apologize to the Fry1989 and administrators (under the rules or on the basis of kindness, I do not know why), then I apologize for my behavior and for my English (are not good). Perhaps, it is the last time I write in Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. --IM-yb (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)