Commons:Administrators/Requests/Bidgee (de-adminship)
remove = 11; 
Keep = 16; 
Neutral/abstain = 2 - 40% Result - unsuccessful. The community is clear that some of the actions were unacceptable for an involved admin. Bidgee has apologized and committed to reform, and the majority accept this. Some voters expressed the opinion that if similar issues arise again, they will be less forgiving. 99of9 (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Bidgee
Bidgee (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
This discussion follows a complaint at ANU (here), in which Fry1969 makes complaints about Bidgee recently warring and using tools in regards to Denmark road sign A12.1.svg and last year moving another file to apparently win an argument. I've examined the history pages of both files, where Bidgee and Fry are having a good-old edit war by themselves in the edit summaries, after which Bidgee uses the tools to apparently win the argument. Neither file has a talkpage even today.
history of Denmark road sign
|
|---|
|
02:42, 22 July 2013 Bidgee (Protected File:Denmark road sign A12.1.svg: Fry1989 inserting incorrect source ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Upload=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))) 02:40, 22 July 2013 Bidgee (Undo revision 100424527 by Fry1989 (talk) Use the talk page when you find the correct source) 18:55, 21 July 2013 Fry1989 (Undo revision 100391611 by Bidgee yes it does) 09:39, 21 July 2013 Bidgee (Undo revision 100383690 by Fry1989 (talk) Not its doesn't. I doesn't even support it) 07:58, 21 July 2013 Fry1989 (it IS sourced by the PDF inasmuch that it shows what a sign for a minor road ahead looks like, even if it only shows one on both sides) 12:45, 19 July 2013 Stefan4 (Please settle the matter in the deletion discussion.) 12:44, 19 July 2013 Stefan4 (Nominating for deletion) 12:43, 19 July 2013 Bidgee (Undo revision 100281748 by Stefan4 (talk) The uploader failed to give a source! This isn't a speedy tag.) 12:40, 19 July 2013 Stefan4 (This file does not qualify for speedy-deletion and a regular deletion request will be started.) 00:58, 19 July 2013 Bidgee (Fry, you should know that it should be correctly sourced, this isn't) 17:00, 18 July 2013 Fry1989 m . . (431 bytes) (-32) . . |
history of slippery road surface sign
|
|---|
|
04:43, 21 October 2012 Bidgee (Undo revision 81304353 by Fry1989 (talk) You're being purely disruptive) 04:42, 21 October 2012 Bidgee (Bidgee moved page File:Australian Slippery Road Surface sign.png to File:Australia and New Zealand slippery road surface sign.png) 04:22, 21 October 2012 Fry1989 (Undo revision 80960119 by Bidgee (talk) that's exactly what it means) 22:21, 16 October 2012 Bidgee (Undo revision 80949629 by Fry1989 (talk)Just because there is an NZ version and this has Australian in the title, don't mean it doesn't belong in the cat) 19:34, 16 October 2012 Fry1989 (Undo revision 80647252 by Bidgee There's already an SVG for the NZ version, and this file's name clearly says "Australian", it doesn't belong in any New Zealand cats) 07:34, 12 October 2012 Bidgee (Undo revision 80634454 by Fry1989 (talk) Also used in NZ) 01:03, 12 October 2012 Fry1989 |
The conversation has been open for a week at ANU (correction, Miszabot grabbed it as I was writing this), the majority of editors participating are in favor of de-adminship (if I count myself as well). I had asked Bidgee regarding his actions, and nowhere did I see any indication that Bidgee understands the problem with his behavior in regards to tool usage. I did also notice a distinct lack of editors arriving saying 'of course admin tools are for winning edit wars, what did You think they were for, name-calling?' or some such. Didn't see much of that. Actually I didn't notice Bidgee or Hedwig in Washington mention the problem with this sort of editing at all. I think it should have been addressed. Penyulap ☏ 20:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
An interaction between Bidgee and Outrune has been brought up by an editor in the discussion below.
Outrune made some uploads to commons
|
|---|
|
this is the upload history of Outrune, uploads in italics were reverted by Bidgee Outrune (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
|
Bidgee made some reverts
|
|---|
|
12:46, 14 July 2012 Bidgee u'ld new version of File:Australian State Route 138.svg (Reverted to version as of 18:01, 23 April 2006)
|
Outrune asks about the reverts on Bidgee's talkpage.
==Route Shields==
Would it be terribly rude to ask why you're reverting my updated route shields, as you have failed to provide any description? Outrune (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Bidgee responds, however I do not copy the response here, as I expect that would be upsetting (see the bottom of this section for an explanation)
Basically, Bidgee responds with words to the effect of Outrune is making 'huge changes' to 'widely used images' and must first get pre-approval at a noticeboard before editing and that the files have been reverted and locked. Bidgee's actual response is here. It is not rude, however it is contrary to the fundamental principle that anyone may edit.
Bidgee locks the images
|
|---|
|
|
- Thanks for the tip. Have fun reverting and protecting all those images. Outrune (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
in the 12 months following this note, Outrun has made a total of just 3 contributions to commons, down from their previous 12 month total of about 280. Penyulap ☏ 11:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Michael has raised the issue of censorship Penyulap ☏ 13:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
(I'll leave space here to better summarize whatever has been left out)
Toolserver admin action statistics
- Remove —
# {{vd|remove}}— remove tools.
- Keep —
# {{vk}}— keep tools.
Votes
- remove per above, and per [1] - this is an obvious and disturbing pattern. He also responded very poorly when asked about this: User talk:Bidgee/Archive11#Route Shields The sysop tools are not to be used to win disputes. --Rschen7754 20:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- remove From my experience, Bidgee is far too eager to use his administration tools to gain an advantage or push his view, when he is directly involved in a dispute. And then he will lie and misuse diffs to distract others when any criticism of this is raised. Fry1989 eh? 21:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- remove Using the tools for their own opinion. There's no greater NoGo. Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep the slippery roadsign wasnt an admin tool dispute, it was a category dispute, and User:Fry doesnt dispute that the road sign is used in New Zealand his arguement was that there already existed a version for New Zealand and as such despite being used in NZ Fry instisted that this image should not be included in that category. The more important issue is the one where the use of tools is the point of concern is the content by User:Roadsigners this user has an extensive sockpuppet history for disruptive purposes see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism/Jermboy27 which links to 9 different projects where Jermboy has been blocked including here and the en: checkuser[2] that identified Roadsigner among others at the same time as more of these socks. IMHO Bidgee was right in requesting a source and acting in the belligerent way over sourcing given the history surrounding Jermboy. While Fry may not have agreed that the sign didnt exist(later proven it did by Bidgee while Fry's contribution was I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE IT EXISTS. I have no obligation to prove wrong an assumption that is inherently flawed[3]) he didnt take into consideration that he was promoting the disruption of an extensive sockpuppet, there must be onus on every user who wishes to keep works under such circumstances. Yes Bidgee should have sort additional eyes on the issue but he was acting to protect the multiple projects from further disruption not acting to "win" a dispute with User:FRY1989 de-sysopping Bidgee for acting to protect multiple projects from a disruptive user sends the wrong message to others who will find themsleves in similar situation, Commons already has enough examples of it ignoring the needs and opinions of the projects it services this would add fuel to that debate. Gnangarra 02:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should look over things again before you speak. The road sign is "Australian", but was put in a category for a different country. Bidgee was in dispute about that with myself, and then he used his admin powers to gain in that dispute, by renaming the file "Australian and New Zealand". He used his admin powers in a dispute he was directly involved in to win it. That is an abuse. And I "didn't take into account that I was promoting the disruption of an extensive sockpuppet"??? You really want to say that when I cleary DID know? Read things before you comment because you obviously don't have a clue about either. Fry1989 eh? 03:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Seriously did I read what you said correctly, your saying you knew that the uploader was a disruptive editor blocked on 9 projects with extensive use of sockpuppets including here yet edit-warred without proof and yelling at Bidgee in the deletion discussion because he requested proof of accuracy. Gnangarra 03:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I said! Of course I knew this person was a sockmaster with hundreds of abuse accounts and IPs. Just because you're an abuser doesn't immediately qualify your content as abusive or fake, as this situation proved! I have nominated tonnes of files by this abuser because they have no source or reason or logic to them. This sign was different, it was reasonable, it was based on known knowledge, it wasn't just pulled out someone's ass. That's the difference, and I was vindicated as it was proven the sign DOES exist. Bidgee unilaterally deleted a file simply because it didn't appear in one PDF, using the impossible claim that it "does't exist", a certainty that he had no proof of other then his own assumption. Then when it was rightfully undeleted, he tried to backdoor it again and when he wasn't allowed to, he edit warred and abused his admin tools by using them in a dispute he was directly involved in. You really want to excuse that behaviour? I've had two major interactions with Bidgee, and in both of them he used his admin powers where he shouldn't have because he was an involved party and it was a clear conflict of interest. Fry1989 eh? 04:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Bidgee acted according to COM:SOCK, yet you were edit warring(ignoring policy requirements) to promote the actions of a disruptive editor and here we are with a de-sysop discussion over this yet people still wonder why Commons is being perceived by the wider Wikimedia community as being broken. Gnangarra 00:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oh for christ sake what kind of fool do you take me for??? I'm a victim of Jermboy, he vandalizes my files! I know exactly what he is and what he's done. But just because someone is an abuser does not immediately qualify 100% of their edits as abuse as well. Most of Jermboy's uploads are 100% fake BS pulled out his ass, they have no source, no rhyme or reason, fake countries, fake signs stolen from other countries. This file was completely different. It was based on a sourced sign, and for the exact same country. The PDF had massive holes in it's list of signs, it didn't start at #1 and go to #100, it starts #11 and then jumps up to #16 and so on. So simply because the file wasn't in the PDF was not a valid reason to claim the sign doesn't exist. By that reasoning, any sign that doesn't show up in the PDF, despite all it's holes, must not exist. Bidgee unilaterally deleted the image without any process based on that faulty reasoning. Mind you copyright was absolutely NOT an issue, the file is way too simple for copyright. So I did an UnDR based on that, there was no proof provided the sign doesn't exist. Once Bidgee found out it was undeleted, he tried to backdoor it again with a fake copyright status unclear tag which didn't apply, and when he wasn't allowed to do that by another user he then edit warred and used his admin tools to protect the file. That is a clear conflict of interest as he was an involved party, and it was undone by another admin immediately after I took the issue to the noticeboard. It turns out I was right, that my intuitive and reasoning based on known knowlegde was right and the sign does exist. But you want to make this look like it's just about one file and my disagreement with Bidgee??? Commons is broken, but not from people like me, it's broken from people like you who show nepotism and will excuse conflict of interest abuses of power. This isn't the first time Bidgee has used his admin powers where he's an involved party, and it won't be the last unless his powers are removed. YOU are why Commons is broken. Fry1989 eh? 00:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Bidgee acted according to COM:SOCK, yet you were edit warring(ignoring policy requirements) to promote the actions of a disruptive editor and here we are with a de-sysop discussion over this yet people still wonder why Commons is being perceived by the wider Wikimedia community as being broken. Gnangarra 00:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I said! Of course I knew this person was a sockmaster with hundreds of abuse accounts and IPs. Just because you're an abuser doesn't immediately qualify your content as abusive or fake, as this situation proved! I have nominated tonnes of files by this abuser because they have no source or reason or logic to them. This sign was different, it was reasonable, it was based on known knowledge, it wasn't just pulled out someone's ass. That's the difference, and I was vindicated as it was proven the sign DOES exist. Bidgee unilaterally deleted a file simply because it didn't appear in one PDF, using the impossible claim that it "does't exist", a certainty that he had no proof of other then his own assumption. Then when it was rightfully undeleted, he tried to backdoor it again and when he wasn't allowed to, he edit warred and abused his admin tools by using them in a dispute he was directly involved in. You really want to excuse that behaviour? I've had two major interactions with Bidgee, and in both of them he used his admin powers where he shouldn't have because he was an involved party and it was a clear conflict of interest. Fry1989 eh? 04:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Seriously did I read what you said correctly, your saying you knew that the uploader was a disruptive editor blocked on 9 projects with extensive use of sockpuppets including here yet edit-warred without proof and yelling at Bidgee in the deletion discussion because he requested proof of accuracy. Gnangarra 03:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should look over things again before you speak. The road sign is "Australian", but was put in a category for a different country. Bidgee was in dispute about that with myself, and then he used his admin powers to gain in that dispute, by renaming the file "Australian and New Zealand". He used his admin powers in a dispute he was directly involved in to win it. That is an abuse. And I "didn't take into account that I was promoting the disruption of an extensive sockpuppet"??? You really want to say that when I cleary DID know? Read things before you comment because you obviously don't have a clue about either. Fry1989 eh? 03:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- remove—per Rschen. This is a disturbing pattern, and one that I have seen in other WMF forums. Tony1 (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- remove – unacceptable behavior for an admin on any project. Graham87 (talk) 06:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
, 
, and 
, each having one mainspace use in de.wikipedia, show either an incompetence or a deceptive, untrustworthy character (and I actually suppose both). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Switched to
Abstain , but an indefinite full protection should be used with a great care even for a single file. And, I reiterate, any action with a plainly misleading substantiation should be immediately reverted (preferably self-reverted). The trust to logged actions is a very important matter. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Switched to
- Keep Whilst there was obviously a problematic use of the tools, that Bidgee has now acknowledged and apologised for that usage we should be more forgiving. I doubt Bidgee will do such a thing again. Wanting editors/admins on a stick is not the Commons that I know, and certainly isn't the Commons I want to see. Bidgee will surely see this as a shot across the bows, and I am certain that we will not see a re-occurrence. russavia (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Actually there was an apology on Earth100's talkpage about an erroneous block, which gave me pause for thought and in all honestly pretty close to derailed this entire discussion before it began. That was I think yesterday or the day before, during the ANU discussion.
- I am reminded how politicians in washington and editors at RfA will sometimes say one thing to get themselves tools or office, and then do something quite different later on. This is only the second time I've had to help fix something like this, and the first time it's needed a de-adminship discussion, so i don't know if some people talk sweet during RfDa's the same way some talk sweet during RfA's. I can't tell, and don't know how we would find out at this point, as the discussion shall be a success in the end, so we'll never know.
- What I do know is this. That a really really good place to solve these problems would have been the file talk-pages. File talkpages always seem to kill drama stone cold dead. Failing that, user talkpages, a lovely place for a chat, and apology, whatever you like.
- A great time to have fixed all of this would have been last year, or this year, or a week ago when it had to go to ANU for assistance from other editors and admins.
- So what I'm saying is this, if we have to solve every freaking lame-arse "what shade of blue" discussion about some sign nobody will ever see is, and solve it using a de-adminship discussion, I'm thinking, hey ! here is an idea, we'll do it just once, rather than every time someone wants an apology, or a different shade of blue, or a reference, or whatever. Plus, people won't need to make edit requests for these simple changes to the files. It saves quite a bit of time that way.
- I'm kind of thinking of a project where admins don't speak Gospel with Thunder and Brimstone, or shit lightning for that matter, and if some newbie wants to edit a file they don't need to face a daunting ordeal of trying to convince someone who doesn't seem to like them, to do the simplest tiny little edits. I'm thinking we should all be just like happy little blue Smurfs all the same and all get along doing our little smurfy things and then everything will all be just Smurfy !
- I don't think Smurfs should carry banninators or indefrays or even make it so everyone can't edit. It's just not Smurfy. Penyulap ☏ 09:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- remove Unbelievable! I have never seen such behaviour of administrator. Taivo (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- remove – I haven't interacted with Bidgee often, but I do recall one incident where Bidgee threatened to block me for restoring a comment. Not only is Bidgee misusing the protection tool, but he or she threatened to misuse the blocking tool in order to shut down a discussion about misusing the CheckUser tool as well. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sad that you to need to dig up a 15-months-old edit to justify your vote. Let's not hide the fact that the respective COM:AN-discussion had been legitimately closed[4] by Fastily and that you had restored a comment made after that closure. The attached block-threat might have been unnecessary, but might be considered balanced to your gratuitous attack of "censorship". --Túrelio (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not fond of Fastily's censorship either. "Censorship" is a concise description of their actions, not an attack. What makes the closure legitimate? When Fastily initially closed the discussion, it was less than 24 hours old, and Geitost was only given the opportunity to reply to a single comment. The discussion wasn't allowed to reach maturity; it was still in its crib. Are you saying that anyone who uses the word "censorship" is fair game for being threatened with blocks? No, the block-threat is unnecessary. Actually, it's more than that: it's inappropriate. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Call it what y'all like. At the time, I saw it as a dramafest, and since there was no obvious benefit to the project by leaving it open, I closed it. Given recent developments however, I should have left it open. -FASTILY 22:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not fond of Fastily's censorship either. "Censorship" is a concise description of their actions, not an attack. What makes the closure legitimate? When Fastily initially closed the discussion, it was less than 24 hours old, and Geitost was only given the opportunity to reply to a single comment. The discussion wasn't allowed to reach maturity; it was still in its crib. Are you saying that anyone who uses the word "censorship" is fair game for being threatened with blocks? No, the block-threat is unnecessary. Actually, it's more than that: it's inappropriate. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sad that you to need to dig up a 15-months-old edit to justify your vote. Let's not hide the fact that the respective COM:AN-discussion had been legitimately closed[4] by Fastily and that you had restored a comment made after that closure. The attached block-threat might have been unnecessary, but might be considered balanced to your gratuitous attack of "censorship". --Túrelio (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- remove Unfortunately it's true, there's clearly an inappropriate use of admin tools. I mean the mass protection of Australian road sign icons. Each of them were overwritten by lower-resolution versions just once. So, why protecting the files infinitely (!) without even having tried to contact and/or warn the uploader? Even provided that Outrune was wrong, the right approach would be: 1) revert, and warning on their talk page 2) a temporary block in case of discussion resistance and editwarring; but, for sure, NOT preventing ANY user from uploading new verions of the disputed images. In case of a widely used template (widely used means: hundreds, or thousands of inclusions) I would have had some understanding, but it's clearly not the case here. Another admin who uses protection buttons in a similarly inappropriate way, sometimes also without any discussion, is Foroa; the removal of their admin flag should be seriously considered as well. --A.Savin 13:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- In pointing out the 'right approach' you seem to have overlooked the simple step of talking to the editor first, prior to reverting and warning. I find it works well when you're polite, and often if they agree with your idea, they'll revert it themselves. Penyulap ☏ 13:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure Foroa does that even if I do often interact with him/her. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see evidence of repeated deliberate mis-use of admin tools, I see a single instance of getting drawn into edit warring and not recognising it as such. --Tony Wills (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should get your eyes checked, there's at least 3 shown here, including two conflicts of interest. Fry1989 eh? 18:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I fail to see why or how Bidgees behaviour towards a disruptive user, as described by Gnangarra and Fry requires de-sysoping. sats (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Surely, not an attempt to discuss the problem, but a protection log full of… is a response of a True Admin to a dispute with a “disruptive” user. Ad majorem Communiæ gloriam. And who should care about involvement: there is nothing special with it, right?Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)- Actually I missed that the incident with 104 lies in the protection log occurred a year ago. The community response came too late, sadly. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - When I initially read the diffs in the nomination statement I was leaning towards voting to de-sysop Bidgee. I will not contend that Bidgee did not act in a way unbecoming of an administrator and did so in a manner that gained him the upper hand in a content dispute. That said, Bidgee has accepted that he has acted poorly, taken responsibility, agreed not to use the tools in this manner in the future, and apologized. To me, this shows a great deal of maturity, something that I look for in administrators. I think that this request will serve as a strong reminder to Bidgee that further misuse of the tools will result in them being taken from him all together. Tiptoety talk 15:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's maturity to apologize when you're caught red-handed?? Sounds like battered wife syndrome to me; "I'm sorry, I'll never do it again!" until six months down the line it does happen again. Fry1989 eh? 18:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Except of the Denmark road sign, all of the above linked edits of Bidgee, which the nominator presented to justify this de-admin request, are more than 12 months old. Bidgee has acknowledged to have made an error in judgement and apologized[5], and offered to “recuse the use of Sysop tools from all disputes” and to refrain from protecting “anything that I'm disputed in”[6]. I trust Bidgee that he will keep this promise and learn from this unpleasant experience, as elaborated in detail by Tony Wills in his comment below. --Túrelio (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep As Russavia and others say above, Bidgee has acknowledged the issue and stated that the behaviour won't be repeated. I think he deserves a second chance. INeverCry 15:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- no apology, no promises, not so much as an admittance of error were forthcoming at any time, until the force of a de-adminship discussion was applied. That's a great deal of effort to get no more than lip service in the face of overwhelming evidence. You, Fastily, and Russ perform 170 thousand admin actions in the last 6 months, compared to Bidgee's 300. If 100 files can be reverted in a swathe, protected in a swathe, I wonder just what percentage of those 300 edits are problematic. Makes one wonder why such effort is being put into ignoring the loss of editors like Outrune. Makes one wonder what is on the other side of the scales that weighs so very much into the balance of some !votes. Makes a person rather curious about exactly what is going on here. Peaks my curiosity that's for sure. Penyulap ☏ 16:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I hate to see the loss of any productive editor, and I'm always sad to see that happen. In regard to this desysop request though, if the behavior can be ended without yanking adminship, that's what I prefer; prevention rather than punishment. If Bidgee can do good admin work going forward, (deletions would be a good area to work in), then that's a plus for Commons. Desysopping him would mean another loss. INeverCry 17:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nobody is suggesting for a moment that Bidgee is going anywhere, I'd be against the notion. I'm just looking at how long it has taken the his 'clan' to see that Bidgee's only function up till now is 300 edits per six months is it ? of which many are driving people away. The rollcall going on is incredibly obvious when it is so clear that bad behavior for how long has it been going on, years ? is the only thing we've been getting in return. Now all of a sudden there is a push to give him some useful work to do besides misusing tools, I wonder how we can get that to actually work, should we leave the de-adminship discussion permanently open for example, because that is the sole method we as a community have to communicate with Bidgee about his poor behavior. His 'mates' can't keep him in check, or have consistently failed to do so for years? is it. Sure, people can say 'quick, vote for Bidgee, just say anything, he has to be saved at any cost' for crying out loud it's 300 problematic adminny things in six months. I'm wanting to know what is the point of identifying the whole gang, as you'll need to, with ridiculously apologetic !votes for the offenses that you'd never give any other editor alive any slack over, I'm thinking, is it worth it to you lot to be so incredibly transparent when it is so incredibly clear that it has nothing at all to do with his actions or lack there of, the disproportional response is, well, aren't you lot embarrassed by the exposure here, seriously ?
- I hate to see the loss of any productive editor, and I'm always sad to see that happen. In regard to this desysop request though, if the behavior can be ended without yanking adminship, that's what I prefer; prevention rather than punishment. If Bidgee can do good admin work going forward, (deletions would be a good area to work in), then that's a plus for Commons. Desysopping him would mean another loss. INeverCry 17:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- no apology, no promises, not so much as an admittance of error were forthcoming at any time, until the force of a de-adminship discussion was applied. That's a great deal of effort to get no more than lip service in the face of overwhelming evidence. You, Fastily, and Russ perform 170 thousand admin actions in the last 6 months, compared to Bidgee's 300. If 100 files can be reverted in a swathe, protected in a swathe, I wonder just what percentage of those 300 edits are problematic. Makes one wonder why such effort is being put into ignoring the loss of editors like Outrune. Makes one wonder what is on the other side of the scales that weighs so very much into the balance of some !votes. Makes a person rather curious about exactly what is going on here. Peaks my curiosity that's for sure. Penyulap ☏ 16:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- If you wanted to pimp his admin stats, shouldn't you have been emailing him a list of things to delete like a year ago, rather than propose doing something like that today, or training him or whatever the proposal is ? Seriously, you've had a long time to do this. Just because someone turns up at a wiki get-together or whatever doesn't make them an admin asset of so much value it's worth laying bare the entire workings of your clan, don't you think ? You lot should reconsider just what Bidgee as an editor Vs Bidgee as a valuable contributor is worth to you. I'm not seeing it as an economic proposition at this point. Penyulap ☏ 17:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- If this request is closed as keep, and any negative behavior were repeated, a second request would likely be a snowball remove. With this consideration, I think a second chance is justified. INeverCry 18:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oh please, spare me, as if this wasn't an obvious slam dunk remove tools before the obvious happened, and what, you think this lot won't turn up at ANU to block any further consensus being reached in future ? HA ! Penyulap ☏ 18:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- With 9rmv/8keep so far, this request may end up being the only one we see. But if a second chance is given, and if the problem behavior were repeated, I don't think you'd see much support for a third chance. I wouldn't vote keep if this came up again later. INeverCry 18:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Make it 10 remove, I want to see another one of your little group. :D Penyulap ☏ 18:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't believe that accusations of canvassing are appropriate. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- never said there was any. I'm familiar with the policy, and letting interested parties know by email isn't canvassing. They just all arrive at once with absurd comments that look like they are reading some other discussion (or just not reading at all). It is actually within policy. True. Penyulap ☏ 19:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I would think that most admins keep Commons:Administrators/Requests on their watchlist, as I do. INeverCry 19:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- never said there was any. I'm familiar with the policy, and letting interested parties know by email isn't canvassing. They just all arrive at once with absurd comments that look like they are reading some other discussion (or just not reading at all). It is actually within policy. True. Penyulap ☏ 19:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't believe that accusations of canvassing are appropriate. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Make it 10
- With 9rmv/8keep so far, this request may end up being the only one we see. But if a second chance is given, and if the problem behavior were repeated, I don't think you'd see much support for a third chance. I wouldn't vote keep if this came up again later. INeverCry 18:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oh please, spare me, as if this wasn't an obvious slam dunk remove tools before the obvious happened, and what, you think this lot won't turn up at ANU to block any further consensus being reached in future ? HA ! Penyulap ☏ 18:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- If this request is closed as keep, and any negative behavior were repeated, a second request would likely be a snowball remove. With this consideration, I think a second chance is justified. INeverCry 18:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- If you wanted to pimp his admin stats, shouldn't you have been emailing him a list of things to delete like a year ago, rather than propose doing something like that today, or training him or whatever the proposal is ? Seriously, you've had a long time to do this. Just because someone turns up at a wiki get-together or whatever doesn't make them an admin asset of so much value it's worth laying bare the entire workings of your clan, don't you think ? You lot should reconsider just what Bidgee as an editor Vs Bidgee as a valuable contributor is worth to you. I'm not seeing it as an economic proposition at this point. Penyulap ☏ 17:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
There are also messages on the village pump and AN/U that point readers of those forums to here: [7], [8]. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Of course Michael, and I'm not accusing anyone of doing anything wrong.
- This reminds me of someone trying to convince you that their partner, after years of bad behavior, is going to turn over a new leaf. Then I remember, HEY ! guess what, we're not married to Bidgee having the tools, it's not a permanent relationship that we have to put up with. Or, at least for some of us, we have the option to say no thanks. Some of us do. The idea that a random editor up for RfA with this track record could succeed, yeah right. Obvious ********* is obvious people. Penyulap ☏ 19:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep As mentioned above: this is a single incident that led to an edit war. I do not think that Bidgee will act like this again. --High Contrast (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm thinking that there is nowhere near enough imagination going into some of the !votes, like this or Tony Wills. Penyulap ☏ 18:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- As mentioned below, there are other circumstances where Bidgee has misused the tools. --Rschen7754 19:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- When you say something about someone else's actions which isn't true, that is a lie, is it not? I welcome differing views, I don't welcome half-truths and attempts to mislead others away from criticism of yourself, nor do I welcome excuses for bad behaviour. If Tony Wills truly believes it's ok to use your tools when you're in a dispute, let him say it out loud and give me permission to use my file mover rights whenever I'm in a dispute and I think it will gvie me a leg-up, because that's essentially what he's saying by excusing Bidgee's doing so. We all know that I don't have permission to do that, that it's a conflict of interest, and that my file mover rights would be removed if I did it. He can tell himself and anyone else foolish enough to believe it that it's "ok" to do that, but I know better. Fry1989 eh? 04:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
|
- Abstain "I hate to see the loss of any productive editor, and I'm always sad to see that happen. - – IneverCry": Do you have the same feeling whenever we miss a productive media contributor in Commons? While glancing through the entire discussion; I’m getting more convinced on my early opinion about the interests of the dominating group of the admin community. They are using their voice and special rights to protect their interests of them and their fellow members; neglecting every complaint from poor members. There is nothing wrong in making attempts to nourish your relationships. But please don’t use your special rights that this community offered to you. Please don’t humiliate the community for the trust that they given to you. JKadavoor Jee 06:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- remove per Penyulap, who wants 10 remove votes, per Fastily, who reverted Bidgee's protections, per Fry1989, who suffered in the process, and per Bidgee himself, who made at least two wrong answers on #Comments according to Fastily. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep An admin willing to make difficult calls on controversial matters. They are extremely knowledgeable on copyright and do a good job enforcing it. They do good work with photography. --LauraHale (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 Oh wow, now I know what you mean by a great photographer. Bidgee took this picture you use on your en.wiki page. Looks like there was 16 in that picture. So I guess we need to find not 10 but maybe 20 smurfs who for some God only knows why reason think disruptively and troll Bidgee by suggesting that admin tools aren't for winning personal lame disputes. Hmm 20 or so, and there's like 10 already. HEY, how many are left in that photo, or do they like call on other meetup people or something if you run into trouble with the serfs doing serfy things and having disruptive opinions ? how does it work ? no, wait, what am I thinking, this is too good to spoil the surprise, we have to "stay tuned" to this channel. <Peny goes off in search of popcorn> |
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Australian_State_Route_96.svg&action=history){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3ADenmark_road_sign_A12.1.svg&diff=100448999&oldid=100448110){kind=link}
- Does a great photographer needs the admin tools? He/she can get a autopatrolled if he wants to. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Remove - I don't do too terribly much at Commons, but I'll say that this isn't really acceptable for anyone with the sysop bit on any WMF wiki. TCN7JM 04:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per Tiptoety, Túrelio et al. Trijnsteltalk 10:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please can you clarify your vote - usually {{Vd}} is used for remove votes. Which do you mean? --99of9 (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Right... that was a mistake. Thanks. Trijnsteltalk 17:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please can you clarify your vote - usually {{Vd}} is used for remove votes. Which do you mean? --99of9 (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- keep per Tiptoety, Túrelio, INeverCry, ... --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Largely per Túrelio, Mattinbgn, INeverCry and Tony Wills' comments. Bidgee has acknowledged what went wrong, and given their history of strong contributions as an administrator I see no reason to doubt their genuineness. As a general principle, I only support the removal of the admin tools without the admin first having a chance to mend their ways in the case of serious and/or sustained misconduct or a refusal to acknowledge having made a mistake, and I don't think that any of those criteria apply here. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep "De-adminship requests that are opened without prior discussion leading to some consensus for removal may be closed by a bureaucrat as inadmissible" (COM:DEADMIN)(emphasis mine). The preceding AN/U complaint had no such consensus (that an admin misused the tools and that an admin should be desysoped are different notions); indeed, the only mention of de-sysop (other than perhaps implicitly by the filer of this deadmin) was this drive-by comment from a new account (fresh to Commons off of an indef en.wiki block - curious) explicitly based solely on interactions on another project. Bidgee did misuse the tools here and should be trouted for it, but the out-of-process escalation to deadmin with no geniune, mellow attempt to discuss the issue collegially suggests bad faith (the only contribution to Bidgee's talk page related to this was the AN/U notice). Ridiculous misbehavior and drama mongering. Эlcobbola talk 14:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The use of the tools was indeed rather disturbing, but it seems to have been a case of getting carried away (too involved) during some quite rapidly-evolving action, rather than for any nefarious motive. Everyone can make a mistake, including mistakes of judgement such as this, and we have to consider whether Commons as a project would best be served by removing or keeping Bidgee's admin rights. Bidgee has apologized, and I am more than happy to take his word that this will not happen again. Given Bidgee's generally very good record, and the useful admin work he does here, the balance falls on the side of not removing his bit. I do not want to see de-sysops for the sake of retribution, only for the sake of the project. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Not good enough. He says, "I wouldn't be the first nor the last Sysop to make such error in judgement (this is no why an excuse for my actions). There is no there is no denying that what I did was in poor form, I had done every thing that the community had entrust me but failed them when I had allowed my emotions to cloud my judgement.' Right, that's putting it mildly. Please take a break and re-apply for adminship in six months. Otherwise, the bad behaviour we see routinely from a group of cowboy admins on Commons will continue, and I will continue to undermine Commons by encouraging editors not to upload to it. Tony (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- There is a history of this behaviour and you want to call it retribution? We (many of us) do not trust Bidgee with admin tools after the way he's misused them, and we do not trust nepotistic fellow admins who will excuse it. When Bidgee does it again, because he will, you will excuse it all over again saying he "slipped up" or that we never could have expected Bidgee to make a mistake again after all this scrutiny but that it's still forgiveable. Fry1989 eh? 19:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Info Some believe that there is a sad history of User:Fry1989 being victimized by everyone that he edit wars with: "I deserve an appology, and I want one, but I can't force Bidgee to do it nor can anyone else. I'm asking that he give me one, and then I'll move on. If he doesn't, I wont be quick to forget this. Fry1989 eh? 14:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)" [9] --Tony Wills (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Bidgee does good work overall, in my opinion. However, she would be well-advised to post to the appropriate noticeboard regarding a matter in which she is involved. She should not use her administrator tools in such cases. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. But if they fall into the same hole then take the tools and fill in the hole. Add a block to cap it off. Without reading most of the other drama here it does seem that they can change. Once chance may be enough to show that, and we are short on admin.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Comments
- Not casting a !vote, but I will remark that this isn't the first time Bidgee has used the admin tools to gain the upper hand in a dispute. See: 1, 2, 3. -FASTILY 21:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Holy shit, has anyone seen [10]?? This is chock full of abuse. Most of these protects follow the pattern: 1) Normal user uploads a new version of a sign. 2) Bidgee reverts the normal editor's upload. 3) Bidgee protects/locks the page such that only admins can upload new versions. In particular, check out files such as this named in the "File:Australian State Route xxx.svg" pattern on July 14, 2012. -FASTILY 21:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Some of those protections are because of socking by Jermboy. I don't have protection tools, so I haven't really taken the time to read any guidelines on what warrants it, but I generally support anything to stop that troll. I'm more concerned about the abuse of tools where Bidgee is an involved party. Some of those appear to meet that, or at least suggest Bidgee has a very heavy hand. Fry1989 eh? 21:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- The Australian route ones from July 2012 do not fall into that category. --Rschen7754 21:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Protection was not the appropriate action to take. IPs are not permitted to upload files and admins have a block button with an autoblock feature, which is more than enough to deal with upload vandalism. Bidgee's overreaction prevents normal, good faith users from contributing, and this constitutes an inappropriate use of the tools. -FASTILY 23:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- I had a email request regarding the shields from a concerned editor. I do agree that the protection was excessive. Though had I know that it was still protected, I would have removed the protection (which has already been done by Fastily). Bidgee (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Protection was not the appropriate action to take. IPs are not permitted to upload files and admins have a block button with an autoblock feature, which is more than enough to deal with upload vandalism. Bidgee's overreaction prevents normal, good faith users from contributing, and this constitutes an inappropriate use of the tools. -FASTILY 23:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- The Australian route ones from July 2012 do not fall into that category. --Rschen7754 21:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Some of those protections are because of socking by Jermboy. I don't have protection tools, so I haven't really taken the time to read any guidelines on what warrants it, but I generally support anything to stop that troll. I'm more concerned about the abuse of tools where Bidgee is an involved party. Some of those appear to meet that, or at least suggest Bidgee has a very heavy hand. Fry1989 eh? 21:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- @Fry1989 "And then he will lie and misuse diffs to distract others when any criticism of this is raised." can you support this?
- @Fastily I'm rather disappointed that you just jump to conclusions and scream abuse, User:Jermboy27 is in fact long-term abuse user (whom is banned). The only questionable use of tools would be the protections of File:Australian Slippery Road Surface sign.png, the route shields in July 2012, athletes/sportspeople and File:Denmark road sign A12.1.svg but not really a long list of abuse. I've made some errors in judgement, but I'm not the only Sysop who has done so. Though the autoblock feature does not work for User:Jermboy27, who finds every way to bypass his blocks here and on English Wikipedia.
- To make people feel more comfortable, I'm happy to recuse the use of Sysop tools from all disputes, and only use them (tools) for deletions (deletion requests, speedy deletions), only do protections when needed (excluding anything that I'm disputed in) and requested (on the protections noticeboard). Bidgee (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is a bit too little too late, in my opinion - no sysop on any Wikimedia project should be using sysop tools to win any dispute. This is something that you implicitly agree to whenever you run for permissions on any Wikimedia project, and to only agree to that now is... saddening. --Rschen7754 01:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be the first nor the last Sysop to make such error in judgement (this is no why an excuse for my actions). There is no there is no denying that what I did was in poor form, I had done every thing that the community had entrust me but failed them when I had allowed my emotions to cloud my judgement, I sincerely apologise to the community for that and if I where to continue as a Sysop, not to take actions that would be deemed inappropriate and unacceptable by fellow Sysop's and the community. Bidgee (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is a bit too little too late, in my opinion - no sysop on any Wikimedia project should be using sysop tools to win any dispute. This is something that you implicitly agree to whenever you run for permissions on any Wikimedia project, and to only agree to that now is... saddening. --Rschen7754 01:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- @Bidgee: Wrong answer. Long term sockpuppeteers can be, and should be dealt with surgical tools such as rangeblocks and edit filters, so as cause minimal disruption on the project. By contrast, protection stops all users from contributing and should only be used as last resort when there is excessive vandalism from numerous disruptive users (e.g. 4chan doubles/triples get) or multi-user edit-warring. -FASTILY 02:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Rangeblocks would be far more damaging (since they use a large range [the IPs are assigned for people living in South Australia and the Northern Territory]) and really have an effect if the socks IP range is small and edit filters wouldn't be ideal (Jermboy would likely bypass it), if you think that will work, try it. Bidgee (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong again, and now you've demonstrated that you do not understand how to adequately deal with LTA users. When carefully and restrictively applied, short rangeblocks, in association with global open/zombie proxy blocks at meta, are highly effective at containing disruption from IP hopping vandals. Anonymous editing may then be explicitly disabled along these ranges, allowing confirmed, logged-in users to edit normally, thus achieving said minimal disruption. This is a time-tested and proven strategy (both locally and globally), and I'm mildly disturbed that you just attempted to deny its effectiveness. No new comments with regards to an edit filter; I am not familiar enough with this vandal's everyday editing habits to make a fair assessment of your assertion, so I'll leave it at that. -FASTILY 08:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Bidgee, I can absolutely support my claim of you misusing diffs and lying to distract from your own criticism. In this previous AN/U, you linked two diffs of my edits claiming I was edit warring.
- The first diff was of File:Swedish and Norwegian merchant flag 1818-1844.svg. Looking at the history of the file, everyone can see that Roede reverted it because of a disagreement in the proportions. I reverted him saying it was "unclear", but I was reverted myself by Lokal Profil. The problem which arose is that the file that Roede and Lokal Profil reverted to also had different colours from the previous version. The edit that you linked as "edit warring" was actually of me restoring the colours on the previous file while maintaining the proportions that Roede and Lokal Profil wanted. So in fact I only reverted that file once, my second upload was only a restoration of colours which was not the actual disagreement. One revision isn't edit warring but you deliberately misrepresented it as if it was.
- The second diff of me reverting myself. Would you care to tell everyone here how they can edit war with themselves??? Another deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.
- Honestly though, I don't see the point of reasoning with someone who will say "I'll recuse my admin tools in disputes". You should know better then to yse them when you're involved with a dispute in the first place! That's why we're here. Fry1989 eh? 01:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hardly "deliberate misrepresentation", I'm sure many editors here would have their own view as to whether it was or wasn't edit warring. Bidgee (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- No they wouldn't, only you. The dispute was very clearly about the proportions of the flag, not it's colours. I only reverted the proportions once, and one edit doesn't make an edit war under any definition! As for the other diff, I would sure love to do a psycho-analysis on anyone who supports the idea of edit-warring with oneself. Fry1989 eh? 03:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hardly "deliberate misrepresentation", I'm sure many editors here would have their own view as to whether it was or wasn't edit warring. Bidgee (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Adding yet another set of diffs and links: Back in July 2012, User:Outrune uploaded new versions to the series "File:Australian State Route xxx.svg" (some 100+ files). The new revisions by Outrune were all unilaterally reverted by Bidgee. When Outrune asks about the reverts, Bidgee responds with a relatively unhelpful reply, and then proceeds to inappropriately mass-protect all the files he just reverted. Outrune, obviously disappointed by Bidgee's abuse of the admin tools to gain the upper hand, appears to have left the project. -FASTILY 08:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- The last bit of your statement is not accurate: he or she uploaded a new highway sign a few weeks ago, and contributed a couple of photos in November 2012 and February 2013. Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have checked it, and Nick-D is correct. Outrune has edited a total of three times in the 12 months following their interaction with Bidgee. In the 12 months prior to that, they had made about 280 contributions. Penyulap ☏ 11:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- @Nick, I could change it to "mostly left the project" if it makes you happy, but bear in mind that this is a trivial matter. The bottom line is that Outrune is no longer an active, participating member of Commons -FASTILY 22:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hey check it out, Nick-D was at the meetup with Laurahale where Bidgee took the picture, cool ! I can't guess how he'll be voting, have to wait and see. This is so exciting. Penyulap ☏ 20:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- No I wasn't: I couldn't make it. I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve through trolling beyond making a fool of yourself. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- That's ok, there are a lot of people like you who overlook Outrune and editors like him. I suspect that there are plenty of people who just think of themselves, their own selfish interests, and never give a thought to how much effort it is to sit down at your computer and craft 100 images for a project and then see all of that reverted without a thought. I think of those people, I care about those people, working alone in the quiet corners of the project. I don't give a rats ass if people want to revenge block me or call me names like you do Nick, I honestly don't give a fuck. I'm not a self-centered prick and never will be. I like who I am. Penyulap ☏ 07:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- No I wasn't: I couldn't make it. I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve through trolling beyond making a fool of yourself. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hey check it out, Nick-D was at the meetup with Laurahale where Bidgee took the picture, cool ! I can't guess how he'll be voting, have to wait and see. This is so exciting. Penyulap ☏ 20:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- @Nick, I could change it to "mostly left the project" if it makes you happy, but bear in mind that this is a trivial matter. The bottom line is that Outrune is no longer an active, participating member of Commons -FASTILY 22:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have checked it, and Nick-D is correct. Outrune has edited a total of three times in the 12 months following their interaction with Bidgee. In the 12 months prior to that, they had made about 280 contributions. Penyulap ☏ 11:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment It seems strange to me that I should be defending yet another admin who wants to rapidly delete an image with "no source" without properly checking things out first or letting things follow due process, but here is how I see things:
- - The case of renaming a file is not a case of mis-using admin tools, firstly filemover is only a trusted user tool (not a tool restricted to admins like file deletion/blocking/protection) , second the other user accepted that they were wrong, [11], which of course they were as the image was indeed a representation of both the nz and ausy road signs. User:Bidgee did not use admin tools to win an argument (eg block the disputant or protect the file), but like most admins, was persistant in the face of a user trying to deliberately mis-categorize a file.
- - The instances of protecting files to prevent them being over-written appear to have nothing to do with disputes, but simply User:Bidgee not choosing the best tool to rectify problems, surely an educational issue, perhaps he was away that day during the comprehensive admin induction/training course ;-). And the consequences of not assuming good faith (eg people being driven away) are serious.
- - In the Denmark road sign A12.1.svg case, there seemed to be confusion caused by the conflation of two different sourcing requirements. One is the sort of source requirement we have for files for copyright reasons, that we know where the file came from, eg own work of the uploader or source website. Another is the sort of source requirement wikipedia has for adding material that demands authentication, eg a reliable source. Commons only indirectly requires the second type of sourcing, ie the subject must be within scope and for a realistic educational purpose - for which you may need to show the subject is real and not a hoax image. User:Bidgee appears to have been acting in good faith to delete in image he believed was a probable hoax due to the lack of authentication, he didn't appear to have any personal interest in the outcome apart from the usual over zealous admin actions of wanting to delete things.
- - User:Bidgee deleted the file as no source (misguided perhaps, but an admin action of no great note), normal processes (undeletion request) restored the file. User:Bidgee did not then try to delete the file by some 'backdoor method', but proceeded to mark it as no-source (which it lacked by his, and no doubt a few other users and admins, judgement). His mistake was to edit war over the no-source tag, and not recognising he was edit warring, he then protected the file (which would have been a reasonable action pending the outcome of the deletion request if carried out by an uninvolved admin).
- - As far as I can find this is the first reported serious lapse by User:Bidgee in 4 years of admin work, I see User:Bidgee as acting in good faith as by his understanding the file was indeed 'un-sourced'. He didn't appear to be out to win an edit war by protecting the file to somehow advance some personal adjenda, he protected the file to stop an incorrect source being repeatedly added.
- - I think that User:Bidgee needs to learn to recognise when he has become too involved (the usual alarm bell is that one feels the need to immediately reply/revert). I expect User:Bidgee to continue to improve as an admin after studying and understanding the mistakes drawn to his attention here, I hope others will recognise a bit of themselves in his actions and catch themselves too :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- "The case of renaming a file is not a case of mis-using admin tools, firstly filemover is only a trusted user tool..."
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AAustralia_and_New_Zealand_slippery_road_surface_sign.png&diff=95640186&oldid=81354192){kind=link}
- Tony come on! Do you really take everyone here so easy? Yes, it's a user-trusted tool not just restricted to Admins, but it's also an Admin tool inasmuch that there are no admins who aren't also filemovers, it comes with being an Admin. I have file mover rights, and if I abused the tool to get my way in a dispute I was directly involved in, the community would have every right to take away the file mover tool from me as I would no longer be trustworthy in using it. Now if you can find a case where I've done that, I'll eat my balls, but you know just as much as I do that it's not about one tool or one case, this is about Bidgee abusing several tools that he has access to as an Admin, where it's an obvious conflict of interest because he is an involved party to a dispute. Just as my right to file moving would be taken away, so should Bidgee's rights to the many more tools he has access to and has abused on more than one occasion. Fry1989 eh? 21:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- For renaming the file to be considered an 'end game', an administrative action to win an argument about categorization, one must assume that the file name determines categorization, which of course it does not. Files are not categorized by filename, but generally by subject/content, anyone can edit the categories irrespective of the filename. It either is a good illustration of what the NZ road sign looks like, or it isn't, regardless of filename. The illustration, apparently based on a photograph of an Australian road sign, is indeed more similar to your SVG of the NZ version of this sign than the Ausy one this sign, NZ SVG, Ausy SVG (open them in seperate tabs and click between them to compare). So this representation of an Ausy sign is also a good representation (for most intents and purposes) of the NZ sign. There was no administrative action which forced an end to the categorization dispute, there was a renaming of the file which prompted you to open an admin notice [12] on the assumption a file's name change forced it into a new category. From that admin notice you also appear to be under the mistaken belief that a Commons category should only contain one version of any image, tradionally the category contains all images, a gallery is created to show a selection of the best, and/or lay them out in an easy to use way. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- If the name of the file doesn't regulate the categories the file gets to be in, then why did Bidgee rename the sign????? He did it because he wanted it in the categories of both Australia and New Zealand, two separate countries, even though it was an Australian road sign, and his attempt would look more legitimate if the file name included the names of both countries. He used a tool which is not accessible to everyone, but only to trusted users, to get his way in a dispute and that is absolutely an abuse. You can lie to yourself but don't lie to me, you know that if I used my file mover ability to get my way in an argument, my access to the file mover tool wouldn't last for long. The rest of your argument is quite frankly trite. Alot of signs from Finland and Sweden are similar, and alot of signs from Ireland and Brazil are similar, by your reasoning we can just mix and mash their categories all we want as long as the signs are similar. It's a slap in the face to the idea of proper categorization and filing, which all of Commons is based on. Fry1989 eh? 01:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please be civil and don't call people liars just because you reject their point of view. It would seem to be self evident that User:Bidgee renamed the file because he thought it represented both the Ausy and NZ roadsigns. And yes, Commons has a practice of not keeping duplicates, we do not need to make a second copy of a file just so that we can give it a name that fits into some naming scheme in a second category. If we have a file that represents a sign found in both Ireland and Brazil we of course only need one copy. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is a lie when you say something everyone knows isn't true. You know just as well as I do that I would no longer have access to file mover rights if I used it in the course of a dispute to gain an advantage. That is exactly what Bidgee did. He didn't rename it because he thought it equally represents both Australian and New Zealand signs. That was the basis of the dispute but it wasn't the reason for renaming it, he never would have renamed it at all if the dispute wasn't taking place. He was involved, he never should have used his tools, it was an abuse. You're so intent on making excuses to save his ass you're willing throw Commons most basic principle, proper categorisation and data filing, down the toilet. I am still waiting for you to say it's "ok" and give me the go-ahead to use my file mover rights whenever I'm in a dispute and I believe it gives me an advantage, because I know you will NEVER say it. You're willing to imply it to save Bidgee's ass though. Fry1989 eh? 19:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- The fallacy of your argument is believing one could reasonably expect to gain an advantage in a categorization argument by renaming the file in question - the content hasn't changed, even the description hasn't changed. But it transpires that you do believe that fallacy, so I can now see why you think he believed it too. But please don't extrapolate your thought processes into mine, I do not believe that fallacy. And please stop using your usual tactic of repetitively (and uncivilly, provocatively, disruptively) asserting people are lying when they clearly are not. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- PS And let us remember that the file was finally allowed to be properly categorized by User:Bidgee after User:Fry1989 stopped edit warring and took a dispute to the Admin board, and that User:Fry1989 subsequently accepted they were wrong [13] --Tony Wills (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- I WHAT NOW?????' I NEVER conceded I was wrong, I simply stopped fighting because I didn't want to get in all sorts of shit going up against an admin bully who abuses their tools when they are a involved party. Can you even read edit summaries??? Look at the god damn link you posted, it says "two SVGs, because it's two different countries!", I insisted then and still insist now that it was wrong, inappropriate and inexcusable to categorize an Australian sign in a New Zealand category, just as it would be wrong to categorize a Finnish road sign in a category for Sweden. You're so eager to save Bidgee's ass you will twist and turn anything, my god you're desperate. Only a complete fool would mis-construe that I admitted I was wrong when I said the very opposite!!!! Fry1989 eh? 00:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Actions speak louder than bluster, you added a template that says that the NZ SVG of the slippery road sign File:New Zealand PW-41.svg is an equivalent SVG and therefore should be used in place of this raster image when superior. Are you are now saying that this is incorrect and that you no longer think that the NZ SVG that you linked to is equivalent and can be used in place of this file in cases where an SVG is better? --Tony Wills (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- So instead of reading palms, you're reading tea leaves? You have no idea what my stance was or is, I NEVER conceded I was wrong and I still don't to this day. Bidgee abused his tools to win a dispute, and I stopped fighting it because I didn't want to get blocked because he has all the friends and I had none in it. You do not categorize the sign of one country in that of another country, that's the most basic of commons sense. Tony Wills, don't you ever put words in my mouth again because you don't have a fucking clue about anything! You are incompetent and a troll who will do anything to save a friend, including twisting the actions and words of others in whichever way you think helps your cause. Go fuck yourself. Fry1989 eh? 02:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Actions speak louder than bluster, you added a template that says that the NZ SVG of the slippery road sign File:New Zealand PW-41.svg is an equivalent SVG and therefore should be used in place of this raster image when superior. Are you are now saying that this is incorrect and that you no longer think that the NZ SVG that you linked to is equivalent and can be used in place of this file in cases where an SVG is better? --Tony Wills (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- I WHAT NOW?????' I NEVER conceded I was wrong, I simply stopped fighting because I didn't want to get in all sorts of shit going up against an admin bully who abuses their tools when they are a involved party. Can you even read edit summaries??? Look at the god damn link you posted, it says "two SVGs, because it's two different countries!", I insisted then and still insist now that it was wrong, inappropriate and inexcusable to categorize an Australian sign in a New Zealand category, just as it would be wrong to categorize a Finnish road sign in a category for Sweden. You're so eager to save Bidgee's ass you will twist and turn anything, my god you're desperate. Only a complete fool would mis-construe that I admitted I was wrong when I said the very opposite!!!! Fry1989 eh? 00:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- PS And let us remember that the file was finally allowed to be properly categorized by User:Bidgee after User:Fry1989 stopped edit warring and took a dispute to the Admin board, and that User:Fry1989 subsequently accepted they were wrong [13] --Tony Wills (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- The fallacy of your argument is believing one could reasonably expect to gain an advantage in a categorization argument by renaming the file in question - the content hasn't changed, even the description hasn't changed. But it transpires that you do believe that fallacy, so I can now see why you think he believed it too. But please don't extrapolate your thought processes into mine, I do not believe that fallacy. And please stop using your usual tactic of repetitively (and uncivilly, provocatively, disruptively) asserting people are lying when they clearly are not. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- It is a lie when you say something everyone knows isn't true. You know just as well as I do that I would no longer have access to file mover rights if I used it in the course of a dispute to gain an advantage. That is exactly what Bidgee did. He didn't rename it because he thought it equally represents both Australian and New Zealand signs. That was the basis of the dispute but it wasn't the reason for renaming it, he never would have renamed it at all if the dispute wasn't taking place. He was involved, he never should have used his tools, it was an abuse. You're so intent on making excuses to save his ass you're willing throw Commons most basic principle, proper categorisation and data filing, down the toilet. I am still waiting for you to say it's "ok" and give me the go-ahead to use my file mover rights whenever I'm in a dispute and I believe it gives me an advantage, because I know you will NEVER say it. You're willing to imply it to save Bidgee's ass though. Fry1989 eh? 19:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please be civil and don't call people liars just because you reject their point of view. It would seem to be self evident that User:Bidgee renamed the file because he thought it represented both the Ausy and NZ roadsigns. And yes, Commons has a practice of not keeping duplicates, we do not need to make a second copy of a file just so that we can give it a name that fits into some naming scheme in a second category. If we have a file that represents a sign found in both Ireland and Brazil we of course only need one copy. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- If the name of the file doesn't regulate the categories the file gets to be in, then why did Bidgee rename the sign????? He did it because he wanted it in the categories of both Australia and New Zealand, two separate countries, even though it was an Australian road sign, and his attempt would look more legitimate if the file name included the names of both countries. He used a tool which is not accessible to everyone, but only to trusted users, to get his way in a dispute and that is absolutely an abuse. You can lie to yourself but don't lie to me, you know that if I used my file mover ability to get my way in an argument, my access to the file mover tool wouldn't last for long. The rest of your argument is quite frankly trite. Alot of signs from Finland and Sweden are similar, and alot of signs from Ireland and Brazil are similar, by your reasoning we can just mix and mash their categories all we want as long as the signs are similar. It's a slap in the face to the idea of proper categorization and filing, which all of Commons is based on. Fry1989 eh? 01:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- For renaming the file to be considered an 'end game', an administrative action to win an argument about categorization, one must assume that the file name determines categorization, which of course it does not. Files are not categorized by filename, but generally by subject/content, anyone can edit the categories irrespective of the filename. It either is a good illustration of what the NZ road sign looks like, or it isn't, regardless of filename. The illustration, apparently based on a photograph of an Australian road sign, is indeed more similar to your SVG of the NZ version of this sign than the Ausy one this sign, NZ SVG, Ausy SVG (open them in seperate tabs and click between them to compare). So this representation of an Ausy sign is also a good representation (for most intents and purposes) of the NZ sign. There was no administrative action which forced an end to the categorization dispute, there was a renaming of the file which prompted you to open an admin notice [12] on the assumption a file's name change forced it into a new category. From that admin notice you also appear to be under the mistaken belief that a Commons category should only contain one version of any image, tradionally the category contains all images, a gallery is created to show a selection of the best, and/or lay them out in an easy to use way. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Tony come on! Do you really take everyone here so easy? Yes, it's a user-trusted tool not just restricted to Admins, but it's also an Admin tool inasmuch that there are no admins who aren't also filemovers, it comes with being an Admin. I have file mover rights, and if I abused the tool to get my way in a dispute I was directly involved in, the community would have every right to take away the file mover tool from me as I would no longer be trustworthy in using it. Now if you can find a case where I've done that, I'll eat my balls, but you know just as much as I do that it's not about one tool or one case, this is about Bidgee abusing several tools that he has access to as an Admin, where it's an obvious conflict of interest because he is an involved party to a dispute. Just as my right to file moving would be taken away, so should Bidgee's rights to the many more tools he has access to and has abused on more than one occasion. Fry1989 eh? 21:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm glad you got that out, it sounds painful in there. Of all the things that one might conceive as abuse of admin powers, this has the least substance. This is an instance of someone renaming a file that is their own work, and was uploaded by them, which gives them the perfect right to upload it again by a new name (the standard procedure before the file-move function was available in wikimedia software), at which point the original would be deleted and their latest version kept (any user is at perfect liberty to do this) - to call renaming the file an abuse just because you were edit warring at the time is simply wrong (You have been shown to be wrong about the categorization: (this sign, NZ SVG, Ausy SVG), but apparently still can't admit this even to yourself even though you, for some inexplicable reason, added the NZ template to a file that you are so adamant does not represent the NZ sign). I am sorry that you have been drawn into this as it is not actually about you, your actions, or interaction style. I will try and refrain from replying to any more posts in this sub-thread and leave you have the last word on the matter if you so wish: --Tony Wills (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- This NSFW sign may need protection before someone steals if for good (see version history). Most of the signs above don't seem to have any discussion on the talk pages.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Here's some info: according to my script (source), Bidgee has only 882 file moves (880 without leaving a redirect, 2 over a redirect), and is unacceptable by me. According to Steinsplitter, there is a long backlog of English OTRS mails; Bidgee as native English speaker and an OTRS member, I doubt he's doing his job correctly.--Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for correcting that so quickly, more insubstantial accusations we don't need. --Tony Wills (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Some nice photography
(originally above as a response to Laurahale.)
Oh wow, now I know what you mean by a great photographer. Bidgee took this picture you use on your en.wiki page. Looks like there was 16 in that picture. So I guess we need to find not 10 but maybe 20 smurfs who for some God only knows why reason think disruptively and troll Bidgee by suggesting that admin tools aren't for winning personal lame disputes. Hmm 20 or so, and there's like 10 already. HEY, how many are left in that photo, or do they like call on other meetup people or something if you run into trouble with the serfs doing serfy things and having disruptive opinions ? how does it work ? no, wait, what am I thinking, this is too good to spoil the surprise, we have to "stay tuned" to this channel. <Peny goes off in search of popcorn>
Penyulap ☏ 20:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, so I may be joking about the serfs or smurfs 9of99, but we can at least admire the photograph Bidgee took. LauraHale did bring up the subject of Bidgee's photography as a reason for him to keep the admin tools. I personally can't see why admin tools are required to take pictures, but then I'm not that smart in the first place, ask anyone. This is a great photo of a meetup in Australia, I like this photo, it has great educational content don't you think ? I find it very informative. Penyulap ☏ 05:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)