Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:HTML output - Exey Panteleev.jpg

Anonymous user may be double-voting

Please note, as one of the keep voters is an anonymous IP, it may be a double vote from a single individual. -Seazzy (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 Comment The IP might be an double vote to keep the file, and that, if warranted, should be checked with an check user. But the same care should be made on the about accounts that vote to delete, as Kathleensmith, that only has three edits, all in this deletion requests. SPA they seem not as they have been registered at least since 24 March 2018, but none the less their appearance is odd to say the least. Tm (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 Comment Please see user Tm's talk page for their extensive history of bad faith and abusive behaviour, including having been blocked from Commons at times. Many of the arguments this user has made do not have any relevance to the requirements for inclusion in Commons, and are frequently false or misleading and in bad faith. -Seazzy (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 Comment Proofs that deleting this image are not an act of censorship? And proofs that this images make an "chilling effect on women and others who are using Commons for research and educational purposes"? He have almost 60 million images and are these dozen of images that make women participate less in Commons? Or are their other reasons like the unfortunate fact all Wikimedia and Wikipedia projects have a lot more men then women. And many of they dont have or link this images. A few images in tens of millions of images are the fact that stop women from participating in Commons, albeit the fact that all Wikimedia projects suffer the same problem despite the fact that they share the same unfortunate fact of female participation, despite all efforts and projects in all Wikimedia projects to revert that.

I could take the same route as you and besides talk again that you never contributed nothing to Commons in the last three years, point out the fact that could point to your talk page and say that your have serious problems with copyright violations in your uploads and say that so deduce that "many of the arguments this user has made do not have any relevance to the requirements for inclusion in Commons, and are frequently false or misleading", but that last fact would be irrelevant and an ad hominem attack like the one you just did. Instead i will point to my block log and invite people to see that almost all blocks since 2012 were reverted for those blocks being abusive, unwarranted, against policy and were all reverted by other administrators. Besides that, see my archived talkpages and see why was i blocked and why almost all were reverted (and two of those blocking administrators have been desysoped). You will see that i do not have an "extensive history of bad faith and abusive behaviour" contrary to the false accusations of Seazzy. And, to the contrary of what you claim below, "Many of the arguments this user has made do not have any relevance to the requirements for inclusion in Commons, and are frequently false or misleading", please see what the unsuspected Fæ had to say in other related deletion request. Please provide links, like i do, that proofs of what you claim that i have an "bad faith and abusive behaviour, including having been blocked from Commons at times

Besides a comment by are not" and that "many of the arguments this user has made do not have any relevance to the requirements for inclusion in Commons, and are frequently false or misleading", speacilly the part about those being "frequently false or misleading". Either you show proofs what you claimed about me or your making some "frequently false or misleading" "arguments" and statements. Tm (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Seazzy: Make up your mind — are IP votes always bad, or also good when they happen to vote the same way as you do? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment usual practice has been to regard anon votes as having less weight than those of established users. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)