Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~71
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-12: ~402

Other:

• Duplicates: ~17
• Advertisements/spam: ~2
• Personal photos/selfies: ~44
• Other speedy deletions: ~136
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~1
• Requests for unblock: ~4
• Undeletion requests: ~10

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~40
• Interface admin: ~25
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~14
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Note

• Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
• Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
• It is usually appropriate to notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
• It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/08/Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard

Can I help user Tm with removing Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard using Cat-a-lot? Johnny8181 (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. --Krd 13:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Who is blocked and why? --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Tm for running an unapproved bot which edits to fast. Natuur12 (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I see. Also, according to Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/08/Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard, the answer to the original question is "no". Also, why would a likely sock-puppet with no previous edits ask that question? --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Related. Bot operators should follow so manners while using their bots. Refused to accept their mistakes even after asked is very rude as McZusatz is doing now. Jee 16:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Tm used cat-a-lot [1]. The block rationale of "unapproved bot" isn't true. Krd threatened to block me for the same thing. I used VisualFileChange, so again "unapproved bot" would've been false in my case as well. Tm did a whopping 1800 edits in a half hour BTW. As for McZusatz, he's always been a relaxed and reasonable guy, and the discussion pointed to looks to be pretty calm. He's trying to help out, and it's certainly nice to be able to edit a summary than the whole page. lNeverCry 00:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

User:AkBot is filling my watchlist with edits that only remove this "Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard". This seems to me to be blockable per above discussion and very very undesirable. Surely we all have better things to do (and to burn CPU cycles on) than removing some unimportant category from millions of files. Please can someone block this and post a notice wider to discourage this. -- Colin (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC) User:SteinsplitterBot also. -- Colin (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: I am runnung a cleanup script, can you please give me a difflink where a file hasn't been cleaned up. Thanks! :-). --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

this edit. Seem only concerned with removing the phased-out category. It's the only one in my watchlist. -- Colin (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The edit is correct, the wikitext does not require other cleanup. A number of bots are doing this task right now, i see no issue. A bot got approved recently for exactly that Commons:Bots/Requests/HiW-Bot. You can hide bots from your watchlist. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'm seriously confused. The linked discusion said "If a bot is tasked to remove the categorization, it should only do it together with other fixes in the respective file. Editing millions of files just because of a superfluous cat seems a bit excessive." The reply, from the guy who created the deletion request, was "Absolutely agree. Above point is very important to whoever actions this.". So why was that file edited with the only change being to remove this category? I'm not that concerned about my watchlist. I'm rather more concerned that people seem to think removing this from millions of files is a good use of resources and/or their limited time on earth. And with that, I'm unwatching this -- do what you like. -- Colin (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I share Colin’s confusion. The mentioned guideline, calling to join several minor changes in one same edit and to avoid edits that perform only one of such changes (and I presume, be it done by bot, by gadget, or manually), seems eminently sensible, and yet, judging from my own watchlist only, there’s a handful of bots and admins doing exactly that. Here’s a few examples from today’s crop: HiW-Bot, YaCBot, SteinsplitterBot, AkBot, INeverCry, and Czar. These have been going on for a long time, and yet when Tm does something like that (not even to mention the context of other edits), he gets immediately blocked. One more block to his list, for no good reason at all, enabling people later on to persecute him over his «lousy blocking record» (and compare with this expunged block, admin to admin). In the same context, nobody seems to notice that Tm got hit with something as unpleasant as a block, while multiple voices were raised deploring that Krd (who was elected to deal with stuff) was as much as mentioned at BN. So, no admin cronyism running rampant hand-in-head with a hamfisted approach against regular users, especially the maligned so-called power users — or am I confused? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I have better things to do on a Friday evening than discuss the UploadWizard category removal! But since I was pinged by Tuvalkin, I wonder if using Catalot is more resource-intensive than using a bot. I don't know much about how either work, but would the former require each page be downloaded, edited and saved, whereas the latter could be done on the server? If that's so, I can definitely see why using a browser-based tool to automate editing some of 5 million files would be very very unwise. -- Colin (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• You have to love the double standards on here - You block TM for mass removing the category yet at the same we have what 4 or 5 bots removing the exact same category and at the same time filing up my watchlist .... Surely Steinsplitters bot is enough ? ... how many more bots are going to take up my watchlist and or remove this category ? ... It's ridiculous - One bot is sufficient. –Davey2010^Talk 18:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  There's an obvious difference: Tm and Havang(nl) aren't bots, and can't mark their edits as bot edits, and flood watchlists. As for AkBot @Ankry: please mark its edits as bot edits. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

  @Zhuyifei1999: They are generally marked. Mabe except few testig ones. I noticed that cat-a-lot does not mark edits as bot edits, even if run as bot account. Is it intentional? Or am I missing something? Ankry (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

  Oops, perhaps I mislooked, sorry. As for cat-a-lot, the api call data near line 504 does not include "bot: true", and perhaps mediawiki defaults that parameter to false. Do you think that should be added? (IMO, it's a bot weird when cat-a-lot isn't a bot framework, but that flag is ignored anyways when the user doesn't have the bot permission, iirc) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

  @Zhuyifei1999: Unsure. I talked to Steinsplitter about this, and he suggests that cat-a-lot is not useful for massive task in any case as it is too resource-consuming. However, I think there should be a better way to prevent such an action than RC monitoring. Just noticed that it is not logical that massive action made by a bot account is not bot-marked. Ankry (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• I switched off my bot from doing that task, i am tired with this absolutely unnecessary drama. And by the way: Cat-a-lot is ignoring mw:API:Etiquette by flooding the api with x-requests per seconds, and of course cat-a-lot is parsing the page and then changing the category - there is no way to do it server-side. Cat-a-lot, hot-cat, etc. are java script client side tools written by volunteers not directly affiliated with mediawiki. A number of users are thinking that cat-a-lot, hot cat, et all are part of mediawiki but that isn't true - it is just java script, nothing on server side. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• Steinsplitter - FWIW I have no issue with your bot whatsoever, Your bot is the only one that should be running it IMO. –Davey2010^Talk 18:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• Steinsplitter has asked me a few days ago to disable cat-a-lot usage on that category. I initially refused so users can have more freedom, but if this has to be done, I will do it. (VFC won't be exempted) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I got automatic notification of this discussion. I was the one who asked for using cat-a-lot before I started using it. I did 40.000 edits in one hour manually, thinking to be helping. I was higly surprised to get blocked without warning by [User:Krd]]. User:Steinsplitter let me know it was a misunderstanding and I was soon unblocked bij Krd. Now I just remove the cat from templates with included category, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Adamantane_tricyclo_nomenclature.svg&diff=214910176&oldid=206430453 . Can an admin adapt this sort of templates in a way that the cat-inclusion is annulated? --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• Please could the edit summaries be clearer when this category is being removed? Just saying "category deletion" as @AkBot and Ankry say, or "Bot: Removing phased-out category." as @SteinsplitterBot and Steinsplitter say, or "Bot: Removing category per discussion" as @SchlurcherBot and Schlurcher say, or "Removing phased out category." as @HiW-Bot and Hedwig in Washington say, is not great when you have many images in your watchlist where this category is being used, and you have to check to see if it is *this* category rather than another one that's being edited. Please could the bot operators add the name of the category into the edit summary? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Mike Peel: There's a link to the community decision under this text. Is in not enough? Ankry (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The link is definitely good, thanks for including it. However, it doesn't help too much when looking through a long watchlist since you have to click on it to find out that it's about this category. Is adding the category name into the edit summary a big job? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    • OK, I will add in next run if it does not exceed changelog entry size. Ankry (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Thank you! Mike Peel (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
        • Updated my bot's changelog as well. Thanks for linking my name, so I could find this discussion. --Schlurcher (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Too many bots are running this useless job too quickly. In recent hours User:‎YaCBot and User:akBot have been most prominent on my watchlist, so the best thing they could do is stop. Probably other criteria would indicate additional ones. Perhaps there are many bot operators who have nothing useful to do and want to participate in this. They could take turns, each running on a particular day. Or they could collaborate on one, more sophisticated bot that would combine this useless task with a few slightly useful ones. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jim.henderson: As it is noted above: You can hide bots from your watchlist (if you wish). There were at least 4 bots working on this task today in various parts of this category. AFAIK all bots are performing other minor cleaning together with this task. But most files do not require any other cleaning. If you wish to remain them untouched, maybe for next few years, requires this decision to be changed, I think.

Moreover, if you still wish to receive notifications from bots, I can't understand how receiving 50,000 notifications one day is worse than receiving 5,000 notifications per day in 10 subsequent days.

Note also, that too many fixes in a single edit often results in unpredicable and unexpected effects because of bot software undocumented bugs of just unnoticed mistakes. Ankry (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The best part of this is the information that it's approximately a ten day job, at current speed. That means it will finish next week sometime. I don't know where to find the information for a calculation, and feared that the onslaught would continue at high intensity for many weeks. Yes, doing it in a single day would be better, and stretching it out to a few months would be better yet. As it happens, I found a slight benefit. With all (or almost all) my old pictures appearing once and only once on the watchlist, I could check each picture for location errors, inadequate categorization and so forth. Temporarily. The rate soon increased until it was faster than I can check. Hiding all bot changes has the disadvantage of hiding also the changes made in the day or several hours before the bot, but that's what I have been doing. My best solution has been to suspend most category diffusion and similar Commons maintenance activities. After the disruption ceases, I'll gradually increase those activities, but remain aware that more powerful users have little respect for manual curatorial work like mine. Jim.henderson (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

good and then start in on Category:UW uploads using a custom license. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 13:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Musa Raza

Musa Raza (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) This user removes information from file descriptions, and try to change the "own work" claim of his/her uploads with speedy deletion nominations. All the edits and uploads need review. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Only 4 remaining files: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shyam actor.png, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Musa Raza. Yann (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I suggest restoring the recently deleted files. I also have doubts concerning earlier nominations: they requested deletion of an OTRS verified image as a copyrighted one exists on enwiki. IMO, that should not have been accepted. Ankry (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment - Yann, Why not consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page before reporting them here? Wikicology (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Yann, Ankry, and Wikicology: All of my uploads (except verified OTRS/Flickr) are copyright violations I don't own the rights. Many of my uploads have been deleted previously because of copyright violations. I'm not lying it's up to you that you believe me or not. If you want to keep these files then keep them but it will be copyright violation. I tagged them with deletion tags just because they are copyright violations but you removed my edits. So now I'm not doing anything you can do whatever is right. Thank you.--Musa Raza (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Musa Raza: This would be not a problem if you pointed out the real sources... Ankry (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ankry: I don't remember the real sources but I took all the uploads from Facebook or Google Images. You can find them if you search.--Musa Raza (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Kayesh

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

probably also Tawhid Rahman parvin (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Can someone look at their contribution? Looks like cross-wiki spam on translation page(s). A translation admin needed to revert / delete. A MediaWiki bug Ankry (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Kayesh is warned and in my opinion no other action is needed now. Taivo (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Houmouvazine and User:Ms10vc

Salut Cet utilisateur commet des attaques personnelles : "il est clair qu'elles ne vous conviennent pas, mais ce n'est pas une raison d'inventer des arguments absurdes. Ce n'est pas constructif.". Dénigre autrui juste parce que je dis que des photos sont des sources primaires et non pas secondaires. Rappelons-nous qu'il s'est plaint de moi il y a peu. Merci de faire le nécessaire. --Pannam2014 (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Bonjour, je vous signale que tout de suite après son blocage le 23 novembre 2016 à 09:47 pour insultes, Pannam2014 est parti sur WP-EN continuer ses insultes et il insulte en plus l'administrateur Yann qu'il traite d'ignorant ==> [2].

De plus je confirme que Pannam2014 utilise des arguments absurdes. Je vous donne trois exemples:

1. Il écrit à propos du site crwflags.com : "que le site soit un site de vente est une bonne chose, ce sont donc des experts en Vexillologie. C'est donc une source académique" ==> [3].
2. Il écrit à propos de la source fournie par Buxlifa: "Ta source est hors sujet et à côté de la plaque, puisque celle-ci parle de 1945 et non pas de 1958" ==> [4] alors que dans la source c'est écrit : "Ce drapeau avait été confirmé comme emblème national par le comité central du Parti en 1949, puis normalisé par une décision du GPRA au cours d'une réunion du 3 avril 1962 à Tunis et enfin institutionnalisé par la loi n°63-145 du 25 avril 1963 de la République algérienne démocratique et populaire" ==> [5].
3. Il écrit : "je constate après 8 jours que personne n'a fourni de source contradictoire" ==> [6] alors qu'il y a 9 sources qui contredisent la sienne. Bien à vous --Ms10vc (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Ms10vc est prié de cesser de prendre les autres pour des imbéciles et de noyer le poisson. N'étant pas administrateur, Ms10vc n'a surtout rien à confirmer, si ce n'est les attaques personnelles de son camarade envers mois. Je demande donc une sanction contre lui aussi. Il a d'autre chose à faire que de se faire avocat des pauvres. Pour le reste, c'est un conflit éditorial et les sources secondaires prévalent sur les sources primaires. Olé est bien un expert. Pour le reste, dans les faits, les sources fournis sur la normalisation du drapeau ne concernent pas le GPRA en lui-même, mais bien le drapeau algérien. Ces sources ne sont donc pas centrées sur la période 1958-1962 qui nous intéressent. En conclusion, la seule source valable est celle que j'ai fournie et par conséquent, aucune source n'a été fournie. Et donc les propos de Ms10vc et de Houmouvazine sont bien des attaques personnelles. Pour mes propos, non seulement le blocage de Yan était abusif puisque je n'ai insulté personne et qu'il ne s'est pas justifié, mais de plus, les propos sur en: wiki ne concernent pas Commons et n'ont donc rien à faire là. Et enfin ils ne sont pas insultants. Cette pantalonnade a assez duré. Cordialement. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

User Crossswords

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

Serial copyright violator.

Uploads multiple files with asserted "own work" that are NOT "own work" but are instead blatant copyvio.

Warning -- data uploaded by user may be inaccurate -- Quite likely related to form of propaganda pushing by Trolls from Olgino, more info at [7].

Sagecandor (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

User reverting copyvio tags, most recently at File:Video game rating systems in europe.JPG. Pushed that one into deletion discussion. Disruptive. Sagecandor (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

how are world maps made by me in MS Paint violating copyright? Youre clearly harassing me and vandalizing my work for the one subject and dissagrement we have of the Fake News article as those pictures have nothing to do with your agenda--Crossswords (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Admins Pi.1415926535 and Ankry would appear to disagree -- the first deleted copyvio at File:Traffic for the term fake news.jpg, and the 2nd reverted user disruption at File:Video game rating systems in europe.JPG [8]. Sagecandor (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

User warned. @Sagecandor: be more careful with your nominations: data is not copyrighted, only images are. There is no evidence that the map were copied from external source. Unjustified nominations can be interpreted as harasment and are also reason to block a user. Please move political discussions somewhere else. Ankry (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ankry: I apologize if something was mistakenly tagged, to which image are you referring that was not copyrighted? Sagecandor (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Sagecandor asked me to comment here. I can only speak to the two files I came across browsing the administrator's backlog: File:Traffic for the term fake news.jpg (an obvious copyvio) and File:Gdp per capita shown in Western Deutsche Mark for the year 1965 in a western german schoolbook.png (not a copyvio so far as I can tell, but I cannot speak for the accuracy of the information). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ankry: It appears I may have been mistaken about File:Gdp per capita shown in Western Deutsche Mark for the year 1965 in a western german schoolbook.png, but glad the other valid concerns about copyright were addressed. Thank you for warning the user. I'll take more care to check copyvio images. Sagecandor (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

its from a german school book, harms geschichtsatlas nr 440--Crossswords (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Slowking4

Slowking4 keeps adding clearly erroneous author/source information, see here, after clear instructions here. Can somebody explain to Slowking4 that a 2D reproduction of a 1931 work, by an author who died in 1938, is not own work from the uploader and that the uploader is not the author? Jcb (talk) 08:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Own work may be relevant here. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment - Slowking4, the context of "Own work" on Wikimedia Commons refers to works that you explicitly created yourself. "Own work" means you owned the right and that is not the case here. I understand that the works in question are out of copyright, but this does not simply suggest that they may be uploaded as own work by anyone. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Slowking4: and @Jcb: If you want to distinguish between the creator of the 'depicted artwork', and the 'photographer' (which is not a bad thing, for clarity), please use {{Art photo}}, which allows you to give the information seperately, and in a more clear manner. And don't edit war. Revent^talk 09:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I've fixed this to use {{Art photo}}, so hopefully people can stop arguing (and, hopefully, fix whatever other images you have done this to). Unfortunately, nobody fighting here fixed the actual problem... that the license had been changed, and was clearly wrong. @Hadi: You changed this from {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} to {{PD-Art-two-auto|1938}}. This was wrong.... the image is not a 'faithful reproduction of a 2D work of art', as it contains the frame, and so a license from the photographer is required unless the frame is cropped out (and revdel). Also, your license indicated that the painting (produced in 1931) was PD in the US because it was published in that country prior to 1923... both without evidence, and physically impossible. Please be far more careful if 'correcting' licenses. Revent^talk 10:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks good now, thanks for the fixes! Jcb (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Kumarappanghelliah & User:Kumarappavelar

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

Both accounts are uploading alot of personal photos. I already sent a notice to Kumarappanghelliah for possible deletion of unused personal selfie photos. I think Kumarappavelar is a sockpuppet of Kumarappanghelliah. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 10:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Deleted a ton (selfies, duplicates, low quality), left the rest alone. Warning left on both talk pages. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Revent misusing the Close-discussion template

{{closed}} The purpose of adding comments when closing a discussion is to summarise the community consensus of the discussion and/or to note what, if any, action is required. It is not a tool for admins to add their own contentious comments and have the luxury of the final say. Further, it is not a place to continue novel analysis and to make personal threats that do not reflect any documented community consensus.

In his closing comments, Revent does not summarise any documented community consensus nor does he stick to summarising the facts. He makes several comments that are untrue but significantly also engages in speculation about my motives. It is interesting that around this time, Revent criticised me elsewhere for speculating about motives. This is hypocritical to say the least, and certainly should not form part of any closing remarks. I do not object to closing that section -- it is clear nobody was going to take any action. And that is all that needed to be said "Closing because it is clear there is no consensus or willingness to discuss this further or take action". Neutral.

Despite Revent claiming "Closed is closed", he went on to add further comments after his closure. His remarks here deliberately and wrongly chose a definition that seeks to medicalise an everyday expression in order to make a block threat against me. I objected to Revent's "post-closure note" by adding my own here where I explain the perfectly acceptable meanings of the term that INC used and I repeated and Revent choose to take offence with.

This is a clear abuse by Revent. While anyone may close a discussion, Revent is acting like a super-user here, as an admin, and adding contentious comments of his own while at the same time not permitting the civil act of allowing a response. This is very discourteous and his revert of my text with the shouted edit text "Closed means CLOSED. This was a further comment by the closing admin. Open a complaint about me at the proper venue if you want." is rather hypocritical since he himself added contentious remarks to his closed discussion.

I request that my response to Revent be restored as it is only fair that I be permitted to disagree with his objectionable and incorrect opinions. Revent should be reminded when closing discussions to stick to summarising community consensus or making neutral comments. No admin is superior to another user and must not abuse his position to edit war in order to have the final say. -- Colin (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, i see no misuse or abuse. He closed a unnecessary drama at AN/U. Unfortunately, it looks like the drama is now continuing here. Imho this section should be closed as well. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It was at AN/B, actually. Revent^talk 03:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 Comment I was away for four days and there seems a lot of things happened in several discussions I was involved, including Livio's unblock and INC's resignation as a side effect. I'm not very happy with the way all those things happened and I can see a lot of my friends in both sides, facing a lot of discomforts. I don't think this is good for Commons and wonder why these can't be avoided. This is an area where admins should use their people handling skills.

I just read the closing note in this case. The first paragraph is OK as it is evenly handling both users. But the next paragraph "I would say, however, that the header of this section is itself an unacceptable personal attack, apparently against several different people." destroyed the every merit of that neutrality and made that closing note just an opinion. He didn't even mentioned there that he warned Colin there. Later he added that he had warned Colin and he reverted it. Note that many user including Fae had commented earlier that a user who removed a warning from his talk page can't be considered wrong. He had re-reverted me earlier when I restored such a warning in a user's talk page. If I remember well, Revent to agreed with Fae's stand in that case. See now Revent edit-warred.

Further it was proved that the use of "Pathological dishonesty" was originally by INC; Colin just re-quoted it. Instead of accepting this mistake, Revent warned INC too to hide his mistake. This is terrible incompetence of an admin who now become anoversighter too.

I've no clue why Revent split "Pathological dishonesty" into two words to find a meaning. For me, "Pathological dishonesty" is more related to Pathological lying. I may wrong as I'm note a native English speaker.

Now I'm more confident that my stand on Revent's RfOS is true. Jee 05:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Whether it is a medical term or a common expression, an expression that is intended to disparage someone is not welcome on Wikimedia Commons, even less in the adm. noticeboard and even less as a title in this noticeboard. Seriously what kind of administrative action can be done?! oh yeah cool, we have a case of "Pathological_dishonesty", let me jump on the block button to stop him. The paragraph had no real utility, did not deserve any administrative action and of course it should have been closed. And now it's done it's fine. And the way it have been closed is also fine for me. To search to be unpleasant, even against someone one do not like, here or in the real life, is not a good thing. And to search to be unpleasant on a voluntary basis is not far to fit the definition of that. And when they exist, this kind of thing have of course to be stopped. Revent comments and actios are currently fine for me. And this can also be closed. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I did not 'note' that I had warned Colin when I originally closed it because I had not yet done so. It was after he reverted the warning on his talk page, and after I restored it, and then reconsidered that action and reverted myself there. Reverting Colin on his talk page was indeed a mistake, and one that I myself fixed. Noting at the closure that a relevant action (warning him) had been taken was appropriate, and is done all the time. I would not have done so, however, if Colin had either not removed the warning from his talk page, or archived it. I think it's rather apparent from what followed that I was correct in assessing his action not as a 'acknowledgement' of the warning, but instead an 'rejection' of it. "I didn't hear that" is not an acceptable response to a warning.

I did not, and have not, read the entire Tuvalkin thread. I was aware that INC had used the term (because I looked at the bit that Colin quoted) and was also aware that INC had then apologized. Since he had apologized, I didn't think a warning was needed, but I left him one when it was objected I had not. This wasn't 'hiding' anything. I'd also point out that if I'm going to warn someone for something, that does not mean I must first seek out every instance of that same behavior in the history of Commons and ensure that every single person was warned for it. That is, frankly, absurd.

As far as the terminology, "pathological lying" is simply a particular type of pathological behavior... "pathological liar" is actually cited in dictionaries as an example of using the word pathological to mean "obsessive or compulsive". Describing 'any' behavior of an editor (lying, overcategorizarion, whatever) as pathological is a personal attack. Even if you ignore the separate meaning of the word pathological, and just look at the enwiki article about 'pathological liar', you will see that 'mythomania' is considered to be a form of mental illness, described in the DSM. I cannot comprehend how you think that describing another editor's behavior as being due to a mental illness is not a personal attack.

To return to my mentioning it in my initial close.... there is a long standing and widespread community consensus that ascribing the behavior of other editors to some form of pathology or mental illness is not acceptable behavior. The point does not have to be re-argued every single time it happens, just as we do not re-litigate every single copyvio speedy to determine if there is a community consensus to delete copyvios. Revent^talk 06:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I too not supporting to name anybody based on their behavior as its a bad practice and should be avoided. What I said was those words when considered together may have a different meaning. Leaving it as I'm not a language expert. I still believe your closing note will be better and that discussion may be stopped there if that last sentence singling out Colin was avoided. Here we can't blame Colin if he felt only he was criticised leaving Fae. Jee 06:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: If Colin's intention was indeed not to make such a personal attack, then he should have accepted the warning and avoided using such language in the future (and IMO apologized, though that's not required), as the actual 'dictionary meaning' is an unacceptable personal attack, and IMO even using the phrase in the 'non-medical' sense is offensive. Colin himself then 'doubled down' on this by (in my read of the situation, which I think his later actions confirmed) attempting to reject the warning, which prompted me to believe that warning him at a community fora was needed.

Frankly, I 'closed' the discussion, instead of simply letting it pass on to the 'death by archiving bot' to which it was clearly fated, because I felt it was important to publicly state that such pathologization of the behavior of other editors is unacceptable. The community has said so many times in the past. My impression is that most readers of the board simply did not wish to engage with Colin over the issue... and I think that is understandable, given how he responded to me.

I accept that my handling of this raised complaints from some parties, but I think that so far the responses of others have been generally approving, and that this was the best way I know to handle this. Actual constructive criticism about how I could have done better, while still 'condemning' the description of other editor's behavior as pathological, are welcome. Revent^talk 07:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I have to laugh at Revent's crticism of my "unreadably long wall of text" when Revent dumps an even longer screed here, with lame attempts to medicalise everyday expressions. (hint: just because a medic uses a word, doesn't mean they own it) I've already explained to Revent about how to use a dictionary properly, but he doesn't want to learn.

But this section isn't about an everyday term of English and Revent's bullying threats. It's about abuse of the close template in which to engage in novel analysis and add personal opinions when closing a topic. Admins have no special authority. You should add your opinion courtesouly like any other user, with the opportunity for response. The closing comments should be a summary or neutral. You failed to do this. Face it Revent, you got angry when I undid your message on my talk page, and thought that adding a further clause to your close notes would be a suitable revenge to "win" your argument in a way that I could not defend. It's just abuse. -- Colin (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: Whatever. Unless the community decides otherwise, the warning stands, and you will be blocked for a personal attack if you describe another editor's actions as 'pathological', or attempt to subvert that warning with evasive language that implies the same thing.

BTW, 'even longer' is amusing... your post to AN:B was +10,892 bytes... my longest post here was far shorter (2,727 bytes, to be specific). Revent^talk 09:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Revent, please step back and relax. You're going aggressive either due to emotions or lack of experience. Please meditate on what you had offered in your RfA: "My 'philosophy' is that in most cases where good-faith contributors get into conflict it is mainly because of a lack of communication, and that a major part of the role of an administrator is to be a somewhat impartial voice of reason when such issues arise." But now you're rowing the boat in the exact opposite direction. How you think you are qualified to block Colin considering the long time conflict of opinions between you? Even here you can see many admins commented that INC's use of admin right there is inappropriate as he may be considered having COI. Please read my reply to you on my talk page too. Jee 09:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure the only one beating the dead horse here is Colin who likes to bait editors and admins into his feud and then claim to be the victim. Its hilarious and sad at the same time. The decision has been made and unless something new turns up, it will stand and if Colin has something new to tell us, its best that he does so in the very next post of his and if not, he should just drop it. Its obvious he has issue with people in authority and reading through everything that has happened, he should count himself lucky that Revent or any other admin did not block him for 'attacking' another user with his 'innuendo'. Please Colin (possibly the first time i have used those 2 words together here), drop it and move on as nothing good will come out of this.--Stemoc 10:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: I'm not particularly eager to block Colin, both because he is a useful contributor and because I am indeed 'involved' due to our past personal interactions, but I think that warning him, and stating that he will be blocked if he does it again (by me, or someone else) for a specifically defined behavior that is clearly unacceptable (describing the behavior of other editors as pathological) is not problematic. If he has been clearly warned that he will be blocked for a well-defined behavior, and does it anyhow, a block is appropriate, from any admin. A warning is not a sanction. A block on the basis of a warning that has been discussed at a community venue can be implemented by any admin, as per consensus. My warning, at this point, seems to be per consensus (given that describing the behavior of other editors as due to pathology has been repeated condemned by the community in past discussions).

On a personal note, I think that we should be wary of editors that (intentionally, or otherwise) effectively avoid blocks by having a personal conflict with any admin that might do so. From private communications, I'm well aware that a number of admins (and non-admins) think Colin should be indefinitely blocked for his ongoing pattern of confrontational behavior... he has avoided this merely because the specific people feel 'involved'. The only real solution to this, that I see (pragmatically), is to restrict his behavior with specific community-reviewed warnings. This is one.

As far as a 'lack of experience', I have been involved in the management of various online communities since long before Wikipedia existed... I could (if it would not out myself) point at Usenet posts from the late 90's. I have been using the internet since before the existence of the web. I feel quite qualified to asses when a particular contributor is toxic, and it is clear that Colin has avoided sanctions repeatedly merely because various admins feel that they are 'involved'. This is not a sanction, but a well-defined warning about clearly unacceptable behavior. Revent^talk 10:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. The biggest problem with trying to reason with Revent is that he avoids the point. This section isn't about his block threat. It's about his abuse of the close template, his voicing personal opinions and novel thought when closing a discussion, leaving no opportunity to respond, and his edit warring to enforce his closure, after he'd already added more to the closure himself. Does he argue these points? No, because they are not defensible. Instead he argues about something else and is now simply engaging in a nasty smear campaign.

Stemoc, the last time someone suggested that certain people on Commons had "issues with authority", they were threatened with a block by Revent. I suggest you read Commons:Administrators where you will learn that Administrators have no special authority on Commons. It isn't up for debate. As usual, off-wiki discussions are cited, from the very people who moan about transparency and openness.

I came to AN to complain about someone repeatedly being dishonest about me. This false statement in particular is troubling for me. It claims that Fae has successfully avoiding making nasty comments about me for most of the year. It is this sort of untruth that Ellin repeated when blocking me. That's why I care about it. -- Colin (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: I'm glad to hear that this is not about the warning, though due to your reversion and attempt to add a comment to the closure (instead of appropriately appealing it to the community) it certainly seemed that way. As far as the argument about me abusing the close template, the community so far seems to disagree... I indeed mentioned a widespread consensus that had not been discussed (that the description of an editor's behavior as pathological), but admins are expected to be aware of previous consensus. My mentioning of it was not IMO out of line, and I have yet to see anyone else state that it was. The community has repeatedly opined that describing another editors behavior as due to a mental illness is unacceptable, and I find it incredibly hard to imagine a valid defense for it.

You say that "the last time someone suggested that certain people on Commons had "issues with authority", they were threatened with a block by Revent.". I honestly have no idea what you are referring to. Please let me know. I think people that know me, and my opinions, know that I have serious objections to any 'argument from authority'.... if I have been guilty of that, I seriously screwed up. Given our history, however, I think it's somewhat likely that you misinterpreted me.

I closed your complaint because it was doing to die due to a lack of activity anyhow, and I felt that the personal attack implicit in the section header deserved a response (and a warning). I know, from private comments, that multiple admins had failed to respond because they did not want to engage with you (as they felt they would be personally attacked, by you). I 'bit the bullet', and did so, and was attacked. I know that that last comment is a bit of an appeal to 'off wiki statements', and thus unverifiable, but it is also true. Revent^talk 12:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue these points any further. See my comment below. You screwed up big time, Revent. -- Colin (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I've been thinking of what to say, since this discussion started on my talk page. I'm genuinely lost on what to say as I think everybody has a valid case to present. Colin has not unreasonable concerns with Fae (and Ellin), Revent has not unreasonable concerns with Colin, Colin has not unreasonable concerns with Revent. It feels like the scene in Reservoir Dogs where there's a circle of people with guns trained on each other. I think Revent needs to accept Colin's concerns about Fae are valid, even though the choice of the word 'pathological' is not what others would do, I think Colin needs to accept the closure (primarily because the discussion didn't develop despite ample opportunity) but should consider drafting a more thoughtfully worded statement which we could consider going forward, having been made aware of concerns regarding the use of the word "pathological". I do think we need to look at the way in which users, whether it's Fae, Tuvalkin or others can fall into the w:Texas sharpshooter fallacy where it becomes easy to conclude there's discrimination and negative bias, and begin to protest incorrectly about what they perceive. I think we need to work on some guidance on how the issues which have caused this discussion (most recently, Tuvalkin's accusation of racism) are handled; how accusations are treated and what the expected way to report these concerns is. That's a discussion for another time and another place (but soon). Nick (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Nick, that's a truly excellent summary. I don't contest the closure at all, just the way Revent did it. I'm aware of Revents's concerns about words and of course I won't repeat that phrase. I wish Revent would agree that both INC and I used that everyday phrase with no intention to ascribe to mental illness, and that reasonable people can disagree on what words mean, and he should consider, that focusing on the most unfortunate possible meanings makes him look bad faith. Instead, consider whether it is reasonable for me to hold my different view. That's a better test than requiring to agree with my different view. Nick/Revent may remember a debate on "ejaculatory" and the possible Portuguese usage of that word, and that everyone differed on the degree to which they believed/feared the term to have been used as an insult. Commons:Administrators expects admins to work constructively with others. I see only Nick here achieving that. -- Colin (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: I understand that you might not have intended the term as an actual personal attack, and that is why I merely warned you (and INC, when prompted) to not use it again instead of actually sanctioning you for it. I understand that the way the closure was handled was not ideal, I just don't know of better way to handle it (and am open to any suggestions). At the same time, I find it really hard to interpret any of the definitions of the term as not constituting an unacceptable personal attack, given that the community has decided in the past that 'pathologizing' the behavior of other editors, by describing it in the language of mental illness, is unacceptable.

I (truly) do not think that your complaints regarding Fae are unreasonable... I can see where you are coming from, and somewhat agree. I simply think that the methods of argumentation you tend to use themselves create more conflict. I'm glad that you will not use the term in the future, I just believe that if you accepted that it was objectionable you should have taken the warning about it as intended, instead of creating more drama. Revent^talk 12:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Revent, this is the first time you have remotely indicated any willingness to see things from my point of view or to accept any flaw in your behaviour. You see, the difference between whether you can block someone for making a personal attack is "intention". If there is no "intention" then it is a misunderstanding, and possibly an unfortunate use of words. But you wrote that it was a personal attack and you did not "merely warn" me, but made a very personal threat.

As for learning lessons, then you could learn a lot from Nick's comments above. In your closing remarks and all the screeds of text you have writte subsequently, where have you tried "to work constructively with others"? This is required of you, as an admin, and you have failed. Instead, you have become more and more unreasonable and today engaging in nasty smears that expose your feelings towards me for all to see. As for "creating more drama", Revent, you in the last few days, have demonstrated the "lighter fuel and matches" approach to handling an admin stituation. Again, you could learn from Nick's comments above.

If you are genuinely "open to suggestions":

• When closing a discussion, summarise the documented community consensus and state in neutral terms what action is required or not required. There should be no surprises or contentious remarks.
• When closing a discussion, do the originator the courtesy of actually reading it rather than making TD;DR insulting comments.
• If you wish to add to a discussion with novel analysis or personal opinion, do so like any editor, and do others the courtesy of permitting them a response.
• Learn the difference between warning a user and threatening them. The latter abuses a position of authority, and admins do not have a position of authority.
• If it is possible for you to consider another's position as reasonable (even though you disagree with it), and in doing so you can avoid conflict and an escalation towards blocking, then choose that option.
• If someone comes with a complaint, indicate that you have understood them and wish to help to the degree that is reasonable. All problems can be resolved given willingness and patience. If you do not have that willness or patience, then find something else to do with your time.
• As an admin, you are compelled to try to work constructively with others and find resolution and agreement where you can.
• All admins should learn about the "Angry Customer" and how to deal with one. See this page as one of countless examples. You will face people who are upset, who use suboptimal language when upset, but who have a genuine grievance, and they expect you to help. Criticising the "angry customer" for their language is a 101 beginner failure, as well as a argumentative fallacy.

-- Colin (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: The possibility of misinterpretation is why I simply warned you, instead of sanctioning you. The warning was intended to remove any possibility of misinterpretation.... if you describe another editor's behavior as 'pathologicial' in the future, I will block you. It's a clear and unambiguous statement. The community has repeatedly decided in the past that such statements are not acceptable. Do not do so in the future. Revent^talk 12:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Revent, there isn't a single word above that you have not said several times already. I'm tired of your threats. Go read my bullet points and make a New Years resolution to be a more constuctive admin who deals with upset people with consideration and respect rather than insults and threats. Bye. -- Colin (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: The community had obviously... through a prolonged failure to respond, at all... disregarded your complaints. I think that is not because they were necessarily invalid (as Nick noted) but because of how they were stated. That was not my decision, I merely summarized why, in a closure, so I could address what I considered to be a blatant personal attack in the section header. I did not sanction you for it, I merely warned you. The community seems to have (to some degree) endorsed that warning here. I have admitted that my initial revert on your talk page was wrong, but I myself fixed that before anyone had a chance to complain.

The 'angry customer', in the context of Commons, applies to people who are not 'socialized' with how Commons works. That obviously does not apply to you, you are quite experienced. I do not think you are 'wrong', with regards to Fae.... I think that it's impossible to determine who is 'right', at this late date, and the community clearly declined to comment on the issue at the ANB thread. That does not excuse the personal attack.

The 'pragmatic' solution (which is what matters to Commons, really) is that you simply stay away from each other. You are both valued contributors, when not arguing with each other. Just stop doing so. Revent^talk 13:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Dealing with people who are upset or have the feeling that their complaints are not taken seriously can be difficult. A lot of our admins don't know how to deal with such situations and compared to the majority of admins we have Revent most definatly is one of the more capable ones when it comes to dealing with user problems. My apologies to my fellow admins if I have offended them with this statement but we all know that our overall score for community management sucks.

This said, we can't simply use the anger customer approach since this is a public website. Sure, we can use this approach at venue's like OTRS, even user talk pages but not at places where our newbie editors make requests. You can compare it to a store in which the customer starts shouting and is disrupting the other costumers. Surely the customer will be asked to leave the store. And well, we don't have managers nor can we simply give in when people are angry and apologies since that would be rewarding bad behavior. (Of course we should apologies of we actually do something wrong.)

When issuing a warning to an adult I tend to avoid the word block. Using the word block will likely make people even more angry than they actually which results in ineffective communication. When dealing with kids or people who aren't that intelligent it is a different story of course since those groups of people might not understand a warning if you don't explicitly state what the result will be when you issue a warning. Just some food for thought. Natuur12 (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Obviously there are aspects of any particular "angry customer" dialog example on websites that do not fit with Commons. But Revent's comment about needing to be "'socialized' with how Commons works". Well sorry that's what's exactly wrong. Revent seems over concerned with determining wrong and right (or failing to) and keeps repeating himself as though he might get me to agree he is right. For example, until Nick's comments, there was absolutely nothing from Revent to indicate he took any part of my complaint seriously, and plenty indication (explicit and implicit) that he had not in fact bothered to read it properly. Natuur, if you think the Angry Customer approach is about giving in and apologising then you don't understand it. It is about starting from a position of respect (rather than a position of regarding the other person as toxic). About establishing that you undestand the complaint. About focusing on the nature of the complaint rather than the language and words. About dealing with the important issues rather than getting bogged down in irrelevances. About not getting so upset you insult the customer. About not making threats. -- Colin (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: I'm sorry if it seemed that I had not read your complaint, or do not understand or sympathize with your problems with Fae (I indeed do). I read it, and feel that there are issues with the behavior of you both.... as I said, it's impossible to determine who is 'right' at this point, as you have both been out of line at various points in time. (Who started it is not the answer.) The community clearly declined to address your complaint... my closure stated why I believed that was the case, and addressed what I feel was an unacceptable personal attack on your part... while accepting (by merely warning, instead of simply blocking you) that it might have been unintended. Since you have now been warned, that does not apply in the future if you repeat it. I do not know of a good solution, here, as you are both valued contributors when you leave each other alone, other than to set bounds on how you can interact with each other. This warning was one.

At the same time, you cannot simply 'reject' a warning. You can appeal it to the community, but you cannot simply pretend that it did not happen merely because you disagree with it. If you do so, that is itself disruptive behavior. I have repeated myself simply because you seemed to be repeatedly rejecting that the warning was valid. It is not, unless the community decides that is the case, and that has not happened. Revent^talk 14:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Revent, I have not read the above paragraph by you and do not intend to, for I fear it is more auto-repeat from someone who has made it quite clear they regard me as toxic. Stop pinging me. -- Colin (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Posting to my talk page, immediately before telling me here that you will not read what I said (and saying 'go away' in your edit summary) does not indicate a reasonable attitude, IMO. Revent^talk 14:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh dang, I read that and now I have to reply. I'm strugging with the word "immediately" here. Are you confusing me for someone else? I replied to your talk page comment early this morning and have tried my best to be civil to you on this page throughout the day, which isn't easy after your "toxic" comments, and when you asked for suggestions on how to handle it different I gave you some in good faith. But you dismiss them and have done nothing but repeat yourself since. I fail to see what is "reasonable" about your attitude or style of argumentation, which seems to be to repeat the same thing until I prostrate myself before you and glorify your name, while shrieking "Forgive me for I am a sinnner". It isn't going to happen. Deal with that. -- Colin (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Echo notified me about your last comment on my talk page about five minutes before your comment above. Sorry, it happens sometimes. I've had cross-wiki notifications take weeks to show up.

I have absolutely no interest in seeing you engage in the behavior you describe. It takes two to argue. You've repeatedly claimed that I was abusive to you, and the community does not, so far, seem to agree with you. When I repeat myself to you, it's because I'm trying to assume that you simply, in good faith, do not understand, and so trying to explain it differently and as explicitly as possible.... the alternative would be to assume that you are being deliberately obtuse, and I'm in fact trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. When you then repeat the same claims, you are doing exactly what you are complaining about me doing... simply repeating yourself. The difference is that several people have said that I was not being abusive. Revent^talk 23:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: I was merely stating my dislike about step 6 at wikihow. The strategic apology. Natuur12 (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment Hmmm; I'm not very well after the butterfly survey and was taking rest. Saw the further developments now.

First, I would like to thank Nick for the excellent viewpoint presented here. What I missed in Revent's closure is exactly the same. His close was one sided, making Colin felt injustice happened to him. It leads tothis thread. Instead of accepting this mistake, Revent repeatedly issuing more block warning here.

I saw Christian replied to my early comment that he feels the use of "pathetic" is not acceptable and Revent's closure is fine. See, INC used it first and Colin re-quoted it on November 30. Where were these people still December 4? If the use of that words were a serious offence, it should be questioned immediately which was not happened here. So I will say this is something "newly invented".

Revent replied tome that he knew he can't block Colin due to strong COI. He said he just warned and it is not wrong. If the first is wrong, second is also wrong. Further I saw here Revent again use "I will block you". How pathetic.

Revent stated that there is a consensus for his action here. Where? I didn't see a single comment in that AN/B discussion. If he was referring IRC, I've nothing more to add. Any discussion should be transparent here. You can ask for advice in IRC or personal mail/chats; but has no role in consensus here.

Revent said many people here want Colin being indefinitely blocked. May be as many people wish somebody having better reputation here need to be eliminated. Many people may feel jealousy on his current achievement too. There is no easy medicine for it. (The same applicable to other users too. There may a group of people wish users like Fae or Tuvalkin get blocked. But what we expect from admins is to row against these type of emotions. They need to have the emotional maturity to act out of wish of the crowd.)

Natuur12's attempts also seems fine. It seems he said Revent usually good in problem solving;but failed a bit here. He also accepted that "our overall score for community management sucks." I had said it years ago when Odder interviewed me. The weakness of Commons compared to Wikipedia is here the content creators are maintenance volunteers are very much disconnected. So people in each group think they are important and others have no community supports. That's why Revent said Colin has no community backup. In fact Colin is very strong among content creators. And Fae may strong in maintenance section. We need both typed. We need to encourage healthy discussions between them. I'm Happy that nowadays we have some admins like Christian and A. savin who are also content creators. But it's still lagging. Jee 04:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• In response to "Where were these people still December 4?" : 1/ sadly I can not see every thing, furthermore 2/ I'm a volonter and I am not guilty when I chose for a reason or another to do nothing and 3/ "I've the right to do it because my little sister did it the December 4" is a child answer.
  If there is no consensus in a way, there is even less consensus in the other way, and the case Colin/Fae, at this point can not/will not be resolved, one must be blind not to see it. And the question for why to insist so much can be asked. What is the purpose? Did not Colin see that no administrator will resolve this? Is it a kind of intimidation? some users says some administrators are bad administrators? please take the administratorship yourself, and show us how to deal with this kind of situation, trust me it is a bit easy to criticize when you're are not. If Colin were a victim then I am very sad of that but the defense of colin was so extremely virulent that is now impossible for us to see who is wrong and who is right. And he continue in that direction. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Christian Ferrer, that comment by INC and Colin are at AN/B, a board every active admins are supposed to be watching. We've 100+ admins and we expect at-least one active admin every time. It's the board where all pattrollers report incidents which require immediate action. So if a case remain unattended there for three days, it is indeed a failure from our side. For your other comment, I've no problem to become an admin if some one else nominated me. But, as I commented earlier, I will resign if the community has a "reasonable/marginal" disagreement with me/my actions. 3. You said the community rejected to discus on what Colin raised. Where you see Colin or me complained about it. If community refused to discus, the discuusion should be archived without a closing not; or a mere closure stating "closing as no community input/off-topic". Here Revent injected some nasty accusation against Colin and closed without leaving Colin any time to reply. Please undo that closure and allow it to die naturally. Jee 08:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: The thread at AN:B had been open for the better part of a week, and the community had declined to discuss it. There was clearly a consensus not to do so. Other than the single comment by Fae about the last time he remembered interacting with Colin (which appears to have indeed been incorrect) all of the evidence presented was from months ago. There was also a demand that Ellin retract a statement that she long ago retracted and apologized for, with a link to exactly where she did so.

I'm aware, offhand, of at least two different threads in the history of this board where the use of mental illness as an insult was discussed, and the community decided it was unacceptable. I'm sure there have been others. Interestingly, the two I am thinking of were cases where Colin himself asked that other editors be blocked for doing so. He is obviously aware, and has been aware for a long time, that it is unacceptable.

I should not, and will not, simply 'decide' to block Colin... as I have stated, I have a COI. He has, however, now been told clearly and unambiguously that if he describes the behavior of another editor as 'pathological' he will be blocked for it. If he does so, it will be a deliberate choice on his part to take a specific action that he knows will result in a block, despite his 'rejection' of the warning, and for behavior that he himself has repeatedly asked that other editors be blocked for (attributing the behavior of other editors to a mental illness). There is precedent for such a block, and he has been warned. Revent^talk 07:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Revent, 1. I remember the example which was directly linked to a Wikipedia article. Here it is not and not initially used by Colin. Fae already responded to INC; but not complained. 2. You're still splitting the two words which would have a different meaning. Even the word "pathology" is both applicable to physical and mental issues. I'musing "issues" because many "abnormalities" are not deceases; we can't even call some of them as "abnormalities" too. Fore example, my wife passed away due to Endometrial stromal sarcoma which later metastasized to lungs and then to brain. It's also found by FNAC which is part of pathology. Here, in this case, INC's and later Colin's use seems more related to its third meaning which is "compulsive/obsessive". Colin seems well presented it and Nick seems agreed with that analysis. 3. Then you are picking that word again and again and demanding an apology where Colin seems again and again trying to state that he doesn't mean it. Why are you demand Colin to agree something he didn't intended? Note that Oversighters rev-deleted a block log that you recently used against another admin when demanded. I think Colin has every right to rev-deleted that the text Ellin used too. 3. You agreed that you can't block Colin. Why? Because you need to evaluate Colin prior to block. But previous COI prevented you from evaluating Colin as the result can be biased. The same applicable to your warnings too. You need to evaluate Colin prior to issue a warning. You can't evaluate him as result can be biased due to your previous COI. This is simple logic in rational thinking. That's why I'm doubtful on your competence in logical thinking and problem solving skills. Jee 08:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

---

This thread has become significantly derailed from its original purpose, which was to discuss the use/abuse of the close template by Revent. As far as I can see, only Steinsplitter and Jee have commented on this matter and there is no consensus. I am pleased to note that the threat made in the closing statement by Revent "If Colin .... I will block him" has been retracted and Revent agreed he must seek community consensus prior to making contentious blocks, particularly on editors where there he has a COI. Recent blocks and unblocks discussed on this noticeboard demonstrate how dimly the community views admins who take matters into their own hands, especially when there is COI. I end with a reminder that administrators are required (per community agreed guideline Commons:Administrators) to work constructively with others towards our project goal, and they themselves have no special authority by virtue of their position. -- Colin (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC) {{End closed}}

Involved parties do not get to close threads, especially not with a closing statement. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 09:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

とある白い猫's take on the issue

I asked (19:01, 2 December 2016) the simple question below in regards to a very long post by Colin.

"What exactly is the issue in 10 words or fewer?"

I was not graced with a response. I was honestly expecting a response such as I am in dispute with user X or We have a disagreement over content Y where the issue could be summarized in a neutral manner which is the first step in resolving disputes. I intended to use such a description as the section title since "Pathological dishonesty" is clearly not neutral and fails to serve as an informative/valid section header. It does not even establish the involved user(s) and/or topic.

Another user gave a warning (13:35, 4 December 2016) over the same issue on User talk:Colin which Colin removed (13:36, 4 December 2016) almost instantly.

I went ahead and asked (10:56, 5 December 2016) the user again with the below message.

"Hello I am puzzled by this edit of yours. What seems to be the issue?"

I got the reply in the form of a revert (11:13, 5 December 2016) with the edit summary

"Undo edit by WhiteCat. I have absolutely no intention of engaging in any discussion with you."

Above I have posted my interaction with Colin in its entirety.

---

I am completely ignoring long blocks of text on this issue, here or elsewhere. Frankly I could not care any less what the nature of the actual dispute is if it cannot be simplified to a single neutral sentence with ten words or fewer as my starting point.

Editing Wikimedia Commons is a privilege, it is not an entitlement nor a right. It does not matter if the user has additional admin, bureaucrat, checkuser or oversight privileges or not. We expect a certain conduct from all users where they must be willing to explain their actions.

If a user proclaims that they have no intention of engaging in a discussion over their conduct, they are forfeiting their chance of a review of their conduct. Any user unwilling to explain their actions is unfit to continue editing this site.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 09:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Dardn2015

This user repeatedly uploaded movie related (poster etc). copyvios, as judging by his talk page. I guess that he isn't aware of the inexistence of any fair use rule on Commons. Administrative watching may be warranted. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Final warning given. Next copyvio -> block. --Túrelio (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

about User:Benzoyl

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

User:Benzoyl uploads copyright violation files and out of scope files many times. Files uploaded by him/her have been frequently deleted. (Please see many deletion records in User talk:Benzoyl.) He/She seems not to understand copyright and aim of Wikimedia Commons. I think that warning by administrator is necessary to him/her.

In addition, he/she is an indefinitely blocked user in ja.wikipedia. (Please see ja:利用者:Benzoyl. ) --Ralth Galth (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

 Info Investigated also in AN/B; no reason for block found. Ankry (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)