Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:04, 10 December 2016

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 ^{[new section]}	User problems ^{[new section]}	Blocks and protections ^{[new section]}	Other ^{[new section]}
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	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}

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.

User:Houmouvazine and User:Ms10vc

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

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)[reply]

Hors sujet dont le but de noyer le poisson

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 ==> [1].

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

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" ==> [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" ==> [3] 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" ==> [4].
Il écrit : "je constate après 8 jours que personne n'a fourni de source contradictoire" ==> [5] alors qu'il y a 9 sources qui contredisent la sienne. Bien à vous --Ms10vc (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 qui m'accusent d'avoir des arguments absurdes 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)[reply]

Bonjour. Je vous informe que j'ai annulé un passage en force de Pannam2014 ==> [6] alors qu'il y a 4 contributeurs qui sont contre son avis. Bien à vous --Ms10vc (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tu va surtout arrêter de nous prendre pour des imbéciles. Personne ne s'est opposé à ma demande sachant que celle-ci consiste à rediriger le titre actuel de la page vers File:Flag of Algeria.svg après renommage. Stop ! --Panam2014 (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:En closed

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

thank you for the great honor. whenever you would care to block me in order to delete a file, i would be much obliged. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 22:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Revent misusing the Close-discussion template

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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. J e e 05:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. J e e 06:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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. J e e 09:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Ste moc 10:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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. J e e 04:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. J e e 08:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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. J e e 08:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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}}~~[reply]

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

Note: Note that Colin seems withdrawn the request against Revent considering his reply to me: "I should not, and will not, simply 'decide' to block Colin... as I have stated, I have a COI. He has, however, now been told clearly and unambiguously that if he describes the behavior of another editor as 'pathological' he will be blocked for it." I think "now been told" means opinions of other people in this discussion. とある白い猫 undone the closure, stating "Involved parties do not get to close threads, especially not with a closing statement." Colin tried to revert, stating I opened this section so I have a right to close it. Zhuyifei1999 undone it again stating something I didn't understand. I agree with Colin that he can withdraw a self request and agree with とある白い猫 that the withdrawal should not be with a "closing statement". Anyway, in the end, Colin had withdrawn his request based on Revent's last statement. So this discussion is now unfathered . Feel free to continue or close. I'm unwatching as I'm not very well. (This note is just to make people reading this discussion that Colin already withdrawn this request.) J e e 12:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this discussion is going to be fruitful or positive. It is already very long, and all what can be said was said. Nick made a good attempt to bridge the gap between parties. For the sake of Commons atmosphere, it is most probably better to close it. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Conduct of User:Colin

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion should be closed at the same time as the corresponding discussion concerning とある白い猫 as the two topics are inextricably now linked. There is also no real consensus about anything here, and keeping it open any longer is incredibly unlikely to result in sudden clarity, it is also unfair to those involved, particularly Colin. I hope we will all reflect on what has happened here and to try and do our bit to prevent future occurrences. Nick (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)

I have blocked User:Colin for 24 hours over his conduct described above but also over his conduct on the previous thread where he closed it twice despite being an involved party but also because he removed (09:28, 6 December 2016) my post documenting his conduct in a public thread. I have explained (11:59, 6 December 2016 ) all this to the user on their talk page. I am more than willing to lift the block myself if the two basic conditions I posted there are addressed.

We cannot have users removing other users remarks and warnings nor can we have closing threads they are involved in.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 12:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

What I say above is also meant for you. Closed is closed. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am reopening this. You cannot prevent discussion on this users conduct like this. Less so if you are the admin overriding the block AFTER you prevent such a discussion. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 10:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Colin closed a discussion in which he was involved (Revision of COM:AN/U), and where his behavior had also become a subject of discussion. He then edit-warred (Revision of COM:AN/U) to enforce his closure, and in doing so removed an extensive comment that was critical of his refusal to explain his own actions. The comment was added shortly after (2 minutes) Colin's closure, but as it was in a subsection it would not have created an edit conflict. Colin's re-closure was then reverted by an uninvolved admin (Revision of COM:AN/U).

At that point in time, とある白い猫 was not edit warring, and Colin was. The block was indeed 'arguable', but it was also extremely short, and Colin was given a simple exit strategy (to stop refusing to discuss his own actions), and とある白い猫 opened a thread for review of his block here. That was the correct action to take (asking for community review) when making such a block. Yann then unblocked Colin, not on the basis of Colin's unblock request, but because he felt the block was unjustified and punitive (Revision of User_talk:Colin). What was extremely problematic about this is that Yann then acted to close this very discussion (Revision of page, thus not only denying the community not only the opportunity to discuss the original block, but also the opportunity to review his own actions or discuss Colin's behavior.

Jkdavoor made a statement above (Revision of COM:AN/U) claiming that some people might be jealous of Colin. That may well be the case, I can't speak as to other people's emotions. He also said that people should not take actions on the basis of such emotions. That is also true. Implicit in his statement was the dismissal of any belief that Colin should be sanctioned as due to such jealousy.

This is essentially the exact claim that I have seen Colin make repeatedly in the past... that editors who criticizes his behavior are merely doing so because of some personal bias. This is a personal attack, really, against the motivations of those other editors, and when I have tried to discuss this with Colin in the past he has attacked my motivations in the same way. I have been told privately, repeatedly, by other editors that they avoid criticizing Colin's behavior, or replying that they disagree with him, specifically because they believe he will simply attack their motivation. I can't prove this, of course, because it has been in private conversation, but I truly believe that these people are telling me that they feel his actions have created an intimidating environment, and I rather expect this to die as 'without consensus' for that exact reason.

A recent, and gross, example of the behavior I am discussing was at ANB, recently. Colin opened a complaint (Revision of COM:AN/B) the mere title of which contained an unacceptable attack (describing the behavior of another editor as pathological). I closed the thread, and warned him to not use the term. (Revision of COM:AN/B) His response was that "I will try to take more care to avoid terms that might be deliberately misunderstood by biased admins who loathe me". Revent^talk 04:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Colin

Apologies for the length. Several users have apparently insisted that I "stop refusing to discuss [my] own actions", as if we haven't had enough of that already. So here goes....

On 4th December, Revent closed a discussion that I had started at AN/BP. He subsequently added a postscript that contained a personal and harsh threat "If Colin...I will block him, and it will not be short." I was unhappy with Revent abusing the closing section to "have the last word" and add original opinion and threats. So I added a comment of my own. Revent reverted this:

Undo revision 225114182 by Colin (talk) Closed means CLOSED. This was a further comment by the closing admin. Open a complaint about me at the proper venue if you want.

So I opened a complaint about Revent at the proper venue. So far this is standard Bold/Revert/Discuss. There was tension over the closing section on that page: should I have the right-to-reply vs should I respect the convension that a closed discussion is closed. The subsequent discussion was suboptimal, to say the least, and degenerated at one point where Revent responded to the criticism by blatantly smearing me and letting everyone know just for how long and how much he has regarded me as toxic.

On 6th December, I closed the discussion that I had started on AN/U about Revent's closure. It had reached a point of no-consensus on the closure, but Revent had retracted his personal threat. I repeat that the discussion was started by me, and concerned Revent's closure. The clue is in the title: User:Revent misusing the Close-discussion template. Some people seem to think the section was called Insert hateful comments about Colin below. Based on the timings, it is highly likely that at the same time as I was closing the discussion, White Cat was composing his own personal 2p about how badly Colin behaves. He added his off-topic remarks here. Thereupon he noticed that the topic had in fact closed, and he'd missed the bus. We can only assume, from what follows, that White Cat was unhappy about this. He reverted my closure template and made some false claim that I was not entitled to close it (a discussion complaint that I had raised myself about another user). I guess I'm just a mere mortal, not an admin god. I reverted this:

Undo edit by WhiteCat. Closed is closed (I'm quoting Revent). I opened this section so I have a right to close it. Open another if you wish to discuss something else.

This sole revert was my last edit to this page. Why? Because shortly afterwards, White Cat blocked me. Is this standard Bold/Revent/Discuss. No, it is Bold/Revert/Block. White Cat got his way (temporarily) by blocking a user he was in conflict with. Clear admin abuse. It is worth noting that subsequently, White Cat did open a new section (this one).

I object most strongly to Revent's repeated allegations above that I edit warred on the page. I made the same edit-revert he did: identical in purpose, format and summary to his. I even cited him. I do not edit war. An Edit war requires mutiple reverts. A sole revert is perfectly standard wiki practice: it's why we all have the undo button on our watch lists and history lists. "Thou shalt not edit war" is a first commandent on any wiki. It is dealt with by an immediate block of the warring party/parties.

Later on 6th December, after his block on me was overturned, White Cat created a new section on this page obsentibly to discuss his block of me. Natuur12 asked him to "Just stop this... There is no point in perusing this any further. There is nothing to win, only to lose and damage to be done.". User:The Photographer here and Wikicology here both expressed a desire to end the drama. Slaunger gave a lengthy good-faith response which was responsed to with rude pendantry by White cat. The discussion was closed by Jee, with the usual "no admin action required" closing remark we often see here. White Cat reverted this with the comment "This thread isn't closed until I say so" (White Cat's first revert on this discussion). Pokéfan95 recommended the section be closed again with further appeal to end the drama. White Cat responded "I will not drop the issue". Jee closed the thread again (Jee's first "revert"). White Cat reopened the thread saying "I will not be denied this" (White Cat's second revert -- he is now edit warring). Yann closed it again saying that everyone except White Cat agrees it should be closed. White Cat opened it again (White Cat's third revert - he continues to edit war). He defiantly states "I will reopen this as many times as you close it...This issue will not go away as long as I breathe" This is an admin who knows he is edit warring and does not care. Fae suggests to White Cat that he take this off-wiki in a private correspondence with an independent 'crat. There was an additional comment from Hedwig in Washington but that section is now just being ignored as the drama has moved on.

It is worth noting that at the top of his section White Cat complains about my undo of Revent's warning on my talk page and about my go-away response to his message on my talk page. This is mirrored exactly by White Cat's "I have absolutely no intention of engaging in any discussion with you." revert to Jee when Jee warns him on White Cat's talk page, and by White cat's blank undo of Jee's subsequent AN/U notification. This is clearly POINTy behaviour, unbecomming of any admin. Not only has White Cat now lost the high-ground with which to crticise my handling of talk page comments, but Revent lost this some time ago when Revent told me to Fuck off. I note that he subsequently apologised for this, but still, he's in no position to lecture me or anyone else on talk page ettiquete when annoyed.

The sole revert I did, asking White Cat to re-post his comments in a new thread, was subsequently followed by White Cat posting his comments in a new thread. Yet he continues to criticise me for this.

And repeated by a non-commons user he canvassed on IRC:

Deleting other peoples' comments on a noticeboard is frowned upon, or should be.

I think it abundantly clear now that my "removal of text" is identical to Revent's (see idented bold text above), contained a message to repost the text in a better place, and was identically responded to by reposting the text in a better place. This is standard BRD folks. Except I get blocked for it and continue to be hassled about it.

Specific issues:

In the above text by Revent, he twice accuses me of edit warring and explicitly states that White Cat was not edit warring. I'm sure he will agree, as a gentleman, that in a discussion on my conduct, it is vital to report accurately. He should retract those false allegations and agree that White Cat was edit warring.
Why was White Cat was not blocked for clearly and knowingly edit warring on this page. I'm sure I would have been. Is there a policy that permits admins to edit war but Colin is not allowed even a single revert?
Why is my revert of White Cat on discussion closed by me, is treated differently to Revent's identical revert of me on a discussion closed by him?
Why is White Cat's block of me, a user he is in dispute with acceptable conduct for an admin?

I accuse Revent of bias because it is plain to see. He now claims "This is a personal attack, really, against the motivations of those other editors". COM:AGF says "avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence". It does not say "never accuse others of harmful motives". Revent's threshold for what he considers unacceptable behaviour in those he is in dispute with is extremely low. Take for example, his block of A.Savin. And yet he wears blinkers on the behaviour of those who are attacking me. I have been called all manner of hateful things on Commons and Revent makes no attempt whatsoever to do his admin duty.

As an example of Revent's obvious bias I present Stemoc's recent personal attacks and comments on what apparently motivates me, made on this page:

I see no warnings on Stemoc's page of an immenent block by Revent for making personal attacks and commenting on the evil motivations of others. Biased admin.

It is time that this "attack Colin" game ended. I make a plea, once again, that Administrators are absolutely required by policy to work constructively with others towards the project's goals. The behaviour of several admins here is reprehensible (both in what they have done and what they have permitted to be done) and they should go away and do some self-relfection and consider what working constructively actually means. -- Colin (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

awwww, so Cute, Colin you do realise you are doing exactly as i commented right? I pointed out your flaw and what you were doing, not today but as long as I have known you on this project and then you go and do exactly that and as i predicted, you play the 'victim' card again..(lol), You friend Jee mentioned the "Wolf! Wolf! story" below and mate, that is exactly what you are doing. One day, you may really need help but no one will listen cause they would have been tired of your nonsense over the last few years. I find it sad that instead of googling those comments/terms, you decided to (yet) again, play the victim card. I'm sorry, but "Goading" won't work on me and you can get your friend Yann to block me but it will prove everything I have said all along, I like how you manipulated your sentence there and quote "Colin and Jee... with a 'stick up their rear'" when infact I did not imply that to either of you but as usual, you want to be portrayed as the Hero of this project, when infact you are the villain. I would ask you to stop but overtime, i realised, you cannot. You can't help it, can you? You feed off this, seeing people getting blocked and de-sysopped somehow brings you pleasure. I'm not a psychologist but if one was "forced" to read through everything you have posted in boards like this on commons, they would come with the same outcome. I now just feel sad for you buddy. Please get help, come back when you are better. I'm Glad INC chose to leave and get help, I hope you learn from him...and regarding the "Full history", believe me, if those "enwiki" people knew exactly what has happened on this project over the last 3 odd years, they would be more shocked than me.--Ste moc 11:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This response by Colin deserves a well-considered response. It may take a bit. Revent^talk 11:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revent other than quickly retracting your false allegation of edit warring, I would be grateful if by "well considered" that you simply took your time to self reflect over the next few weeks and regard my criticism of you and other admins as something to consider yes, but not a request to engage in another tedious argument over. Oh, and wrt your low threshold on the raising topic of mental illness, we now have Stemoc saying "You feed off this, seeing people getting blocked and de-sysopped somehow brings you pleasure. I'm not a psychologist but .. Please get help, come back when you are better." If that isn't a bad-faith description of someone's motivations and apparent mental health issues, I don't really know what is. -- Colin (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying I'm wrong? Are you now claiming that the 2 or 3 dozen or so threads on this board or other 'related' boards over the last 4 years was just a 'coincidence'?. They were all very much identical. Infact if i go back 2000 edits by you, I bet atleast 80% of those were of you commenting on threads just like this, infact 44% of your edits to this project were on the Commonspace (boards like this), your main/filespace edit is only 27% which is pretty low for Commons people, you know the ones who are here to do real work, actual work?, people you keep dissing like Fae and Revent?, people who are working hard to keep this project afloat? Guess, my percentage of edits to Commons space? 1% cause that is how much i care about drama and to mainspace/Filespace? 92%..If you are not here for drama, then you are either fooling yourself or lying ..what is it? Btw, I like to base my comments on "FACTS" and STATS", always have, maybe you should learn to do that as well. It took me a while to understand what was happening here, and yet again you somehow made another thread all about yourself and you wonder why there are people like me and certain admins that refuse to take you seriously. Please just stop it with all these nonsense. This wiki will not die if you are not in it, infact, I think it will work 10x better, you can quote me on that...I learnt one thing the hard way, If you cannot take criticism; leave, you do not belong here but please for gods sake, stop making everything about you.--Ste moc 12:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: When you reverted ToAruShiroiNeko to restore your own closure, that was edit warring. Since you have asked me to consider Stemoc's behavior, I will do so. I reject the idea that admins are responsible for what they do not respond to, but you are correct that Stemoc has been out of line. It's simply more difficult to respond to. (additions after edit conflict) The above is rather a rant. Revent^talk 12:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stemoc you know the adage about "Lies, damned lies and statistics". I am one of the most frequent poster to Commons:Featured picture candidates (as well as less frequently to Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list). In 2013 I set up and ran Commons:Photo challenge for many years. I make the odd post a the Commons:Village Pump (most recently this helpful comment to Tuvalkin). I have many friends on Commons who will affirm that I am not only a talented photographer, but am helpful in my advise to others and contribute positively to the creation of new images for Commons. I have helped raise several thousand dollars for other photographers on Commons. Photo challenge, in particular, attacts new users to Commons, many from the developing world. Your comment "you know the ones who are here to do real work, actual work" is simply hateful and represents a battleground mentality. The creation of images for Commons does not show up on my contrib list except for the final upload. I can spend days photographing for Commons and you will see not a single entry in the history to show for my "real work, actual work" until I do an upload. -- Colin (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Revent it is clear from your reply above that you disagree with the definition of "edit warring", that permits you to do things I can't be allowed to. I don't care now for your retraction or to engage in any tedious discussion with you. You only seem interested in repeating youself in the vain hope that this is a way to reach agreement, rather than doing something construtive. There's too much hate already for me to bear to read you go on auto-repeat and bring up all the negativity you've already posted here and on numerous talk pages about me. Please, seriously, just drop this. You've already said more than enough. This discussion should be closed. -- Colin (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colin you look for you to be hated, not being a saint just because you do not have the characteristics! User:Revent just told the truth and I totally agree.Don't need sermons absurd to express a concept ... short and sweet like me! --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 16:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message for Stemoc relating to his conduct in this thread on his talk page. In brief, I consider his conduct here to be wholly unacceptable and highly inappropriate. Nick (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

I list up. These are files uploaded by Benzoil and deleted due to copyright violation (including COM:DW, COM:FOP#Japan, COM:PACKAGING) .

File:Minimal underwear for men designed by porn actor Taka Kato.jpg
File:Christian Riese Lassen advertising posters in the Japanese train.jpg
File:Tokyo Pro Baseball on Television in 1967.jpg
File:Burger King's KURO-NINJA black buns colored by Bamboo Charcoal in 2013.jpg
File:Attendance Criterion of Doze.jpg
File:TV Program AD Poster at Shinjuku Station Square.jpg
File:A small present soshina by Video Research in 2007.jpg
File:LUMINE EST in 25 March 2014.jpg
File:Cool TA Q BIN (8503026296).jpg
File:「注意！街灯周辺ではゆりかもめのフンにご注意ください。」(佃大橋) (3956552421).jpg
File:ごはんですよ!入り納豆 (410382292).jpg
File:The bronze monuments of Antarctic expedition 15 Sakhalin huskies at the base of Tokyo Tower 2006 (2243895217).jpg
File:The bronze monuments of Antarctic expedition 15 Sakhalin huskies at the base of Tokyo Tower 2008.jpg
File:The bronze monuments of Antarctic expedition 15 Sakhalin huskies at the base of Tokyo Tower 2006 (2243895217).jpg
File:The bronze monuments of Antarctic expedition 15 Sakhalin huskies at the base of Tokyo Tower 2008.jpg
File:FRESHNESS BURGER's Liberation Wrapper printed with female's ochobo mouth.jpg
File:The Perfect Vending Machine in 2006.jpg
File:カップ麺の棚 (6194953019).jpg
File:献花台 (5071132931).jpg
File:下痢止め (1205969566).jpg
File:Takarakuji Asakusa 2006 (2243959669).jpg
File:MORINAGA ICE CREAM (2244540884).jpg

(from User talk:Benzoyl/log1)

These are not all of them. I think that warning by administrator is necessary to him/her.--Ralth Galth (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe User:Benzoyl can not distinguish between important and trivial.

He/she constantly creates useless categories. (e.g. Category:Black, gold, orange, white)

Even if other users point out to him/her, he/she does not reply seriously. (e.g. File talk:23.3.20 ＮＥＡＡ：給食支援（仙台市七郷小）① 東日本大震災における災害派遣活動 48.jpg)--禁樹なずな (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See "Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Black, gold, orange, white" --Benzoyl (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:とある白い猫's block of Colin

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closure as per related sections. Nick (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am filing this over my own conduct. Any admin action I take must be at the complete scrutiny of the community.

I have made an observation (09:03, 6 December 2016) on the conduct of User:Colin based on my interaction with the user in the past three days. This is visible above.
I have also reopnened (09:07, 6 December 2016) the discussion as Colin, an involved party also closed the discussion prior (there was an edit conflict here).
Colin removed (09:28, 6 December 2016) this observation of his own conduct. His edit summary reads as follows which stands for itself:
Undo edit by WhiteCat. Closed is closed (I'm quoting Revent). I opened this section so I have a right to close it. Open another if you wish to discuss something else.
Zhuyifei1999 reverted (11:25, 6 December 2016) this action.
I blocked (12:00, 6 December 2016) Colin over his disruptive conduct for 24 hours.
- Bear in mind I have told (11:59, 6 December 2016) Colin that I would unblock him myself if he agreed to cease his conduct and also agree to explain what the dispute is about. Might I note that he has removed my attempt to communicate with him before (part of my observation post).
Yann closed (12:03, 6 December 2016) the discussion 3 minutes later. Yann clarified (12:07, 6 December 2016) his point further 4 minutes later.
Taking on Colin's advice. I segregated my request (12:22, 6 December 2016 ) since it had nothing to do with what was said in the previous section.
Yann closed (12:55, 6 December 2016) my segregated section of my observation of Colin's conduct 33 minutes later.
Colin filed (12:57, 6 December 2016) an unblock request 2 minutes later.
- I cannot summarize the long block of text in the request but all I would have expected was a polite message along the lines of "I will not remove other peoples comments but the dispute is already resolved, you can ask Revent" which would have been more than enough for me to carry out the unblock myself. He did not make any attempt to communicate with me. His unblock rationale stands for itself.
Yann granted (13:06, 6 December 2016) and unblocked (13:05, 6 December 2016) Colin 8 minutes later (roughly an hour after my block).
- This is the second unblock of Colin by Yann, previous one was on 13:41, 14 March 2016, I do not know the circumstances. I do not know if this makes Yann more involved.
- Later in the request Yann asks Colin to stay away from AN/U and states Some of your complain(s) may be justified, but I feel that, at this stage, bringing them forwards may not be fruitful and further added he still hopes that some understanding between all people engaged is possible.
Colin responds (13:21, 6 December 2016) to Yann with the below message which stands for itself.
- It was indeed my intention today to close the current AN/U dispute and agree that the issues are not likely to be dealt with sympathetically any time soon. I shall be archiving the unpleasantness dumped on my talk page shortly. Thank you Yann, for your actions today.
Colin archives (13:27, 6 December 2016) a number of posts including the block discussion while excluding much older posts. Basically only leaving barnstars and discussions pertaining towards them.

Given how quickly my admin action (block) was reverted by a more experienced admin, I am under the belief that I have severely abused my admin privileges. I am bringing this matter to the scrutiny of the community. However same scrutiny must be applied to Yann as well just like any other admin action involving a user.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 15:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Just stop this. There was no abuse of admin tools by either off you. Though I do disagree with the original block. There is no point in perusing this any further. There is nothing to win, only to lose and damage to be done. Natuur12 (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) My opinion is already here. Nothing more I have to say; just saw this when I'm going to switch off my computer. J e e 15:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I really don't want to comment on the underling issues but I like to remind all involved parties that drama does not make anyone better. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't beleave the quantity of time consumed in banal derived discussions. With the new premise that blocking Colin has now become a regular and part of the game. --The Photographer 18:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you will read this, とある白い猫, as it already now exceeds your attention span of ten words or fewer, that you asked Colin to boil a very complicated matter down to. I am not an admin either.
- Since you are asking for feedback, I think you made an incredibly bad block of Colin - almost as bad as the previous one done by Ellin Beltz (who still has not repaired the damage done to Colins online reputation). First of all you came out from the middle of nowhere recently and described Colins concern for the edit pattern of a clearly overworked and now retired admin as "quite creepy". I do not know about you, but if a person who has described your actions as "quite creepy" approached you with the apparent intent to "help understand" a problem, would you trust such a person? Personally I would ignore such a contact altogether, and that is exactly what Colin has done. He sees you as clearly involved and he is right.
- Colin (and you can add me to the club after that linked discouraging communication we had on your talk page) evidently do not trust your personal judgement nor your unbiasedness. Secondly, that you ask him to explain himself in 10 words is just an insult. It appears from such comments that if something cannot be expressed as a one-liner clickbait headline, it is beyond you to deal with. I can see the verbosity there was high, and it did not lead to any response as it was not clear what Colin wanted as response from the community. If you do not have the time to actually understand the situation, that's fine! Then don't!
- My experience from interacting with Colin is that he is an extremely helpful and caring editor, who is willing to invest many hours and resources into giving advice, raising funds, work hard for the community.
- Colin has in my opinion a very low tolerance to what I would call bullshit, or dishonesty, and unfair "let's speak bad about Colin again" mentality, which is prevalent, as he bluntly points out issues, which do not look well for certain highly profiled users, be it showing a profound, persistent dishonesty, a deviation from established guidelines or abuse of power. Colin is no diplomat. He gets to the point.
- Colin is entirely correct in pointing out, that a new section should be opened if a user has an issue with Colin. The section in question was an issue Colin raised another admin (Revent). Nor do I see a problem with him closing the thread as Revent had changed a formulation and the discussion was not going anywhere.
The entire admin conduct here has been rather discouraging, except for Nicks analysis and Yann lifting the block, undoing this mistake. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ten words or fewer. There wasn't an explicit ten word requirement. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 21:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Corrected. It now says ten words or fewer. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I hate it when people state "ten words or less". I blame Weird Al for this one. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 09:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hope the OP already received enough review on his recent actions. Now this is going off-topic to this board (needs an administrator's intervention). Can ask somewhere else if more advise is required. J e e 09:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This thread isn't closed until I say so, I need to be satisfied with the level of scrutiny. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 10:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I recommend closing this and stop beating the dead horse. There's no point on this. Yann is correct in unblocking Colin, as there was no disruption made by him. Colin just closed drama that is already resolved. What White Cat doing here is reopening unnecessary drama. He was also involved in blocking Colin, adding to the point that the block by White Cat is inappropriate. What we should probably do now is to make a wish to Santa to end these drama on Commons. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I recommend all attempts to close this thread is dropped. I will not drop the issue until the correct level of scrutiny is achieved. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 10:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

とある白い猫 doesn't own this board. He can accept his mistake, make an apology if he wishes. Nobody care whether he do it or not. But Commons has better things to do than educating him. J e e 11:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't but I seek proper scrutiny of my admin action. I will not be denied this. I will not let you sweep this under a rug. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 12:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

All people except とある白い猫 have said that this thread is going nowhere. I don't see any reason to let one admin own this board. Yann (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will reopen this as many times as you close it. This is over my conduct. Stop trying to sweep it under a rug. Issue has not even been discussed for a day. This issue will not go away as long as I breath or see a satisfactory level of community scrutiny. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 12:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a visible peanut gallery effect in this thread with regard to governance of administrator actions, built on the unnecessary drama started in earlier threads. This effect is clearly not evidence of consensus, primarily because most administrators do not want to see their names on these discussions. This was previously referenced by Revent in an earlier thread due to the number of opinions expressed by administrators off-wiki on email and IRC. I suggest とある白い猫 approaches a suitably independent bureaucrat for advice by email. In the meantime, it is clear that Yann is overly involved in various ways to continue repeating their closing down of governance discussions relating to their own actions. Unfortunately Commons' policies with regard to how 'uninvolved' administrators ought to be, are absent. It is useful to compare to en:Wikipedia:Administrators#UNINVOLVED to consider whether Commons would benefit from adding to COM:Administrators to make this area more definitive and not down to individual tastes and good conscience of those with sysop rights. --Fæ (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your conduct is nothing you have to worry about. The block was borderline, so you can expect getting yelled at. Especially if you block such a controversial user with a very vocal entourage. Borderline block, could have been handled differently but wasn't. There's no need to lose any sleep over this, AFAIK you don't make m(any) mistakes. Learn and carry on. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 13:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hedwig in Washington: Indeed, that's why I tacked a number of special conditions to the 24hr block itself for an easy unblock. I even made sure I posted on the users talk page first and then enacted the block to avoid any confusion over my intent which was simply to make him stop removing other peoples comments (a pattern I observed for days) and him to explain the issue so that I can try to figure out why a user is removing other users comments. Any normal unprivileged user would simply state that they wont continue the clearly disruptive behavior and explain the situation briefly and get promptly unblocked. The block itself would not have been enacted had the user not remove the analysis of his conduct, another discussion Yann was also quick to close. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 14:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Ariam and User:Disembodied Soul working for/with User:Svensson1

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'm concerned about some rather drastic cropping that has been done today and yesterday and am asking for a neutral look at what may be the start of more widespread damage, as I see it, to Wikipedia articles where a few of Commons's images are used. It looks like cropping on Commons may be used here as a tool for inappropriate behavior.

For years, a group of editors at Swedish Wikipedia, working together, have had a campaign of what a few other editors there and I perceive to be harassment against the Southerly Clubs and that organization's principals Jacob Truedson Demitz and Emil Eikner. I do not know of any rational reason for that very personal and dogged campaign, though Jante Law has been suggested, but objections to it and to disparaging comments made about those living men, led to my being blocked on svWP in September.

One of the compaints was about images uploaded by me for the Sourherly Clubs as donor, usually photos taken by Demitz or Eikner, often of famous people or places. An attempt was made last August to discredit us on enWP, which however was assessed by neutral editors and failed.

Since last fall, for example, photos of one and then another tree planting in honor of (locally) very famous, recently deceased Swedes like Kim Anderzon and Hans E. Wallman, showing municipal sanction and attendance by friends of theirs (including other famous Swedes like Graham Tainton and Johan Rabaeus), have been removed from their svWP articles for the express reasons that Demitz and Eikner were in those arbor groups (though neither was mentioned in the captions) and that the photos are from the Southerly Clubs. Other svWP users trying to protest the deletions of these images, and of an article there about Demitz, gave up after extraordinarily heated and extensive discussions that went on for weeks.

The most recent developments, where the campaign now is beginning to spill over into Commons, is in these crops, where after the fact, I have added the reasons for the crops as they are being discussed on svWP:

to start with.

The reasons for the crops, more clearly given in ongoing discussions on svWP, are so that neither Demitz nor Eikner shall appear, with or without their names in the captions, in any photos on that project whasoever (discrimination which naturally is insulting and damaging to both of them as discussed there).

I'm just asking you to have a look at these crops here on Commons to see if you think this work, and the admitted reasons for it, are normal and beneficial. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SergeWoodzing: I see no license or other limitations that might prevent cropping of PD or freely licensed images. That is the key role of Wikimedia Commons repository to store images that other wiki comunities wish to use. While the license /authorship / source are properly stated and the images are uploaded as separate files (not overwritten), everything seems to be OK. Ankry (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It's about user behavior. What I'm asking you to look at is whether or not it can be suspected that cropping on Commons in these cases is being used as a tool for intentional harassment, when the cropping admittedly has been done for a discriminatory effect in the projects. Perhaps my question is unmanageable, but I'd appreciate it if a few more people might like to weigh in also. I'd like to contiunue to love Commons and all the work I've had such a pleasure of doing here, and thus need to be convinced that this is normal and acceptable behavior. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any harassment. The photos have been cropped to single out one to two persons, properly attributed and categorized. The description is not what it should be, feel free to remove the ...to remove XyZP Person.. part. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 13:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you all. User:SergeWoodzing has been permanently banned from Swedish Wikipedia after years of harassing other users, blatant self promotion and extremely rude behavior. One example: Here SW in a very discourteously way accuses another user of being a hypocrite. SW has a long history of overreacting. Disembodied Soul (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the reasons for ban can be found in English here.Yger (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must object to "years to self-promotion" as an attempt at en:WP:OUTING (or what else does that mean?), and to the other exaggerations as well. That's the kind of stuff that Demitz and Eikner and I have all been subjected to since 2008 at svWP, as I mentioned above. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having done that, I'll spare you translations of the lengthy arguments going on now on svWP about these crops, where it's quite evident that personal animosity (OK, not to say harassment then) is behind them, not really any reasonable effort to improve the articles. The bruhaha these guys have tried to start today also on English Wikipedia is enough. Look's good, aye (second photo)? As compared to how it looked before. One of several improvements. I wonder if the issue of cropping to perform personally motivated censorship ever has been discussed before on Commons? Looks to me, sadly, like its not an issue here. I would apologize to all of you (I often do), if I could do so sincerely. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, spare us any further drama. The drama you caused on Swedish Wikipedia is quite enough. Disembodied Soul (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And there too, it was only because I was trying to defend 3 persons under constant attack, myself included. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant thread at WP:ANI. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through some of this, this seems to a conflict between a person accused of trying to promote someone, possibly themselves, and a group of persons trying to prevent that perceived promotion. Cropped images are perfectly acceptable on Commons. Which images are to be used is a problem of local projects, not Commons. No admin action required. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request for immediate block followed by a de-sysop request against User:とある白い猫

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Clearly there is no consensus Ankry (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recently User:とある白い猫 blocked User:Colin to win in an edit-war which is a misuse of admin rights. At the very moment Zhuyifei1999 told him that "Just noting that from my perspective you're quite involved as well. Being ignored & reverted can induce annoyance / anger (perhaps there's a better word, but I can't think of it right now)." The block was lifted later on request. All related discussions are archived by the unblocking admin. But User:とある白い猫 one discussion and started another tread in ANU for community opinion. Their Natuur12 stated "Though I do disagree with the original block." The Photographer said "With the new premise that blocking Colin has now become a regular and part of the game." Slaunger gave long reply and explained how and why User:とある白い猫 is wrong here. But instead of accepting his mistakes he found one word and started joking: "Ten words or fewer. There wasn't an explicit ten word requirement." Upon noticing it I understood that his intention is beyond COM:AGF and tried to close it without any remarks as it seems a waste of community time. he re-opened it stating that "This thread isn't closed until I say so, I need to be satisfied with the level of scrutiny." User:Pokéfan95 stated "I recommend closing this and stop beating the dead horse.". I closed again and asked him to stop in his talk page. He reverted it. But User:とある白い猫 re-opened again stating "I will not let you sweep this under a rug."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkadavoor (talk • contribs)

He is pushing his POV against community consensus. This is not the first time he is doing it. He recently made a near-threat post at Commons:Village_pump#Scripted_.26_automated_tasks_on_human_accounts when community rejected his request. I think the community need not tolerate to such threats.

He had a previous history to that when we editing templates. I had explicitly asked about it on his Rfa. He had promised he will respect community consensus whenever achieved against his POV. But he failed.

I think it is enough and the time exceeds to de-sysop him. J e e 13:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath: While I was preparing this request, Yann had tried to close that discussion again and White Cat reverted it. He reverted my notification about this discussion too. So he reverted me two times in ANU and two times on his talk. He reverted Yann two times in ANU in two separate discussions. I'm noting this here as I would like to use this as a reference as many admins are showing different viewpoints on how to consider reverts here and on talk. Note that the initial action by Revent against Colin was based on his view that he considered Colin's revert on his talk is acceptable. He corrected it later when I questioned. White Cat's block on Colin was for revert against by Colin against White Cat. Here White Cat is allowed free to revert different people as many times as he wishes. J e e 03:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Immediate block and de-sysop. J e e 13:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable 猫 cruft. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 13:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Support It looks quite obvious the abuse of the tool and not only in Colin case --The Photographer 13:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Inacceptable conduct. --Krd 13:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd: So you, a sitting bureaucrat, think that my attempts to discuss issues (by simply re-opening the prematurely closed threads) is unacceptable? Bear in mind, what is being discussed is MY conduct over my use of the admin tool. The thread has been there for only one day, not a week.

Do you also agree that Colin's conduct of removing other peoples comments is acceptable behavior? That people should not be blocked for such conduct, particularly if it involves an analysis of their conduct posted on a noticeboard? Also how long is this block going to be?

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 13:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Over-inflation. Mutually assured destruction is not what is needed, we have already seen INC resign rather than deal with emotive dramah. Handing out larger spades so folks can dig bigger holes to fall into, is not a way to restore a mellow non-hostile environment. With respect to "pushing his POV against community consensus", a peanut gallery is definitely not a consensus and asking for a review of your own admin actions is a good thing, even if this noticeboard was neither the right place or at the best time. --Fæ (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not sure about the block (should be preventative not punitive) but unfortunately I ~~tend~~ to Support de-syso process unless we hear another music from User:とある白い猫. -- Geagea (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Geagea: What music this supposed to be? I blocked a user over poor conduct where he removed comments of others (including from a noticeboard). The block itself had simple conditions 1) Promise you won't do it again 2) Explain what's going on (so I can help you). If met I would have unblocked the user myself. User was promptly unblocked without a discussion. I was not even notified of this. Then I filed a case against my own action asking for community scrutiny which has been prematurely closed by multiple involved people.

Now I am up for a deadminship and block. This is the first time we will de-admin and block a user over their attempts of seeking an editorial review. And I mean genuine review, not exclusively by people involved in previous disputes siding with Colin. We have a lot of users, they should come to the same conclusion. If not, then there is a different problem.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 13:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to give とある白い猫 a few day to come to his senses. We can all have a bad week after all and this is the first incident in which とある白い猫 acts poorly in his capacity as an admin. Natuur12 (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 84,112 edits. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 16:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- +1. My thoughts exactly. Storkk (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am perfectly calm and collected. Please read my reply to geagea above. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 14:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    - Whether you are calm and collected, or you just think you are (it is an extremely common human trap to genuinely believe one is being calm and rational when one is angry), you do appear to be acting POINTily. Now, you aren't the only one who appears to be acting POINTily, but it doesn't help. Your request for a "genuine review" was clearly taken by some as an attempt at validation or point scoring. Whether it was or not, meh: not really relevant at this point. It should probably have been requested privately, rather than where you should have known that whatever the outcome, it would be incendiary. No, it's not fair. No, it's probably not worth a de-sysop. But please have a hand in damping the drama rather than stoking it. Storkk (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why should an issue as severe as an alleged admin abuse be handled in a hush hush manner? All I ask, expect and will absolutely enforce against premature closures is a genuine discussion by the community over my conduct. If no one responds to it for say a week, then issue would drop. Consensus cannot form when discussions are not permitted to continue. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 14:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- We can give cool-down block to ordinary users. But how can we take such risks when he is holding the admin tools. See, every sentence he used against me contain at least one offensive word including his inappropriate vote here. And why should we allow him to threat the community as he did in VP. he said he has no plans to use the admin tools. We need not have to beg him. Let him go if he can't respect the community consensus. Jee 13:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, hence my 24 hour cool down block to Colin with an easy way out. Standard practice on every other user. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 14:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    - とある白い猫, this discussion is not about your action against Colin. This is about your refusal to respect community consensus when challenged. You must respect it irrespective of whether or not you're right. (See Commons:Blocking_policy: "cool-down blocks are not condoned". It is a last resource when people loss their control as happened here.) Jee 14:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Jkadavoor: Do you always contradict yourself like this? You yourself recommended it against me. Also within the sentence above you stated that this discussion was not over my action against Colin and then talked about how my block of him was not condoned. I respect community consensus when one is allowed to form and not prematurely closed. I do not respect tag teaming where a group of editors side with each other. Less so if they want to disallow comments from rest of the community. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 15:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
        What I requested is already on the discussion title. I'm stopping to reply to you as it is difficult to educated people who pretend to be ignorant. It is better not to talk to you for three days, at least. You definitely need a re-start. J e e 15:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I was referring to your arguments contradicting each other within the same post. Education would come from those that are informed. You are not. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 15:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    - @Jee: of course we should not tolerate this kind of behavior but there is no way to correct this behavior as long as someone is acting irrational. Someone gave him some pretty good advice on IRC and I hope it sinks in soon. Letting stuff cool down first and talk about it later is like magic pixie dust. And the VP debate, well. It is a bit annoying but that's all there is to it. Natuur12 (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Natuur12, I respect my colleagues like you and we have some nice interaction when I was in OTRS and IRC. We know evil will prevail when the good people keep silent. I need not have to open this request if you (or another one of my colleagues) re-closed that threads and asked :とある白い猫 to move on. Your silence make him think no one is going to touch him. Sadly he still thinks so from his comments here. J e e 14:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        What is this about good and evil. Who determines who belongs under which? Am I evil? Are you? -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 15:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
        Evil = Something which is harmful or undesirable. J e e 15:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Like removing posts from noticeboards? That is both harmful and undesirable. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 15:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Support Of course. An admin claiming he only is allowed to close a report on AN/U can't stay admin. Not to mention the abuse of his admin right in blocking Colin for no reason when he is involved in the conflict. Yann (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was not involved. How was I involved? Are you not involved? How are you uninvolved? -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 15:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Also said discussion is over my admin conduct. I merely seek community discussion which is inconvenient for you people. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 15:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose This is just silly drama-mongering. Deleting other peoples' comments on a noticeboard is frowned upon, or should be. The block may have been slightly excessive, but it certainly isn't abusive. The Wordsmith (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 64 edits. Natuur12 (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your point? I've been a member of the Commons community for years, if rarely active. The Wordsmith (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose After taking the time to read the original incident, the responses made by both this admin and others on the project, and the noticeboard posts I'm inclined to agree with The Wordsmith - whereas the block may have been a stronger than perhaps necessary response, I don't believe this requires a desysop Samtar (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 19 edits. Natuur12 (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for pointing that out, and that Commons isn't the English Wikipedia - does this make my opinion invalid here? Samtar (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I thought you might confuse our noticeboard with an en-wiki noticeboard. Since surely you don't mean to get involved in disputes at wiki's where you are not a community member? Natuur12 (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - We are a community of communities serving all communities. Having feedback from other wikis shouldn't be frowned up on unless they are being disruptive. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 16:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
      - (ec) With enwiki and Commons being so heavily linked (literally as well as metaphorically!), why does it matter that someone active on enwiki (but not so much here) has something to add to a debate? Mike1901 (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Because とある白い猫 started complaining about what is going on in the en-wiki IRC-channel. You don't want de-wiki, nl-wiki or users from another wiki that don't edit en-wiki to start intervening with your local community matters merely because someone complained via an offwiki venue like IRC don't you? Natuur12 (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Would it not be easier to take the merits of the remarks? Regardless of its source? Do we care more about the source or the remark? -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 16:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
        I have to say that opinions of people who come here after you did forum shopping on IRC have little merit, specially when they are not contributors on Commons, and therefore they do not know the history of the issue. Then you doing forum shopping is another reason you should not have the admin bit from now on. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        This is rich, coming from you. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 17:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
        Rich indeed; Yann, if these people knew the FULL history, they will all oppose the de-sysop and all will vote for Colin being banned Indefinitely. Be glad that they don't know the full story.--Ste moc 02:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think everyone's actions here have been excessive, but I don't think any have been malicious. I haven't read every sentence of every comment and accusation by every user involved here, but I've interacted with many of them, here or on IRC, and I believe all of them contribute a net positive to the project. When I decided to join the Commons community several months ago, it was better at dealing with problems like this than enwiki's was. They have the reputation for drama, not us, and I don't think we need to change that. KSFT (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks Natuur12 and Yann to inform us that White Cat used IRC to canvass people for him. So the discussion is compromised. A note for the closing crats. (I've no plan to add a notice in FPC and QIC to bring people for my side. White cat alredy proved he is ineligible to held the flags. Meanwhile I processed and uploaded this ) J e e 17:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My views on admins being held to task being pretty well known even I think this seems excessive. If you want to block them for a couple days as punishment then that's fine but a desysop at this point is too much IMO. Reguyla (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And I'll save you the trouble. I have 232,297+ edits on commons and around 600, 000 on EnWP. :-) Reguyla (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose immediate block because とある白い猫 has not done any edits disrupting Commons since his block of Colin. There is no reason to block a user if they are not disrupting the project. The strong difference of opinions stated on these noticeboards, and the controversy over when and who can close discussions are not blockable IMO due to lack of clear community policies. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ..and Oppose desysop request now. I think a desysop request is premature based on incidents until now. For me, I saw it as positive that とある白い猫 opened a thread about his own conduct in this matter after another admin had reverted his admin actions. I offered my opinion, which is critical towards this admin action by とある白い猫, and positive about the admin action of Yann, but I also acknowledge that other users see it as a less severe action than I do. I was very puzzled by the responses of とある白い猫 to my feedback indicating he did not reflect upon the critique, but was more concerned about a little detail regarding 'ten words' vs 'ten words or fewer'. Several users were then very eager to close the thread saying it appeared to go nowhere, and とある白い猫 found the closure was premature, leading to a mutually silly revert war over that. I do not understand what would be so terrible about letting it be open for some more time, if the objective really was to do scrutiny of とある白い猫's actions and get input from wider sections of the community. An editor proposed that とある白い猫 seeked scrutiny privately from a 'crat by email. とある白い猫 thinks it should be in the open, and I agree with that. What I really dislike though are the things going on behind the scenes in the parallel closed IRC circuits, from which logs are not public, canvassing and complaining. If とある白い猫 is sincere about the request for scrutiny, close IRC for some days. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  For information, I have the Commons IRC channel in a window and I don't see anything posted there today that would change anyone's view that has not been said more clearly here. As for canvassing, that is literally not against Commons policies but can easily backfire as a post on an IRC channel or elsewhere may attract more negative votes than positive. In previous discussions about canvassing, the general conclusion was that it can be a good thing to (neutrally) attract attention to some votes, for example the recent Oversight vote was promoted on the Village pump. I believe Commons could do with some guidelines about appropriate canvassing, and would support improvement proposals. But as of now, anything that とある白い猫 wants to post off-wiki is up to their discretion. Similarly if anyone wishes to post counter-arguments in the same places, they are free to do so without fear of being subject to action, though it may backfire in the same way. --Fæ (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Slaunger: Most of the 'private' IRC channels are quite inane. The 'admins only' channel is almost entirely simply a bot telling us about edits to certain pages. Most discussion of anything is in the public channel, and most of that is simply random people seeking help. People do indeed sometimes have private conversations, but such discussions could easily occur via email as well. There are people on both sides of almost any significant issue present in the public channel, and most private channels as well. IRC is simply a more efficient way of having actual conversations, and anyone who is suspicious of it can simply join. I have never (and I was active on IRC before wikipedia even existed) seen it used as a tool of any conspiracy. Revent^talk 09:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support not acceptable behavior -jkb- (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no rationale was provided that the topic was already resolved or inapropriate. Ankry (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ankry, please let me know what more explanation you required. See comment by Pokfan below too. J e e 10:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkadavoor: I do not. My position is that an admin whose decission was challenged without any public discussion has the right to demand explanations. Refusing him this right and openning this discussion seems to me to be a kind of revenge action. Ankry (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no admin action challenged. The unblock granted after enough explanation. And we've separate boards for block discussions and COM:AN/B is explicitly for it. ANU is not. I remember Krd closed posts at COM:BN as off-topic to this board. My closure was too with "Hope the OP already received enough review on his recent actions. Now this is going off-topic to this board (needs an administrator's intervention). Can ask somewhere else if more advise is required. Jee 09:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)". He can ask admin opinions at COM:AN and community opinion at COM:VP. What he did is a self request against him that I close as no action required. He revert-warred and begged for an action. So this. J e e 11:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain TL;DR, just like few similar threads. --jdx ^Re: 20:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Very good point; this history is longer than reasonable. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colin is a troll who likes to 'bait' and 'Goat' users (admin and editors) and then tries to get them banned with the help of his 2 friends, one of which is an admin. He could not do it on Revent even though he tried many many times but has been successful on other editors and a few admins. I'm sorry, but Commons is a laughing stock because we refuse to block the "real trolls" on the project and admins who develop the BALLS required to do so are either attacked by Colin's supporters or get desysopped because this project belongs to the trolls obviously. Cat's block was not out of order, I'm just shocked that no admins who were following the recent drama had the balls to block him earlier even after he attacked not one but 2 editors, including an admin, PATHETIC is how i would describe how Commons is being run. I used to hate Jimbo when he said Commons was a bad place and he does not want anything to do with it, I now think he was right. This is the one project I have seen where they "literally" feed the trolls in the open because obviously, they run the wiki,the rest of us are just those "Extras" in a movie that that gets killed in the beginning of a movie for no apparent reason.--Ste moc 01:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mostly per Samtar and KSFT. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Please, not more drama from the drama queens and kings. Tm (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - In short this is just a mountain out of a molehill, Colin was blocked for an hour ... I'm sure he'll live, とある白い猫 - Please don't block those with whom you're INVOLVED with - It'll only end badly and more to the point it's common sense my friend, Right can I suggest this gets closed and everyone gets back to editing the project. –Davey2010^Talk 03:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC) (Updated 11:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose in strongest terms possible. This is taking a piss-train to drama-town, with population of fear-mongers. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, I don't see any reason to believe he was acting with vicious thought, we have no beliefs he would abuse his editing abilities. This block-vote seems to have no merit that will be a net-possitive for the community at-large. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose No evidence has been provided that ToAruShiroiNeko engaged in behavior meriting a block... he blocked an editor, and then asked the community to review his action. The demand that he be blocked and then subjected to a de-RFA where he would be unable to respond sounds like a star chamber proceeding. Revent^talk 08:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - What is going on here? Wait....Let me use my glasses. Oh... Now I can see a block and desysop request. Well, this does not make any sense to me, maybe someone will come here to claim I was canvassed or that I only made 21+ edits on Commons and Indefinite banned on En Wiki. Lolz! Wikicology (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support We don't need an admin who jokes around sensitive matters like this. Oversight is a very sensitive matter as it involves handling of personal information. This is not something we should joke around like we do in IRC sometimes. Also he doesn't respect community consensus, he (still) insist that the discussion above this thread must remain open despite experienced users saying leave the resolved as resolved. He also act like that he is superior than other admins as evidenced by the above thread "User:とある白い猫's block of Colin". No admin is superior to another. Even crats are not being superior to admins or ordinary users sometimes, as evidenced by Krd's vote above (of course, they need to be "superior" when in complicated issues like admin v. admin, otherwise no solution can happen). Oh, and I haven't accessed IRC for a long time, but since Natuur12 and Yann, whose admins we (or atleast I) trust stated above that White Cat forum shopped in enwiki's IRC channel, this is totally unacceptable behaviour. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And what is your opinion on editors like Colin and Jee? I'm sure if we have more people with a 'stick up their rear', wikis will become very very boring place to be. Comedy keeps the wikis alive, He was not voting on an important issue, it was an RfO, Not an RfS or RfCU which I feel are far more important rights when it comes to wikis. Even i do a 'comic vote' on RfX's all the time. People should really stop taking the projects seriously, does it put dinner on your table? cause last i checked, people who are paid to be here are doing more damage than those that are volunteering. If we start getting rid of ANY and EVERY admin that has a fight with Colin, we will become an 'oligarchy' in no time--Ste moc 09:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are not talking about Colin nor Jee, so that part is a tangent. RfOS (or RfO) is not like RfA nor RfLR where you can joke. LR doesn't handle personal information (obviously), and admins, although they have a right to revdel revisions, are not as sensitive as oversight. Again, oversight is one of the user groups which are sensitive (steward, oversight, and checkuser), as it suppresses personal and private information which shouldn't have been public. Of course joking is welcome, even in admin noticeboards, as long as it is appropriate, which in this case is not. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Well said, Pokéfan95. He joked around to a very serious reply by Slaunger above: "Ten words or fewer. There wasn't an explicit ten word requirement. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 21:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)" Slaunger politely replied: "Corrected. It now says ten words or fewer. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)" His humiliation continued: "Great! I hate it when people state "ten words or less". I blame Weird Al for this one. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 09:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)" he voted here as this is not a thread where can vote, "Delete Non-notable 猫 cruft. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 13:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)" One user thought he just made mistake and tried to fix it. He restored his joke. J e e 10:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that you were serious when in the thread above you described actions by other volunteers on this project with "We know evil will prevail" and today you described IRC as "IRC or any other wicked channel" [7]. I had ignored these in good faith as a parody or weak joke rather than personal attacks, however as it seems you were serious as you dislike to see jokes, can you identify who is evil or creating evil by their actions on this project, and exactly which forms of communication are wicked channels? No doubt even writing this makes me evil or wicked, and I would like to understand exactly what you mean by using those terms to describe other volunteers. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you think this as a joke. J e e 10:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Pokéfan95's position on this user's behavior and I tend to agree with them that such jokes are just ridiculous but do you consider a "joke" as something terribly bad and users should be blocked or desysoped for that? Wikicology (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've good sense of humor and can enjoy it. I too can ignore mild humiliations. But suppose when a user asked for a review and someone spent a lot of time to give a through review. Then joking on it is not acceptable. It is verymuch like the Wolf! Wolf! story. Nobody is going to care when he needs a real help. Nobody is going to approach him for help too. (My reply is for Fae's too, above.) J e e 10:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's your perception and that doesn't reflect the opinion of others. Let's play fair. I have not seen anyone who comes here to say "Contributing to Wikimedia Common put food on my table"? Please, let's keep things cool. Wikicology (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Biblical language, such as calling people sinners, evil, wicked, or similar, when not some form of obvious joke, should be treated as intentionally offensive, and when targeted at individuals are personal attacks to deliberately malign the character of a colleague. Thanks for the clarification that you are not joking nor making parodies. --Fæ (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you see biblical words in my reply to Wikicology. I forgot when I read it, last. Will check today, night. J e e 11:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious sources for biblical definitions of the words you have used are "Evil" as most obviously defined in Genesis, and "Wicked" is a direct synonym for sin which has multiple uses in several books of the Bible. If you intended to use these words in a different meaning, it would be helpful to explain your source at the time you use them, as the biblical definitions are the most obvious for any reader. --Fæ (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; our traditions are much older than that; or at least, we claim so. J e e 11:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it's the reader that is important to understand and their reading of modern English. This is a tangent, so if you continue using loaded words like "evil" to describe other contributors or their actions, and are certain to be offensive, I suggest that is created as a specific thread to handle it. --Fæ (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; this is against wmf:No discrimination policy. We've our right to protect our interests. J e e 12:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WMF policies are not an excuse to defame other volunteers as wicked or evil. If you are in doubt, then write to WMF legal for a clarification. Should you continue to create a hostile environment for other contributors, then a request for action will be necessary. --Fæ (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your attempt to deviate from this discussion. What you're trying to bring now is what I said to natuur yesterday which was a famous quote of Edmund Burke. What it means is a community will be self destroyed if good people keep silent. Admins's and other selected volunteers are supposed to act and keep vigilant to protect this community from destruction. I very well know what free cultural movement is and strive for it in heart. I represent the community in Spain with rented cloths. My wife took her last breath and closed her eyes laying in my hands. Still I'm representing the movement with all my limitations. Don't come to me with your tactics. You already well aware that what the content creators are going to decide on how to handle future cases when we face this type of reckless incidents. Nothing more I've to say to you. J e e 12:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify here, I cast an invalid vote intentionally. It was not meant as a joke. It would have been the lamest joke. Humor has no place on this wiki.
As for the "ten words or fewer" remark, I do not see why you think that is a joke. I did not ask for an unreasonable exact ten word reply, it was mostly to mean that a short reply would be preferred. It is not like I would actually count the words.
I just want to avoid walls of text when reviewing a users conduct as a starting point. No one likes walls of text. I would rather have multiple back and forths where a misunderstanding is limited or eliminated. We call these a discussion. A wall of text is a monologue.
To be honest, I am rather disturbed by the emphasis on the "ten words or fewer" remark by a number of editors. When an admin is reviewing a block, they do not need to know every detail. A ten world limit means you can write a simple statement to be unblocked without spending the time of a detailed response which can be stressful. I suppose I could have stated "around ten words".

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 15:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I recommend some admin close this. It was created to inquire about a desysop of an admin and it's clearly not going to get enough support to pass. At this point it's only generating anger and insults and we all need to use the Frozen rule and Let it go. Reguyla (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jan Arkesteijn

Please block Jan Arkesteijn for violating the community approved edit restriction (... must not overwrite any file on Commons that is not their own original upload...) here and here, after two previous blocks. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the problem here. The user fixed the colors of two pictures. Jcb (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcb: Did you read the edit restriction? Apart from that i don't think that the colours has been fixed. This has been discussed often enough. Please follow community consensus. Thanks :-). --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The restriction was the result of extensive discussion and community consensus. It is in nobody's interest to have that discussion all over again. Jan Arkesteijn is free to appeal if they wish to have it amended. In the meantime "Should Jan continue to overwrite files uploaded by others they will be subject to an escalating series of blocks due to their edits being disruptive, in accordance with COM:BP" is extremely clear.

Info query/7585 gives a search of overwrites. --Fæ (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm heading out, so won't be the one to place a block (don't like blocking and bailing) but what would be an appropriate duration to block ? 12 hours, 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, what ? And should there be an escalating block duration or not ? Nick (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done 1 month. Last block lasted for two weeks so a one month block seems reasonable. By doubling the block I am following a practise used at the Dutch Wiki where Jan Arkenstein also edits. This way the block length shouldn’t be a surprise for him. There is no excuse for this behaviour. Especially regarding File:Ujkigyos.jpg in which the upload history shows previous reverts after overwrite attempts. Natuur12 (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the other change - It is an improvement however the user should've either discussed it or uploaded a new image, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protected Ujkigyos.jpg for til March next year. Removed file mover, patroller and rollbacker bits since he's obviously not trustworthy anymore. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 19:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To be honest, the removal of their user rights appears to be a punitive action to me. Hedwig in Washington, could you point to any misuse of the file mover, patroller and rollbacker bits or otherwise explain why they cannot continue to be held by the user? Wikicology (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with misuse and is not punitive. The extended rights are granted to experienced and trusted users. Jan Arkenstein is experienced, but fails the trusted user test. Therefore the extended rights have been revoked. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 19:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, user right should not be removed unless there is a clear abuse of the rights. Why do you think they can no longer be trusted to use the tool? Because they violated their editing restriction? The user has been rightfully blocked for a period of one month for violating their editing restriction, I don't see how this correlate with how user rights are granted and revoked. Wikicology (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Hedwig correctly points out, extended rights (privileges would be a better word) are given to trusted users, not users who have not violated that privilege. Jan Arkenstein is clearly not a trusted user anymore, having abused the trust placed in him by the community multiple times. Correct decision by Hedwig. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)The user demonstrated clearly that he doesn't care about rules and regulations, there's no room for even a tiny bit of AGF. The edits of this user need to be patrolled by the community for longer than the block lasts. Where do you get the idea that we can't revoke the extended rights w/o abuse? Extended rights are for TRUSTED users only. You can apply for the bits for him if you like, I won't processes the requests. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 20:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin who blocked a user in a case they are involved is trusted to keep the bit, but a regular editor who violates their editing restriction is not trusted to keep their minor bits. Well, I would have to agree with Stemoc when they said the rest of us are just those "Extras" in a movie that gets killed in the beginning of a movie for no apparent reason. Wikicology (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop bringing other, completely different, but highly contentious cases into this. We've had enough drama recently. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your position. Wikicology (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems to have derailed completely, since it has devolved to what amounts to personal attacks. All points seem to have been made. I am out. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement is not the same as personal attack. Warm regards. Wikicology (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Massive creation of questionable categories

This regards categories created by Benzoyl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log).

I just stumbled on to this because I happened to see what I thought was a rather useless category on an image. Category:Man and two women. This struck me as a meaningless intersection that would not be helpful, so I went to look for more like this, thinking I would do a bundled discussion of them all. And I did find more, Category:Adult with two children, Category:Five men , Category:Two and one people, Category:Four women . You get the idea, every permutation of number and gender of people in an image.

Wondering how deep this rabbit hole goes, I opened up their contribs and filtered for just category edits, [8] and found that this user is creating new categories, some of them rather questionable, at a rate of a dozen or more every single day. From today's list I see Category:People with briefcases and Category:People holding briefcases because that's an important distinction to make. This all reminds me very much of a situation that developed around this time last year on en.wp that I'm sure some here are aware of, when we had a user who created tens of thousands of questionable redirects and a year later we're still cleaning up that mess. I'm not sure how many total categories we're talking about here, but if at the rate he's creating new categories it got to be at least several hundred by now, probably more.

I'd like to be clear that I am not suggesting that this user is acting in bad faith, or that every single category they are creating is problematic. It would actually be much easier if that were the case because we could just delete them all, but that's not what I'm seeing. So, what this means is that, should a significant portion of the community share my view that there are unnecessary and unhelpful categories being created in large numbers by this user, a review of these creations will be in order, and probably a temporary restriction on them creating new categories until said review is complete. I would therefore ask that other users take a look at some of the categories created by this user and see if they share my assessment that there is a problem here.

For the record the reason I am starting this discussion here and not on their talk page is that I can see that this has been brought up there before and they were not very responsive to these concerns, so I'd like the community at large to weigh in on it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried just now to inform them of this discussion, but first something seemed to go wrong with the template and then they moved their entire talk page and left a redirect there, so... they may or may not realize what I was trying to tell them... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: You say you'd like the community at large to weigh in, but you posted this on the administrators' noticeboard (rather than at the village pump). Do you want just the administrator community to weigh in? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine ot would be admins who would have to do all the work, but whichever. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think "gender" is important. --Benzoyl (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For example now, 248 in Category:Men and women, 452 in Category:Two women. They (categories) are now still less files. But, Subdivision is necessary. --Benzoyl (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Category:People with containers > Category:People with briefcases
= not holding (briefcases on ground etc). --Benzoyl (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: Benzoyl seems to archive his talk page when it reaches the template transclusion limit by moving it, and then cut-pasting recent threads back. It's not a normal method (it obscures the history). I left him a note pointing at the directions at COM:ARCHIVE. Revent^talk 02:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, I did'nt know general archive way. Best way is not "move a page" Copy paste to User talk:Benzoyl/log2. --Benzoyl (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC) Incidentally, the archiving because of Category:Pages with too many expensive parser function calls --Benzoyl (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Benzoyl: Yes, just copy-paste the material to the archive page, then remove it from your talk page. (You can have this done automatically by a bot). That way the history of your talk page stays intact. Revent^talk 02:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where does that end? Eight women, one man and two cats with a dog walking on two legs while having mustard on the muzzle? How deep do you want to go? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Four women - Category:Eight women are "not my creation".... how do I say this. This is a problem "Think everyone" --Benzoyl (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC) --Benzoyl (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say "subdivision is necessary". It is clear you believe this, but I would question why it is necesssary or helpful to subdivide to such an extent. It does nothing to enhance the user experience that I can see. My understanding of the purpose of categories is that they are for organizing content on related subjects, not for documenting every single aspect of every single image. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By country, By color, By gender, and By number. I think all need. --Benzoyl (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the one of reason, Easy to understand with "visual" in Category. Females and males different clothing etc. --Benzoyl (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This really should have been submitted as a nomination for deletion or, at the very least, on the Village pump as was suggested. As a veteran admin of the English Wikipedia and having edited here before, I would have expected they would know this.

As someone who has occasionally added those categories I also think they are basically unneeded. I tried to imagine a time when we would want to know of images with X number of Men or Women and I just cannot think of one. The only problem removing these categories might cause is that some of these images may not have any categories at all if we delete these. Reguyla (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Category:Musical trios. FFF, FFM, MMF, MMM .There is 4 gender combination. --Benzoyl (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC) Category:Female musical trios is also Unnecessary? --Benzoyl (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The merits or flaws of specific categories, or categorization policy in general, are off-topic here. The relevant issue for this venue, really, is if Benzoyl has himself been problematic by refusing to listen to such complaints in the past. It's beyond the remit of this noticeboard to make decisions about specific categories, or what level of intersection in category names is appropriate... those are debates for the community as a whole to address, especially since such issues have been quite controversial in the past. Revent^talk 02:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has become the theme of (only) "Gender category" by Beeblebrox. I don't refuse. I tried participate in past discussions. --Benzoyl (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In Japan and China, There are words (itten mean "One"). 紅一点 (Kō-itten = one female and males = Kō mean "Red") and 黒一点 (Koku-itten = one male and females = Koku mean "Black") --Benzoyl (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC) --Benzoyl (talk) 08:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to re-iterate, I am not looking to have a discussion about the merits of each specific category, there are far too many for that. What I believe we should be discussing is whether the creation of large numbers of such categories is problematic and if a more thorough investigation is in order, possibly including a requirement that Benzoyl stop creating categories for the moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not the only me, creating categories or should not creating, Do you think it is necessary "permission system"? There is not "Beforehand creating categories discussion page" in Commons (I thought it would be nice if there is). --Benzoyl (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're correct that you are not the only person that is perhaps creating categories they shouldn't, and of course there is no pre-permisssion system for creating them. There is however Commons:Categories, the official policy on categories, and I would argue that until it can be determined whether your many creations are compliant with it you should refrain from making more. This is in the interest of keeping this issue as small as possible as it will take a considerable amount of time and energy to review all the ones you have already created. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

how long? till when ? @"you should refrain from making (categories) more. " --Benzoyl (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now I changed, 0 files in Category:Adult with two children.
But, Category:Statues of mothers with two children < Category:Statues of mothers with children is no touching. (because of not my creation)
‎I'll leave you, {{CatDiffuse}} problem. --Benzoyl (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also 0 in Category:Two men and woman, 0 in Category:Man and two women --Benzoyl (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is this in was really good ? I am not convinced with that. But more than this, I don't want to quarrel with you. --Benzoyl (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC) --Benzoyl (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desire to quarrel with you either, rather I am asking the community and the admin corps to have a look at your category creations and see if they agree that there is a problem that needs addresssed there. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox With all due respect, You don't realize yet?

"My category creations" were just follow, "other user's category creations". Why target only me continue?

I think it is rude "regarding my category creations as problem behavior" be asking here.

I think so too, "Wondering how deep this rabbit hole goes" is precise representation, sometimes.

deep, deep... (Not My Creation) Reading in art - People reading in art - Females reading in art - Girls reading in art - Girls reading indoors in art - Sitting girls reading indoors in art --Benzoyl (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC) --Benzoyl (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I’m very surprised by this whole affair. Looks like Beeblebrox suddenly come across categorization and is in awe of the level of detail that other contributors have added to our tree of topics. Yet, instead of marvel in wonder and thank the community for the effort so far, Beeblebrox sees this as somehow objectionable and drags Benzoyl to the bench of AN/U for questioning. Yet nothing shown so far warrants Benzoyl more than a pat on the back and a cheerful carry-on — nothing «questionable», at all, in my view (and, yes, it’s possible to create bad categories and to categorize badly — I try to counter it all the time; but that’s not the case at hand at all). If Beeblebrox doesn’t want to work on categorization or even doesn’t want to use categories, well, be very welcome to do so, but please leave alone those others who focus on different forms of contributing to Commons: There’s room for everybody. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you create a ton of categories, some of them will be useful. But I can not agree to consider such activity as a contribution. Confucius said, "To go beyond is as wrong as to fall short."--禁樹なずな (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 == [[User:Houmouvazine]] and [[User:Ms10vc]] ==
+{{closed}}
 Salut
 Cet utilisateur commet des [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Flag_of_Algeria_(1958-1962).svg&diff=224742998&oldid=224708706 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. [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=217583645 Rappelons-nous qu'il s'est plaint de moi il y a peu]. Merci de faire le nécessaire. --[[User:Pannam2014|Pannam2014]] ([[User talk:Pannam2014|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 ::Tu va surtout arrêter de nous prendre pour des imbéciles. Personne ne s'est opposé à ma demande sachant que celle-ci consiste à rediriger le titre actuel de la page vers File:Flag of Algeria.svg après renommage. Stop ! --[[User:Pannam2014|Panam2014]] ([[User talk:Pannam2014|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 {{Hidden end}}
+{{en closed|I blocked Panam2014 for a year. This user is unable to understand that insults are not accepted here, and that the projet works on a cooperative and consensus mode. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)}}
 == [[User:Slowking4|Slowking4]] ==

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:04, 10 December 2016

Contents

User:Houmouvazine and User:Ms10vc

Slowking4

User:Revent misusing the Close-discussion template

Conduct of User:Colin

Response by Colin

Dardn2015

about User:Benzoyl

User:とある白い猫's block of Colin

Discussion

User:Ariam and User:Disembodied Soul working for/with User:Svensson1

Request for immediate block followed by a de-sysop request against User:とある白い猫

Jan Arkesteijn

Massive creation of questionable categories

Navigation menu

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:04, 10 December 2016

User:Houmouvazine and User:Ms10vc

Slowking4

User:Revent misusing the Close-discussion template

Conduct of User:Colin

Response by Colin

Dardn2015

about User:Benzoyl

User:とある白い猫's block of Colin

Discussion

User:Ariam and User:Disembodied Soul working for/with User:Svensson1

Request for immediate block followed by a de-sysop request against User:とある白い猫

Jan Arkesteijn

Massive creation of questionable categories

Navigation menu

Search