Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 61

User:Rosanna48

Hi, his only contributions are the set of protected images Rosanna48 (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) --2003:4D:2C7B:4494:A893:F55E:8FAD:ADD5 06:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Last upload deleted, user warned. lNeverCry 06:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Andresc30

After a one-week block from INeverCry, it seems they are back to upload copyright violations from Flickr here again. I suspect that this user is involved in Flickrwashing. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 05:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done nuked and blocked. Next time I throw away the key. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 06:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Vahram Mekhitarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

There are two files of carpets made in Azerbaijan. This[1] and this[2]. The main source (website of Victoria and Albert Museum where these carpets are located) say that the place of origin of both of them is Azerbaijan[3][4]. That is why I suggested to rename these files and made some edits to the description. But user Vahram Mekhitarian continuous to falsificate the place of origin pushing "Armenian" and trying to rename files[5][6][7][8],he also removed the links to the museum's site where true place of origin was written[9][10]. Please stop user Vahram Mekhitarian from reverting the false information about these carpets from Azerbaijan and adding renaming template with a false name. I think user Vahram Mekhitarian needs to be warned for adding false description and false name. --Interfase (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment -- I am a bit reluctant to conclude that Vahram Mekhitarian's behavior is disruptive but looking at the thread here and the sources provided above by the OP, I have to agree with the OP that Vahram Mekhitarian's edits are not constructive. Wikicology (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Wikicology, until 1920 not have historical references to the territory at this region under the name of Azerbaijan. It was created in the period of the Soviet Union in 1920. These photos [11], [12] of carpets the period of 17-19 century, can not be have the name of Azerbaijan. The true origin and type of these carpets are described in an article "Caucasian Carpets in the Victoria & Albert Museum, by Donald King, Michael Franses & Robert Pinner, Hali magazine, Jul 22, 2013, pp. 95-115". Specifically, there is indicated Karabakh territory. Of course, no mention of Azerbaijan in this article does not exist, and renaming files is an attempt to falsify the history of the region. The image source is not a WP:IRS. The carpets described as an "Armenian", so as the Armenian population of Karabakh lived there and weaved carpets for thousands of years. Vahram Mekhitarian (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"until 1920 not have historical references to the territory at this region under the name of Azerbaijan" - not true. For example, Encyclopaedia of Islam (1986, Vol. I., P. 191) tells that according to Yakut (13th century) Adharbaydjan extended down to Bardha’a (this is a territory of Azerbaijan). "A History of Qarabagh: An Annotated Translation of Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi’s Tarikh-e Qarabagh" (Mazda Publishers, 1994, p. XV) also confirms that the Safavids included some of the lands north of the Arax river (modern territory of Azerbaijan Republic) as part of the province of Azerbaijan.

"no mention of Azerbaijan in this article does not exist" - not true again. Let's read what is written in this article (page 97): Thus, our regional treatment is quite similar to that of Kerimov who has classified the carpets of Russian Azerbaijan into the Genje-Kazak, Kuba-Shirva and Karabagh regions

"Armenian population of Karabakh lived there and weaved carpets for thousands of years" - for "thousands of years" is your original research. But Azeri population also lived in Karabakh and also weaved carpets. And their carpet weaving in Caucasus was more significant than the other people's. Iranica, e.g. tells in the article about Caucasian carpets, espescially about the 19th century: The main weaving zone was in the eastern Transcaucasus south of the mountains that bisect the region diagonally, the area now comprised in the Azerbaijan SSR; it is the homeland of a Turkic population known today as Azeri. Other ethnic groups also practiced weaving, some of them in other parts of the Caucasus, but they were of lesser importance. As we can see even in 19th century the main carpet weavers of the Caucasus were Azeris, and others has lesser importance. If after all these sources you have again some doubts about carpets from Azerbaijan of that period, let's see what historian Ronald Grigor Suny writes in his book "Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: A Country Study" (Diane Publishing, 1996, P. 108): Carpet and textile making, both of which are ancient Azerbaijani crafts, fluorished during the medieval period, and Azerbaijani products became well known in Asia and Europe.

But where is it written that these carpets are from Karabakh or weaved by Armenians? There is nothing about it on the description of the carpets. But we can easely read the place of origin: Azerbaijan. It may be Karabakh, but maybe other region of Azerbaijan as well. Any way we should put that name which is described on the main source. And the main source is the web-site of Victoria and Albert Museum. I think, that the Museum knows better, where their carpets came from, than the user of Wikimedia. --Interfase (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Vahram Mekhitarian: @Interfase: This appears to be a 'good faith' content dispute, and not vandalism. You were both edit warring, which is unacceptable.... cease doing so, or sanctions will be applied as needed to stop disruptive behavior. Discuss the issue at a talk page, or a project discussion page, and find a consensus that describes the status of the works as neutrally as possible, including a mention of the dispute, and address the subject of how the images are used at the relevant projects. Please. @Marcus Cyron: Revent^talk 02:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

(further comment) I've protected both pages at the 'status quo', which is of course The Wrong Version, for two weeks, to force a stop to the edit war. When you reach a consensus, ask for the pages to be fixed with {{Edit request}}. Revent^talk 02:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• If I get this right, this is a file moving wheel war? That is disruptive on so many levels. Whatever is the national origin, there should be reliable sources for it. If we have a reliable source for both claims, then handle it like all the other past similar cases. For example, why not call it just a "Dragon carpet with swastikas, 17-18th century, Nagorno-Karabakh, 212 x 184 cm, T84-1909.jpg"? There seems to be an agreement that this carpet is from a specific time period at a specific location. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 18:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
  • But the sources don't claim that these carpets are from "Nagorno-Karabakh". They claim that they are from Azerbaijan. They can be from Karabakh theoretically, but Karabakh carpets also from Azerbaijan, as we can read in the David Long's article. Anyway the name "from Azerbaijan" is not wrong and complies with the reliable sources. There is not only renaming problem. User Vahram Mekhitarian deletes also categories and description relating to Azerbaijan and adds categories and description relating to Armenia for some reason that is not complying with the sources. --Interfase (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@とある白い猫: Presumably the people that moved the images were taking the requests in good faith, and didn't realize they had been repeatedly renamed. As far as the 'content dispute', I really have no opinion, but it needs to be settled by discussion, and this page really isn't the right place for that. Revent^talk 14:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Can't say much more in this case than this, was I said before in my discussion page. Carpets are not my working area, neverless the Armenian/Azerbaijan conflict. With reanamigs we have to trust the expertise by the users up to a point. I re-renamed, because of bring it back to the starting point, so that there a discussion can start by those, who know about the toppic. Marcus Cyron (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Complaint about unjust deletion requests

As a famous person, or formerly famous, of minor but nevertheless reasonably notable fame, I think I am being subjected to abuse regarding the deletion request process, in relation to my fame and the controversial nature of my fame (public nakedness).

For example one image currently listed for deletion was previously listed in 2011 for deletion but the ruling was to keep. Surely it is not right for an image that has previously been successful kept to be again listed for deletion?

As far as I am aware if an image was previously ruled "keep" then an appeal is the only way to challenge that, and it can only be renominated for deletion if there have been changes to the image (there have been no changes to the image in question), so you can imagine why I am feel I am being victimised.

Wikimedia states regarding appealing deletions: "Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone."

Oddly the Administrator User:Jameslwoodward who previously ruled to "keep" my image now wants to reverse that decision because apparently I am not noteworthy enough, despite having a Wikipedia page about my campaign and despite at one time having a Wikipedia about myself which I asked Wikipedia to remove due to stress (they complied with my removal request).

Of the five items listed for deletion one was previously ruled a "keep" in 2011, and three were nearly removed in 2011 regarding a request for copyright-ownership permission, which I sent. Surely if the images were unsuitable in 2011 that should have been noted, via deletion request, at the same time as the missing copyright permission issue?

One of the five images listed for deletion is COM:INUSE regarding The Freedom To Be Yourself so that clearly seems in-scope, thus perhaps corroborating my allegation of abusiveness towards myself?

All the five images (currently flagged for deletion) were uploaded in 2010, but the reason for the current (2016) deletion request is in relation to an image (a sixth image of mine listed for deletion), which I uploaded on 3 Nov 2016. It seems by uploading an image this has caused my old images to be re-evaluated, which does not seem proper. Must I have ALL my images re-evaluated every time I upload a new image?

The bias and prejudice, the personal attack, regarding these deletion requests seems clear regarding how User:Hedwig in Washington referred to me mockingly as "Mr. I M Important." in the edit summary. The word "garbage" also seems a personal attack when applied to my identity, a self-portrait. If the image is out of scope then say so but the "garbage" pejorative seems to be personal attack.

The argument of advertisement or self-promotion (out of scope) shouldn't apply to self-portraits by a famous person who is famous regarding their identity, regarding campaigning (noted in the worldwide international media) for identity (self-awareness) issues. Please can you investigate the possible abusiveness, the abuse of deletion process. If I really wanted to promote or advertise myself then I wouldn't do it via the backwater of Wikimedia were there has been minimal awareness of my 2010 images over the past six years.SRHSP (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that comments have been made in a mocking way. This is unhelpful as rather than diffusing the situation, contributors who should know better have inflamed it rather than just sticking to explaining policy and guidelines in the deletion request. --Fæ (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, to be factual, it was User:SRHSP who already in his first comments to the DR of his uploads questioned the nominator's motivation and accused him of "abuse of process"[14], "trolling" and "malicious abuse of process"[15], and "frivolous case"[16]. One can hardly expect a too friendly answer to such attacks. --Túrelio (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Fæ. And Túrelio my response would be to state my accusations were civil and not without evidence of potential abuse of process, or at least evidence of carelessness, considering the blanket nature of the deletions, which included one previous "keep" from 2011; furthermore the previous 2011 "keep" and another 2010 image are currently COM:INUSE thus clearly not liable for deletion. I think it is valid to speculate upon the nature of how the deletion requests occurred and the method of the requests being implemented, which due to the quickness (15mins after I uploaded) I think some type of bot-automation error or abuse happened. Also two wrongs do not make a right, so if I was wrong to raise the criticism then simply say so instead of being abusive.SRHSP (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you think I should submit a request for comment regarding the 2011 keep currently being contradicted? Wikimedia policy seems clear on this, that if the image has not changed and not been appealed then a new request for deletion cannot be made to counter the old (2011) keep. SRHSP (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

No, stick to discussion in the DR. --Fæ (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

User:GSFPage is back

After their block (see AN thread here), they don't seem to have understood why they were blocked and they are back uploading watermarked images- "File:SandeepSej.jpg" and "File:Manish Rawat.jpg". Both on here and en.wiki (where there are numerous copyright problems to do with text) they seem unresponsive to queries and don't seem to have actually used a talk page before. Jcc (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Deleted and blocked. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 07:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Dj-sajid

Should be warned or outright blocked for spamming --Denniss (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Огородник Максим (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Permanent copyright when downloading photos. --Mykola Vasylechko 14:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Just... what? The editor is User:Shmanʹkivtsi - Chortkiv, but has his user and talk pages redirected to a non-existent account name, which breaks all kinds of things. Someone who knows what language this is, so they can communicate with him, needs to move the pages to the right place and explain the matter, I think. Revent^talk 14:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The language is Ukrainian--Ymblanter (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I not about user account. I about uploaded photos of user. See User talk — more 57 images in violation of copyright. User roughly violates regulations Commons. We must take action. --Mykola Vasylechko 19:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I blocked them for a month.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Микола Олежчук (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

@Ymblanter: This User:Shmanʹkivtsi - Chortkiv created new account name and uploaded new image — violation of copyright. User roughly violates regulations Commons. --Mykola Vasylechko 18:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think this is the same user?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Per work. File:Домашня газета.png added to article User:Shmanʹkivtsi - Chortkiv. This is Sock puppetry. This files to remove. --Mykola Vasylechko 19:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Ralf Roletschek

Just a couple of days ago, we had an issue with obvious personally motivated revenge voting by Ralf Roletschek on Quality Images candidates. Now this very same behaviour appears to continue and I hereby kindly request a sysop to finally consider a block of this user because of long-term harassment. Thanks --A.Savin 20:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Sonst hast du keine Probleme? Ich habe halt eine Meinung zu einem Foto, wo ist das Problem? --Ralf Roleček 21:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Could an admin please intervene? I don't think me and other fair-playing users at QIC have to tolerate the lies by Ralf Roletschek again and again. The photo in this nomination is fully OK, there is no "distortion", I didn't even correct the perspective. --A.Savin 21:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, my first impression, as a non-pro, was "too much perspective correction". --jdx ^Re: 02:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

According to the EXIF that photo was taken with a SIGMA 8-16mm lens @ 9mm (13.5 in full-frame). The perspective distortion of an ultra-wide-angle lens isn't to everyone's taste. I've even opposed my own en:wp FPC of a wide angle photo of St Pancras railway station. I think you need to find a stronger example of unreasonable opposition at QI. And while revenge-voting (if that is what this is) is unacceptable, please avoid using the word "harassment" for such. Nobody is being threatened or fearful for their safety and no police have been informed, so that kind of language shouldn't be used. -- Colin (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It does no matter, which method (tilt/shift, portrait orientation or photoshop), a 100%-distortion looks unnatural. --Ralf Roleček 08:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment - A.Savin, this is not a kind of behavior I would normally considered harassment. Hey....Ralf Roletschek! Look here, behavior like this is unhealthy for a collaborative community like Wikimedia Commons and therefore unacceptable. Wikicology (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It's unhealthy to have a opinion? This opinion (too much distortion) i'm writing since years. Maybe, ist unhealthy to ha a opinion other than A.Savin. --Ralf Roleček 09:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Revenge voting is against the spirit of collaboration and may be considered disruptive which is a ground for blocking. Wikicology (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment As Colin commented above, this is not a good example to assume "revenge voting". Some people like it; some not. Jee 09:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • In the past i have often vote "too strong distortion". Since years. This isn't a question of photographer rather motiv. See [17] and [18] as only two examples. The 2. is a DIliff. --Ralf Roleček 14:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
    • And now there are 3 vs. 3 Votes at QIC [19] - I'm not alone with my opinion. That has nothing to do with revenge. --Ralf Roleček 23:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Plainte contre décision abrupte et déplacée, sans égard sur le fond de la question soulevée, par l'"administrateur" P199.

Resolved

Plainte contre décision abrupte et déplacée, sans égard sur le fond de la question soulevée, par administrateur P199.

Bonjour,

Objet: plainte pour abus par un administrateur, en l'occurrence l'utilisateur P199

Le cas suivant, simple, se présente comme suit:

1) Je note que le soi-disant drapeau de Moresnet neutre n'a aucune valeur historique, ni légale. voir à : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Moresnet.svg

2) La présentation du drapeau est donc abusive et crée la confusion.

3) J'en demande la suppression dans les termes suivants à https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Flag_of_Moresnet.svg

Ce fichier a été proposé(e) à la suppression depuis le 19 octobre 2016. Pour en discuter, merci d’aller sur la page de la demande. Ne retirez pas ce message tant que la demande de suppression n’est pas close.

Raison pour la demande de suppression : "Moresnet-Neutre" était un territoire communal disputé par les Pays-Bas (puis la Belgique à partir de 1831) et la Prusse de 1816 à 1919. Ce n'était pas un état indépendant et il n'en avait ni les attributs ni les symboles (drapeau et hymne). Le projet utopique du mouvement espérantiste est une chose. La réalité historique en est un autre. Le drapeau de Moresnet-Neutre n'a jamais (et n'aurait pas pu légalement) existé. Il relève de la fantaisie d'activistes espérantistes actuels.

4) l'administrateur P199 (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:P199) intenvient:

- déclare que : Kept: in use; the discussion whether or not it is valid/legal should not be held here. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC).

Aucune autre intervention, et pour cause.

Conséquence: "LE DÉBAT EST CLOS "! ...avant d'avoir commencé. "Débat" qui n'a pas eu lieu !

- et P199 ferme aussitôt la discussion (qui n'a pas eu lieu).

Résultat: ce drapeau continue à être présenté faussement comme celui du territoire, en fait communal, de Moresnet neutre, et ce, dans de nombreuses versions linguistiques de l'article.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Flag_of_Moresnet.svg

Cet administrateur fait mal son travail et abuse de ses droits !

J'ai d'autres exemples d'interventions abruptes et définitives par des utilisateurs qui se considèrent propriétaires de pages ! wikipedia est une immense bureaucratie où énormément de gens dépensent leur énergie à épiloguer sans fin, dans des "guerres d'édition", un vocabulaire guerrier extrêmement courant mais dont le MOOC ne souffle mot....MOOC qui nous présente une version idyllique et fausse de Wikipedia.

C'est cela le fonctionnement de Wikipedia/Wikimedia ? La présentation par le MOOC de ce début 2016 était tout à fait surfaite !

Bien à vous,

--AIlurus (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Élève WikiMOOC 2016 "J'ai appris les subtilités de la contribution sur Wikipédia en suivant le WikiMOOC 2016 (cours en ligne)". Tu parles !

AIlurus : Bonjour,

Merci de ne pas accuser un administrateur sans raison. La fermeture de cette décision est la bonne: suivant les règles de Commons, le fichier étant utilisé et n'ayant pas de problème de droit d'auteur, il peut être sur Commons. Son utilisation est à discuter sur Wikipédia. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

User:AIlurus clearly doesn't know or doesn't understand Commons policies and guidelines. My advice to him was to renominate the file for deletion again, which he did. The next closing admin came to the same conclusion as me. This is purely a case of complaining of an user not getting his way. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

harass-accounts w. inappropriate username blocked

Just for the record: I've indef-blocked the 2 recently created, but inactive accounts User:Molly White breast-feeding me by holding my head on her bosom and User:Molly White is my dream girl, which werely likely created by the same person in order to harass an :en arbitrator. I was notified by 3rd party about the first one and found the 2nd one by myself. I've also deleted the related user talkpages. --Túrelio (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for acting fast on this. I don't think anyone would object to a block like this. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Complaint about a user through OTRS

Dear administrators, as OTRS-volunteer I forwarded a ticket, ticket:2016111710008268, with a complaint about a certain Commons user to the commons maillist in German. Can please a German speaking administrator look into this question, please read my note (in English) added to the ticket. Sorry, my German is not sufficient enough... thanks and kind regards, Elly (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ellywa: Done. Next time just move it over to info-commons and unlock the ticket. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Trylie

Take a look at User:Trylie contributions. –Makele-90 (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

1. You forgot to inform user about this discussion
2. I see nothing that requires an admin action

So, @Makele-90: could you be more precise? Ankry (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary note and false signature at administrator Kallerna's talk page. Claiming to be a filemover on his own talk page. Unnecessary note 3, and more random messages. –Makele-90 (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Reverted. Yann (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Some very strange edits, but also some constructive ones. Does not look like a total newbie to me, first edit was to add {{SVG}} to a file. Not sure whether this is a troll or a genuine account. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

 Blocked Sockpuppet of Vexillographer. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Indef block of Reiner Stoppok

Reiner Stoppok (talk · contribs) whose last edit at Commons is from 28 January 2007 was indef'ed out of sudden and without any explanation on 3 June 2015 by Denniss with the rationale Intimidation/harassment. I asked Dennis for the background of this block but got no satisfying response. Denniss refered to supposed insults on de:wp refering to Commons users but provided no difflinks. Reiner Stoppok is a prolific contributor at de:wp since 2006 (more than 112,000 edits) but indeed not without controversies. In 2014, the de:wp community banned him for two years. This ban has now expired and Reiner Stoppok would like to continue contributing and is (like me) wondering about this remaining block at Commons. There are just 11 contributions of him at Commons. One file was deleted where he forgot the license template for the scan out of a book published in 1910 by an author who died in 1927. I would suggest to unblock him as I do not know of any wrongdoings of him at Commons and as we should not block here anyone for offenses done at other projects. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

 Support unblocking. Yann (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

 Support unblocking. Local on-wiki blocks should not be automatically propagated to other wikis. IMO, if there is real need to set a multiwiki block, it should be made by a steward or WMF staff, or at least precise explanation should be provided. Ankry (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

 Support unblocking. Behavior on another Wiki is in itself no reason to block. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

 Support terrible block. Though we can block people for offences at other projects on rare occasions of course. Merely insults isn't one of those occasions. Natuur12 (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

 Support as others --Hubertl 10:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done - per consensus - there was no valid reason at all to block in the first was. Blocking admin has been consulted and apparently could not remember any valid reason either - Jcb (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Estela.rs

Estela.rs (talk · contribs) is, I believe, a sockpuppet of blocked user Vs.abbott (talk · contribs) (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Vs.abbott). Their uploads are of no encyclopaedic use, often null images, and solely for self-promotional spam in the file description. Could an admin take appropriate action please? Optimist on the run (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Uploads nuked and both accounts indeffed. lNeverCry 20:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Another sock found and blocked: Yar.ulysses. lNeverCry 20:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

And another: Fersts... lNeverCry 21:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done I created category for sockpuppets and tagged them. Taivo (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Musa Raza

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Tm used cat-a-lot [24]. The block rationale of "unapproved bot" isn't true. Krd threatened to block me for the same thing. I used VisualFileChange, so again "unapproved bot" would've been false in my case as well. Tm did a whopping 1800 edits in a half hour BTW. As for McZusatz, he's always been a relaxed and reasonable guy, and the discussion pointed to looks to be pretty calm. He's trying to help out, and it's certainly nice to be able to edit a summary than the whole page. lNeverCry 00:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User Crossswords

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

Serial copyright violator.

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

Warning -- data uploaded by user may be inaccurate -- Quite likely related to form of propaganda pushing by Trolls from Olgino, more info at [25].

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

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

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

Admins Pi.1415926535 and Ankry would appear to disagree -- the first deleted copyvio at File:Traffic for the term fake news.jpg, and the 2nd reverted user disruption at File:Video game rating systems in europe.JPG [26]. Sagecandor (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

User:Kayesh

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

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

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

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

User:Kumarappanghelliah & User:Kumarappavelar

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

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

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

Dardn2015

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

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

Slowking4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

---

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)

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)

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.

• Do you also agree that Colin's conduct of removing other peoples comments is acceptable behavior?
• Like removing posts from noticeboards? That is both harmful and undesirable.

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:

• editors like Colin and Jee... with a 'stick up their rear'
• Colin who likes to bait editors and admins into his feud and then claim to be the victim
• Colin is a troll (+ long rant about me).
• if these people knew the FULL history, they will all ... vote for Colin being banned Indefinitely. Be glad that they don't know the full story.

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)

• 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.--Stemoc 11:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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)

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.--Stemoc 12:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

---

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

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)

---

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)
• (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. Jee 15:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
•  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)
•  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)
• 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)

  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)

  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. Jee 09:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

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)
  • 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. Jee 11:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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.

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

•  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)

• 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)

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)

•  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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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