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

Shortcut: COM:AN/U

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

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

^{Translate this page}

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

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~45
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~2
• No source since 7 August 2024: ~1
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-08: ~71

Other:

• Duplicates: ~5
• Advertisements/spam: ~2
• Personal photos/selfies: ~20
• Other speedy deletions: ~53
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~1
• Undeletion requests: ~7

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~5
• Interface admin: ~16
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~3
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

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

---

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

---

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

Note

• Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

User:Fry1989

User:Fry1989 has first emptied the categories Category:State emblem of Mongolia and Category:Emblems of Mongolia, then put them up for deletion. I have voiced my opinion on that topic here Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/08/Category:State emblem of Mongolia. When I restored his file removal for example here File:Coat of Arms of Mongolia.svg, the edit was undone with the comment "I don't give a crap what you think regarding the proper name of what this symbol is, you are making it harder to find". This is not in order. User should refrain from unilaterally emptying categories and putting them up for deletion when the opposite of his argument is quite clear, and especially avoid offensive language before issues are settled, which IMO is quite clear, see name of article here Emblem of Mongolia. Gryffindor (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If you go through the history, Gryffindor created the Categories "Emblems of Mongolia" and "State Emblem of Mongolia", and only put two files in it, the SVG and one non-SVG version of Mongolia's national emblem (at the same time removing them from "Coat of Arms fo Mingolia"). He made them harder to find, and I reverted him back to the long-standing consensus and common practice of "Coat of Arms of". Gryffindor then unilaterally tried to enforce his opinion by removing ALL of Mongolia's national symbols, current and historical, from the "Coat of Arms of" and put them in his new cats. You may not like my language (which is hardly harsh), but Gryffindor unilateral attempts to enforce his view of what the category should be called, over functionality and ease of use, are the real problem here. If he was really interested in consensus, why didn't he set up a discussion and possible re-name of the category "Coat of Arms of Mongolia", rather then bypassing that process, creating his own hard-to-find categories, and unilaterally removing everything from where people would look, and putting it in a place that is harder? Fry1989 ^eh? 18:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be of note, that I have no objection if the "Coat of Arms of Mongolia" cat was renamed, but Gryffindor's insistance of bypassing that process deliberatly made the emblems of Mongolia more difficult to find. We have a category "Coat of arms by country". That is the master category to find national symbols, and within that category is the sub-cat "Coat of Arms of Mongolia". That is where people would look. But because of Gryffindor's actions, they would instead have to go through "Mongolia"-"Symbols of Mongolia"-"Emblems of Mongolia"-"State Emblem of Mongolia". A lot more tedius and unneccesary process. Lastly, his claim that users shouldn't "unilaterally empty categories" is a case of Do as I say, not as I do, because that is exactly what he did, and the history will prove it. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

A subcategory is not "harder to find". It looks like "Coats of arms of Mongolia" is being used for coats of arms of the various subdivisions as well, so a category for the specific national coat of arms seems reasonable to me. Much like "Great Seal of the United States" is a subcategory of "Seals of the United States". And if its proper name is the "state emblem" and not a "coat of arms", it would seem to be correctly named as well. Not sure about the more general "emblems of mongolia", but if it's not technically a coat of arms, maybe the emblems is more appropriate alongside the coats of arms category, all under "Symbols of Mongolia". There is not guaranteed to be a "coats of arms of XXXX" category everywhere; "Symbols of XXX" is generally the standard place you'd start from. I'd agree with Gryffindor here I think. The edit comment sounds inappropriate... just because you disagree, that does not mean your idea of what the "proper" category name is should take precedent. Using proper categorization, if it's not a coat of arms, it should not be in a coat of arms category -- this is why there is a more generic "Symbols" level above it, under which it should easily be found whatever it is. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It does make it harder if you're looking for a national symbol via "Coat of Arms by country", and it's not there. What's worse, some countries aren't even listed there, such as Japan, since their national emblem is the Imperial Seal. Do you know what I mean? If we're gonna have a master category for national symbols, then every country should be there. Gryffindor wants to use the article page for Mongolia's emblem as reasoning for his new category, but ignores that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms shows every country's symbol, whether it's officially a coat of arms or not, which is good reasoning for having every nation's symbols listed in "Coat of Arms by country". Fry1989 ^eh? 03:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're looking for a symbol, start in Category:Symbols of Mongolia. If something is not a coat of arms, it should not be in a coat of arms category, even if that happens to be the place you happen to habitually look for -- you're looking in the wrong place. Not all such symbols are coats of arms; the gallery page you indirectly link to notes for each one when it's an "emblem" vs a "coat of arms". Coats of arms typically have some heraldic aspects and are defined by blazons; some countries may use an emblem which does not have those characteristics, so they aren't always the same thing. If a country has no coats of arms specific to it, then you would expect there to not be an entry under "Coats of arms by country" for them. If you are determined to make a convenience link, maybe make "Emblems of Mongolia" a subcat of "Coats of arms of Mongolia" (using a more generic definition maybe), but do try to educate people that it is not properly a coat of arms by making the categorization accurate. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand all that. But you're missing the point I'm trying to make. Anyhow, I'll let it go. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Fry1989 is certainly not playing a positive role on File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg, where he seems to take perverse delight in throwing around loose and inflammatory rhetoric on a subject that he actually knows very little about. He actually has a certain basic point about not usually overwriting images with other images of different meaning (though this is certainly not an inviolable absolute) -- however, he undermines his own efforts and pointlessly and needlessly exacerbates the overall situation by placing ignorant biased nonsense in his edit summaries (something which I really wish he wouldn't do). AnonMoos (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That issue is addressed on my talk page. I have not thrown around any "inflamatory rhetoric", I have laid out the truth. I will not respond to that issue anymore, as it is dealt with (on my talk page). As for the original start of this AN/U, I have only reverted Gryffindor's edits which he is trying to force without discussions. It's a case of Do as I say, not as I do, because everything he accuses me of doing, he has done himself (unilateral removals of files from their categories, over-categorization by creating more categories than neccesary), and all I've done is revert his controversial and unilateral edits. He responds, rather then by trying to engage in a discussion or compromise, but rather continue to push his edits to get his way. He's tried forcing himself with the Emblem of Mongolia, now he's trying to force himself with the Emblem of Israel/Coat of Arms of Israel debate, as well as the Symbols of National Legislatures. All in all, he has forced his personal view of "it's not a coat of arms, so it can't be in any categories with that in it's title no matter what", over the objection of another user. When that user tried to engage him in conversation, hye ignores it and pushes his way anyways. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but "Zionism over-writing history"[sic] is the very definition of loose and inflammatory rhetoric (especially when the "historical" basis of what was over-written was extremely dubious at best), and your most recent upload summary on that file wasn't much better... AnonMoos (talk) 02:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you say. The facts speak for themselves. Two Israeli users have disrespected a user's personal map meant for the use only by Palestinians/Arabs and Palestine supporters. I don't seen any Palestinians or Arabs doing that to flag maps using the Israeli flag. So which side is the offender? It's pretty clear. Per my talk, the only way problems can be avoided is if both sides respect each other's maps. That is what I am maintaining, whether you like my edit summaries or not. Oh, and if you wanna talk about exacerbating a debate, go ahead and continue to claim you know the state of other people's minds, like you did on my page. What was it you said? "You take personal pleasure in..." I believe? Or how about "..on an subject you really no little about"? Yes, I'm sure it really helps a conversation to claim you can read your debator's mind. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

And if you want the subject to be general policies on image overwriting rather than your personal behavior, then you really need to tone down aspects of that behavior effective immediately, as I already told you. I made the deduction that you know very little about the subject from your rather ineffectual and often irrelevant replies in a discussion which you've already deleted from your user talk page, and I made the deduction that you seem to take some kind of pleasure in being offensive from the fact that after I complained about your first offensive upload summary, you went right ahead with a second offensive upload summary. Believe me, I would be happy if these deductions were proved to be wrong! AnonMoos (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Deductions? More like accusations, the way you throw it around. And what you consider offensive isn't always offensive to everyone. Did you ever consider that I feel what I have said accurately reflected the situation? I'm not doing it for shock value, that's not my style. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, things will proceed much smoother with respect to this file as long as you stick to statements on general image overwriting policies -- while keeping any forceful expressions of your personal ideology (whatever that may be) firmly in the background... AnonMoos (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"Which side is the offender" is a horrible question. We don't want to encourage editors to split up into sides, and you can and should correct editors without tossing "offender" at them. Furthermore, "Zionism over-writing history" is even worse than the question, since it goes beyond the behavior of editors on Commons and starts accusing a political movement of tampering with history, which is a pretty incendiary charge. Whether or not you feel what you've said accurately reflected the situation is irrelevant; it threw fuel on a constantly troubled situation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As for Arab ideological manipulations with maps, I caught the first-uploaded version of Image:Samou-battle-1966-map.png having an Arabic label فلسطين المحتلة "Occupied Palestine" on the territory of 1949-1967 Israel -- however, the uploader was quite helpful and polite when I pointed this out (conspicuously unlike Fry1989...). Anyway, Fry1989 overlooks the sensitive issue of aggressive irredentism (among other sensitive issues) -- I wonder how much he would like a map of all of North America overlaid with the stars and stripes, under the title "Flag map of historic United States". -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Irredentism is not my concern (and your example of North America covered in the Stars & Stripes is beyond silly. I wouldn't give a damn, as long as American users leave my flag map of Canada alone. Nevermind how many of those maps I do see on the net all the time, of Americans wanting to annex Canada, Mexico, other places. You ever heard of the "Manifest Destiny" theory?) Unless you want to ban all flag maps that don't reflect the current reality or claim lands that aren't part of that country, then my example of Serbia & Kosovo (per my talk page) is the example that should be used for Israel and Palestine. And yes, this is a case of one side being the offender. It was two Serbs who kept reverting trying to force the Serbia flag map to include Kosovo, and now it's two Israelis trying to get ride of a map of the entire disputed area using the Palestinian flag. You may not like my choice of words, but the actions of these users make the situation clear enough. And if I or some Arab user had over-written the Flag map of Israel with the Palestinian flag, don't pretend for one second that I/they wouldn't be called vandals, Anti-Israeli, and trying to force our POV of the situation. It shouldn't be any different when an Israeli does it to a Palestinian flag map. In any case, File:Flag Map of Historic Israel.png has been uploaded separately, so the issue is now over, as long as they leave their opposing side's maps alone (again, as Serbia and Kosovo). Now, if you want an apology for my choice of words, then fine, you get one.I'm sorry for how I said what I said. But I want one from Anonmoos, who has claimed to know the state of my mind, and accused of me getting some sort of peverse pleasure from shock value tactics. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of simple historical fact, Kosovo has been part of Serbia in the past, while as a matter of simple historical fact the flag shown in File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg has never flown over all the territory included in the map at any date in history -- which is why a significant number of people consider such images to be a malicious blatant transparent lie at best, and an aggressive declaration of war against the existence of the Israeli and/or Jewish people at worst. This makes the image a sensitive issue to start with (whether you care to acknowledge the fact or not), and you did not handle such sensitive issues sensitively, but quite the reverse. I've uploaded several images in Category:SVG_maps_incorporating_flags_-_Historical, but they're all historically accurate and appropriate (though I suppose it would be possible to quibble about the neutral zones in File:Iraq-flag-map 1959-1963.svg), while File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg is neither, and would not be suitable to be included in Category:SVG_maps_incorporating_flags_-_Historical if it were an SVG... AnonMoos (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying either map with either flag is actually accurate, and I never did. Now, my words can be misconstrued to suggest that, but it wasn't the intent. What I did say once on my talk page was "more historic in the sense", but I didn't say it was outright accurate. Either way, unless you want to ban flag maps because they're irredentist, then the Serbia-Kosovo flag-map conflict is the example to follow. I'm still waiting on your apology Anonmoos btw, considering I gave mine. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It's nice that you're softening your position somewhat, but it comes much too late in the whole current brou-ha-ha to greatly change my opinion of you based on this incident (or based on the last several years of often-contentious interactions with you). If it makes you feel better, I freely admit that I have no evidence that you were maliciously trolling, as opposed to putting your head down and charging ahead in a pugnacious and belligerent way without regard to the consequences, or paying much attention to issues which other people might consider to be important. AnonMoos (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Concerning File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg: Commons is no place for personal points of view, we just display facts, we don't make facts! And it is a fact, that the palestine flag does not cover the whole British mandated territory. a×p_de^Hello! 00:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the solution has already been made. File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg and File:Flag Map of Historic Israel.png both exist. Unless you're going to delete them both, I cannot allow the Israeli POV map to stay the way it is while the Palestinian POV map is removed. I hate double-standards more than anything else. So either delete them both, or let the users keep their maps and their points of view. I don't care which you do, but no double-standards. As for your talk page, you didn't say you didn't need hints at things on you watchlist, you said "I don't need additional watchlists(sic)", which reads as "I have enough things on my watchlist, I don't need more things to be involved in". Fry1989 ^eh? 00:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

(With double edit conflict!!)

Hmmm, good point. As said before, commons doesn't make facts. Both flags/maps are intented to manifest a certain personal point of view and to provoke the other side. File deleted! a×p_de^Hello! 01:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: I know exactly what I wrote, and I still don't need you to be my additional watchlist. As you might know this is "Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems" and I'm an administrator! And I'm not responsible for your missinterpretation! a×p_de^Hello! 01:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit conflict. Anyhow, if they're both gone, then I am no longer concerned in the matter. My only intent was ever to First: protect a user's file from a complete over-write to support the opposing POV (which I consider an abuse), and then Second, stop any double standards. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree that any POV is bad for the reputatioin of commons. Commons has to strictly respect the NPOV! a×p_de^Hello! 01:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Axpde -- We can definitely host irredentist maps here, but they need to be clearly labelled as irredentist (and not as "historic" if they're obviously not historic), and they need to express the views of some notable individual or group (and not be merely the personal views of the image uploader)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

As I've said several times before, the one that's correctly "historic" is File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.svg; the User:Maher27777 version of File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg would be more accurate and less offensive if it were under a name such as "Map of Palestinian Arab territorial aspirations" or whatever. Anyway, as a result of the file uploading and re-uploading on File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg, Arabic Wikipedia has changed over from that image to File:Flag map of Palestine.svg, which I regard as a positive step... AnonMoos (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

---

It pains me to say this, as Fry has never been anything other than gracious when I've contacted him, but I'm extremely disappointed with the way he has acted lately on his talk page. Although I don't believe AnonMoos is entirely blameless, especially with his most recent edit, but Fry's response of blanking the discussion with far from complimentary edit summaries bears mentioning here, in case it was missed. Here are the three, oldest first:

[1] [2] [3]

Apologies if this is out of turn. I'm not sure if this is the correct medium, so I apologise if not. NikNaks _{talk - gallery - wikipedia} 21:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't care so much about his removing comments by me from his user talk page as such, but it can be one manifestation of his general personal infallibility syndrome, which is definitely rather annoying overall. Part of the reason why we don't have too much patience with each other is lingering bad feelings over Fry1989's complete refusal to acknowledge -- over a period of years -- very obvious basic simple facts about Commons policies, such as that galleries are selective while categories are comprehensive. Most recently, we're in a strange "war" at Image:Gay_flag.svg, where Fry1989 is re-uploading an old file version by me, and is again refusing to acknowledge basic facts (and nominated File:Gay-flag-thumbnails-magnified-hairline-cracks.gif for deletion because it provides factual evidence that he was wrong)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have apologized and acknowledged my faults countless times with other users (look above, is that not an apology??????). I also have no problem getting along with others. Look at my talk page, it's full of "pleases" and "thank yous" and me having conversations with other users about changes I've made, and us taking a look at them. Perhaps Anonmoos should "get it" (as he has said to me before) that his personal approach towards me is rude, presumptive, arrogant, carries an air of superiority, and turns me off of having any conversation with him. He has yelled at me, he has called me names, he has questioned my intelligence, the emotional state of my mind, and my personal motives in my work here countless times in over a year. He has called my work "sub-optimal" and "shoddy", and he has claimed I have a personal infallibility syndrome. These are not the words of somebody who wants to get along and talk with you, it's the words of someone who wants to talk over you. All I'm asking for is an apology. Why is that so hard for him? I believe it's because he actually believes he is better then me. The way he addresses me shows such disdain that I simply can not engage with him anymore. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

As a third party, it seems clear to me that AnonMoos is more experienced with vector graphics than either I or Fry - I would never have noticed the double-fill issue, for instance - and Fry's refusal to acknowledge improvements to files because they've been edited by him seems needlessly obstructive. However, whether or not it is understandable due to previous communications they've had, I cannot say. NikNaks _{talk - gallery - wikipedia} 09:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

NikNaks, he has abused me for too long, it's been over a year now. I simply will not allow it to happen anymore. Once he apologizes for how he addresses me, and the abuse stops, only then will I engage with him in any sort. It would be so incredibly easy for me to make a list of his systematic abuse and seek punishment. The only reason I don't is I'm not that petty. But I warn him if he reads this: If it continues much more, I may change my mind. Nobody should have to deal with what I have for as long as I have, and have him get away with it. If I had done what he has to another user, I have absolutely no question I would be punished, possibly even banned. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I told you early on that your revisions to the file had introduced internally-inconsistent color specifications, and opened the way towards possible hairline cracks (don't feel like trying to retrieve those comments from the morass of deletions that is your user talk page), and you simply ignored those concerns when I first expressed them, and when I presented objective factual evidence that hairline cracks were in fact present, your response was to try to get the evidence deleted (unfortunately, all too typical of your tendencies to often completely ignore and refuse to acknowledge in any way clear objective facts, such as that galleries are selective while categories are comprehensive, etc. etc. etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Editor: Fry1989 Edit Warring

I hope someone can point me in the right direction I'm having a problem with an Editor Fry1989 ^eh? who's edit warring w/ me on a file I've uploaded File:Transnistria Air Force Roundel.svg I'm not sure where to report this kind of activity. Any help would be surly appreciated, a million thanks Jetijones (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• See also this DR. NVO (talk) 06:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

  DR closed because the reason provided does not apply. a×p_de^Hello! 07:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I must say, Fry does seem to be raising a lot of hackles recently, and I think it would be in everyone's interest if he just calmed down. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you guys its seems he has ceased his harassment of the file. Side note he was recently Blocked on Wikipedia 24hrs for Edit warring. It might be a ideal thing to give him a reminder, to play fair here too. Jetijones (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually I upload protected the file for a month. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanx Matt Jetijones (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I went to bed. Jetijones ignores other sources because he likes to force his own favourite sources. There are plenty of pics showing the Estonian roundel as the triangle pointing downwards. 1, 2, 3, and 4 shows it both ways. But there is already File:Roundel of the Estonian Air Force port side.svg in his prefered orientation, so why he wants to force himself on File:Roundel of the Estonian Air Force.svg is beyond me. So it is actually him who is abusing the Estonian roundel, because he says "per sources!", but ignores when somebody have sources that show it a different way. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well Fry only one problem with your four photos they all show the Estonian insignia on the wings, and on your last photo it shows the insignia in the right-side angle, on the fuselage. Furthermore, this is also the case for the Hungarian Air Force roundel seen here, and here. So I guess Hungarian roundel is WRONG as well ehhh?? I'll leave at that cause I know this is not the page to discuss such things . Jetijones (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

All I can say is this: One, there's already a file with your choice of orientation, so you shouldn't force yourself on the others, and second, the wings are a source for roundel orientation as well. Look at Canada's roundel. It has the maple leaf facing upwards on the fuselage, and "forwards" on the wings. Many other countries are that way too. You should have used the other file of your choice of orientation, then this never would have happened. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

After warning by Mattbuck he continued the edit war, blocked for one day! a×p_de^Hello! 16:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Erm, the edit war was a revert war, and I fully protected the image... what did he war this time? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring, attitude take your pick, either way it's good thing to give the guy a some cool down time. Jetijones (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

User:AnonMoos

I am creating this AN/U to report the recent abuse from Anonmoos towards myself. He has been attacking me, my contributions, and my state of mind, and refuses to apologize for it.

Septembre 2, 2011:He calls my work and contributions "sub-optimal" and "shoddy", he yells at me, and accuses me of having a "personal infalability problem".

Septembre 2, 2011: I had previously removed one of his conversations on my page, and he reverted me to force himself back on just to make his point.

August 28, 2011 He says I have been "putting your head down and charging ahead in a pugnacious and belligerent way".

August 27, 2011 He accuses me of "forceful expressions of my ideology".

August 26, 2011 He starts a talk on my page by yelling at me.

August 26, 2011 He accuses me of malicious actions for personal pleasure and of being a "spectacle". He also claims to know my knowledge on a subject, as if he can read my mind.

August 26, 2011 He again accuses me of malicious actions for personal pleasure (in this case using the term "peverse delight") and calls me ignorant and biased.

All of this is his most recent manner of talking to me ("a person like you"), but our conversations have rarely been more cordial then this. Often he addresses me with an air of superiority, and talks to me like I'm a child, and claims I have a personal infalibility complex (even though I can give consistant examples of myself apologizing for my faults). He refuses to apologize (that's all I ask for), and that is why I will have nothing more to do with him. If you have received a "please see" from me on your talk page, it is because I have told you about his attacks (or you have been involved with a dispute between him and myself before) and you either didn't acknowledge it, or said to bring it here. So I have. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It's unfortunate if I sometimes lose my patience, but frankly I find your long-term habit of completely ignoring and simply refusing to acknowledge basic simple obvious objective facts (such as that galleries are selective and categories are comprehensive, or that the 535-byte version of File:Gay_flag.svg -- which I originally uploaded by the way -- is technically inferior to the 485-byte version) to be quite annoying, especially when persisted in over the long term. When it comes to substantive factual issues (as opposed to occasional rhetorical exclamations betraying profound annoyance), I've been more sinned-against than sinning in our personal dealings over the past few years, and I imagine that most neutral observers who objectively examine the facts would come to the same conclusion.

It's unfortunate that you've become fixated on the issue of a personal "apology", but I found your "apology" on File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg above to be extremely belated and not even all that particularly relevant anymore, since it followed extensive and pointed discussions in which you persistently ignored and refused to acknowledge basic simple obvious objective facts (something which did not really change), and by that point Arabic Wikipedia had already moved on to File:Flag map of Palestine.svg anyway. Since I can't reasonably expect you to do the right thing or behave significantly better in future, it's impossible for me to assign the same epoch-making and cataclysmic significance to your "apology" which you apparently do. And furthermore, it's simply childish to ban me from your user talk page and have "nothing more to do with" me, because that means that if we have factual issues over an image, we can no longer discuss them, but only edit war over them...

Frankly, my reactions towards you arise much more from long-term wearied annoyance (i.e. "here we go again with yet another round of nonsense"), rather than from any pugnacious desire for combat, or condescending beliefs in innate superiority over others... AnonMoos (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

All I'm asking is an apology for your sensationalist comments about me. I'm not asking for punishment or anything else. I have apologized to other users when i make mistakes. Why you can not do the same is beyond me. But until you do, I can not have you on my talk page anymore. You have yelled at me, called me names, and questioned the state of my mind. if you think it's childish for a user to no longer want or allow themselves to be subject to such things, that's your problem. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It's rather unfortunate that you focus solely on your lacerated personal feelings, to the complete and utter exclusion of the factual issues at dispute (such as that galleries are selective while categories are comprehensive), or any consideration as to how unnecessary frictions or confrontations can be avoided in future. After seeing your often obstructive and rather insensitively obnoxious behavior over the last three years or so, I don't know that I can take your alleged feelings of vulnerable wounded hurt very seriously at this point. If you had shown a little less "putting your head down and charging ahead in a pugnacious and belligerent way without regard to the consequences, or paying much attention to issues which other people might consider to be important" over the years, then your claims about your current fragile emotional state might be more credible to me... AnonMoos (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with my personal feelings and everything to do with you, personally attacking another user, and getting away with it. Saying you loose your patience with me is absolutely not a valid reasoning to attack another user's work, calling it shoddy and sub-optimal, nor is it a valid reasoning to call another user names, and act like you can read their minds. You're a child and a bully, and I have no sympathy for you. Either apologize for your behaviour, as I have to others, or leave me alone. It's your choice, but I've had enough, and I'm sure any other user would too, if they were subjected to the types of personal attack that you have chosen to engage in. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Benutzer commons.limousin

User:commons.limousin Verstoss gegen Anonymität (en:Wikipedia:Anonymity) Nennung von Wohnort und vollem Klarnamen gegen meinen Willen ! User ist zu Sperren und alle Bemerkung dieser Art zu endfernen [4] und in der Versiongeschichte zu verstecken! PS Bitte User auch in en: udn de: Sperren, wurde schon einmal deswegen auf de: verwarnt. --Bobo11 (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

the edit has been removed from the history --Neozoon (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikinger socking again

I'm being harassed on my talkpage by IP socks of en:User:Wikinger, a user banned on multiple projects. Please semiprotect. And I'd be grateful if somebody could finally also block his latest block-evading reincarnation here, Constantinople (talk · contribs); all his contributions here are designed to help evade his permanent ban on en-wiki. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Took care of the IPs and protected your talk page for a period of time. A CU will have to examine the user account. – Adrignola talk 18:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The identity of Constantinople (talk · contribs) is very obvious to anybody familiar with the mode of operation of this vandal. See also the IPs that predictably popped up last time I reported him here [5] (the 83.* IPs are from the same known ISP's range as today's 79.* IPs). By the way, I only now noticed another little trick he played back then and that slipped through: ZhongguoZhizao (talk · contribs), a newly created account, was ostensibly reverting Wikinger's vandal IPs that were removing my post [6], but in doing so he was sneakily inserting words into my restored post that negated its meaning [7]. Yet another obvious sock. He does these little games all the time. Please block that one too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

... And the same games continue ... [8]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I also found ZhizaoZhongguo (talk · contribs); both this one and the one you pointed out actually placed a notice on their user pages that they were Wikinger socks. They've now been blocked indefinitely, but I don't know that my IP blocks are effective. I can tell from the block log that I got someone with an autoblock of ZhongguoZhizao (talk · contribs). – Adrignola talk 19:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

IP-blocking him is difficult. He is on a highly volatile range and can easily IP-hop, and the range is huge (multiple /16s); he also often uses open proxies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"uses impersonator accounts of unrelated users and then reveals them to be his socks, trying to fool administrators to block the original impersonation victim as his sock too"... The page User:ZhizaoZhongguo was created by User:ZhongguoZhizao. I was fooled. So that definitely connects Wikinger to the latter account. I just wonder if there's any CU evidence to connect Constantinople with these recent IPs and accounts, to push correlation beyond the fact that Constantiople likes uploading images of Greek letters and Wikinger liked messing with articles on Greek letters. – Adrignola talk 19:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL, getting confused now. I had that suspicion too for a moment, but no, I think you were right the first time round. Both ZhoZhi and ZhiZho placed these fake sock notices on each other's user page, so they are both socks. ZhoZhi was created two weeks ago in the incident I pointed out above and had a few other contribs on other wikis in the meantime; the ZhiZho account was created only now, two minutes before ZhoZhi created his userpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Now if Constantiople would kindly place on his user page that he's a sock of Wikinger, that would be great. – Adrignola talk 19:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I've posted a checkuser request. It's a bit "for form's sake", because the identity is really rather painfully obvious to people who know him, but if you'd feel more confident about it with a formal confirmation, let's see if we can get one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. If anyone else wishes to go ahead and block, anyway, that's fine. I'm simply used to performing checks at Wikibooks and having nice clear-cut cases. – Adrignola talk 00:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

For completeness - quite a quantity of Wikinger socks blocked by me today (including some of those mentioned above). Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Image Deleted Incorrectly

The image AndyBlumenthal.jpg was incorrectly deleted from the commons. It is my picture and I am the owner of it. Kindly correct this and return the picture to the commons. Thank you. -Andy Blumenthal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairedits (talk • contribs) 01:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It was claimed that it was a US government photo upon upload. Even if we look past that, you'll need to verify your identity, confirm the licensing for the image (if it's not US gov't work), and explain how you acquired the rights for the photo from the photographer (if it's not US gov't work) by following our instructions at COM:OTRS. Otherwise you'll need to direct us to the US government website that hosted the image to prove the government work claim. – Adrignola talk 01:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I tried to find the image with the given information but I only found some secondary sources so I had to delete it. It was tagged with no source for two weeks, more than enough time to alter the page and add a proper source/permission. --Denniss (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy / Fairedits -- for future reference, the best place for requesting an undeletion is at Commons:Undeletion requests. It will get better and faster attention there.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

User:AnelGTR

The user is blocked on eswp, a long block for disrupting editing, and continue here with that behaviour, I am sysop on eswp also and I am not neutral in this case Ezarateesteban 22:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done blocked for one month for upload copyvios, if he continues with this behaviour the block can became a infinite one. Béria Lima ^msg 12:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Unessecary removal of discussion content/reverting by admin Túrelio

[9] [10]. He claims that the wording is a personal attack, but it isn't. It's a critic on someone else behavior. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 18:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

“

[...] You are on of the "Schreibtischtäter" [...]

”

•  Comment: Is indeed inappropriate wording because it has been used for cruel murders. Furthermore I am sure you sue the false one. -- RE rillke questions? 18:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This is about DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Censored.png, where User:Jorm (WMF), was one of the first few voting for deletion as "funny, but out of scope".

Answering to a request by RE rillke, Jorm clarified 7 hours later that he did not vote "as a staff member".

Despite that 36 hours-old clarification, :de-User:Eingangskontrolle today commented to Jorm "I think that a user with (WMF) has no right to talk to us in this way. You are on of the "Schreibtischtäter" responsible for this."[11] (bolding by me)

For those who don't know, the German term "Schreibtischtäter" (="desk criminal") is used for Nazi criminals who planned the mass murder actions,[12] of which users Eingangskontrolle and Niabot are well aware as native speakers.

Calling another user, whether or not he is working as a designer for the WMF as Jorm, a Schreibtischtäter is a very serious personal attack, possibly criminal libel. Though this DR discussion is rather heated, such an attack is not acceptable. I therefore removed it, when becoming aware of it. Niabot immediately restored the attack, which might per se be a blockable offense per WP:NPA. --Túrelio (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You should not take everything inside quotes so literally. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 18:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Verwendung von Worten darf man nicht vom Kontext trennen. Aber genau das wird hier gemacht. Das Wort "Schreibtischtäter" wird im üblichen Sprachgebrauch für Personen verwendet, die sich hinter seinen Schreibtisch verschanzen und eine gewisse Realitätsferne inne haben. Man könnte auch das ordinärere "Sesselfurzer" verwenden. Beleidigung? Fehlanzeige! --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Die selbe blöde Sache mit dem "Blockwart". Ja ein Begriff der in Verbindung mit Nazis verwendet wurde, aber auch ein Begriff der in Verbindung mit dem Hausmeister von Neubaublöcken verwendet wurde, und eine Person bezeichnet die penibel über das Anwesen wachte. Auch hier ist die Annahme eines direkten Bezugs zur ersten Bedeutung ohne Kontext eine schlichte Unterstellung. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 19:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Túrelio's actions were appropriate, in my opinion. Please read de:Wikipedia:Keine persönlichen Angriffe (en:WP:PA). It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Comments like "It's just a provocation account and the human being behind the name plays the role of the learning resistant, permanent, instant troll" are unhelpful and serve only to inflame, not to further the discussion.[13] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Not only do I support the removal of the personal attack (which seems clear... quotation marks do not significantly dampen an insult), I would add a warning that the next similar attack will result in a block. --99of9 (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

There were three statements: the Schreibtischtäter attack, the statement that WMF was, indeed, behind the censored.jpg debacle, and the legitimate suggestion that accounts of WMF executives should not vote there. If someone deems Schreibtischtäter unacceptable, they should have deleted just this bit of "insult" and kept the rest. Why was it deleted, at all? NVO (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

@NVO, agreed. I choose it that way (and left the user a low level civility warning) to invite him to eventually reword his comment, which he actually did. With that, however, he even aggravated his statement in regard to voting: "Employees of the object critized should not vote under any username"[14]. Questioning or even denying the right to vote/comment in a DR of a user, who had already stated that he did not "vote" as a staff member, is rather discriminatory, especially as I am not aware of any policy about that. --Túrelio (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I endorse the comments of 99of9. I see no reason to discriminate against staff members. My experience is that their perspective is often helpful. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion war

Would someone please deal with this IP and deletion. See Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Fluffer_on_set.jpg. Deletion was closed Sept. 11 but 6 days later, the IP apparently has a problem with it and the related image and has re-tagged the image for deletion and filed a new deletion request. I don't care one way or the other about the image but tired of the deletion notices being left on my talk page by an IP who apparently can't take a hint. Thanks in advance. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 08:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)