Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: COM:AN/U

  Welcome   Community portal   Help desk
Upload help
  Village pump
copyright • proposals
  Administrators' noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
 
Administrator's assistance

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-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new report]
User problems
[new report]
Blocks and protections
[new report]
Other
[new section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.

Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.

Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.

Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed here.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55
Translate this page
Commons discussion pages (index)


Note

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


User:Geagea[edit]

User:Geagea uploads files and adds them to Category:Israel rather than a more appropriate subcategory per COM:Categories. I had cleared it out as part of a clean up but the user protested. See Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2015/02#Removal_of_a_category_so_the_file_left_uncategorized. A solution was offered but the user does not want to use it, even though it is a good idea. See User_talk:Fæ/2015#Help_needed. In the past few months Category:Israel has gone from about 1500 up to about 2000. This is unacceptale for a country category since they should contain few, if any, files.

User:Geagea thinks that that she/he is doing the categorisation correctly yet it is patently obvious that it is in contravention to COM:CAT

See also User_talk:Geagea#Category:Israel where the user suggests bringing the issue here and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Geagea for a related matter. Alan Liefting (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not see any problem with my batch uploads. When I mass upload from Flickr I add the appropriate as possible. If all of them are Tel Aviv then I add Tel aviv category but if the mass upload is mixed places in Israel or I know it is Israel but don't know the exact place the it comes with the category of Israel. That is the way it works her. After the long thread in the village pump I can't explain in other ways. -- Geagea (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
It is best practice for batch uploads to avoid adding large numbers of images into a diffusion category unless they have a plan for how to ensure they are diffused. This is doubly true for mass Flickr uploads where we often see doubtful metadata. If any batch uploader persists with ignoring complaints, then they should not be surprised if it escalates.
I doubt this is cause for administrator action, but I would hope that anyone with sysop rights understands how being seen to adapt their actions to community feedback, is fundamental to their continuing to hold the trust of the community. -- (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I strongly agree on both those points. Alan Liefting (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Geagea, I will reiterate: please read and understand COM:CAT. Have a look at the category help pages on Wikipedia for more extensive information. As Fæ has pointed out you cannot rely on Flickr metadata so you MUST review every image that you upload and then find the best categories for it. If you don't you are further contributing to the utter mess that Common is in. Don't concentrate on mass uploads, try and fix what we have already got. Alan Liefting (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I warned user Alan Liefting in his talk page as he developed/developing some kind of obsession to the category Israel and keep bothering me with the same subject even though I already told him to stop to do so. After the long thread it the village pump regarding to the category of Israel it is time that user Alan leave this obsession and move on.

I am categorize the files of Israel and all the related with that in a regular basis. I want more then you that all files have the correct categories. Bach uploading mixed files with the category of Israel is the correct way as working for years. -- Geagea (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I am taken aback that an administrator in dispute with other contributors because of their own poor practice of adding a diffusion category to their own batch uploads is now using their sysop rights to "win" their argument. Geagea, diffusion categories are marked by the community, this is not a simple dispute with Alan. Your actions are flaunting best practice for batch uploads and now appear to be a misuse of your sysop rights.
I would appreciate views from experienced administrators. Thanks. -- (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The category is for diffusion not to be blanked. Adding warninnig to talk page is not misuse of my rights. As he already blanked the category and seems that he developed/developing some kind of obsession to this category I warned him not to beck the same act. Instead of bringing his case to AN/U I opened deisscusion in the village pump to explain to him this. This drama is a waste of time. -- Geagea (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
THere are a few points that need replying to in turn:
  1. I know the Category:Israel is a category that need diffusion and I know the contents should not be "blanked" but I did the initial mass uncategorisation because with 1000 files it was way out of control and my action was, on balance, the best alternative.
  2. This warning that you left on my talk page may be within your powers but it is not the sort of behaviour that is expected of an administrator, and as Fæ points out it is an abuse of your power.
  3. I do not have an "obsession" with Category:Israel. I am working on it because of all of the country categories, as seen from Commons:Categories_requiring_diffusion#Countries which I have already referred you to, is in the most dire need for diffusion.
  4. THe thread that I started at User_talk:Fæ#Can_you_pull_out_some_user_contrib_data_for_me is not a "drama", but it is a simple request from me to get data on some of your mass uploads of which I have doubts about their suitability. It may prove to be a waste of time but that will be for the community to decide.
Your editing with respect to categorisation is complete at odds to that done by the majority of editors both here and on Wikipedia. Also,based on your recent editing behaviour, you appear to be claiming ownership of Category:Israel. THis is another black mark against you. Alan Liefting (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Note after a lot of discussion on VP, the consensus on VP was that your action in blanking Category:Israel, on balance, was not the best alternative.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

An fresh example of volunteer time of others being used to tidy up Geagea's uploads can be found at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Israel.

Independent opinions from experienced administrators on whether it is appropriate for Geagea to give an administrative warning against the person creating this thread about Geagea, would be appreciated. -- (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm of course not an admin, but, in my opinion it is quite inappropriate for an administrator to issue an 'or you will be blocked' warning to an editor with whom they have been recently engaged in a content dispute, or who has recently complained about their behavior. Regardless of if such a warning was needed, or who was 'right' in the content dispute, such an act gives a strong impression (even if unintended) that the administrator was using their ability to issue a block as a way to stifle disagreement or criticism. There is no reason that another administrator could not have taken such an action if they felt the need to do so. Sorry Gaegea, but you were way out of line to issue an admin warning to someone who had started a AN/U thread about you less than two days previously. Revent (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I would call this a storm in a teacup. The good thing about volunteer time is that everyone can use it the way he/she wants to. It is not like there is a copyright issue involved, only scope based "dilemma's". I can remember we have more people doing mass uploads who cleaned up way less that Geagea does. This seems to be some kind of selective indignantly. When it comes to the cat, Geagea told that he cleans up the cat on a regular basis so the number of files in the main cat will go down eventually. If that doesn't happen, perhaps it is time for a more general discussion about this particular topic.
This discussion is at the point where the emotions are going to win it from the ration and that is always a recipe for disaster. The outcome would likely be a stale. Isn't it a solution to wait for a month or three if the number of files in the cat go down? This way it is likely solved without all the drama and without all the fighting and it will safe Fae his precious volunteer time since he doesn't have to spend his time to give updates at this noticeboard. I understand and respect Alan Liefting's arguments but it worries me that both he and Geagea ended up in some viscous cortex when it comes to the arguments. Would it be a solution of batch uploads are temp "Stored" in a cat file uploaded by Geagea (clean-up) of something like that? Of course this is not mandatory or something like that but it might help taking away some of the hostility. If the current batch upload is okay could be decided in the already started deletions request so there is no need to discuss those files here or anywhere else right?
Now for the warning. First of all, I consider the word abuse a very strong word that should not be used lightly. There much grey tints between a excellent action and abuse like a bad judgement call, a honest mistake or stupidity. In this case I believe - correct me if I'm wrong - that the warning was placed because the situation was getting more frustrating by the day and nobody stepped in between right? Not something I would call abuse as an isolated incident but I wouldn't call this a excellent action as well and I certainly don't agree with this. But hey, we are all human and sometimes emotion get the better of our self and we make actions that are less handy and we regret afterwards.
If this was the real world I would suggest that we all take a drink together in a local bar of pub but tis isn't the real world so my suggestion would be to ignore each other for some days. After that the both (or three if Fae want's to join) can make a list about what made you angry about the situation and what you believe that you should have done differently. Trust me, that works really great :). This issue is not work fighting over. Natuur12 (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
First, I do not have any problem with nomination of my uploads for DR. I even thank you for doing it so. This nomination was as a continuation to the obsession of this user to the category of Israel. Proper DR is welcome, DR that says hey there are files in this category that should be deleted is not welcome by me.
Second, the warning is a privilege that given to any user. As I have seen his escalation regarding to the category I didn't want him to be blocked and warned him that it might happen if he'll remove all the files from this category which I succeeded. This is not the first time I succeeded to prevent this user's block was when he removed the category of Israel from all the files. I opend a discussion in the village pump insted of bringing this to AN/U which might caused to his block. But after a long discussion which a lot Commons try to explain to him in many ways that his action was wrong he did not agree. So my action prevent him to be blocked in the first case and also in the second case.
Third, I am not the only one that make mass uploads from Flickr. This specific upload was a trip during the visit of the Pope in Israel, which does not visit Israel very often. It include some photos of the Pope himself. So if I upload some files are out of scope I'm sorry about that but the correct way is to check every file manually, make a DR if necessary, move to other category or crop. Mass deletion of all the files or Just removing all the files from the category, are incorrect. -- Geagea (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Replies:
  1. It is interesting to note that you say that you do not have a problem with a DR for your uploaded files. I did ask on you talk page to check them yet you dismissed my concerns and said to do a DR. You then deleted all of the files in the DR and closed it. You are making us waste our time here. As for my so called obsession with Category:Isreal I have repeatedly stated that I am working on it because it is the most cluttered of the country categories. This is in a large part due mass uploads that you are not reviewing for quality, accuracy, or suitability, and not categorising correctly.
  2. You say "the warning is a privilege that given to any user" yet the warning you gave me was a falsely worded statement that I suspect was done to get me to butt out of Category:Israel. As for the rest of the rubbish that you are making in this second point I will have to ask you to point to a policy or guideline that says files should not have categories removed so that it is left uncategorised. THe block that I was given may not be based on any community wide consensus.
  3. It is completely irrelevant that you are not the only one doing mass uploads. The issue here with respect mass uploads is the quality. You go on to say that mass uploads of are ok even if only some of them are suitable for Commons and the rest can go through to a DR. That is a ridiculous idea. Why should others clean up after the mess made by an admin? So you wanted some pictures of the Pope in Israel. THat all well and good but you did not have to upload hundreds of holiday snapshots just to get a few useful files. Whether you like it or not you should be checking ALL of the files manually. You otherwise make Commons more of a mess that it already is. Alan Liefting (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@Natuur12:, it is not a storm in a teacup. There are serious issues here. I will document them separately. Alan Liefting (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Alan Liefting, this is a generic issue in Batch uploading however you worded it. Batch uploading has several issues. A few I noticed: 1. Useless and lengthy file names. Most people programmed their bots to put all the description in file names. 2. Out of scope file descriptions. In many cases, the description available in a page like Flickr has no relation to the media content. They may be some personal messages like greetings etc. The bots crawl them as they are not intelligent. 3. Crawl a lot of out of scope contents along with the useful ones. 4. Add inappropriate categories.
I'm open to see a discussion how to improve it; but AN/U is not the best place for it. Jee 02:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I realise that the batch uploading issue is not specific to Geagea but the quality of material that is being uploaded by him/her is really poor. And yes, this is not the place for batch loading issues in general. I am also open to discussing it. Alan Liefting (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk page archiving[edit]

Doni Vëntersenz (talk · contribs) - cleans up talk page without archiving. − Meiræ 16:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Archiving is not a must. Everything is still available under history. Jee 16:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
But it is by far the better option although, as with many user talk pages, they are usually full of deletion notices (a sad reflection of the quality of uploads) which is just digital detritus that does not need to be filed. Alan Liefting (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that deletion warnings are actually often the most useful user talkpage content, as they help users who frequently NPD/NSD/NLD-tag or nominate for deletion asserting whether or not the uploader has a (basic) understanding of copyright. See also {{dont remove warnings}}; I'd support changing our talk page guidelines to reflect this.    FDMS  4    17:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I also support a more prescriptive talk page policy even though I dislike rules that are needed to keep rogue editors in check. Alan Liefting (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I maintain well organised archives for DR warnings, etc. But unfortunately, we don't have a policy to compel it. Some people quickly remove any notices they receive on their talk pages, without any edit notes. It gives the sender a feeling of being offended. A simple edit note like "noted" may enough. The fact is that, how to behave is upto a user as far as it will not exceed the limits. Recently I tried to re insert a "no permission warning" on a user's talk page which was instantly removed without any action or comment and not sent by me. But an experienced user reverted me stating a user can remove such things from their talk page. I read the related policies and it is true. See the huge disagreement at Template talk:Dont remove warnings too.
Again, we can't develop policies here; VPP is the right place for it. Jee 03:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the mere 'removal' of a notice is implicitly stating that the recipient has read it. It's not really 'wrong', though arguably somewhat rude and against the spirit of 'wiki'-type consensual work, but complaints about it are rather off topic here. Revent (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Alan Liefting[edit]

Isle of Man flag[edit]

Comparison of both centering methods

Starting a month ago, and apparently resuming today, Fry1989 is for a third time replacing File:Flag of the Isle of Man.svg with his own preferred version across all Wikimedia projects, this time as stealthily as possible (without GlobalReplace, with no edit summary at all and marked as minor). This is in spite of an RfC that was closed in August with consensus to generally use the former file, a consensus which Fry denies exists or at least refuses to accept.

Since Fry appears to prefer mass editing against an RfC over formally challenging it or its closure, I'm starting a thread here to help genuinely resolve the issue, as opposed to escalating it into a global edit war. (Some previous discussions: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].) SiBr4 (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the third time, I believe, that you have brought this issue here to complain, and both previous times no action was found to be warranted. I find the "consensus" on that talk page to be invalid and constructed, and ignorant of fact. You have yet to provide any official construction sheet to support the off-centering via the method of imaginary circle, but you parade around like you have absolute proof which you most certainly do not. Secondly, the original file did not use your method, but you edit warred to force yourself onto it and constructed that fake consensus to keep it that way, when it should have been reverted to the last stable version before the disagreement. That is policy. Third, any evidence I have been able to find since then supports centering the triskelion by itself instead of by an imaginary circle around the legs, including by not limited to the British Flag Protocol document (of which I have a PDF with encapsulated SVG files) prepared by the Flag Institute in collaboration with the Flags & Heraldry Committee which is a non-partisan group of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, therefore making it an official document. Lastly, even if I accepted the consensus on the file's talk page, that only pertains to that file, and is not enforceable on any other projects or precludes Commons from hosting other versions. There is no sanction you can seek against me, making this a waste of time. Fry1989 eh? 23:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I also should say that I greatly resent your accusations of "sneakiness", and "stealth", something that has never been my intent and shows both a claim of understanding my state of mind and a gross lack of good faith even in disagreement. The exact centering of the triskelion was how the file was constructed for 8 years before you altered it, and that is the version that should have been kept until you proved otherwise instead of edit warring which is exactly what you did. If you want this disagreement resolved, there is only one option to convince me: Find an official construction sheet and prove me wrong. So far, your evidence is very unconvincing. Fry1989 eh? 00:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
This is the second time I started a section here on the issue, and the first was just to ask for closure of the RfC. All before that was the AN/UP thread that you started, and that by the same logic found no action necessary against me (so for the nth time, drop the edit warring accusations). There is also a reason I went to AN rather than AN/UP for this thread.
Regarding the RfC, the question asked was "which file to use across the Wikimedia projects". Of course a local consensus for a wiki or article overrides it, though absent that, I think that it's perfectly possible for a Commons RfC to serve as a guideline for what to use on other projects (if not, I'd like an admin to clarify), and that mass editing against it by the sole opposer and uploader of the competing file is unacceptable.
The Flag Institute's image you link to is actually clearly not rectangularly centered – the distance from the lowest point of the triskelion to the bottom edge of the flag is 14 pixels, while the distance above the triskelion is 22 pixels. In fact, the triskelion on this image is centered in a way that is closer to circular than rectangular centering (3.5 vs. 4.7 px). I've drawn the same conclusion from several other images from reputable sources (including a higher-resolution image from the Flag Institute, and the UK Ministry of Defence), and the versions of the file that have been "live" for seven years before your first upload. I can show you how I did those measurements if you don't believe them, but please don't assert that any of these sources (or the previous file) support your version without counterproof. I've even proposed a version with the placement of the triskelion in between yours and mine, in accordance with the mentioned sources, which you were given 2.5 months to reply to but didn't.
What was the reason for marking your obviously controversial edits as minor and omitting an edit summary, if it wasn't sneakiness? SiBr4 (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I have never once claimed any subterfuge, that is your accusation. I have always made it clear that I intend to replace your unsourced circling with the long-standing image as should have been done until you found an official construction sheet, which you still have yet to do. Even if on these other sources the triskelion is not vertically exactly centered, it has always been horizontally exactly centered, and I have explained several times why doing the imaginary circle method is unacceptable. I have a feeling the only reason you hold on so firmly is due to pride more than truth. Find a construction sheet, or I stand by my position. Fry1989 eh? 15:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

(sigh) A war over centering? Grow up. There are two versions, stop warring. Local usage is not within the scope of Commons admins, and needs to be dealt with on the specific projects. Revent (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

To make what I said more 'explicit', it is not within the 'remit' of Commons to adjudicate the 'correct' version, it's a fairly trivial content dispute. It would be far out of line for Commons administrators to 'mandate' what is correct, in the context of local image usage. We provide hosting for images that are used on other projects, but warring about what version to use on a particular wiki is not in the scope of Commons. Local users should be able to choose between disparate versions, all hosted on Commons. It is only the war about revising what is under a particular filename is disruptive to Commons itself, not usage on other wikis. Provide multiple versions, and let them decide. Revent (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
@Revent: If it would be only usage outside Commons but an edit by Fry1989 just popped up yesterday in my watchlist. I guess you have never seen the wars about which the correct colour tone in a flag is. Or whether an insignia should have a 1px or 2px border and similar important matters. Well, often-times it's hard to say what is right because there are very few official sources. Reasonable contemporary humans wouldn't (edit) war, however I doubt … -- Rillke(q?) 16:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I would like to remind you that many users (including admins) have argued over the correct colour tones and such things on Commons' flag files. It happens organically, and usually it is resolved by an official construction sheet which is something I have asked for over and over but SiBr4 has failed to provide in over a year and a half. So quite frankly, I don't care what you think. Fry1989 eh? 16:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
"So quite frankly, I don't care what you think." Nice, well stated. (sigh) Revent (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep your sighs to yourself! Rillke's comment was such an obvious attempt to defame my character in this disagreement by bringing up my past arguments from years ago. Yes, I did get in quite a few disagreements about these sorts of things that Rillke finds unimportant, but so did/do many other users. I've actually stayed out of trouble for quite some time, so I mean exactly what I said: I don't care what Rillke thinks because they were trying to make this look like it's my fault when the fact is SiBr4 STILL has no official construction sheet and edit warred to force their preferred version. This is SiBr4's fault and SiBr4's fault alone. Commons policy, had it actually been followed, would have required the file to be protected in its last stable version and SiBr4 having to have gained a proper consensus for their change (preferably with reliable sources), which they didn't do. Fry1989 eh? 17:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The close of an RFC on the talk page of the file (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Flag_of_the_Isle_of_Man.svg#Request_for_comment) disagreed with you, you continued to edit war and forum shop for support of your position. Give it up already, you are begging for a block. Give multiple versions, and take your edit war to the local projects. It's out of scope here. Revent (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I did no such thing! You don't even know what you're talking about. I'm the one who uploaded the alternative file, and I'm the one who has taken this disagreement to local project discussion pages to get a consensus there, which is what you keep saying should be done. I'M THE ONE who has done that, not SiBr4 so stop talking about something you don't even understand. Also, I can't be blocked on Commons for edits on other project which is exactly what SiBr4 started this AN to whine about. And considering you agree that this disagreement has no position on Commons, your self-admittedly baseless (and powerless I might add since you are not an admin) threat of a block means nothing. I re-iterate my demand for an official construction sheet, until that happens I won't change my position on the matter: END OF STORY. Fry1989 eh? 18:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Not a 'threat' at all, I don't claim to have that authority. Sorry if I was not clear, it's begging for a block on both sides from what I see, "I don't care what you think" was just a bit egregious. Revent (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
And what should I be blocked for, exactly? I haven't raised this issue on Commons since the closure of that RfC, and since I haven't edit warred on Commons with replacements and I can't be blocked on Commons for my edits on other projects, WHAT have I done that begs for a block? SiBr4 brought this up here where nothing is actionable, I simply responded. Is that a crime now? Fry1989 eh? 18:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
'Battleground behavior'... again, not a threat, just a note that you are heading that direction. (your opponent is as well, probably more than you) Step back, calm down, you are fighting about what... a 5% difference in the position of the center of a flag? It's fairly trivial,and doubtful that anyone else cares, tbh. Revent (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
"Battelground behaviour"? And what battleground behaviour have I exhibited? Have I constantly brought up this issue campaigning for attention? No. Have I edit warred on the file reverting it over and over? No. Have I edit warred on Commons replacing it on pages over and over and over? No. My crime is apparently defending myself against spurious accusations of "sneaking" and "stealth" when I've never made it any secret my intentions, and describing Commons policy as it should have been followed regarding the disagreement during it's initial stage, and from YOU who keeps saying "take it to local project talk pages" when that is exactly what I had done and I don't see any examples of where SiBr4 did the same. I'm done here, contact me when SiBr4 finds a construction sheet! Fry1989 eh? 19:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Again, a 'non-admin' observation that you should probably back away and cool down, the actual argument is rather trivial. Your opponent should take the same advice. Revent (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
@Rillke: I've seen such arguments... my point was that, absent 'authoritative' evidence, such arguments are not really in the scope of Commons. Give multiple versions, let the the local wikis argue. Don't edit war here, it's pointless. Admins can be wrong as well, and most readers would never notice the difference. Revent (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Revent for the advice; I'll stop arguing over the many accusations and denials since it's clear that that only results in a lot of repetition. Some notes, though.

  • "Even if on these other sources the triskelion is not vertically exactly centered, it has always been horizontally exactly centered" – My measurements count both x and y directions. The sources' images may happen to be closer to rectangular in horizontal placement, but they're closer to circular overall.
  • "I have always made it clear that I intend to replace...until you found an official construction sheet" / "...it is resolved by an official construction sheet which is something I have asked for over and over" – You only started doing that in this very thread. I didn't find any explicit, specific demands for an official construction sheet in any of the previous discussions (please give links/diffs if you think otherwise).

I sent a message to the IoM government some days ago. Hopefully that will result in some clarification about the official rules on the flag. SiBr4 (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the demands for an 'official construction sheet', from what I see of the history of this argument, are a bit out of line. While authoritative evidence can prove that one position is right, demanding that the other party 'produce' evidence to prove that you are wrong (and don't take 'you' to be a poke at you, SiBr4, a generic you) is unreasonable when you don't have evidence either. A 'I'm right unless you prove me wrong' position is not compatible with collaboration. Glad you found my comments useful tho, thanks. :) Revent (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually I have found your comments to be completely ignorant and useless. I have provided evidence for my position (or did you just choose not to read my links, you seem to enjoy pretending I haven't done things I have in fact done), SiBr4 has provided evidence for their position, but neither is solid. Calling for an official construction sheet, which is the ONLY thing that can settle this for sure, is not unreasonable when quite often we use official construction sheets for our flag files. I could link many files where official construction sheets have been found and used to make our files as accurate as possible, often against the objections of users who disagree with what is "standard". Find one, and this could all be ended in a heartbeat, don't find one and this remains two users who do not have authoritative evidence one way or the other and are unable to reconcile. Fry1989 eh? 04:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
"Enjoy"? Um, no, you are now attacking my motivations when I was just trying to give some third party input? You really need to back off and calm down about what is, after all, a really minor dispute. Yes, basing the flag on a construction sheet is perfect.... but claims that the other party must prove you wrong when you don't have a construction sheet either are far out of line. Reading the history, you have a tendency of being quite argumentative, and discounting the opinions of anyone who tried to come in as a third party.. really, calm the hell down, it's a trivial difference in the centering of a flag, and you have been arguing with multiple people for months now. it is not legitimate to claim that you are right without evidence unless other people prove you wrong, and that is what you seem to be doing. Revent (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
It may have something to do with your manner of addressing me. You have repeatedly said I should do things I have already done, ignored it when I point out that I have, and accuse me of things I haven't done and become silent or dismissive when I call you out on it. By all counts I would say you're deliberately trying to egg me on. As for getting an official construction sheet, it is up to both sides to prove their point and I have never denied my responsibility in doing the same. However, I am not obligated to prove my opponent's point of view any more than they are required to prove mine. If they want to prove they are right then they have to find their own supporting evidence and for me the only conclusive and definitive evidence that will end this is an official construction sheet. I do not absolve myself of my own efforts in finding supporting evidence for my view, as you seem to imply I have done, and I would most certainly notify all parties involved instantly were I to find one myself. But because I have so far failed to find a construction sheet does not absolve SiBr4 of putting in the same effort. Stop acting like you know me or the state of my mind, you're terrible at it. Fry1989 eh? 05:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I have never commented about this outside of this particular thread. Anyone is welcome to read this and form their own opinion about the reasonableness of various parties to the dispute. Revent (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Where did I say you commented anywhere else regarding this issue but here????? Nowhere did I say any such thing. That's what is pissing me off, you keep saying things that aren't true and seem to be based on (false) assumption about my intended meaning of my statements. You think it is unreasonable to expect an official construction sheet to be the only real document that can end a dispute between two users who so far have shown an absolute inability to reconcile? Or do you just think I'm unreasonable because I won't capitulate without solid official evidence one way or the other? I'd really love to know what you do think is reasonable. Fry1989 eh? 05:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Доцент Белый[edit]

Доцент Белый (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
The user manipulates dates in template {{No permission since}} and makes personal attack. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done User warned. Yann (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)