Commons talk:Featured picture candidates

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

Featured sets[edit]

So we temporally banned set nominations. Now we need to review the guidelines (if needed) and make a procedure to handle them.


The current guideline is available at Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/guidelines#Set nominations. Please check it and make suggestions, if any.

Since the existing set guideline is just a few lines in a bulleted list, I find it relevant to copy them here in and then we can comment on the individual lines (typeset in green). Please do not apply a polarizing vote on lines. Let us try to discuss and reach a consensus --Slaunger (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agreed. Maybe 'direct and obvious' is a bit redundant and can simply be shortened to 'obvious'? An alternative word to bring into the game could be 'coherent'? --Slaunger (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I prefer a bit of redundancy because it prevents people trying to lawyer around the wording ("It's obvious to me that x,y,z is connected, even through it's not a direct connection"). --99of9 (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with 99of9 - the more concrete the guidelines the less grey area...--Godot13 (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
1. All images should be processed and presented in a similar manner to ensure consistency amongst the set.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agreed. In practise I would propose this to be as a gallery with captions, much as how it was done for the now discontinued (due to technical problems) Valued image sets. For instance. check this nice VIS candidate page of Thespis, opera from Adam, and the way it is (after promotion) formatted as a Valued image set: Thespis, opera in a manner, which clearly highlights that this set has a special status. However, the templates used for VIS are really alienating to fill in for the nominator, so I would propose to make some smarter nomination templates, if possible. They were made before Lua, I do not know if something smarter is possible nowadays. --Slaunger (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • When I wrote this I was mainly thinking about image processing and presentation, not how they are arranged in the nomination or gallery. For example, in the VIS you mention, I would possibly want to critique the apparent differences in overall darkness of some of those images. --99of9 (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Arrangement of the images should be some part of the set's aesthetics, but the similarity in editing, processing, tones (if relevant) is important.--Godot13 (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
2. All images should be linked to all others in the "Other Versions" section of the image summary.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not hink this should be a requirements for all sets. For some large sets, I believe this is better solved by having a dedicated subcategory for the images in a set., or have them organised in a gallery categorized to the main theme of the set. --Slaunger (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that large sets could be an exception to this. One reason for having this requirement is to again prevent nominators from making vague thematic groupings when the images themselves are not truly closely connected. If you're willing to link them as an "other version", then I'm more likely to agree that they are closely connected. --99of9 (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
3. If the set of subjects has a limited number of elements, then there should be a complete set of images. This may result in images in this kind of set with no "wow" factor, and perhaps little value on their own. Their value is closely bound to the value of having a complete set of these subjects. The decision to feature should be based on this overall value.
4. If the set of subjects is unlimited, the images should be chosen judiciously. Each image should be sufficiently different to the others to add a great deal of value to the overall set. The majority of images should be able to qualify for FP on their own.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Could 3. and 4. simply be shortened up to "The nominated set shall be complete and be extraordinarily valuable when presented in its entirety."? --Slaunger (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm going to question "complete" - I could see situations where incompletion might be required (say, I can prepare 65 out of 66 images from a book, but the 66th is badly damaged, and the book is very rare). I also think "extraordinarily valuable" may set the bar excessively high. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Adam Cuerden: Then how about "The set shall, when possible, be complete." and "The set shall be highly valuable."? --Slaunger (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the badly damaged 66th should still be included in the set if it is to be considered our best work (although then it may fail the quality requirement). I favour keeping the completeness requirement. I would make an exception if it were the only copy in existence and the 66th page was missing :-). --99of9 (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No, I think there is a clear categorical difference between objects in a finite set (e.g. plates in a book) and a set of images selected to represent an infinitely extensible subject (e.g. Kungsträdgården Metro station). It doesn't make sense to me to ask the latter to be "complete", and in my opinion the former should not be considered "our best work" until it is complete (I understand that this can be a tough requirement Adam, but IMO high standards are exactly what FP is about).--99of9 (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I disagree with dropping the concept of a selection from an unbounded set. On Featured Lists at Wikipedia [from memory when I participated there years ago] they handled both complete and unbounded lists/sets. Part of the skill and judgement for unbounded sets is selecting high quality images that are representative of the whole. As far as handling bounded sets where the nomination is incomplete, I'd suggest we word the desired situation. If we don't already have something, then we need an IAR-style clause where nominations that fail the normal guidelines may be accepted provided explanation is given and accepted by the reviewers. This would include such issues as low resolution, or some images being poor quality. -- Colin (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
5. All images should be of high technical quality.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agreed. I think the current, not so rigorous rule is adequate. I considered for a while if it should be required that all images were 2 Mpixels, but on second thought I can think of exceptions, where the resolution of each image matters much less than the completeness, especially when the sets is large. It is good to leave some room for interpretation here. --Slaunger (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd actually go more hard-line on this. Every image should be up to the minimum standards, or be an obvious exception (for example, the Face on Mars image doesn't exist at higher than low resolution, but it was that low resolution image and the errors that started the phenomenon. A set of it and a high-res modern image would be suitable, but that should be the exception, never - not ever - the rule.) Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • See my comment above about documenting the FP-standard guidelines as such, but providing the opportunity (in general) for a nominator to explain why their image/set should still be considered. -- Colin (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I would propose to also add the clarifying statement to the guideline (I think it can be formulated more concise than I have done, please do so, if you see abvious ways to improve it):

  • Files in a featured picture set, will be tagged as being "Part of a featured picture set". Selected individual pictures in a featured set may also be nominated separately for featured picture status, if each nominated picture fulfills the normal (stand-alone) requirements for a featured picture. It is recommended to spread such single picture nominations out in time in order to avoid reviewer's fatigue from reviewing many thematicaly similar pictures consecutively. --Slaunger (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that additional nominations from a set is somewhat of a bad idea. It increases the number of nominations, without any actual benefit. The point of featured pictures is surely to make people aware of work useful to wikis. If that's our goal, only one promotion is ever necessary, although we might want to discuss how to handle this in POTD/POTY.
Mind you, I have some grave concerns with POTY - the last two years, despite having category winners, they were not announced, not in the final announcement or anywhere else - which, in my opinion, makes a mockery of the goal of celebrating the diversity of images by using categories, and which would cause major, major problems with sets in POTY, since you'd surely need to treat sets in a separate voting, possibly not even allowing them in the final, but giving their own award. This is possibly a bit off-topic, though.
My suggestion to POTD is that it may be appropriate to have more than one image from a set, but they should be no less than, say, four months apart. Alternatively, we could come up with a way to handle multiple images in POTD, with a main image as a default fallback. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)



We need specific categories and galleries to showcase them. The current galleries for FP are under Commons:Featured pictures. So we need to create similar galleries either under Commons:Featured pictures or under a new Commons:Featured sets.


The current structure is Category:Featured pictures by subject under Category:Photography by subject and Category:Featured pictures by country under Category:Photographs by country.

There is one generic category Category:Featured pictures on Wikimedia Commons which is assigned on pictures having {{Assessments}}.

This is actually very spottily applied. I don't think any of my featured pictures are actually categorized under either type of category, because historical media doesn't generally appear to get categorized. And, of course, not every featured picture is a photograph. I'd suggest that the categorization scheme we have is actually far more broken than people think. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Assessment tag[edit]

I think {{Assessments}} with featured=5/6 may be possible.

Don't do it that way: First of all, featured= is not just used to mark featured pictures. featured=2 marks former featured pictures, and there's also sounds in there using 3 and 4, but that's not very well-used at present.
Instead, realize the nomination for a set is always formatted Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/DESCRIPTIVE NAME. Not only is it absolutely trivial to find out if an image is part of a set from the nomination alone, it's also trivial to put all images in a set into the category Category:Featured picture sets/DESCRIPTIVE NAME because the template has to link to the nomination anyway. That category can then be linked to from the Assessments template. Using basic magic words can find out the number of images in that category, giving the size of the set.
If ordering the images in the set beyond that is desirable, a setposition= or setpos= variable can be used to change the category position. Simplifying the code slightly, it'd be something like: [[Category:Featured picture sets/DESCRIPTIVE NAME|{{{setpos|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]] - although DESCRIPTIVE NAME would be, I think, the comnom variable or some #titleparts variant of same. I seem to recall that the Assessments template has some weird, poorly-documented code around comnom to check that the FP nomination fits the right format. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


Please discuss under each topic above and make generic comments here. Jee 03:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I would support specific categories and galleries for sets. Yann (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @Yann:. One gallery alredy exists which I'm not aware of earlier; maintained by Ö. I think it only needs some sorting and splitting.
But we need to create categories. I thin we can create them either inside or outside of Category:Featured pictures by subject. Any suggestion? Jee 08:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


So there's been like no activity on this for a few days && we really need to get set noms up & running again (like I have three antarctica images I'm waiting to set-nominate) I'm going to summarize what's been said so far—

0 If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set.

  • Disparate & convoluted groupings should be disallowed

1 All images should be processed and presented in a similar manner to ensure consistency amongst the set.

  • Everyone pretty much agrees but could also be extended to captioning & galleries.
  • Templates for creating these galleries are long and annoying to fill out.

2 All images should be linked to all others in the "Other Versions" section of the image summary.

  • Possibly redundant and unnecesarry?
  • Used to prevent disparate & convoluted groupings
  • Large sets might be exempt
I'd be inclined to drop this. I don't think it's enforced, nor is it particularly enforceable, and it ignores the actual purpose of the "Other versions" section - which rather supersedes it. If you're using it to link to other images in the set, you aren't using it to link to, say, the unrestored version of the file. Lose the requirement completely.. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

3 If the set of subjects has a limited number of elements, then there should be a complete set of images. This may result in images in this kind of set with no "wow" factor, and perhaps little value on their own. Their value is closely bound to the value of having a complete set of these subjects. The decision to feature should be based on this overall value.

Add "Or a good reason why the set isn't complete". Also, note that completeness is subjective. For example, you might think that including all illustrations in a book is simple, but I can name a few cases where it isn't - for example, Rudyard Kipling's Soldier Tales includes small images under the titles of the stories, and at the end. They're fairly simple and not half so useful as the full-page illustrations, so I probably would leave them out, but would that make my set incomplete? Also, I generally get illustrations from the second printing or so - much cheaper, and all the original illustrations are there. But this means I couldn't, for example, include the first edition cover, and, indeed, probably couldn't afford to, as second editions are usually pretty affordable; first editions... not so much.
There's a few books where the American 1st edition and British first edition have completely different illustrations. Would completeness require both? The point is not to give an answer, it's to point out that there's a subjective element to this rule. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

4 If the set of subjects is unlimited, the images should be chosen judiciously. Each image should be sufficiently different to the others to add a great deal of value to the overall set. The majority of images should be able to qualify for FP on their own.

  • Issues arise with what to do when it is difficult or impossible to complete a bounded set
  • How should you choose members of an unbounded set?
Commons has a tendency to get bogged down in bureaucracy. People will vote it down if it's poorly chosen or unjustified as a set. We can let this evolve. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

5 All images should be of high technical quality.

  • Exceptions might be made if there is a good reason for it.
That's always true. We should make it clear exceptions can be made at times - but probably not at specific points in the rules. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Classification of FPSs

  • Renominations as single images could be used to determine POTD/Y eligibility
  • A spacing rule could also be used to prevent set elements from dominating POTD
I really don't like the idea of having renominations as single images. That's pointless, and instantly negates any value to a set nomination.


  • FPS elements need to be placed in galleries and categories to keep them organized
  • The current category tree is broken and doesn't work for sets
  • Technical problems regarding the Assessments template

Love, Kelvinsong talk 19:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I have been traveling in the last weeks and couldn't follow this discussion closely. I will try to relaunch it shortly to try to find a solution. Poco2 21:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Are sets required???[edit]

Most of the discussion here is about how sets should be handled but how is it decided what constitutes a set and when are set nominations preferred/required? Can FP sets be added to? Evidently from Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Another Neptune diagram.svg there are some who think that certain images must be nominated as sets & cannot be supported individually. Does that make any sense??—Love, Kelvinsong talk 19:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The thing about the Neptune diagram is, if you renominate it in three months, it'll pass. The FPC process is not entirely based on merit, you do have to play psychology a bit - and that's where sets can be useful. For example, all the Gustave Doré images of Dante's Inferno are extremely widely used - and, as such, all could easily be featured, and, given appropriate quality, probably should be.
But there's 70 of them. Given the rule of the fifth day, and the two nomination limit, that's between 70*5/2= 175 and 70*10/2= 350 days of Doré to get them all promoted. I'd expect reviewer burnout to set in very quickly; indeed, I think, in the past, "too many engravings" has been given as an oppose reason, even if the engravings varied wildly in time, subject, and artist. [Reviewers seem better about that nowadays]. Even if they weren't widely used, we support Wikisource, so would be an obvious thing that commons would want.
As I have said before, a certain highly productive user told me that she didn't think one should ever work on a subject for more than a few images, because FP reviewers would get bored, and they'd stop passing. Instead, she encouraged a selective, light dip of the toe in the waters of a subject.
This isn't what we should be encouraging, obviously, but it can actually be fairly hard to go against where the obvious rewards are set up for people. Further, even if your motives aren't self-promotional, the reward setup can easily lead one down certain routes. Let's say I want to promote Doré, because he's an amazing and underappreciated artist (which I do). If I scan and clean up an image from Holy Russia, one from Don Quixote, one from Inferno, one from Orlando Furioso, one from his Bible, and so on, all will pass, and all will, at least potentially, go to the main page, giving me, say, ten times with Doré promoted there. If I instead scan and clean up everything from Bible (about a hundred images), not only would that be about an order of magnitude more work, but the main page appearance will end up limited to one day, so around a hundred times more work for a tenth of the value to my goal of sharing his art with the world. However, given the way Wikipedia uses Doré, having illustrations from a highly noted engraver for a highly acclaimed edition of the Bible would be, potentially, incredibly widely used, so the value of each image in the set would be very high.
As such, there's a very, very perverse incentive towards lightly dipping your toes, which we need to figure out how to avoid. And I say that as someone who always forgets to schedule his FPs to go on the main page here, as it's a manual process. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Just for clarity, I never used the word "must". I don't appreciate my intent being mischaracterized just because the message was not welcome. I really don't give a fuck whether images are in sets or done individually but don't be surprised when I get bored of seeing the same stuff time and time again. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Omg in the current FP candidate list, there are literally three photos of northern European dirt roads (surrounded by semi-arid vegetation) but nobody ever complains about getting tired of seeing the same old brown track curving around a scrubby tree over and over again. You seem to have a problem with planet diagrams. At least I don't draw the same planet over and over again—we have seven FPs of Saturn!. And two of those are from the same exact angle.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 02:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The Day the Earth Smiled - PIA17172.jpg
Saturn eclipse.jpg
  • Kelvinsong, people don't generally complain about being bored, they just stop reviewing. The most common reaction to any marginal picture at FP is meh. It takes quite a lot for someone to actually oppose. FP reflects the interests of nominators and reviewers. Adam gets a hard time because there are damn few like him and who share his interests, and since all his work is of the highest quality, it gets a bit boring to review. Sorry, but often the subject matter is a bit worthy for a Friday evening. That isn't fair when he's spent hours polishing his images and someone else uploads a holiday snapshot that rapidly gets 15 supports. Or someone uploads a blurry photo at 6MP that is loved but someone else uploads one at 36MP which gets torn to shreds for not being sharp at 100%. Landscapes get a remarkably easy time whereas portraits get picked on mercilessness (which is odd, considering we have essentially zero experts in that field). There's all sorts of unfairness and often the random nature of opinions, expertise, maturity and ability isn't offset by a large enough review pool. So the result is FP is a pretty random game. One thing I do detect in Adam's comments about Durova and your own comments at the Neptune FP is that FP is driving/motivating and the flaws in FP hurt your motivation or select what might be worked on. Well there are good and bad things about being motivated largely to achieve recognition of one's peers. I'd suggest you aim for most of your good work to achieve QI and regard those that make FP as a bonus. -- Colin (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Then do away with the whole >7 votes required thing. Maybe that would spurn more people to review. Seriously it's really unfair to let pictures fail just because nobody bothered to review it (probably because nobody here knows how to review anything but bird pics and Scandinavian roadways). It is ridiculous that a picture can get the orange box with six supports and no opposes. Or that my chloroplast division image failed with no good reason given. Apparently this is nothing new. There's something wrong with a system where the goal is not to make the best, most useful image, but to make it shiny and eye-catching enough to attract attention. Some lessons I learned from FPC—black backgrounds (space) do better than white backgrounds (biology), stuff that glows does better than stuff that doesn't glow, & always stick an aurora in there somewhere bc people love auroras (with no less than thirty-five votes cast on this one). Ughh. I can't even.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 20:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No, the 7 vote thing is essential. There is nothing you can do to motivate reviewers other than to make an engaging original picture [and even then, if it is too original, well, hmm, conservative mindset, enough said]. Supporting every damn picture in the list prior to making one's nomination is a sure way to make friends if your one's intention is to game the system and win gold stars :-). If you removed the 7 quorum standard, you'd just trash FP and people would leave -- it wouldn't make them go "Gee, I really must spend more of my free time reviewing images on Commons". That image with 6 supports got lots of hidden "meh" opposes by people not inclined to say so. Lots of people don't want the hassle of justifying their negative feelings. Or they aren't confident enough to express their negativity (consider how the opposes pile on after one person dares to say so) or feel their subjective negative feelings aren't as easy to express as objective ones (consider how an image can be trashed for minor technical flaws). Non-photographic images are hard because there aren't many peers who feel comfortable judging. The things that make a good diagram FP are more than just artistry and expensive equipment. I feel your pain wrt NASA images -- Commons and en:fp go through phases of giving them an easy time and then realising that technically they are shit because the NASA website has compressed them to mush. Although the FP review is flawed, it seems you are viewing it as a system for generating images. It certainly does that but that isn't its purpose, which is just to select (albeit imperfectly) the best images on Commons. And they might be images from some random Flickr account. Only QI and Photo Challenge are actually set up with the aim to motivate Commons editors to produce good new content. Many participants at FP do get motivated by this forum, but if it causes you to despair then finding another reason for motivation will be easier than changing FP to motivate and reward you. -- Colin (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Well there is a difference between a nonvote because the reviewer didn't like something about the image but couldn't put it into words (I get what you mean, I've been there though I usually vote anyway) and a nonvote because the reviewer didn't feel qualified to review the image. && I don't think the review system really captures that.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 21:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think what often gets missed is the difference between en:FP and COM:FPC. I don't care so much if the picture has high EV here at FPC. I just want to be wow'd. How much effort it took to get there is also irrelevant. Nobody cares if I spent hundreds of dollars and the many miles of hiking to capture a shot from one of my travels. Either the picture wows or it will not get supported. Putting up essentially the same drawing four times, albeit in different colours, is not a recipe to be wow'd each and every time. However those same four works presented as one set would likely get the same appreciation as the first of the four did in the other scenario. Complaining about other subject matter isn't helpful, besides those banal countryside shots are not getting such an easy ride anymore... people are getting bored of them too. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe I should put you on Venus and see how you fare because it is basically the same as Earth, just in a different color 😉. But seriously refusing to support an image of Neptune because there is already an FP of Saturn is like refusing to support a photo of a bald eagle because we already have an FP of a burrowing owl. "Yeah it's the same bird of prey (???), just with different plumage". To some they are the same thing—two photos of birds of prey, but any bird scientist would tell you otherwise. The same goes for the planets. No planetary scientist would see Saturn and Neptune as "the same thing just in different colors". Though they might about Uranus and Neptune && I would probably understand if you wanted just those two to be nominated as a set. But since set nominations are currently banned (remember?? scroll up a few sections!!) your refusal to support because of them not being in a set sounds a lot like a Catch-22.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 21:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
An owl and an eagle look significantly different even at a glance as they have completely different forms. Two coloured spheres don't. Again you confuse EV with visual appeal. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I think yes. When several pictures together show something that one picture alone doesn't, a set is a useful nomination. Yann (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Marking your works[edit]

We have noticed that many of us (including me) are using custom tags to mark our work. It is perfectly OK and acceptable as far as it will not be contradicting with the original license terms.

I agree that our current tools are inadequate to mark the parameters properly and to advise the reusers about the requirements. The inbuilt "use this file off wiki" options in "file page" and "Media Viewer" are not same; both of them failed to handle parameter we had given in "creditline", etc.

So I've started a discussion to update our license tags, CC tags, as a start.

Now the issue is many of our custom tags contains additional restrictions beyond the license and the community consensus is to discourage it. I've encountered some similar discussions earlier, and tried to clarify the points with many admins. This is one discussion now going on. In that discussion Jameslwoodward stated "I don't for a minute propose going on a crusade against license templates. It's funny. at User_talk:Ellin_Beltz#Couldn.27t_we_just_ask_for_description_to_be_added we are having a discussion about a different name for "Deletion Request", to emphasize that what is needed is a discussion, which, to be sure, might end up in a deletion, but also might end up with a change. That would certainly apply in cases like this."

So I am bringing this to your attention and requesting to double check your custom tags whether they are perfectly inline with the license terms you are using. In case of CC licenses, always check with original legal codes; deeds are just a brief representation of them, having no legal value.

Feel free to ask any questions if you have any doubts. Jee 03:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward appears to contradict himself at Commons:Deletion requests/File:İzmir - 01.jpg. HelenOnline 11:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

May single purpose accounts be allowed for voting?[edit]

I have detected Fotoriety to be a pure voting puppet with 0 uploads and 0 usefull work edits. This is just an account being used for voting and discussion. Sadly here in a mobbing and destructive style. From the beginn Fotoriety's intent was to be so because he started first commenting the FPC and collecting on this way the required nummer of edits.

In my opinion such pure voting accounts should be banned from FPC and the rules have to be redefined. The reasons to exclude such behavior are be obvious:

  • Anonymous voting is okay, but it isn't if you want to cover your origin account. The chance that you are engaged at FPC without "working" here is very small IMO.
  • Such voting accounts just stimulate to make someone lose his inhibitions as we see here in this case. Fotoriety attitude is also to other users disputable.
  • We have a potential danger of socket puppetery and unlegal multiple votings.

I'm curious about other opinios. Regards --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe the only reason you are reacting this way is because your ego has been wounded. For your information, i am mainly a contributor on English Wikipedia, but i have an interest in photography, which i like to manifest in constructive criticisms of FP nominations such as your own. I am no sock puppet and you are acting like a spoilt child who can't accept not getting their way. Please behave in a more mature manner.Fotoriety (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
And I belive you are just interessted in provoking here. There are sufficient examples that giving me serious feedback doesn't "wound my ego." So please do not assume and refract from your own manner. Your editwaring is a good proof about your actual intentions. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Do you have no shame? You are accusing me of edit warring when you are removing my comment because it doesn't suit you and i am merely trying to restore it and you then accuse me of edit warring. If anyone is resorting to unethical practices it is your removal of my response.Fotoriety (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Please check out the rules of discussion here. Personal insults and assumtions are not tolerated here. Maybe it's your manner to talk, but it's not wanted here. Talk factually and nobody will remove your posting. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Please stop edit-warring, both of you. Pleclown (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Wladyslaw, you need to stop personally attacking those who oppose your FP noms. Fotoriety's voting pattern is mostly to selectively Oppose, occasionally Comment and rarely Support. He always gives a reason for his vote, either way. His reasons are far more often concerning composition and lighting than the disheartening pixel-peeping opposes we sometimes see. This seems to me far more healthy than those who always support with no comment, and are rather generous with their supports. It should be tough to get an FP. Wrt bias: yes Fotoriety is free to oppose without fear of a revenge vote on his own nomination. Yes, it is possible to pick fault in nearly any picture, and one could do that if inclined. But I think the opposite is far more common: nominators supporting other pictures in order to win friends, or never opposing pictures in order to avoid making enemies. That said, it would be good, of course, if Fotoriety contributed and nominated his own images, both because image creation is the most important activity, and also because it is healthy to get the nominator's point of view now and again. -- Colin (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Colin: stop malicious gossip I would attack those who oppose my FP noms (latest counter evidence). I question those comments that are not argued well (as your's are very often). I asked Fotoriety to explain what he means with "poor lighthing" and do this without insults and allegation. That he could not is not the topic of this discussion page. That Fotoriety single purpose account is critical I already gave give reasons for. BTW: your thesis (nominators supporting other pictures in order to win friends, or never opposing pictures in order to avoid making enemies) is hardly permissible and by the way not attestable. We'll never will totally prohibit abuse but we can avoid obvious gaps and this one is such a gap. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I have very clearly explained myself, but some people cannot handle criticism. Is that why you have repeatedly removed my explanatory comment?Fotoriety (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

1.-Wladyslaw, per our current rules, it is not a requirement that a user is also a contributor. So to call Fotoriety a voting puppet seem both rude and unjustified to me. If you think F is a suckpuppet account, ask a CU to consider investigating that. (I doubt though it passes the threshold of suspicion).. Until then: "Innocent until found guilty."

2. F has recently opposed an FPC of mine, and I did not fully understand why and asked for further details in a civilized manner. I got a qualified and detailed reply. I appreciate that. I do not have any problem which such kinds of reviews.

3. Regarding the comment you are edit warring over, may I propose the following to Fotoriety: Could you shorten the comment such that it just contains your detailed comment about the photo and strip off the comments about the behavior of the creator? Then I am sure W will leave the comment there. And W: consider striking out some of your personal comments in the review as well. They are not particularly helpful, nor do they add to a constructive collegial atmosphere. Thanks, --Slaunger (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

This is an unhealthy conversation. The answer to the original questions is obvious: of course sockpuppets are not allowed to vote, but that's not the reason the thread was opened. If you seriously have evidence of socking, I'd be happy to review a bias free case at COM:RFCU. Outside of that, this thread is closed. Tiptoety talk 15:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no reason to archive a thought-provoking impulse just after several hours. Also other users should have the chance to discuss about this. Thank you. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)