User talk:Rd232/Archive 3

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

abusefilter-log-detail

Hello Rd232. Sorry for the late reply. I'm currently ill and not improving. And I'm sorry I am not able to answer your question since I don't edit the English Wikipedia that often and I don't edit the German Wikipedia because I sadly don't speak a word of German. But you in your userpage here assure you speak «en» and «de» at native level; so it would be far more easier for you rather than me to investigate and get that answer I think? Regards. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 14:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Not sure I'll find the time though. Rd232 (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

COM:VP#FeaturedFeeds redux

Hi, since you participated in the first discussion you might be interested in this. Max Semenik (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Convert to SVG

It might not be bad to add the parameter value "Transit map", "Star chart", and "City map" to the template "Convert to SVG".

Possibly - if there are enough of these. Please suggest at Template talk:Convert to SVG. Rd232 (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

OTRS

Hey, just a thought—have you ever considered applying for OTRS access yourself? Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I did actually - just to see how it works, in order to be able to say more about how it (or links with projects) might be improved. But I didn't think I'd get it on that basis, and I couldn't commit to more as I've got plenty of existing wiki things on my plate, besides increasing RL demands. Rd232 (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
When I asked for OTRS, I was quite honest -- I wanted it only to check OTRS problem in DRs and I made no commitment to do any general OTRS work. See: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=OTRS/volunteering&oldid=2420469 That is more or less how I have used it -- just checking often and occasionally shepherding something through the process for a newbie.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Cool, thanks, I'll consider it. Rd232 (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Re:

I chose voluntarily a low-profile during the RfA, now I can reply: in spite of your negative judgment i took in account what you wrote and will put the needed carefulness when I'm to deal with matters of copyright and such. -- Blackcat (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Our discussion did reduce the level of my concern, and I'm encouraged that you took the trouble to comment here. Best of luck, and don't be afraid to ask for help or advice from more experienced or knowledgeable users (which on copyright does not include me :) ). You might also occasionally find the template {{DR proposed close}} useful. Rd232 (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Hm, that's good. Of course I'm supposed to use it in case it's not me to decide whether delete or not as I'm involved into the discussion, is'n that? -- Blackcat (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Well no (as a general rule you should never close DRs you've been involved with). It's for cases where the close is difficult or controversial, so you can get some feedback before doing the close. Rd232 (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Sreejithk2000

You spoke positively about this possibility on my talk page a month ago, so I thought you might like to see that it has begun.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Confused

Hallo Rd232, why can't you just let us work to improve Commons instead of needing to "battle" (since you mentioned "war") with each other? I really don't like that situation of unproductive work here at Commons ... --Saibo (Δ) 14:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned edit warring because it got to that with your reversions of my removal of your disruptive comments. Fine by me if you want to bring an end to this silliness - I think you know what you need to do. And I would encourage you to do something constructive about the Commons Abroad idea, as I suggested before - there were others interested. Rd232 (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I try to not editwar (therefore just the notice of your deletion instead of another revert of your deletion) since that does not help anybody and you maybe have noticed that. Commons does not need a "Abroad" (again US centrism) Commons. You guys can make a US commons if you want to adhere to those (specific) stupid US laws. Commmons never was US Commons but it was Commons. Thanks. --Saibo (Δ) 15:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Commons is hosted by the US-based WMF. Compliance with US laws is therefore not an optional extra. But see Commons:Requests for comment/Commons Abroad and related ideas if you want to discuss how to reduce the problems that creates. Rd232 (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Rd232. What do you think of this action ? Did Nesnad uploaded any files related with this DR ? Did I miss it ? Takabeg (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

yes - look in the "permission" section of that file's description. Nesnad uploaded that file (File:KOBE Luminarie 2007.jpg) from Flickr, using User:Flickr upload bot. Rd232 (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I see. Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 10:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Editing comments by other users against their objections while being an involved party on those discussions

Please do not edit comments by other users against their objections while being an involved party on those discussions, as you have done here diff. A more appropriate behavior pattern in the future would be to politely ask the user to modify their comment, if you wish for them to do so. If you cannot reach an amicable resolution at that point, the next appropriate step would be to request participation from previously-uninvolved, outside-third-party editors to join the discussion, for example via a post to Commons:Village Pump.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, -- Cirt (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons is not en.wp. As the discussion at ANU amply demonstrates, getting anybody uninvolved to give a flying toss about complex disputes is hard. I'd previously tried hatting the first unproductive exchange; that was rejected because (I thought) it hid some relevant comments. Hence, when further disruptive comments appeared (contributing, I think, to the RFC dying out), my moving stuff to the talk page while leaving the relevant comments quoted. Rd232 (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
In the future, please take mitigating steps such as polite discussion with the user involved and attempts to involve third-party users prior to doing it yourself. -- Cirt (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
You don't seem to grasp the basic point that we're talking about comments obviously intended to be disruptive (and were quite possibly successful in that intent) - see Commons talk:Requests for comment/PD review. The comments are furthermore not disrupting a minor Deletion Review, but an attempt to organise a significant effort to ensure that Commons enforces its own policies (and the legal obligations on which they're founded). Honestly, you couldn't sound much more clueless (or pompous, come to that) if you were recommending polite discussion with a !penis!penis!penis vandal before dealing with their disruptive editing. Rd232 (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Your views on the issue are biased as an involved member of the discussion, and apparently I'm not the only one that thinks so. -- Cirt (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC) And another diff -- Cirt (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
No, they are not. The relevance of the comments to the RFC is not hard to assess objectively. I find it interesting that nobody seems willing to defend the comments. Rd232 (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, regardless, in the future, please don't edit other users' comments, against their consent, without consensus, and instead seek out other third-party analysis. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

"well, regardless"... oh, OK. IDHTitis. Rd232 (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah yes, that link is an accurate summary of your behavior, thanks! It does indeed appear that you are not hearing comments about your inappropriate behavior in this matter. Thanks for pointing out that link which so accurately summarizes your behavior in a nutshell! :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Saying it doesn't make it true. Are you ready to address the nature of Saibo's comments yet, or will that remain swept under a "well, regardless" carpet? Rd232 (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
This subsection is about your inappropriate behavior exhibited by editing other users' comments without consensus against their stated objections to do so, as an involved party in the dispute. Discussion about the nature of Saibo's comments, is best kept to Commons_talk:Requests_for_comment/PD_review. I've read over the discussion at Commons_talk:Requests_for_comment/PD_review, I'll comment there. -- Cirt (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done, diff. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

SDs etc

Please see here thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No I am lousy at abuse filters - feel free to look over them - they should be fairly obvious but if not let me know. Trying to catch up - thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 14:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't know much about them either beyond the principle of what they can do. Maybe if you list the filter(s) in the COM:AN thread, others more experienced can review them and maybe make suggestions. Rd232 (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks - done & I fully agree with the point you have made. It is about whether they are actually contributing something of use rather than what is basically vanity stuff (which would not be allowed in mainspace on any wiki). Best --Herby talk thyme 15:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Asking for clarification

I started a new thread on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, to get clarification [1]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Why have you blocked Shoscha?

Totally inappropriate. This issue needs to get the light of day, why are you suppressing it? Peter Damian (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Explained at his talk page and on COM:AN/U. He's not interested in expressing his opinion, he's interested in making trouble. Rd232 (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
How is he causing trouble? His concern, which I share somewhat, seemed perfectly reasonable. Don't you think this comes across as the archetypal 'bullying admin'? Peter Damian (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
What concern is that? He preferred to post in the wrong section to posting in the right one (possibly in error), and when this was pointed out, he preferred to complain rather than post somewhere where his opinion might actually be heard. I mean, he's fighting here to have his misplaced opinion reinserted into an archived section where it's irrelevant and no-one will read it. This is trolling. Rd232 (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Right, he posted something in the wrong section and the little admin moved it. Then he posted it again, and the little admin got upset about the implied threat to his little authority. So the little admin used his little power and blocked him. Pathetic.Peter Damian (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
"Then he posted it again" - maybe you should butt out of situations where you can't even get the most basic facts right. Rd232 (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I posted the sequence of events on his talk page. You are right. He didn't even re-post. He simply complained about your intimidation. Pathetic. And stop threatening by telling me to 'butt out' Peter Damian (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not threatening you. I didn't threaten Malcolm either - I warned him. And your sequence proves that you still don't understand what happened. Rd232 (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Er, what happened? My sequence follows the chronology, and they are real diffs. Please explain. Peter Damian (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I will. Again. (On Malcolm's talk page.) Since apparently Malcolm's trolling is going to be allowed to succeed by the backdoor, by insisting on discussing to death the handling of it. Rd232 (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
He made precisely five edits before the block, one of which was a fix, so I posted four. So I don't see how my sequence shows 'lack of understanding'. The fact you are using the abusive and uncivil term 'trolling', and not assuming good faith, suggests that you have a history with this user Peter Damian (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
This post suggests you've read very little, if any, of what I've posted on this subject not directly addressed to you. Rd232 (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Unhelpful. All I am seeing here is an editor being subjected to intimidation, harassment and blocking for a mere 4 edits. And you are saying, like a policeman "move on please. This does not concern you". How about explanation that sequence in a way that explains the sequence? You have blocked an editor for a week, after all. Not unreasonable for me to ask, no? Peter Damian (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Reasonable to ask, not reasonable to avoid reading the plentiful explanation already given. Rd232 (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Revision deletion

It seems that you are the main author of COM:REVDEL and it says that revisions may be deleted because of copyright violations. Special:PermanentLink/68197906 appears to be a copyvio of this article, so could the revision be deleted? --Stefan4 (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, ✓ Done. The key phrasing in the policy is there are no specific guidelines for use of the Revision Deletion tool. It is considered an additional tool for enforcing other Commons policies, and so for example may be used in all cases where regular deletions are permitted but where just a revision needs to be removed. Although I'm the main author, I really haven't done anything to decide what can and can't be deleted! I'm happy to help here as it's straight forward, but any cases where there might be a real debate should be discussed at COM:AN and/or the policy talk page. Rd232 (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Documentation for gadget authors

I saw you had done some work on a couple of gadgets. We are trying to start a library for gadget authors to use. Please check it out and post any questions or comments there. -- MarkAHershberger(talk) 17:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Block of Peter Damian (talk · contribs)

I have reblocked Peter for 1 day (approximate time left on his original block) and opened a section on the noticeboard [2] as it involved multiple admins. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Question relating to emotive issue

In my closing of this AN/U thread, and looking at the various user talk page threads and the like, I came across something that concerns me a little.

In this diff on User:Beta M's talk page, you state the following:

"The original question about a website that's nothing to do with Commons would normally be somewhat inappropriate here, but since offsite views are enough for some people to enact bans, you can see how it arises."

Commons:Blocking policy gives no ability for admins to block for off-site views; only disruption on Commons is blockable. I have to ask you to point which policy makes you think this is sound advice to be giving to an editor in your capacity as an admin?

Also, I note that you have utilised revdel quite liberally in the past, and yet you have not utilised it at all in relation to the current "child protection" issue. Is there any reason why this is the case?

Comments on the above would be appreciated, and am asking you here, in order to keep things off the now-closed AN/U thread. russavia (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(i) the issue was whether the questions were made in good faith. Some people are clearly willing to ban for offsite views, so that's why they want to discuss them. That has nothing to do whether there is any policy basis for such bans (there isn't, as far as I can see, though some may try to hang their hat on COM:BLOCK's behaviour that has the potential to damage the Commons or disrupt its collegial atmosphere), or whether one is needed (Commons:Child protection). (ii) actually the "liberal" revdel use was almost entirely in relation to one incident, where I simply applied the same logic that I saw another admin apply, wherever the same issue arose. I haven't considered applying it here because the discussions have been complicated and fast-moving, and the question of what is or isn't true wasn't very firmly established. And given the uproar about removing one comment and asking it to be posted elsewhere, I can only imagine the volumes of heated meta-discussion arising from using revdel here. (iii) while we're at it, I may as well record here that I disagree with your "time served" conclusion. The thread needed closing as soon as possible (I knew it would be a mess, it's why I unblocked quietly!), but the block wasn't warranted, and cutting short its effect isn't the right outcome. Rd232 (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Please unblock Mattbuck

Hi Rd232, please reconsider your block of Mattbuck, and think about whether you would have blocked any uninvolved user with a clean block history for such a merely satirical comment. Everybody gets frustrated sometimes and not every little venting action is a disruption to the project. Blocks are not supposed to be a punitive measure (let alone a retaliatory one), they are supposed to protect the project. Did you honestly see any imminent danger to the project? --Dschwen (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I stand by the block. He knows the sensitivity of the topic, and the way heated discussion of it has spread across multiple pages on Commons (and onto en.wp and meta besides). It is difficult enough as it is to get anything constructive out of these discussions; there is zero excuse for this kind of behaviour. And that's without considering that it might have been an intentional effort to disrupt such discussions because he severely disagrees with the discussions. I didn't consider it because of COM:AGF, but that fact that it is possible to consider that illustrates the trolling nature of the post. Rd232 (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I hope you don't just feel as if you've maneuvered yourself into corner. You can stand by your block reason, but it would have been appropriate to at least give a warning before blocking. I could not spot an imminent danger to the project that would have warranted an immediate block. --Dschwen (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I've opened a thread about this block Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Mattbuck and User:Rd232. Trycatch (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Involved admins should not be using the tools

Rd232, your reduction of the block of Fred the Oyster is a bad move on your part, as you are clearly involved, and there was some degree of consensus amongst admins that an outright reduction of the blocking would not be advisable. Unfortunately, this is becoming something of concern -- using the tools whilst clearly involved, and disregarding other admins opinions, and acting upon what you feel is consensus. As you are clearly involved, I would advise you to re-apply the indefinite block, and wait for consensus to develop either way, and then allow an uninvolved admin to act upon that consensus. If you don't or can't see a problem here, I am afraid that editors may instigate some sort of procedure put in place to prevent you from acting unilaterally in the future. russavia (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The comments from other admins indicated that they wanted to see from Fred that he understood the behaviour was not acceptable. He did so by email, and I believe that's sufficient; and since he said it to me, I should act on it, and not ask someone else to do so. Rd232 (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Rd232, because you are involved, there is, at least the perception of, zero transparency in your actions here. It is correct that many admins want to see acknowledgement from Fred that his behaviour is not acceptable. His talk page is not protected, so he is fully able to use {{unblock}} and acknowledge what has been requested, and then an uninvolved admin would be able to attend to the request. Because he has done this off-wiki, there is no evidence of him acknowledging to the community's satisfaction that his behaviour was problematic, there is a perception here that not only are you acting as his defence, but also the judge, jury and executioner (figure of speech only, given that we don't execute people here on Commons). When you add this into the fact that his using "kiddy fiddler" was not the reason for the block in the first place, you seem to be acting outside of the bounds of your position as an admin. There is no transparency in your acting unilaterally in this case, and I would urge, again, that you undo your unilateral actions, and allow someone who is not knee-deep involved in the situation to act on the behalf of the community. To not do so, only shows disdain for our processes, and coming from an admin it is not on; and you surely know that. russavia (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
When you add this into the fact that his using "kiddy fiddler" was not the reason for the block in the first place, - ah, but that's a stinking kettle of fish you really don't want to lift the lid off, do you? The AN discussion was precisely about that; yet within 1.5 hrs of it being started, Tiptoety charged in and indeffed him without reference to it, but rather on the basis of a longer-term pattern which was not really relevant. That is unacceptable; it is acting as "judge, jury and executioner" and entirely ignoring context and not giving any chance for consensus to develop. Even proposing an indef-block in that context would have been a ridiculous over-reaction; to just go and impose one is frankly outrageous. But in the context of heated circumstances, I think the best thing is to try and leave all this behind as much as possible, as fast possible. Dealing with Fred's block as I did contributes to that; demanding a public apology of some kind or another, does not. Now, if you want to return to the status quo ante before Tiptoety's precipitate action, and propose an indef-block, well fine. But you are effectively demanding the restoration of a bad indef-block on the basis that the subject of it didn't react with smiles and roses. No to that. Rd232 (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
(Minor note) I'm presuming that in receiving an email request with Fred's understanding that his behaviour was not acceptable and that it would not reoccur, you followed the standard guidance of "Do not unblock users without consulting with the administrator who placed the block, except in obvious, uncontroversial cases." As the original block in question was given by Tiptoety and this was a controversial case, I presume you have an email or other discussion available if requested. It would seem advisable to have Fred's acknowledgement made openly, given the recent difficulties we have seen with established Commons contributors unwilling to accept a lack of process transparency elsewhere. If Fred has not given permission to publish your private correspondence, perhaps you should ask for it? Thanks -- (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
It appears that Tiptoety has blocked User:The Hedonist based upon CU data, and given that he has actively engaged in more socking, in this case, only 10 minutes before you unblocked/shortened his block, you can see why transparency on this issue is of utmost importance -- the socking issue is one which was mentioned by other admins as an issue which also needs to be dealt with. His actions really do fly in the face of the community, and again, I am asking you undo your block reduction, and allow an admin who is not involved to deal with the issue. russavia (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Don't be silly - the "socking issue" mentioned was use of an IP with no attempt to conceal identity. I don't know why you're obsessed with restoring the indef-block; further action can perfectly well happen without that, either before the block runs out (3 days left) or even after. If you want to extend the block for socking, or propose something, fine - start a new AN/U thread. But I return to the fact that were it not for Tiptoety's bad block, we wouldn't have had a productive user reacting badly to that block (reaction including use of a sock, it turns out). Rd232 (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Fred_the_Oyster_(again) -mattbuck (Talk) 18:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Move request

Can you please move File:Happy_Happy_Happy2.jpg to File:Happy_Happy_Happy2_(cropped).jpg so that I can upload the original version as "Happy_Happy_Happy2.jpg"? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Rd232 (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Question

This edit - why? Unless you're going to move the tone-mapped category it seems best to be a redirect. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Tone-mapping is just one way to convert an HDR image to LDR. It's the best way, but not the only way. Plus, one day we'll hopefully get an HDR filetype. Rd232 (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
See also Commons:Village_pump#HDR_image_filetypes. Rd232 (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)