User talk:Rd232/Archive 2

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.

I will let you know if I have something to say. However I am not a fan of dramas and somehow you seem to attract them sadly. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I was just offering clarification if you had any questions, not asking you to do anything. As to "attracting dramas" - well feel free to clarify if you're thinking of something else, but the "drama" at the RFA is from just two users. One of those ought to be well known to you as someone who has a rather idiosyncratic communication style; and he seemingly took a particular antipathy to me from day one. The other I only know from my intervention at COM:ANU in a quasi-admin capacity as a neutral observer. On the latter, letting the behaviour go was apparently a mistake, since clearly he didn't learn anything. The decision to let it go, obviously, was based on wanting to minimise drama. Rd232 (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm inquiring about whether I can crop this image or not in a certain way. I uploaded the image from Flickr using Flinfo to use it for a Wikipedia article. But some of the top black of the image seems like a waste of space and deemphasizes the two subjects in the image. If I can, how should I go about cropping like one-tenth of the vertical length off the top of the image? Howigotover92 (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You need to download the image and crop it on your computer, then upload as a new file. The new file will be a derivative work and will need to be appropriately licensed and attributed. If you need more help with that, best ask at the Commons:Help Desk. cheers, Rd232 (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Totally up to you ofcourse, but how would you feel about a collapse folder for that silly little off-shoot by Jetijones. I have no problem with my comments to him being collapsed as well, the whole thing really serves no purpose to the conversation as a whole. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I considered it, but I decided the risk was too high that the collapse would be more trouble than it was worth. Rd232 (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Rd, what do you think of my alternative proposal here? Kaldari (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

I was wondering, could you please switch the category for Commons:Administrators/Requests/Abigor (de-adminship) from sucsessfull to unsucsessful.

Since I quitted myself after 2 days there was no Crat decission, so there is no successful closure right? I hope you can help me?

Best,

Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 10:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

These categories focus on the outcome, not on whether there was a 'crat decision; withdrawn requests for adminship are equally "unsuccessful". Resigning in response is still a "success" from the point of view of those wanting de-adminship. Rd232 (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should change the categories to

• Category:Requests which resulted in de-adminship
• Category:Requests which did not result in de-adminship

Not only does that deal with Huib's concern, but also the ambiguity that the word "successful" is used in the opposite sense in an RfA.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think "successful" has exactly the same meaning as RFA - success from the point of view of the requester. However I have no strong objection to the renaming as suggested (though technically the suggested change introduces an inaccuracy - resignations aren't "de-adminship" exactly, whereas they are still the result of a "request for de-adminship" which is therefore successful in its objective). Rd232 (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

So will we renamen all the requests for desysop by the user self also as a sucsesfull de-adminship? I requested the removal myself, but it will get indexed als community requested now. Thats a bad thing. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 19:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"I requested the removal myself" - no you didn't, Jcb did. Admins who resign do not need to create de-adminship requests, whilst resigning in response to a request effectively makes that request a success from the point of view of the requester. I don't see the problem. Rd232 (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI, I endorse Rd232's decision. -- RE rillke questions? 14:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
[1] You have no argument there and there is nothing you can possibly argue. The attribution of such an action is 100% impossible and potentially in violation of multiple policies. Your attempt to claim that I am some how not mellow while not having any clue about me is an actual personal attack, and your false accusation on my talk page is furthermore such. Your posts, while trying to claim I do myself no favor, show quite a bit of disruption. Others are trying to salvage what you potentially derailed in your arguments. This is a serious problem, with the BLP ramifications of your arguments being really problematic. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Oh, I see, you're one of those... someone who takes a polite request to tone things down and not question others' good faith as a reason to turn round and act like someone next to them in the lift has dropped their pants and pissed on them. Got it. Rd232 (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Polite request? Odd how you can radically redefine all of my comments as hostile and yet yours are polite. Never knew that you could flip it around? You demand I assume good faith in others who happen to be attacking people, calling them trolls, etc., while making 100% false statements that go against our policies while I am being polite, and there seems to be no legitimate reason. Now, your comment "dropped their pants and pissed on them" is 100% vulgar and I am close to reporting you for such incivility. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Your lack of precision is distressing. I did not define your comments as "hostile", and I did not comment on "all" your comments, I identified several where you were attacking others. The fact that others did so before is not a free license to attack (and nor do attacks by others allow you to question their good faith). Finally, the colourful metaphor served a purpose, and whilst "rude" in one sense it was not "rude" in the other (uncivil). Rd232 (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC) As for disrupting discussion? That's comical. It's you who has diverted the DR onto the path of arguing over whether an "own work" image called File:Masturbating with a toothbrush.jpg which evidently is or represents such an act can be accurately described as that. My wording in the DR was precise: we can't tell if the person is actually masturbating or merely posing as if they are - and therefore it doesn't matter, it functions as a representation of the act either way. And undoubtedly it was the uploader's intention to represent that act, so why are you so keen to insist that we cannot take them at their word? Rd232 (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Here you are unable to understand BLP. That is a serious problem. You attack me for your own failure, which compounds the problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC) No, you don't understand two things: (i) the WMF resolution (wmf:Resolution:Biographies of living people) is aimed at Wikipedia articles about living people, where it is virtually always beyond question that the subject is identified; (ii) Commons' interpretation of that resolution is the COM:BLP redirect target: Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. Commons does not strictly have a BLP policy, because it is not Wikipedia and does not have biographies. Rd232 (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Are you joking? You have to be. Everyone knows that BLP extends far, far beyond just "articles" and is about our treatment of other human beings. You have crossed far beyond reasonable and civil. Your hostility on my talk page in the form of false "kindness" or "politeness" is just an example that you are pushing absurdities in an attack way that is highly inappropriate. You need to cut it out. You made it clear in your attitude to me that you don't really care anymore, and that is a problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC) I don't know what to do about your incessant attacks beyond ignore them... your attitude is particularly perplexing considering that we seem to share similar views on the underlying issues. Back on en.wp, I was very keen on respecting the spirit of BLP, and even extending it eg by being more generous in deleting low-notability BLP articles. But Commons doesn't have a BLP policy (because it doesn't have biographies); it has various related policies, but not that. Review Commons:Photographs of identifiable people#Avoiding_problems. If you want to change this guideline in some way, feel free to propose it; there may well be room for putting in more BLP-type considerations. In the mean time, you're perfectly welcome to make your own judgements, but you cannot use "BLP" to insist that everyone agree with you. Rd232 (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC) "(because it doesn't have biographies)" - I find this strange. You do know that we respect libel laws, right? What do you think BLP is? You assume the bare lettering/wording without realizing what the policy is about - respecting the rights of others and not putting out damaging information. This carries over to all aspects of the WMF. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC) OIC. I didn't realise that for the first 8 years of WMF's existence it didn't respect libel laws. My mistake. And it must be some other Rd232 who was one of the leading contributors to en:WP:BLPN. Presumably that one knew something about "respecting the rights of others" etc. Rd232 (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC) You are being extremely disruptive and incivil. Your sarcasm there is completely inappropriate. I stated that we do respect libel laws and that is why we have policies like BLP and other ideas that are all based on the same concept across Wiki. We do not allow defamation or anything that potentially puts us as legal jeopardy. You seem unwilling to understand that, and your attacks makes it clear that you are not acting appropriate. You have to stop. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Well, this conversation just tipped from the unproductive to the absurd, and continuing it seems unlikely to improve it. (What might improve it, if you insist on continuing it, is you reviewing what incivility and disruptiveness are.) Rd232 (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I find it interesting how you made a nasty sarcastic comment without any basis and you didn't bother to apologize when that was the only reasonable response. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I find it uninteresting how you claim to take offence at everything I say, whilst at the same time attacking me at every turn. It is quite evidently, at this point, a cheap debate tactic. Go away, and pretend to be offended elsewhere. Rd232 (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Attack? An "attack" is not pointing out problematic behavior. An "attack" is making sarcastic comments that are completely unnecessary. You can address bad behavior in a civil manner as I am doing. Your only responsible was to be really inappropriate. What is going on with you? These actions aren't appropriate and you wont even recognize it. Do you honestly think your sarcasm that was completely off base and revealed that you didn't even know what I said was aiding anything? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Analysing your comments and behaviour would merely extend this useless conversation. Best I can say is, hopefully future conversations elsewhere can focus on facts relevant to issues arising, and leave this particular mess behind. Rd232 (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Or you could apologize for the inflammatory attacks, the unnecessary sarcasm, making comments on other pages in which you claim 100% certainty and attack me for not knowing while the proof you link to is an admittance to the complete opposite, which makes you look foolish while making attacks on me. How do you not recognize that these actions aren't in the best interest for the community? Ottava Rima (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Is there some kind of competition for lack of self-awareness that I'm missing? Closing this thread. Rd232 (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

[2] Your hostile, nasty attacks, incivility, sarcasm, etc., need to stop and you have been reported. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand this, but, fortunately, you can now do it yourself.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

yes, thanks, done. I thought I'd tidied those old requests up. Rd232 (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Rd232, I hope you are fine. Found now the time to implement it:

Hello, Rd232. You have new messages at Rillke/Discuss/2011's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

-- RE rillke questions? 16:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I see you're working on the template and using the new features on pages. Could you please update the documentation to reflect the changes in the template? Thank you, Multichill (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I will do. I'm still fiddling with it. It didn't have any documentation at all until yesterday... Rd232 (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this change. I would like to note, that bot is active in ru-wiki and i may forget to update it back when someone will ask to use bot on commons. vlsergey (talk) 11:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

There should probably be a different status type for that situation. What do you suggest? Rd232 (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why we need this kind of flag with active (non-blocked) botowner anyway, so i have no idea. 81.5.64.217 12:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

One use does not exclude the other, isn't it?

I'll categorize it properly. -- Magister Mathematicae 19:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well not exclude, no. But a massive gallery can distract from the useful information (depending on formatting), and can cause page load issues for users without broadband. Thanks for adding the userboxes. Rd232 (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi ! You state on this page that "For Commons, media must in addition be lawful in the country where the image was taken and in the country where the image was first published.". Would you be able to direct me to the policy page which states this ? File:Black genitalia.jpg is being discussed, and that image is unlikely to be lawful in the source country, whereas it is almost certainly legal in the US. Thanks. --Claritas (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

--Nevit Dilmen (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

-- Cecil (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Welcome to the team. -- RE rillke questions? 20:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. An additional welcome to adminship: "Error: Script error." repeated 3x at the top of every page! I wonder what the heck's doing that? Rd232 (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorted. There must be some kind of admin script in Common.js that's sensitive to per-user scripts; deactivating some things I didn't use has got rid of the errors. Unexpected... Rd232 (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

congrats and welcome. cheers, Amada44  ^{talk to me} 22:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've borrowed the {{SUL}} box from your user page. :) Rd232 (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Welcome to the team. You may find User:Jameslwoodward/Commons notes for administrators useful -- feel free to add to it or edit it. Now you'll be able to test {{Delf}} on DelReqHandler yourself.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Rd232! --Katarighe (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Congrats Rd232! (Sorry I couldn't vote, though!) Best, Rehman 03:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• I just now saw that you're an admin. Congrats! I'm admittedly a little late, but I missed your RFA in my absence. I'm glad Commons has one more person with a lot of technical knowledge with +sysop. :) Killiondude (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your question at my RfA. It's a bit late for me to look at it today, though I should be able to give it some thought tomorrow. Sorry there is so much griefing in the discussion to deal with. It really is a lightening rod, though with an interesting consequence of shining light on some accounts that have been troubling for quite some time. --Fæ (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Fæ, I wonder what this comment of yours is supposed to mean. I thought all your "opposes" were from new arrivals. It sounds like you're now saying that there are disloyal elements among longstanding commons contributors who need to be taken care of.67.168.135.107 05:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

67.168.135.107, I doubt anyone is reading your comments any longer, considering your contribution history and single purpose. --Fæ (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Rd232, I am reconsidering the situation and seeking advice after the recent blackmail threat. --Fæ (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your situation, I hope it was just idle words from that user. Rd232 (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You say on the current RfA page "Bottom line, if English Wikipedia's issues with Fae were not enough to prevent adminship being gained, then offwiki discussion (whether you call it canvassing or not) should not be permitted to torpedo Commons adminship." I think if we are searching for a point, and for finality, you have made it well. But let me ask you: if you found there were really really something wrong with that process - let's say, if the community had not been given the full information they need, or if there had been some other procedural irregularity - would you still be holding to that point? The whole discussion 'off wiki' is precisely about that issue. There need to be checks and balances over users claiming 'clean starts' to avoid scrutiny of really really bad things. Do you agree? Peter Damian (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

PS I am writing to you here to avoid cluttering up an already messy RfA, and because you alone of the commenters seem to have got to the kernel of the issue. Peter Damian (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't reply to this - I hope you saw my comments at COM:AN, which I think cover the question. If not (and if you still want to pursue it), feel free to ask again. Rd232 (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I noticed your comments at AN, which partly covers it, but doesn't really get to the root of the issue, which is two things. (1) First, we are forced to rely on your judgment that there were no serious issues about the RfC in April 2010. It is a basic and fundamental principle of Wikipedia that wherever possible, the community decides on important matters, by consensus, not on some nominated individual, unless there are overriding, genuine reasons for privacy or protection against harassment. (2) I cannot see any such overriding reasons in the present case. I have looked carefully at the chronology between March and April 2010 on en. As late as March 22 2010 Fae (via old account) was not claiming harassment. On March 28 he had already created the current one. The RfC itself was in April 2010. I have asked John Vandenberg whether there were in fact reason to believe in harassment, but he has not replied.

The issues raised in the RfC were fairly serious for someone who would later become an administrator. They involved linking to commercial sites, tag-teaming with another editor, since banned, who also regularly called 'harassment' whenever challenged about paid editing, conflict of interest, misrepresentation of sources, outing in BLPs. These are even more serious in someone who is represented Wikimedia in UK parliament, and is a Wikimedia UK trustee. Why wasn't the community allowed to much a judgment based on the available evidence, both in the March 2011 RfA on en, and the current one here. Allowing to claim 'harassment' at any challenge to questionable editing, then to wipe the slate clean and disallowing the community to make the judgment is an open invitation to abuse the system, in my view.

Anyway, Happy New Year, and I am sorry you had to be involved in such a genuinely difficult judgement. With every kind wish Peter Damian (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(i) well sometimes you have to trust the people you're supposed to trust. But in this case, you can guess who knows where the RFC is, and ask them. (ii) I disagree, having looked at the circumstances. (iii) the RFC only covered misrepresentation of sources, and as I already said, the substance is very weak, and of particular relevance in my assessment is the failure to respond to Fae's detailed rebuttal on the relevant article talk pages of the sourcing questions. Paid editing/COI are not issues I've looked into, since they weren't in the RFC, but I'm satisfied that the people who okayed the en.wp RFA would have done. (iv) as to harassment: the fact that the Fae/old account link was recently reviewed on en.wp without further action, and that no attempt has been made to recall Fae (he's an admin open to recall on en.wp) contributes to that assessment on current events. Rd232 (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

In real life, as well as Wikipedia, I NEVER trust the people I am 'supposed' to trust. On the point about your being satisfied, sure, but why couldn't other members of the community have been given the choice. On that 'harassment' thing, who was it who reviewed the link? Are we back to 'trusting the people we are supposed to trust'? On 'the people who OK'd the en.wp RfA, I have written to Vandenberg, who I know quite well, and he has not replied. I shall write again. Peter Damian (talk) 09:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

"why" - for the same reason the clean start was necessary in the first place. Even in the internet age, privacy is not quite dead. Rd232 (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You recently suppressed 28 revisions from the Admins' noticeboard. The first one of those was [3], and the second one was [4]. Is there any reason you suppressed the first one?

Also, may I state that I don't like the frequent use of revision delete here? Either the users are harassing Fae, in which case they need to be blocked, or they aren't, in which case the proper action is to do nothing. This constant use of revision delete is doing nothing but attempting to suppress an issue that has no privacy matters attached to it. NW (Talk) 23:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Reason was the same for all of those: mention of the old account of Fae. To some extent, you're right about the blocking, but that would mean shutting down discussion altogether, rather than attempting to direct it away from problem areas, as well as making a definitive declaration of (deliberate) harassment rather than perhaps misguided mention of private information. This whole thing as a mess, and that would make it a bigger mess by an order of magnitude. As for "use of revision delete here" - I was already thinking, in response to this episode, that it's about time Commons had a revdel policy, even if all it does is document current practice, rather than restrict it as tightly as the en.wp one does. I've added it to my todo list. Rd232 (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflicted) I can't see what's been removed there, but please note that some user talks still contain the information that has been deleted or at least redacted elsewhere, and looks like if a single instance is forgotten then all the others are restored because "information is already available elsewhere" ;-). Thank you, Nemo 01:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you point them out? At this point it's getting somewhat moot, even if the community doesn't decide to reverse the existing revdels, but I'd like to see. Rd232 (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I've not reread everything, but I think User talk:Bali ultimate is were I saw it. Nemo 09:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you feel your attempt to "direct [discussion] away from problem areas" has succeeded? Peter Damian (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Clearly not to the degree I would have wanted, no. There were just too many people too keen to pursue those issues. Well, braking an out-of-control train is still better than nothing, even if you can't manage to stop it. Rd232 (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think there were "too many people too keen to pursue those issues" because they, like me, cherish the ideals of openness and transparency. I'm sorry you don't share those ideals (I am assuming you don't, because you say 'too many people', implying there should not have been so many, and 'too keen', implying they should not have been so keen to pursue transparency. I am researching Wikipedia at the moment, looking at the discussion forums in 2001-2, and for something like this to happen would have been unthinkable then. Regards Peter Damian (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm a member of Amnesty International, so don't assume. I came across a phrase recently that I'm reminded of here: "your right to swing your fist stops at my nose". Rights often collide, and judgements have to be made. In this case, the bottom line is that there is a two-year-old en.wiki conflict being pursued on Commons in a way that is inappropriate for reasons I've repeatedly explained. Rd232 (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You were warned many times and you decided to be even more abusive. It has to come to an end. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet again, your relationship to facts is ... interesting. Did I vote on Fae's adminship request? I did not. Did I express doubts about whether I could support it? I did. Sigh. Rd232 (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Involvement is not limited to voting. Everyone knows that, which is another piece of evidence that you are not fit to be an admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

you stated that I had voted. Your evasive, misleading, assumption-filled and aggressive response is classic, classic Ottava. And I say that (counting myself fortunate in that...) despite not knowing you that long. Rd232 (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed it to blanking the page and the rest of your actions there. You were a participant in multiple discussions involving the vote. That is really clear involvement. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

[5]Neutral votes are still votes, fyi. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

A comment in a discussion section is not a vote. Again, you seem to prefer to tie yourself in knots, or else ignore adverse evidence, rather than change your position or admit error. Rd232 (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Involvement does not flow from admin actions in relation to a single episode, as you well know. Rd232 (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You were heavily involved in debating with others. That procludes you from using admin actions. You should have learned that when ArbCom chastised you before for using admin tools while involved. And all neutral votes are votes regardless if you call them a "comment". You used the vote template. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I refuse to go into the Arbcom mess with you again, other than to note that Arbcom changed its rules in response to that finding passing. {{Comment}} is a comment template, in my universe. Rd232 (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Rd232,

Your userpage is a nice collection of what you achieved and it also shows that there is a lot of work for 2012. I hope you have a good start and a succesfull, good new year.

I suggest just ignoring Ottava from now on. User:Dschen has a ignore-this-user-javascript solution. I don't know how well this works, but if it doesn't, I offer to rewrite it.

Ottava seems, indeed having a strange relationship to facts and makes wrong claims about having CU-information, misguiding other users. But I don't prefer talking about the user's weaknesses, I would prefer if Ottava would help to reduce backlogs here: E.g. categorizing files. Best regards -- RE rillke questions? 15:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Compliments on all your good work, and I hope you have time for some of the Javascripty parts of my wish list in 2012 :) Guten Rutsch!

I have no idea how to steer Ottava away from areas where his contributions are clearly not helpful. Perhaps if Commons had an arbcom, it would eventually get to the point of him being banned, as happened on en.wiki, but it doesn't. Rd232 (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Errrorcatalan.jpeg This is the link with the problem. Only in catalan language. Cameta (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hm, thanks for the screenshot, that's very very clear! :) - but changing my language to Catalan, I don't have any problem. Can you try switching your skin to something other than Monobook (to deactivate your monobook Javascript) and see if you still have the problem? Rd232 (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, resolved in the original VP thread, I think. Rd232 (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, resolved. Cameta (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! Rd232 (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

SB Johnny was proven not to have had community consensus. Furthermore, even ArbCom was sent proof where not only did SB Johnny admit to calling my phone irl without permission but boasted publicly about contacting my priest and people I know as a way to intimidate me. I am not posting the links to that publicly because it contains lots of outing by him, but this is well known. The FBI was even called at one point because of how bad his attacks and actions towards me were. You can look at your email for links. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

And furthermore, I was the only truly active admin on Wikiversity for two years. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"proven not to have community consensus"? the discussion you link to doesn't show that, not least because it was a process you seem to have invented for the occasion. I'll look at my email in a minute. Rd232 (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That link was where the lack of consensus was in fact. He was stripped of adminship by Jimbo with community support for encouraging someone to use Wikiversity as a platform to encourage sock puppet vandalism of Wikipedia. He was then regranted adminship by a Bureaucrat against community consensus. That was a vote to strip him and admonish the crat but the Stewards would not recognize it unless a crat closed it. Since they were the only active crats, they refused to close it. You can talk to PeterSymonds, J.delanoy, or DerHexer about the Stewards involvement in the matter and the decisions surrounding his take over of Wikiversity and why there is no admin activity there from SB Johnny's actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hm. I'm starting to remember why I thought at times that perhaps Wikiversity wasn't the trouble as a project. I'm quite reluctant to get into this... do you mean SB J was stripped of adminship by Jimbo, and regranted it by a local 'crat without a vote? How did Jimbo (or stewards) let that pass?? Rd232 (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite extraordinarily, they ignored it (although Jimbo said he'd consider shutting the project down). I'll agree with OR that SBJ runs Wikiversity like his own personal fiefdom now, and he's made quite a few questionable blocks. Everything goes along pretty smoothly though, and as Wikiversity de facto has no policies and all important decisions are made via e-mail discussions, there's no real way of changing the state of play. I was an admin there under the username S Larctia, and basically anything one does causes drama (deleting useless, unused non-free images, blocking someone who threatens you with outing and/or physical violence in my personal case). The place really needs a radical overall, with a new set of admins and some focused content contributions. --Claritas (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, I see you didn't say anything about Fred, who was banned as WebHamster on Wikipedia and as socking as Fred the Oyster. This is a guy who told me I should kill myself in that thread, who posted two pictures of another user's underwear shots in the thread for no reason, who cusses and makes really nasty attacks, etc. Russavia told everyone to disengage and stop posting, and I did. But Fred continues to make really, really nasty attacks. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember looking at the WebHamster issue briefly and the continuation on Commons as Fred seemed OK in principle. I'll have a look at the other stuff later (I accepted Russavia's dealing with it) - RL calls. Rd232 (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Be careful, you'll wear that RevDel out at the rate you're going. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Rd232, hier ist dein Verstecken aber nicht wirklich sinnvoll - das einzige, was du machst, ist Leyos Entscheidung zu verschleiern. Wenn dann müsstest du auch die Versionen vorher verstecken. Übrigens finde ich, dass hier zur Zeit reichlich viel versteckt wird... Ich habe nicht den ganzen Käse in Gänze gelesen und vertraue mal, dass das richtig läuft. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 03:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ja, Danke, ist doof aber man muss lieder konsequent sein mit diesem Quatsch, wo er eben auftaucht. Rd232 (talk) 07:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I suspect if I spoke German I might be offended. ;) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"yes, thanks, it's not good but one has to be consistent with this nonsense, wherever it appears." Rd232 (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm just interested at what sort of cheese is being referred to. Is he a Wallace & Gromet fan? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, danke. Noch eine Kleinigkeit: Wenn du ganz viele Edits versteckst, dann ist es mE auch nötig, jeden Diff zu kontrollieren, ob z.B. in anderer Leute Beiträgen herumgeändert wurde und ob richtig signiert wurde. Denn das ist ja nun für die Allgemeinheit nicht mehr nachzuprüfen. Ein Nachteil des Versteckspiels ist übrigens auch, dass man nun keine Difflinks auf Aussagen einzelner Leute mehr angeben kann. Nur falls dir das bisher noch nicht klar war. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 03:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Danke fuer den Hinweis. Man kann Difflinks noch angeben, aber nur Admins koennen den Inhalt sehen. Rd232 (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

While editing on commons I found this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kit-arras It is impossible to be the author of these photos

• year 1932
  year 1932
• year 1966
  year 1966
• year 1980
  year 1980

Cameta (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into it. Rd232 (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

And, eventually: Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Kit-arras. Rd232 (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Please, could you add the German language to this template {{User talk}}? Thanks a lot and best regards! Angelus ^(talk) 15:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I could, but my translation skills are a bit rusty; there are others who would do a better job. user:Saibo perhaps. Rd232 (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok thank you. On a related note, I fixed the commons bureaucrat icon! Greetings! Angelus ^(talk) 17:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. Rd232 (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Not at all! ;-) Angelus ^(talk) 20:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rd232. In reply to this. I have not had any off-wiki communications with Ottava. His claim that "I've shown 5 admin, 2 Commons users and 2 Stewards the emails in question" does not apply to me. If he means something on-wiki, he can point out what he means. In my recollection I have not made any comments about how you have interacted with him or Fred. I do view Fred's interaction as an incivil joke against the subject of an admin discussion removed it and chastised him for it. It is clear to me that Fred's comment can legitimately be taken as a joking suggestion that a way to deal with Ottava is to use a lethal execution chemical (at whatever level of metaphor he intended), and his black humour comment indicates that he is aware of this, although I acknowledge that he has consistently declined to elaborate further or make explicit implications. If I saw any suggestion that it was not a joke, I would have indef-banned on sight. Joking over the internet at another's expense is a very risky game. The first I saw of your email correspondence was when you published it on the noticeboard. While your email did not consider what I think is an important interpretation, I do not think your reply was inappropriate, given that you say upfront that you do not fully understand the joke, and have not come across the execution context for potassium chloride. --99of9 (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Knowing the use in executions does make quite a difference to the understanding of the black humour involved; had Fred not said something about "black comedy" early on, I'd have been completely baffled by the remark (almost like "diabetic chocolate?" - huh?). Fred, incidentally, did recently offer some comments at User_talk:Fred_the_Oyster#Fred.27s_humour. Rd232 (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I've commented at AN. Tiptoety ^talk 06:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rd232,

Happy New Year! I'd like to ask you a question please. Let's say an editor is blocked indefinitely by a single admin, and then the block is offered for review. Let's say there is no consensus either way neither for unblocking nor for keeping blocked. Should this editor be unblocked or should the block stand? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

What's your suggestion, Mbz1? Is there a case, I should review? I think it's difficult to make give a general response since e.g. "consensus" is undefined. Best regards -- RE rillke questions? 22:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

"Happy New Year!" - well, onwiki, not so much, so far :(. Anyway, Happy New Year to you too. As to the question: I think normal practice (possibly policy) is that consensus is required to overturn a block; and if consensus for that can't be had, the block stands. I think that's very bad policy/practice for a number of reasons, most fundamentally, that the exclusion of someone from the community should have the support of the community. If a block is uncontested (except by the blocked user), then the admin can be considered to be doing what the community wants. If the block is reviewed by the community and there really isn't a consensus for it, it should be reversed. Of course the determination of "consensus" is primarily on merits and not headcount, but weighing the merits of different arguments is to some extent subjective, so headcount enters a bit that way. Taking into account possible canvassing issues (the discussion should be reasonably representative of the community), there's still a lot of leeway for a superficial "no consensus" to be considered good enough to keep the block. Rd232 (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you and I discuss a matter here which involves references to my last 12 years of work being deleted on .en? I am banned from editting there. Doug youvan (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Doug youvan; You have been warned not to bring disputes from elsewhere to Commons.[6] If you persist, you may lose your editing privileges on Commons as well. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see why you ask me, given that I'm retired from en.wp. Anyway, it wouldn't be appropriate to discuss it here, and I don't think it would be a good use of my time to discuss it anywhere. Rd232 (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Issue closed. Doug youvan (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious what your reasoning was for creating a another talkpage header template {{Gadget-talk}} instead of modifying {{MWheader}}. Granted, MWheader in it's current state (unfinished) wasn't as well-suited/relevant to script pages as the template you made, but it was designed for all MediaWiki talk pages. gadget was already a parameter (for categorization) so you wouldn't have needed to even change current uses or make it more complex (although detecting pages ending in .js is now possible so no param. needed). I would like to merge these sometime in the future if that's ok with you. And if you have any other ideas for it (or things you would change), I'll try to incorporate them too. Rocket000 (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Well the short answer is that I took one look at MWheader and concluded that it was far too complicated to muck around with. What would be the advantage of merging? Rd232 (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

To have one template, which simplifies use (only one name and one set of parameters to remember), avoids duplication of over-lapping features, makes maintaining easier (if something needs to be changed it's easier to only do it once), prevents mismatched inconsistent styling, etc. The main reason I came here was to find out if there was any advantage for keeping them separate. If code complexity was your only reason, I can improve that (by using subtemplates and removing some not so important functionality). Rocket000 (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I use {{Bian}}, which I created, for notifying users blocked because their username falls outside our limits. It seems to me that it would be a good thing to add {{Indefblockeduser}} to the beginning of it, so that the note appears below the indefblockuser box but I'm not sure how to handle the subst: required on indefblockuser -- I know what subst: does, but not how to do it one level in. Can you help? Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Since you did not {{subst:bian}} but {{Bian}}, you can't subst {{Indefblockeduser}}. If you would subst: {{Bian}}, you could inlude indefblockuser the following way:

{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>Indefblockeduser}}

But why don't you use {{Inappropriate username}}? Too long? That's why we have Gadget User Messages. -- RE rillke questions? 16:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

First off, I didn't know we had {{Inappropriate username}}. It also seems to me too general, and refers to "username policy", which we do not have -- Commons:Username_policy#Inappropriate_usernames is a proposed policy. I also think it needs more clarity that the user can comment or ask questions on his own talk page -- where the template presumably is. Finally, I like to be clear that I take responsibility for my actions -- "I have blocked..." seems to me much better than "Your username has been blocked..." by someone who is nameless here.

Maybe I'm being dumb today -- would you confirm that if users always used subst:bian, then it could contain

{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>Indefblockeduser}} <br> I have blocked this account ...[and so forth, as now in the template] }}

Is that correct? Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Otherwise (not substed) users will see the source code ({{subst:Indefblockeduser}}). Here is the transclusionlist if you want to subst all usages. Since {{Indefblockeduser}} does not create a new heading there is no pressing need to substitute it. So you may simply transclude it, ignoring the subst-request. I should have told this first, sorry. -- RE rillke questions? 10:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! The links are already there, and the text's been updated. odder (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you please notify User:Pieter Kuiper of this? SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

While you're at it, if you would be so kind, I think the removal of headings on category pages damages Commons. The heading that was removed here (just the first sentence) needs to be be restored. I assume it was removed because Kuiper knows that Lindarw and the Southerly Clubs chairman are old friends, and just to irritate us, as usual. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted your deprecation of Category:Wikimedia. Not everything 'Wikimedia' belongs to the Wikimedia Foundation. The chapters are separate organisations. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"belonging" has multiple senses. The chapters would not exist without the Foundation. I mean, yes, "Wikimedia" and "WMF" can be distinguished and two categories maintained; but in practice the vast amounts of overlap and miscategorisation leave a complete and utter mess. If we keep two cats, the distinction should be defined in the category headers, and one should at least be a subcat of the other, and probably "Wikimedia" should be "Wikimedia community" or perhaps "Wikimedia communities". Rd232 (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

An excellent example of just how bad this mess is: even a category as basic and important as Category:Copyright by Wikimedia‎ is "Copyright by Wikimedia‎" and not "Copyright by Wikimedia‎ Foundation". And with your edits that category is now part of Wikimedia, not WMF. Rd232 (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Two counter examples are File:Language Committee logo.svg and File:Wikimedia Community Logo.svg, which are not the property of the WMF. They are categorised under Category:Logos of Wikimedia->Category:Trademarks and logos of Wikimedia->Category:Wikimedia graphics->Category:Wikimedia. It would be inappropriate for them to be under a "Wikimedia Foundation" category, which is a legal entity.

While we're thinking about this, it's worth wondering about the "meta" project (host of both projects using those two logos), as it doesnt appear in Category:Wikimedia Foundation projects. It calls itself Category:Meta-Wiki. It's logos are in Category:Metawiki_logos.

Back on topic, I do agree with your conclusion that "Wikimedia" may be a confusing umbrella category name, mostly because that term is a trademark owned by the WMF. (However it was coined and registered by the community, but that happened with "Wikipedia" too.) I think "Wikimedia movement" is a bit better than "Wikimedia community", but wouldnt object to the latter. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, per the ANU discussion I have attempted to move the upload templates outside of the permissions field as you suggested. Changes can be seen at Special:Contributions/Faebot. If you are aware of where this has not worked, please drop me a note and I'll see if any misses are more than just the image pages that have been changed by others (which I would prefer to ignore to avoid any hassle). Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Rd232, you had changed the copyright tag at File:Deluca1.jpg - proposed for deletion. You may want to explain your action?! ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 04:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

commented at the DR. Rd232 (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If you can run the same removal as with Ariel also on Category:Modi'in Illit, Category:Ma'ale Adumim and Category:Beitar Ilit (all three are Israeli cities outside the Green Line), I'd appreciate it. These cities are Israelis and at the same time held under military occupation. See if you can resolve it. I'm not crazy about this, but for the least we should strive for consistancy across that subcat. Thanks. Orrlingtalk 20:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Israeli cities in the West Bank will hopefully do it. Rd232 (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rd232,

I wonder, if there's a way to link to a specific block from a block log. If there is, could you please explain to me how to do it for example for this block log. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't link to individual log entries. You can go to the log page and filter by date, and then copy the URL. Rd232 (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI --  Docu  at 07:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Any way you can get some attention on this? --ZooFari 22:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. List it on COM:CENT, and put a notice at the Village Pump, if you haven't already. Let me know if you want me to help with that. Rd232 (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your support.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note. Discussion has been consolidated here to avoid confusion.

FWIW, I think the "abusive admin noticeboard" is fundamentally misguided, because that publicness makes the defensiveness you mentioned at one point inevitable. What's really needed is some private, but trusted way to sift wheat from chaff in terms of reported errors and misdemeanours, and give appropriate feedback to admins - and ultimately, to launch public discussions based on the evidence provided. So it would be more like an Arbcom subcommittee (on en.wp), choosing if necessary to launch a special type of RFC/U (not subject to the usual certification rules, which would be too much of an obstacle), constructed using the evidence previously submitted privately by email (excluding evidence that isn't onwiki). So this subcommittee would (a) collect information (b) give constructive, non-judgemental feedback (c) have a means to take matters forward if serious enough concerns emerge.

Well, that's off the top of my head, frankly. The basic idea is that when you get feedback on job performance from your boss, in private, it's very different than if you get all your customers writing feedback forms and posting them in public and wait until a few of them realise they actually have the same issue with you and then complain to your boss. Rd232 (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I copy your comment to the Village Pump discussion? Or can you? I am rapidly losing interest in Wikipedia at all. It is no longer fun. The Commons is much less complicated. I can usually do what I want to do here without problems. The problem with the Foroa issue was actually not that big of a deal. I was just observing admin reactions to see how things here are working lately. Your ideas are interesting, but they serve little purpose if only discussed between us. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What VP discussion? I think you mean the existing AN thread, and it should be a new thread, maybe at COM:VPR, perhaps with a view to constructing an RFC. And it's probably best to start a new discussion, rather than copy comments. Rd232 (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I see the problem. I linked to the Wikipedia Village Pump discussion from the COM:AN discussion. Here is the link: en:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#A noticeboard about rude, abusive, or policy-abusing admins. By the way, I consolidated this thread here. Otherwise it will be very confusing to anyone else reading parts of this on either of our talk pages. It can be consolidated on my talk page if you prefer. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see. Sorry for delay in replying. Well, you're welcome to take the idea to the English WP Village Pump, but better in your own words than as a quote. It does need work - eg the list committee would really need some way of storing information efficiently in order to effectively monitor behaviour after giving feedback (I believe arbcom has its own wiki - that would work). But the basic principle of private feedback rather than public confrontation is a good one (up until the point where the feedback isn't working, or the problem is too serious to see if the person can learn from their mistakes). Plus, there are issues over composition - you need some admins in case access to deleted data is needed, but you'd probably want at least 50% non-admins. Plus issues over selection (election?). It's worth floating the idea even if nothing is likely to come of it now - you never know with this sort of thing if you're planting a seed that might develop in future, in some form. Rd232 (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea, but since I disagree with private, nontransparent methods, I couldn't do it justice. But I hope you would comment there. If you think that unaccountable admins are a problem on Wikipedia, then I suggest you contribute to the discussion there. Or if you think the perception of unaccountable admins is a problem. Or even if a few people are leaving because of the current complexity of dealing with unaccountable admins. I agree that the seed has been planted. Others will have to help water it later if it is to go anywhere. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I would, but I'm retired from en.wp, and I don't intend to change that (for the foreseeable future, anyway) - I've (mostly) restricted edits to cross-wiki stuff, and this wouldn't qualify, and is very open-ended besides. So, no thanks. Rd232 (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. I looked at your talk page a little over there. You definitely need a long break, in my opinion! I think I am going to follow your example for awhile. I am already feeling better since I retired from article editing for the most part in the beginning of January. By the way I am the bureaucrat for a wiki on Wikia, and so I understand having to deal with the multitude of details admins handle. Though on the wiki I work on there is almost no conflict since there aren't that many regular editors. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)