Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
Andy Dingley (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 146: | Line 146: | ||
::::No it isn't, you gave a reason for the block as "''take some rest and come back''", it wasn't preventive but in fact it was a punitive one. Remember in COM:BP ""cool-down" blocks are '''not condoned'''". Also you've poured more fuel on to the fire. [[User:Bidgee|Bidgee]] ([[User talk:Bidgee|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC) |
::::No it isn't, you gave a reason for the block as "''take some rest and come back''", it wasn't preventive but in fact it was a punitive one. Remember in COM:BP ""cool-down" blocks are '''not condoned'''". Also you've poured more fuel on to the fire. [[User:Bidgee|Bidgee]] ([[User talk:Bidgee|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC) |
||
:: Oh a [[:en:WP:COOLDOWN|cool-down block]], ''"take some rest and come back"'' - like ''they'' always work! [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC) |
:: Oh a [[:en:WP:COOLDOWN|cool-down block]], ''"take some rest and come back"'' - like ''they'' always work! [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::Oh please, spare us. Just because someone utters the words "cool-down block" does not mean we have to immediately go misquoting policies and turning our brains off. It was not a cool down block; it was a block for continuous disruptive behavior. If you need any evidence of this, please look through the history of this noticeboard and note the ''dozens'' of times this user has been brought here. I doubt he admitted fault in more than one or two of those (if that). [[User:Magog the Ogre|Magog the Ogre]] ([[User talk:Magog the Ogre|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Magog the Ogre|contribs]]) 21:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
==={{U|Natuur12}} abuse of admin tools=== |
==={{U|Natuur12}} abuse of admin tools=== |
||
I believe that Natuur12's removal of my access to the rollback tool was not only targeted but also an abuse of their adminship. Not only did Natuur12 remove my access to the rollback tool ''before'' responding to the above AN (by itself very questionable), they did so within minutes of this AN having been initiated, without any immediate need to stop me editing as a preventative measure, and without any other admins or users commenting either as a review of this matter or in favour or some sort of sanction. They also had a disagreement with me only a few days ago where they threatened me with a block just because I renominated an image for deletion where the closing admin had previously given me permission to renominate their closures. Previously this admin has targeted me on other projects including the Dutch Wikipedia seeking my ban there on the basis of "not speaking Dutch, so you have no place here". I believe these issues make Naturr12 an involved party and that their use of admin tools so swiftly should be overturned. This admin also can not provide any actual proof of deliberate abuse or a long history of misuse of the rollback tool with would require my removal. further raising question about the appropriateness of their course of action. '''[[User:Fry1989|<span style="color:#003384;">Fry1989</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Fry1989|<span style="color:#cc111a;">eh?</span>]]</sup>''' 01:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC) |
I believe that Natuur12's removal of my access to the rollback tool was not only targeted but also an abuse of their adminship. Not only did Natuur12 remove my access to the rollback tool ''before'' responding to the above AN (by itself very questionable), they did so within minutes of this AN having been initiated, without any immediate need to stop me editing as a preventative measure, and without any other admins or users commenting either as a review of this matter or in favour or some sort of sanction. They also had a disagreement with me only a few days ago where they threatened me with a block just because I renominated an image for deletion where the closing admin had previously given me permission to renominate their closures. Previously this admin has targeted me on other projects including the Dutch Wikipedia seeking my ban there on the basis of "not speaking Dutch, so you have no place here". I believe these issues make Naturr12 an involved party and that their use of admin tools so swiftly should be overturned. This admin also can not provide any actual proof of deliberate abuse or a long history of misuse of the rollback tool with would require my removal. further raising question about the appropriateness of their course of action. '''[[User:Fry1989|<span style="color:#003384;">Fry1989</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Fry1989|<span style="color:#cc111a;">eh?</span>]]</sup>''' 01:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 21:33, 17 May 2015
|
This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Vandalism [] |
User problems [] |
Blocks and protections [] |
Other [] |
|
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.
|
Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.
|
Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.
|
Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS. |
| Archives | |||
113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 |
96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
| ||
Note
- Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
- Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (
~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp. - It is usually appropriate to notify the user(s) concerned.
{{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}}is available for this. - It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
- Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.
Hiku2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
There are THOUSANDS (maybe tenthousands, I failed to browse through all) flickr2C uploads of license plates, hardly in scope, submitted on just one day (12 May) within a couple of minutes. All of the uploads blatantly violate COM:OVERCAT, hundreds of categories that actually should be empty are now overflooded. What to do? IMO, heavy abuse of automated upload tools... --A.Savin 11:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- I really have o idea how to proced but shouldn't we modify this tool so that only authorized users can use it? This prevents mass uploads of bad quality content. Natuur12 (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- We should. --A.Savin 11:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Numberplates are within scope, imho. Wikipedia has articles in various languages about their various types for various purposes in various countries. When I realised that the upload tool gives wrong categories automatically, I stopped using this functionality. The problem seems to be the "Auto-detect categories: (default is 'yes', can also be changed individually)" in Flickr2Commons. Cheers, Hiku2 (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- This is problematic. Please don't do that again. Natuur12 (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. But then you should change the guidelines. --Hiku2 (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Which guideline gives you the right to close DR's where the subjects are your own uploads? Should be closed als delete imho. Natuur12 (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- It states: "Non-admins may close a deletion request as keep if they have a good understanding of the process, and provided the closure is not controversial." --Hiku2 (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- You have neither a good understanding nor is it uncontroversial.... Natuur12 (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- It states: "Non-admins may close a deletion request as keep if they have a good understanding of the process, and provided the closure is not controversial." --Hiku2 (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Which guideline gives you the right to close DR's where the subjects are your own uploads? Should be closed als delete imho. Natuur12 (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. But then you should change the guidelines. --Hiku2 (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- We should. --A.Savin 11:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- They have also removed {{Copyvio}} from this file, instead of opposing it on the file talk page. Bidgee (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, if you really stopped, you did it much too late... I'd say either you clean up all your uploads by hand, or they have to be nuked. And no: some kind of license plate photos may be in scope, but I don't believe yours are. --A.Savin 14:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe we should restrict actions (upload, edits) for non-autopatrolled users using abusefilter (example: 2000 actions per day if not in autopatrolled group)? --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- No problem with me. Note, however, that this here is an extreme case. If Hiku2 had uploaded 10.000 in 5 days, the problem was in the end the same. So, we rather need a guideline which says that mass flickr2C uploads are in general shit (apart from some few special cases, which we obviously don't have here). Nothing against selective transfers of encyclopedically useful freely licensed material from Flickr, but for anyone who transfers 10.000 at once for their own upload count, I cannot assume any good faith anymore, sorry. --A.Savin 16:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have a serious problem with the closure of the Deletion Nomination of your own pictures. That's in very poor form, shows lack of judgement and understanding of the rules of commons. I personally suggest nuking all these uploads as non-encyclopedically useful and intended only to boost users edit count. I also request that DN be examined by an administrator and reviewed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Done (for the uploads). --A.Savin 00:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have a serious problem with the closure of the Deletion Nomination of your own pictures. That's in very poor form, shows lack of judgement and understanding of the rules of commons. I personally suggest nuking all these uploads as non-encyclopedically useful and intended only to boost users edit count. I also request that DN be examined by an administrator and reviewed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- No problem with me. Note, however, that this here is an extreme case. If Hiku2 had uploaded 10.000 in 5 days, the problem was in the end the same. So, we rather need a guideline which says that mass flickr2C uploads are in general shit (apart from some few special cases, which we obviously don't have here). Nothing against selective transfers of encyclopedically useful freely licensed material from Flickr, but for anyone who transfers 10.000 at once for their own upload count, I cannot assume any good faith anymore, sorry. --A.Savin 16:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- A three-month block? Three months?! All considered, this seems too harsh! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Support the three month block because of:
- a lack of caution when mass uploading - better to upload a few at a time and check them
- an unwillingness to undo potential errors - I see no comments from the user to suggest they are willing to clean up after themselves
- the DR closure and subsequent comment that the guidelines should be changed so that they fit Hiku2's action rather than accepting that the uploads might be controversial because someone has nominated them for deletion
- the removal of a copyvio notice without following the procedure outlined on the notice
- the frankly unapologetic response to being blocked, without acknowledgement that there might be a problem with their uploads.
- Nothing in the user's actions suggests that they have taken stock of the criticism of their editing and will be more careful in future. Green Giant (talk) 08:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment Seeing that this is a first block, 3 months seems a bit long. I would support a one-month block. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- And what exactly should a block reduction bring us? The damage of Commons caused by Hiku2's mass random uploading is enormous. There are still some >15.000 uploads left, most of them uncategorized or improperly categorized. So, the only alternative to a full block is to revoke their right to use flickr2C, VisualFileChange, cat-a-lot, and other automated tools, because otherwise further abuse has to be expected. --A.Savin 20:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Given the lack of self reflection I believe that 3 moths is fine. Not the term I would have picked but the block lenght is defendable. Natuur12 (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- We have had people uploading much worst junk without any category or description, and nobody never really raised an eyebrow. Just my 2 Rs. Yann (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- True and that's why we should make automated tools for users who know what their are doing only. Natuur12 (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- That's very, very bad. That does not mean we should repeat our faults. Automated tools are for advanced users only. Any maloperation (including even such done in good faith; not to mention intentional abuse/vandalism) is able to do a lot of hard-to-repair damage. Users who misuse flickr2C to boost their editcount from ~0 to 20.000 within some minutes (like here, obviously) should be blocked from editing Commons. (Or, at least, excluded from using automated tools.) --A.Savin 22:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that automated tools should be given only to experienced users. It doesn't mean that a 3-month block is needed here. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Either we think that this user has some redeeming qualities and should be encouraged to work on Commons again after some time off to consider, or we believe this user is a vandal and deliberately acted outside of the rules. If it's the former, then even Yann's one month is too long -- blocks are not punishment and longer terms do not punish more. If it's the latter, then just block him indefinitely and maybe reconsider it after a long while if he exhibits contrition on his talk page. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that automated tools should be given only to experienced users. It doesn't mean that a 3-month block is needed here. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- And what exactly should a block reduction bring us? The damage of Commons caused by Hiku2's mass random uploading is enormous. There are still some >15.000 uploads left, most of them uncategorized or improperly categorized. So, the only alternative to a full block is to revoke their right to use flickr2C, VisualFileChange, cat-a-lot, and other automated tools, because otherwise further abuse has to be expected. --A.Savin 20:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Nubero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
This new user starts his Commons career with a clear statement about himself and how he wants to be treated. The following statements and edits are pretty disturbing and very rude though.
- After nominating some pictures, he has simply deleted a critical remark from Jebulon.
- After my pretty friendly Welcome to Commons at his discussion page he answered on my discu (translated): I think the comment of Jebulon absolutely unqualified - and that I perceive this person in a way, that he is rather more than Troll. [1]
- After assessing one of his nominated picture by myself, he asks, if everyone there is a Troll.
- While discussing someone elses picture (King of Hearts), he talks extremely disrespectful (....this guy) and accuses me trolling (...he is trolling me too!)
This is not a really good start and I´m asking an administrator to tell Nubero how communication has to be here. And what consequences are possible if not. --Hubertl (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Those same administrator might tell you how to communicate here as well while they are at it. It’s not like your comments always bear much signs of either professional knowledge or spot on good tone of voice. The sheer fact that you started (and the tenacity with which you started) this little smear campaign against me here, reveals a bitter small-mindedness in your character that actually makes me feel sorry for you.
- What was that Haiku comment all about? That for example wasn’t necessary. Your evaluation too wasn’t professional and hasn’t been in other cases neither.
- The deletion of Jebulons comment was a mistake on my part, yes.
- That being said, I really did think he was a troll and that’s why I deleted the comment. It has since been restored anyway and I commented on it.
- Seeing as how unprofessional your comment on my picture was, I had almost no choice than to call it trollish behaviour. No one in their right mind would have made that statement about the “blur” in the lower right corner. To me that comment was vandalism and an attempt at down voting me for no reason.
- The consequences, Hubertl, might be that more people like me – who would otherwise be able to deliver excellent content for free – are not going to do so any more. Ask a photographer from Europe to write you an offer how much it would cost (planing, travel-expenses, accommodation and so forth) to travel 9700 kilometers with two planes and three trains and take my picture of Himeji Castle for example.
- In conclusion, I think it would be best if we just not crossed paths anymore
--Nubero 15:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry no, my first comment was not restored for now.
- I have a talk page, if you disagree you could talk to me there. (no more now, I don't welcome somebody calling me "a troll")
- Deleting a comment of a reviewer is trolling, not a mistake.
- I'm sorry, but you are obviously at the wrong place. Maybe you could chose another sandbox. Spaß an anderer Stelle.--Jebulon (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Both of you: please be civil. Calling other editors trolls or behavior trollish is a sign of weakness since ad hominem are not real arguments. Plus it is just plain rude. (Just like the misuse of ad verecundiam btw.) @Nubero: I don't care about anyone's status and unacceptable behavior will lead to a block. You made some severe personal attacks and those don't belong at a community project. We show respect for everyone regardless their status. I'm the expert so I'm right and you are wrong is not the kind of attitude a consensus based project needs. We value arguments, not personal opinions. If an argument seems to be nonsense to you, just ignore it. Welcome to Commons. @Jebulon: Your last comment is rude and uncivil as well, please be aware that you can also be blocked for making personal attacks. Natuur12 (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough, works for me. Thank you @Natuur12, that was much needed outside perspective. --Nubero 22:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Both of you: please be civil. Calling other editors trolls or behavior trollish is a sign of weakness since ad hominem are not real arguments. Plus it is just plain rude. (Just like the misuse of ad verecundiam btw.) @Nubero: I don't care about anyone's status and unacceptable behavior will lead to a block. You made some severe personal attacks and those don't belong at a community project. We show respect for everyone regardless their status. I'm the expert so I'm right and you are wrong is not the kind of attitude a consensus based project needs. We value arguments, not personal opinions. If an argument seems to be nonsense to you, just ignore it. Welcome to Commons. @Jebulon: Your last comment is rude and uncivil as well, please be aware that you can also be blocked for making personal attacks. Natuur12 (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Natuur12: given the circumstances of the case, your threat against me is just a farce. I don't mind if we have different opinions about what is "rude and uncivil". Please don't give me lessons, thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Julianoreis
Julianoreis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
What to do with this user? Julianoreis uploaded since summer 2011 except one Coat of arms only copyvios. Must be between 70 and 100. Was blocked last year for one week. But started again with uploading copyrighted material. I would propose an indefinte block. Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Done. Indef blocked because one month (or more) block seems not helpful at all here (looking at the upload log). Only copyvios since 2010. User can request unblock when he is familiar with commons licensing policy. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this user quite understands Commons. They have uploaded the same logo 9 times, twice after my notice on their talk page about it. Fry1989 eh? 21:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Done. Uploads deleted. Fry's warning on Dggluz's talk page is sufficient for now. Any repetition of this uploading will result in a block. Green Giant (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Similar edits and names
Due to deletion work, and a message left on my talk page, it would appear that there is interrelation of some sort in these three accounts: User talk:Worldshogi, User talk:Shogi81, and User talk:Shogi 81 2. The first two have uploaded the same copyright image once each, the final one was only used to leave the message on my talk page. Thanks for the help. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
User uploading the same copyrighted FC logo multiple times. I have reason to believe the have also done so under different account names, as this logo has been uploaded at least 10 times in the last month. No other contributions, should be blocked. Fry1989 eh? 23:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yo, Luischanel sólo lo he hecho dos veces, lo volví a subir porque me lo reportaste y no me das una explicación exacta, a parte es un logo de licencia libre, todos los equipos de fútbol lo tienen así, para la muestra un botón: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ANlog.png
- Just because one FC logo is free of copyright does not make them all free from copyright. This image is indeed copyrightable. Fry1989 eh? 23:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- En la página http://www.derechodeautor.gov.co/web/guest/home no se le han encontrado derechos de autor.Luischanel (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Luischanel, 1) you should not have stated "own work", when the logo clearly is NOT your own work.[2] 2) the copyright of logos is a rather complicated matter and varies from country to country. As Commons is an international project, which tries to host only material that can be freely used in all/most countries, we take a restrictive/conservative approach. i.e., when something is copyrightable, we considered it to be copyrighted. See also Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Trademarks. In case of "your" logo: as is contains not only text, I consider it to be copyrightable. --Túrelio (talk) 07:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yo subí el anterior archivo con los derechos de autor normales, es decir, refiriendome al autor pero como lo eliminaron busqué los logos de varios equipos de fútbol y todos lo colocaban de trabajo propio, por lo tante decidí subirlo así ya que fue un compañero de una pagina quién lo realizó, total acá no trata de esto, pero yo sólo he hecho eso dos veces y fue por lo mencionado, las acusaciones de Fry1989 son falsas, así que creo que este reporte debe ser borrado de acá y además que Fry1989 se retracte de sus acusaciones. "Luischanel (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Luischanel, 1) you should not have stated "own work", when the logo clearly is NOT your own work.[2] 2) the copyright of logos is a rather complicated matter and varies from country to country. As Commons is an international project, which tries to host only material that can be freely used in all/most countries, we take a restrictive/conservative approach. i.e., when something is copyrightable, we considered it to be copyrighted. See also Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Trademarks. In case of "your" logo: as is contains not only text, I consider it to be copyrightable. --Túrelio (talk) 07:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- En la página http://www.derechodeautor.gov.co/web/guest/home no se le han encontrado derechos de autor.Luischanel (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Just because one FC logo is free of copyright does not make them all free from copyright. This image is indeed copyrightable. Fry1989 eh? 23:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Fry1989 and symbols by country overcategorisations
Fry1989 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) keeps rollbacking well-explained reverts (mostly of his reverts) on symbols by country categories and by doing so overcategorising them into their main country categories. Asked to stop and discuss, he responded "oh piss of". Needless to mention that this is not the first time a thread about this user's behaviour has been started on this noticeboard, I would welcome it if it won't get closed by Fastily. FDMS 4 23:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well, with an endorsement of good faith like that, surely this is worthy of attention!! I am not violating OVERCAT at all, symbols of countries is a direct subcat of the country itself, putting it under "culture of ..." is inappropriate because national symbols may or may not having anything to do with the culture of the country in question (many countries have designed their symbols to be devoid of references to their history and culture, such as China). I am properly categorising these subcats, and you are interfering. Fry1989 eh? 23:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- You couldn't gave this respond at your talk page because? Natuur12 (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- [edit conflict]
- Glad to see that your attitude/mood changed so quickly, rollback and profanity can make it difficult to keep assuming good faith. Why can't you discuss content disputes at appropriate venues, talk pages? Having to use an administrators' noticeboard to get an explanation from you isn't exactly making collaborating with you more convenient.
- Symbols itself is only categorised into arts (= culture) categories, and symbols are hardly hierarchically on the same level as society, geography or history.
- FDMS 4 00:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Anyways, this is editwar number 1000 and rollback has been used so I revoced his rollback tool. It doesn't matter who is right. There is no excuse for using rollback during an edit war. Natuur12 (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Because I didn't want to, because I don't like FDMS4, because they're a thorn in my side, because they accused me of edit warring in bad faith, take your pick. I'd also love to know under what reasoning you think my rollback rights should be revoked. Do you have any evidence whatsoever of my systematic or deliberate abuse of this tool, or do you just not want me to have the tool in the same manner you don't think I should edit wikipedias if I don't speak the native language? Fry1989 eh? 00:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Who is acting in bad faith now? Natuur12 (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- If there is ANYBODY out of all the admins on Commons who should not be using their admin tools in regards to me and should leave any sanctions to other admins, it's YOU. You who claims I shouldn't edit wikipedias in languages I don't speak the native language on and who went to far as to try and have me banned from the whole Dutch project, and who constantly harasses me anywhere we encounter each other elsewhere. Don't try and act like you're an innocent observer. Do you have any real examples of my abuse of the rollback tool or not? Fry1989 eh? 00:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- There's one right at the top of this thread. FDMS 4 00:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- No there's not, only in your playground. Fry1989 eh? 00:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Another one. Reverting a newbie with rollback while there is no vandalisme. Natuur12 (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- And care to tell me how that was abusive and worthy of tool removal? They categorised the DR which they shouldn't have done and I was trying to undo the categorising edit and accidentially (which you will never believe because you don't trust me any more than I trust you) rolled back both that edit and his answer. Now you tell me how you are not an involved party, when only days ago you called me sloppy and I told you I didn't want anything more to do with you, and you jump into this so rapidly I could bet you did so with glee to remove a tool of mine for where there is NO real evidence I have ever abused it. Fry1989 eh? 00:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well, Natuur12?? How is it not inappropriate for you to have removed one of my tools so quickly when only days ago we had a spat, and when you have tried to have me banned from an entire project for the crime of not speaking Dutch? That's exactly what you made it about, you said I had no place editing a wiki if I don't speak the language, even for simple edits like adding images. I did that about 100 times just in the last two days ([3], [4]) doing invaluable work putting in missing images for wikis that I can't speak a single word of their language. You, of ALL admins, are the last one to claim you have uninvolved status regarding me and the right to enforce any sanctions regarding me. In fact I would bet money that you jumped into this so fast you have been looking for any excuse to act against me, and I find it very telling that you removed my rollback right BEFORE you responded to this AN. The best you have right now, is possible misuse, and even that's a stretch. Show where I have actively abused the rollback tool and under what authority you have to remove it so quickly without review by anyone else. Fry1989 eh? 00:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and this was after the piss off. O and than there are cases like 6, 7, 8 where the edits are not vandalism, just invalid namechange request. Using rollback to remove this request, especially when it are your uploads is wrong. Natuur12 (talk) 10:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- editwar, removing talk page message, content dispute and finally, January 31, this year, valid use of the rollback tool by reverting his own edit. Since than there has been no valid use of the rollback tool. Natuur12 (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and this was after the piss off. O and than there are cases like 6, 7, 8 where the edits are not vandalism, just invalid namechange request. Using rollback to remove this request, especially when it are your uploads is wrong. Natuur12 (talk) 10:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well, Natuur12?? How is it not inappropriate for you to have removed one of my tools so quickly when only days ago we had a spat, and when you have tried to have me banned from an entire project for the crime of not speaking Dutch? That's exactly what you made it about, you said I had no place editing a wiki if I don't speak the language, even for simple edits like adding images. I did that about 100 times just in the last two days ([3], [4]) doing invaluable work putting in missing images for wikis that I can't speak a single word of their language. You, of ALL admins, are the last one to claim you have uninvolved status regarding me and the right to enforce any sanctions regarding me. In fact I would bet money that you jumped into this so fast you have been looking for any excuse to act against me, and I find it very telling that you removed my rollback right BEFORE you responded to this AN. The best you have right now, is possible misuse, and even that's a stretch. Show where I have actively abused the rollback tool and under what authority you have to remove it so quickly without review by anyone else. Fry1989 eh? 00:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- And care to tell me how that was abusive and worthy of tool removal? They categorised the DR which they shouldn't have done and I was trying to undo the categorising edit and accidentially (which you will never believe because you don't trust me any more than I trust you) rolled back both that edit and his answer. Now you tell me how you are not an involved party, when only days ago you called me sloppy and I told you I didn't want anything more to do with you, and you jump into this so rapidly I could bet you did so with glee to remove a tool of mine for where there is NO real evidence I have ever abused it. Fry1989 eh? 00:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Another one. Reverting a newbie with rollback while there is no vandalisme. Natuur12 (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- No there's not, only in your playground. Fry1989 eh? 00:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- There's one right at the top of this thread. FDMS 4 00:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- If there is ANYBODY out of all the admins on Commons who should not be using their admin tools in regards to me and should leave any sanctions to other admins, it's YOU. You who claims I shouldn't edit wikipedias in languages I don't speak the native language on and who went to far as to try and have me banned from the whole Dutch project, and who constantly harasses me anywhere we encounter each other elsewhere. Don't try and act like you're an innocent observer. Do you have any real examples of my abuse of the rollback tool or not? Fry1989 eh? 00:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Who is acting in bad faith now? Natuur12 (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- If you had really wanted to discuss or understand or get an explanation, you wouldn't have done so with an edit war notice as your header. Try asking me instead of accusing me, see where it gets you. Fry1989 eh? 03:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Usually it is the person who proposes changes that has an interest in discussing them. I'd have to be extremely naïve to expect a friendly collaborative atmosphere on your talkpage after the countless editwars you were involved in and your rollback abuse in this very case. However, should you have – against all odds – decided to start a discussion anyway, I'd have been a "good listener" and a constructive participant. As you haven't, you have at least been warned about the consequences. FDMS 4 11:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- And yet there are plenty of other users where I have a polite, happy, collaborative environment with all the time. If what you say is true, such an environment could not exist and there are plenty of examples proving your massive generalisation false. It's how you approach me, and you chose to accuse me right from the beginning which is why I told you to piss off. If you had asked me, this could have been completely different. TRY JUST ONE to ask me instead of accusing me or threatening me or saying I'm wrong or whatever else and see what happens. Fry1989 eh? 18:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- The fact that you have to establish consensus before reinstating contested changes does not have anything to do with your happiness or other emotions. FDMS 4 20:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oh I see how this works, just ignore when I point out things that don't comport to your sense of reality. You deliberately imply that I can't not participate in or create a friendly collaborative environment, and when there are examples that show you are mistaken, you go off on a tangent about how it has nothing to do with whether I am happy or not. Nice try. Fry1989 eh? 20:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- The fact that you have to establish consensus before reinstating contested changes does not have anything to do with your happiness or other emotions. FDMS 4 20:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- And yet there are plenty of other users where I have a polite, happy, collaborative environment with all the time. If what you say is true, such an environment could not exist and there are plenty of examples proving your massive generalisation false. It's how you approach me, and you chose to accuse me right from the beginning which is why I told you to piss off. If you had asked me, this could have been completely different. TRY JUST ONE to ask me instead of accusing me or threatening me or saying I'm wrong or whatever else and see what happens. Fry1989 eh? 18:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Usually it is the person who proposes changes that has an interest in discussing them. I'd have to be extremely naïve to expect a friendly collaborative atmosphere on your talkpage after the countless editwars you were involved in and your rollback abuse in this very case. However, should you have – against all odds – decided to start a discussion anyway, I'd have been a "good listener" and a constructive participant. As you haven't, you have at least been warned about the consequences. FDMS 4 11:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- If you had really wanted to discuss or understand or get an explanation, you wouldn't have done so with an edit war notice as your header. Try asking me instead of accusing me, see where it gets you. Fry1989 eh? 03:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Regardless if Fry isn't willing to understand or not, cool down blocks should never be done per COM:BP. I should know, I got slammed for it in the past (when I was an Admin) and rightfully so). Bidgee (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Your interpretation of the policy is quite weird. You can also take it as a preventive step avoiding further escalation of this issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- No it isn't, you gave a reason for the block as "take some rest and come back", it wasn't preventive but in fact it was a punitive one. Remember in COM:BP ""cool-down" blocks are not condoned". Also you've poured more fuel on to the fire. Bidgee (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Your interpretation of the policy is quite weird. You can also take it as a preventive step avoiding further escalation of this issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oh a cool-down block, "take some rest and come back" - like they always work! Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oh please, spare us. Just because someone utters the words "cool-down block" does not mean we have to immediately go misquoting policies and turning our brains off. It was not a cool down block; it was a block for continuous disruptive behavior. If you need any evidence of this, please look through the history of this noticeboard and note the dozens of times this user has been brought here. I doubt he admitted fault in more than one or two of those (if that). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Regardless if Fry isn't willing to understand or not, cool down blocks should never be done per COM:BP. I should know, I got slammed for it in the past (when I was an Admin) and rightfully so). Bidgee (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Natuur12 abuse of admin tools
I believe that Natuur12's removal of my access to the rollback tool was not only targeted but also an abuse of their adminship. Not only did Natuur12 remove my access to the rollback tool before responding to the above AN (by itself very questionable), they did so within minutes of this AN having been initiated, without any immediate need to stop me editing as a preventative measure, and without any other admins or users commenting either as a review of this matter or in favour or some sort of sanction. They also had a disagreement with me only a few days ago where they threatened me with a block just because I renominated an image for deletion where the closing admin had previously given me permission to renominate their closures. Previously this admin has targeted me on other projects including the Dutch Wikipedia seeking my ban there on the basis of "not speaking Dutch, so you have no place here". I believe these issues make Naturr12 an involved party and that their use of admin tools so swiftly should be overturned. This admin also can not provide any actual proof of deliberate abuse or a long history of misuse of the rollback tool with would require my removal. further raising question about the appropriateness of their course of action. Fry1989 eh? 01:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Fully endorse this action. Fry's modus operandi is pissing off half of Commons' administrators and then loudly stating that everyone is too involved to take any disciplinary action to stop the misbehavior. Well I say it's about time. Misuse of the tool is by all means grounds for removal. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your attempt at psycho-analysing me, Dr. Magog. I should also thank you for nebulously saying "it's about time" for something of which there is still no evidence I have previously misused this tool. If you're gonna say something like "it's about time", try to be more specific. Third, I don't really use the tool so I couldn't care half as much as you seem to believe I do, my issue is with who removed my access to the tool. Natuur12 is indeed an involved party and their action is inappropriate and that doesn't change just because you think they were right in doing so. I piss you off all the time and I'm sure it's mutual when I say I despise you, but had you removed my access to the tool I would not have been able to "cry everyone's too involved to punish me" as you claim, because you and I don't really have that much in the way of interactions and certainly none that are recent or involve unnecessary threats. Fry1989 eh? 04:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Firstly, I have better things to do with my time than targetting you. And yes, I warned you twice not to violate Commons policy lately. Threatening to reupload an image because you believe that the undel request is not closed fast enough by your standards is a no go and abuse of the system. If people believe that I should not gave him a fair warning that knowingly violating Commons policy would end up with having him blocked feel free to tell me. If speedy keeping the nomination of an image as out of scope while it is in use because Fry believes that the Japanese community should not use that image and giving Fry another fair warning is wrong, please let me know. If warning someone that I will enforce Commons policy if they violate it makes me an involved admin than I am guilty. But for the rest, really, I have way better things to do than target Fry as he claims. To bad for Fry I wont be intimidated by him. Btw, in this current case it becomes quite clear that Fry doesn't understand when he should use the rollback right anyways. And yes, policy allows me to revoce this userrigt: Users misusing the rollback tool to revert constructive edits may have their rollback permission revoked. The same applies for edit warring and/or content disputes. Removal can be done by an administrator at any time, at his or her own discretion. Natuur12 (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- If that's true, you should have left the decision to another admin instead of jumping into this to fast that, again, I will bet money you did so with glee. I don't like you, I told you I don't want anything more to do with you, all you do is threaten and harass me. Whether everyone thinks I should have the rollback or not doesn't matter, what matters is that it was YOU who removed it. Fry1989 eh? 18:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm being sarcastic. And you know Fry, where I come from we call people like you a bully. So stop bullying people around with strong language and powerplay. Your latest respond at Geagea is the perfect example of how you operate. If I where you I would keep my money in my pocket. You don't even know the meaning of the word harrasment. If you call this harrasment I would be happy to change spots. Natuur12 (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't really care what you call me, or what you think of me. You really think calling me a bully means ANYTHING to me when it comes from you??? YOU who tried to have me banned from an entire project simply for not speaking the native language??? You who thinks that everyone should stay in their place when I can prove I do invaluable work on hundreds of wikis with languages I don't speak? Try looking in a mirror, bully! Fry1989 eh? 18:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- In case anyone wonders, I am against people causing content disputes while they don't master the project langauge forcing people from a local community to use a language they don't fully master and excluding participants who don't speak the other language. Not agianst non native speakers adding images. But than again, respecting local community's is not one of Fry's strong points. Natuur12 (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- I knew you would try and claim that's what it was about, but it wasn't. I may not speak Dutch, but I can use a translator well enough to know what you actually said, and you said that since I don't speak Dutch I shouldn't even be there. You made it about what language I speak. You and the other rag-tag team of Dutch editors made me unwelcome there on one ground only, and it was that I don't speak Dutch. Further proof of this is that several of my edits, which you claim were "content disputes" or "violated policy", I have found Dutch users making my exact same edits again and nothing was done to them, they weren't reverted, they were't told it was against policy. It was ALWAYS about what language I speak. You call me a bully, when I was bullied off the Dutch wiki by you and Dqfn and Arch (who I might add here on Commons in a DR said that I belong in a sandbox with a rattle and didn't even get a warning about personal attacks when I hadn't attacked them at all!). I can prove all of this. So don't try and claim it was because I was violating policy when I can prove preferential treatment to native Dutch-speaking users. Fry1989 eh? 18:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- If it was really about content dispute, explain this: I made this edit, replacing File:Personal Standard of King Albert II of Belgium.svg with File:Royal Standard of King Albert II of Belgium.svg. The reason I did this is because the second version is part of a set and visually the same as the other flags. I believe that is a sound reasoning, but I was reverted under the claim of the BTNI policy, and this edit was one of the several which were used to claim I was causing content disputes and shouldn't be on the Dutch wiki. But what's this??? A Dutch-speaking user making the exact same edit to the exact same page a few months later. Were they reverted? Were they told it was against BTNI? I don't see that anywhere on their talk page or the article history. There are other examples too. The use of BTNI and the claim of me causing "content disputes" was always a thinly veiled attempt at linguistic bullying. Fry1989 eh? 18:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- You can't explain it can you? I'll give you a free one, maybe Biopics' edit was overlooked. So what about this one? I moved the image to the right side like all other coat of arms articles, and get reverted. It takes a Dutch-speaking user to put it back on the right side. Once again when I make the edit I get reverted and a claim of violating policy, but when a Dutch-speaking user does it that doesn't happen. Once is an oversight, multiple times is deliberate and targeted. Fry1989 eh? 19:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Natuur12: , I'm still waiting on a reasonable explanation of how Dutch-speaking users and I can make the same edits but only I am reverted and told I'm violating policy other than simply because of linguistic prejudice. Fry1989 eh? 20:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- You can't explain it can you? I'll give you a free one, maybe Biopics' edit was overlooked. So what about this one? I moved the image to the right side like all other coat of arms articles, and get reverted. It takes a Dutch-speaking user to put it back on the right side. Once again when I make the edit I get reverted and a claim of violating policy, but when a Dutch-speaking user does it that doesn't happen. Once is an oversight, multiple times is deliberate and targeted. Fry1989 eh? 19:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- If it was really about content dispute, explain this: I made this edit, replacing File:Personal Standard of King Albert II of Belgium.svg with File:Royal Standard of King Albert II of Belgium.svg. The reason I did this is because the second version is part of a set and visually the same as the other flags. I believe that is a sound reasoning, but I was reverted under the claim of the BTNI policy, and this edit was one of the several which were used to claim I was causing content disputes and shouldn't be on the Dutch wiki. But what's this??? A Dutch-speaking user making the exact same edit to the exact same page a few months later. Were they reverted? Were they told it was against BTNI? I don't see that anywhere on their talk page or the article history. There are other examples too. The use of BTNI and the claim of me causing "content disputes" was always a thinly veiled attempt at linguistic bullying. Fry1989 eh? 18:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- I knew you would try and claim that's what it was about, but it wasn't. I may not speak Dutch, but I can use a translator well enough to know what you actually said, and you said that since I don't speak Dutch I shouldn't even be there. You made it about what language I speak. You and the other rag-tag team of Dutch editors made me unwelcome there on one ground only, and it was that I don't speak Dutch. Further proof of this is that several of my edits, which you claim were "content disputes" or "violated policy", I have found Dutch users making my exact same edits again and nothing was done to them, they weren't reverted, they were't told it was against policy. It was ALWAYS about what language I speak. You call me a bully, when I was bullied off the Dutch wiki by you and Dqfn and Arch (who I might add here on Commons in a DR said that I belong in a sandbox with a rattle and didn't even get a warning about personal attacks when I hadn't attacked them at all!). I can prove all of this. So don't try and claim it was because I was violating policy when I can prove preferential treatment to native Dutch-speaking users. Fry1989 eh? 18:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- In case anyone wonders, I am against people causing content disputes while they don't master the project langauge forcing people from a local community to use a language they don't fully master and excluding participants who don't speak the other language. Not agianst non native speakers adding images. But than again, respecting local community's is not one of Fry's strong points. Natuur12 (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't really care what you call me, or what you think of me. You really think calling me a bully means ANYTHING to me when it comes from you??? YOU who tried to have me banned from an entire project simply for not speaking the native language??? You who thinks that everyone should stay in their place when I can prove I do invaluable work on hundreds of wikis with languages I don't speak? Try looking in a mirror, bully! Fry1989 eh? 18:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm being sarcastic. And you know Fry, where I come from we call people like you a bully. So stop bullying people around with strong language and powerplay. Your latest respond at Geagea is the perfect example of how you operate. If I where you I would keep my money in my pocket. You don't even know the meaning of the word harrasment. If you call this harrasment I would be happy to change spots. Natuur12 (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- If that's true, you should have left the decision to another admin instead of jumping into this to fast that, again, I will bet money you did so with glee. I don't like you, I told you I don't want anything more to do with you, all you do is threaten and harass me. Whether everyone thinks I should have the rollback or not doesn't matter, what matters is that it was YOU who removed it. Fry1989 eh? 18:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Firstly, I have better things to do with my time than targetting you. And yes, I warned you twice not to violate Commons policy lately. Threatening to reupload an image because you believe that the undel request is not closed fast enough by your standards is a no go and abuse of the system. If people believe that I should not gave him a fair warning that knowingly violating Commons policy would end up with having him blocked feel free to tell me. If speedy keeping the nomination of an image as out of scope while it is in use because Fry believes that the Japanese community should not use that image and giving Fry another fair warning is wrong, please let me know. If warning someone that I will enforce Commons policy if they violate it makes me an involved admin than I am guilty. But for the rest, really, I have way better things to do than target Fry as he claims. To bad for Fry I wont be intimidated by him. Btw, in this current case it becomes quite clear that Fry doesn't understand when he should use the rollback right anyways. And yes, policy allows me to revoce this userrigt: Users misusing the rollback tool to revert constructive edits may have their rollback permission revoked. The same applies for edit warring and/or content disputes. Removal can be done by an administrator at any time, at his or her own discretion. Natuur12 (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your attempt at psycho-analysing me, Dr. Magog. I should also thank you for nebulously saying "it's about time" for something of which there is still no evidence I have previously misused this tool. If you're gonna say something like "it's about time", try to be more specific. Third, I don't really use the tool so I couldn't care half as much as you seem to believe I do, my issue is with who removed my access to the tool. Natuur12 is indeed an involved party and their action is inappropriate and that doesn't change just because you think they were right in doing so. I piss you off all the time and I'm sure it's mutual when I say I despise you, but had you removed my access to the tool I would not have been able to "cry everyone's too involved to punish me" as you claim, because you and I don't really have that much in the way of interactions and certainly none that are recent or involve unnecessary threats. Fry1989 eh? 04:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Rollback is very trivial (not a power at all, since it doesn't allow you to do anything you couldn't do without it, but a mere convenience), so removing the rollback ability is almost purely symbolic... AnonMoos (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, and there obviously was an abuse of rollback. --A.Savin 08:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- +1. Obvious abuse of rollback tools. -- Geagea (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oh yes, the obligatory Geagea hates Fry and naturally supports any punishments they get. Piss off you. Fry1989 eh? 18:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Natuur12 made a good decision, removing rollback right. I support that decision. Taivo (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- +1. Obvious abuse of rollback tools. -- Geagea (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- While I don't think anyone with a history of editwarring should hold the rollback right, I agree with AnonMoos that removing it at this point is mostly symbolic – rollback is not a "license to editwar until revoked", and IMO fundamentally violating the principle of not reinstating contested changes without consensus should have consequences that go beyond said revocation. Otherwise, I don't see how to resolve this conflict without ending up being de-facto rollbacked (unexplained undo) again. FDMS 4 11:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- And yet you claim you wanted an explanation for my categorising? All you want is a reason to accuse me of things. Fry1989 eh? 18:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- You don't have to explain your reverts because that's some sort of personal liking of mine, but a basic principle of constructive collaboration. FDMS 4 20:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- And yet you claim you wanted an explanation for my categorising? All you want is a reason to accuse me of things. Fry1989 eh? 18:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, and there obviously was an abuse of rollback. --A.Savin 08:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)