For contacting me by email, please see also fr:Utilisateur:verdy_p, or use my talk page at fr:Discussion Utilisateur:verdy_p (on my home wiki): I don't want to monitor changes in all wikis, notably with emails formatted in various languages depending on the source wiki, or from unadministered small wikis harvested by spammers, or dummy "welcome" messages sent by bots). You can write me on my talk page of any Wikimedia wiki, I'll be notified from any Wikimedia wiki (because I'm connected with a SUL-enabled account) even if you can't send emails from all wikis. You should still be able to send emails from my home wiki (preferably in English or French if you can, but you should try to use some automatic online translators for your posts). Thanks are always welcome: many users forget to do that. But this helps proving that our work is appreciated, and that we just try to do cooperatively our best on this wiki, hopefully without breaking, cancelling or blindly reverting all the patient work made by us or by others, and that some of our possible errors or disagreements can be fixed or negociated easily, without causing major troubles with a few intolerant Wikimedia users (who forget the community rules, and "overreact" for what is a minor issue or just a disagreement of personal opinions on specific topics). There should always exist a way to coexist even in case of disagreement. So don't forget the neutrality and politeness rules of Wikimedia (see for example Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines). Please sign and date your posts on my talk page (so that they can also be archived correctly): Just add four tildes ~~~~ at end of your message, and it will look like this signature (with your name and the new date): verdy_p (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Establishments_in_the_Americas_by_year has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
A mon avis c'est quasi équivalent, la fonction du module existe à destination des modules eux-mêmes (car c'est alors moins couteux que d'invoquer le parseur MediaWiki depuis Lua pour traiter un #ifexist). Bref la fonction est supportée pour Lua, mais pas utile pour les pages ou modèles wiki.
De plus la fonction fileExists vérifie aussi l'existence de métadonnées pour les fichiers (ce que ne fait pas #ifexist qui ne teste que l'existence de la page wiki de description: #ifexist peut retourner vrai pour un fichier supprimé car sa page de description wiki existe encore).
Donc #ifexist est l'équivalent d'un "pageExist", moins fort que "fileExist" qui accède réellement au fichier indiqué par le nom de page.
En terme de coût sur "le" serveur, la fonction Lua "fileExist" fait un accès supplémentaire (pas à la base de données wiki, mais au système de fichiers externe, ce ne sont pas les mêmes serveurs, il n'y a aucun coût supplémentaire sur le serveur de base de données) : il le fait pour identifier le contenu (avec un parseur de fichier), vérifier son type et obtenir d'autres métadonnées. verdy_p (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, which uses British English as its language. Please tell me why you have moved it to the United States spelling, unless overnight we have been invaded by Donald Trump, but it's not appearing on the news channels here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An I still don't see that supposed error, not even in the history ! Can you point me to the correct page ? initially I thought I may have clicked on "United States" below "United Kingdom" but that's not the case. I've looked at my own history and really think you have "dreamed" or misread. verdy_p (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So you REALLY don't read correctly !!! That's what I thought. The change here is orthographic ('s' to 'z'), unified for navigation boxes (both terms are kept as aliases) ! verdy_p (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see now there's been some previous discussion - all of which is wrong. Not a good idea to piss the English off about their own language, which we kindly gave to the rest of the world. However, I'll consider a CfD for the whole lot. And I can read, thanks, so don't get nowty with me.. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You agressivity and repeated insults are not very welcoming to justify your "request". I've not deleted anything. And this is is not something specific to English: everywhere on Commons there's a single language except for propernames (the only exception being the local orthography prefered for toponyms, if there's a single official language in that place). verdy_p (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For your information, I inverted the redirect, but I'm not sure it will work with all navigation boxes, that may fail to locate the alternate British orthography (so that's why the redirect is kept, including for categories).
Before, there was no redirection at all from the US orthography, so these pages could not even be located by nav boxes, and the entities were then omitted/not listed in navboxes.
And this still applies to pages/categories named for "the United Kingdom", which can't be linked from related pages/categories for other countries not using the British orthography.
I'll look for solutions in navboxes to allow to locate orthographic aliases for "prefix=" and "suffix=" in those navboxes (for now they only support a single unified orthography, and in Commons it is still only the US orthography for international pages across countries/territories).
Hi, please be aware that disambiguation pages at Commons are only allowed in Category namespace, not in Gallery namespace. Jcb (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which galleries ? And there has always been disambiguation "pages" (not "galeries") in the root namespace, because this helps locating incorrect links used in galery pages and pointing to an unrelated "galery". verdy_p (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note this is documented in the template used in these disambiguation "pages", which correctly makes the distinction between categories and other pages. verdy_p (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, at Commons we don't do disambiguation in Gallery namespace (or 'root namespace'). We only have them in Category namespace. Please be aware that there are some differences between Wikipedia and Commons, this is one of them. Jcb (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen such "requirement" (documented where?). And the Template:Disambig says exactly the opposite (since very long!).
And I don't understand your rationale. These disambiguation pages have always been there on Commons, exactly to avoid linking to the wrong places (there are many homonyms in Commons, notably for toponyms, that are very likely to have their galleries, or many generic objects, or for artists). verdy_p (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected the documentation. The existing "and additionally to Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories if they contain items." should have been made clear though that this is about categories. We have had several discussions about this over the past years and the outcome has been, without exception, that disambiguation is only accepted in Category namespace. There is currently not a single disambiguation page in Gallery namespace. Jcb (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's ,never been any such discussion, that users were informend. I can only conclude that admins (like you) decided themselves to delete these pages silinetly (because such deletions are made silently without any notification to users that created them)... IMHO, this is an abuse of their privileges. verdy_p (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There have been discussions at all kinds of noticeboard about this, including several (failed) undeletion requests, in which many users participated. You may have missed them, but that does not mean that they did not take place. Jcb (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not a public discussion but a discussion in the Administrators board (which is selective: most users are'nt admionsitrators and will visit this page only for specific requests to them or when asked to visit it). So this is not a formal information for users, and this was then NOT really decided in the open way that Wikimedia requires.
My conclusion remains valid: adminsitrators (ab)used their privilege to decice to suppress them silently without asking to the community. verdy_p (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)1[reply]
I don't care whether you may consider your own conclusion valid, still disambiguation pages are not allowed in gallery namespace. Do not create them. Jcb (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You don't care, but I care about the proof that such collective decision was made correctly. Otherwise it is only your opinion, as valid as mine. So I'm still not inclined to follow your advice, because you did not convince me with real evidences. verdy_p (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And still no proof as of today after you blocked me immediately some few hours after your illegitimate order (with a fake, fabricated, evasive reason, only intended to hide your administrative action to the supervision by other admins that may refrain you of repeating it). I had already taken since long the message about galleries, but this was not a gallery page and rules about galleries do not apply to such page made in strict compliance with project goals, and with policies and documentation published since many years. I respect your opinion, you can respect mine, this is absolutely a refusal by me of adhering to existing "rules" or "procedures" (and until now your alledged "rule" is unproven: I may be excused by ignorance, but when I ask you about it and you refuse to give evidence, except your own messages posted to other people, your ignorance cannot be an excuse; it is a formal rule for any admin to not abuse his granted role, and to not harass or eject other contributors, based only on his own personal opinion; your role does not belong to you, it is temporarily granted by community, owned and supervized by the community that can revoke you, and supervized as well by other admins, if they are aware of what you're doing). verdy_p (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Why you marked Denmark, Spain, France and the Nederlands as countries which are 'partly located in Europe'? For me, these countries are fully located in Eupore, and we have only 3 countries which are located in Eupore but also have territories in other part of world: Russia, Turkey and Kazakhstan. --Brateevsky {talk} 08:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because of their overseas (which are formally part of the sovereign country, even if they have specific laws and do not necessarily apply all the national laws).
Note: there are still missing items, UK should also be listed; there should also be a second mark for countries/territories that may be considered either in Europe or Asia (Cyprus, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaidjan), and those in Europe or America (Iceland). The marks are intended to remain very small in the list, only the final note says what it is.
Note that this note is still not translated (the translations are present but not working for now, a fix will be done for that in the module).
Another thing to change will be to support alternate orthographies for prefix/suffix (basically needed for British English vs. American English), so they can be found too in international lists (We've got complains about users that want to see the British orthogreaphy for areas in UK or their overseas, the same occurs for alternate orthographies used in India, or when some generic terms in English are incorrectly interpreted legally in another country that prefer another one to the default "state", "country" with which they are assimilated). verdy_p (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer! I understand about oversea territories. But I think we should devide concepts of coutries with oversea territories and partly european countries with territories which locates in Asia. I mean, for example, French Guiana (which is overseas department) and, for example, Omsk Oblast of Russia (part of Russia, but locates not in Europe) or asian part of Turkey. I'll try to make 2 types of labels to devide these concepts. --Brateevsky {talk} 08:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These templates have a given usage which is still in extension, not everything is covered. There are other goals to meet, but thill they allow ordering and checking the consistency of classifications in Commons; they help locating similar concepts, and detect the variants that exist in various places, then refine the rest of the classification; Commons having been used then as a useful testbed to implement the more formal classification in Wikidata, based oin real experience instead of "apriori" assumptions based on theories or preferences or desires/motivations, possibly non neutral and then very incomplete to describe the real world.
Using them has considerably helped ordering the concepts, and helped also to improve the classifications in other wikis (now via Wikidata as a helper instead of the English Wikipedia which had severe biases caused only by the imprecision/ambiguity of the lexems in the human language and the difficult to translate it).
We can go on refining the concepts. But these module-based templates, using Lua data modules and Wikidata as a service, are now easier to maintain than the pure-wiki templates that were initially used, and that are much less easily extensible. And they are much faster to render on the server and adapt to many more situations than before.
Note: I don't want to split the sets with separate labels, it's just easier to add some small marks, add a note at end of the template and keep the list compact and simple to read. Multiplying the sections will not make the templates easy, they'll be verbose and will display labels even when not necessary because there's nothing to display after them (this is what happened with the 100%-wiki templates). The data modules can now handle contextual marks and conditional sections, while generating just the minimum needed for readers and allowing easy navigation. verdy_p (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note there are 9 countries in Europe marked like this, but this is for different status about their non-European parts (not easy to formulate in a single label): DK ES FR GB IS KZ NL RU TR. Detailing these external status is not relevant the European template itself (these status are covered by labels in other templates for other continents).
I see for now no effective need to use two distinct marks, and then render two distinct labels at the bottom of the lists (one for each mark associated to these "non-European" parts, it's not relevant to explain that these are mainland parts or overseas parts, as this does not change the fact these parts are outside geographic Europe).
However, I see an interest about adding a distinct mark for countries which may be considered both entirely in Europe, or entirely in Asia, depending on definitions (example: Cyprus, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaidjan) and I think it should be noted because they will be listed simulteneously in the two continents as "countries" with the same status. The case of Iceland is problematic: it is culturally entirely in Europe, but geographically located with parts in Europe and in North America (the limit passes in the middle of the island that seats exactly on the mid-Oceanic fracture used by geographs/topographs, but there are several possible fracture lines, not very well defined, because this is still a fracture in formation, the island being in fact just at the northern tip of the main mid-Atlantic fracture, with the north of the island subject to land some compression, where the most active volcanos are located, and the south to expansion/separation). See Category:Maps of Icelandic volcanoes. verdy_p (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see from your edits that you didn't understand what that {{docu}} has to solve, it is trandcuded from 6 different templates.
Due to your changes, now the lists of the parameters "incl" and "case" are broken. Please do not destroy my work! -- sarang♥사랑05:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fact what was broken (the way you specify the alias for incl) was ALREADY broken in your own edit. This bug was NOT from my edit but from you, and I just fixed it: DON'T use unclosed tags in parameters (this is what caused rendering problems in transclusions from other template pages), use "5aliases=" instead. I also reapplied your recent additions. verdy_p (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked for a duration of 1 week[edit]
You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 week for the following reason: disruptive edits after warnings.
If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.
Disruptive edits ??? I made that clear with the person that did not see his own error, if this is what you speak about. He posted a single "warning", but did not allow any reply (so there was no talk at all from him). I had not broken at all what he made, and explained him waht was really wrong in what he wote itself (a broken syntax with unclosed HTML tags, that HE introduced). I had asked him what was wrong, but he just noticed you before even replying to my question. He never demonstrated what could have been an error from me (I did not find any one, I only found one from him, which was limited to just a few characters of markup). verdy_p (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This block has nothing to do with that layout issue and I am convinced that you are well aware of that. You are blocked because you refuse to comply with our established procedures, stubbornly creating disambiguation pages in wrong namespace although you were instructed several times not to do so. Jcb (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or if this is about the British orthography (vs American orthography), this is already solved with that user because we found a solution that satisfies both (there was no error at all, it was just a matter of missing redirect to support the alternate orthography).
I note you've posted this notice by changing its position on this page, so there's no clear justification for this block, or who was involved with the alledged "disruption".
If any one can be blocked just because of a temporary disagreement (that certainly happens with ANY ONE, especially with intensive editors) and no way to discuss, where does Wikimedia go ? Only admins like you can do what they want and be protected from such blocks because of disagreements?
Have you ever tried to discuss? "Disruptive" means nothing in this context. "Disputive" in your sense means: "nobody change refine the work made by others", and Wikimedia pages are only owned by their initial authors, even if theses are not their user pages!). Where is then the "community" in Wikimedia, if anyone must work absolutely alone and then owns the public pages that others can't change (even for a single or very few characters and no change at all in meaning)?
So now you say that this is because of disambiguation, but those I made were for really incorrectly classified pages (homonyms) in categories, or links going to the wrong place (because an ambiguous page was moved to a more precise name but left with links pointing to it.
I have also asked you multiple times to provide an evidence that such disambiguation was disallowed (and a page explaining it and giving rationale, and solutions). You've failed to show ANY evidence for your alledged "established procedures" (and don't pretend I did not ask you). And still the absence of disambiguation causes more harms than it helps. So which disambiguation are your talking about and that you think is "disruptive"?
This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion.
Request reason: "for the reason just exposed above: no justification of "disruption", and lack of responses from Jcb after asking him several times evidence of such "policy on disambiguation pages", which I found nowhere. I jsut used what was documented and supported on Commons since years, and working like on all other wikis !"
Decline reason: "The block has expired. I did not close the request earlier, because there was too much text below the request, it was easier for me to wait until block expires than to read all this. Taivo (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)"[reply]
Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.
You still don't want to show any proof of the alledged "procedure" (which contradicts what is in Commons:Galleries and on Commons:Redirect (and on many other pages), and what was since years in the relevant templates, until you changed it recently, without asking anyone). So you are inventing alone these community procedures, modifying the Wikimedia policies for your own goals or satisfactions.
You've received complaints from many users because you massively deleted lots of pages (including disambiguation pages where were not intended to be "galleries", but a list of links to relevant but more exact topics).
I did not create disruptive "galleries", but really very few disambiguation pages (compare it with the massive deletions you perform silently with a bot) because they were justified by existing confusion and misclassification. I used exactly the documented procedures.
This cannot be considered "disruptive" (except for your own opinion). The only "proof" you give was a talk on a temporary notice board (not a public discussion) where you were also alone to give a rationale, but theis was still not a formal vote and nothing was changed to the documentation and policies. So I think you are inventing the "procedure" that I should have followed.
As an admin you should really be educative if I was mispointed and did not see something, but you gave NO hinting pointer at all about this "procedure".
Where did I say I don't want to comply with them? I want proofs that you still refuse to give. And you cannot vote against an appeal for a block that you applied yourself (where do we appeal to the same judge?) I appeal because there's a need for someone else to investigate what I did, and what you did yourself (and what you did not want to do). verdy_p (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am perfectly allowed to tell my point of view on your unblock request. Please be aware that critisizing blocking admin normally does not get you unblocked. The best chances are when you promise to refrain from creating disambiguation pages in any namespace different from the Category namespaces. If you don't, you are unlikely to get unblocked. Jcb (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your admin role does not entitle you any right to make such direct and abusive order (asking me "to promise to refrain" doing something that is perfectly legit, in scope and strict adherence to the project goals, and really expected by other users, and this is proven by facts) and to reject at the same time all kinds of discussion about your order. Your order does not comply at all with any approved rule or simply the common sense. So I can perfectly criticize your unjustified and severely damageable decision, and similar decisions you took unlawfully against others (this is not a personal critic against you personally, but about your abuse of your granted role, and not against any admin in general; but if you think so, this is a false interpretation by completely unfair generalization). verdy_p (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which disambiguation page are you speaking about ? Once again you don't reply. You just give your opinion without justifiying it by evidence. (And NO evidence at all that I made that AFTER your notificiation, which makes your reason for blocking, "disruptive edits after warning", not only very fuzzy but simply false).
And I can give (like you) any opinion about things that are NOT found in any written, discussed, and commonly approved policies. We can even talk about these policies whan they exist (but this does not mean we don't want to follow them, just that we disagree with them: this is what motivates changes or refinement of these policies which have to follow a common interest, and not the interest of just one priviledged user forcing others to follow him). You talk about "disruption", but for now the only disrupted user is you and you don't care about the fact others do not know when a link is ambiguous (so you force maintainers to make the cleanup after the garbage that this absence of disambiguations causes in so many pages on Commons: you've just killed alone a useful tool that was developped for all wikis and implemented since long also in Commons, and saved much time to editors as well as readers). verdy_p (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
#Gallery pages shows that I told you several times not to create disambiguation pages in Gallery namespace. After the first time you did it again. Then 4 June 22:03 I clearly instructed not to create these pages, but 4 hours later you did it again. We do have thousands of disambiguation pages at Commons, but all of them are in the right namespace, see Category:Disambiguation. Jcb (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ALL your evidence links are invalid (they go nowhere)!. They are just proofs of things you've done yourself, not what I did and no evidence demonstrated with the community involved in a regular policy process. verdy_p (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I DO want to follow the procedures. But at least they must exist. So they must be available somewhere we can find and not just temporary discussion between a pair of users (including you) on a blackboard whose content is removed one week later (and not trackable after that beause even if it is "archived", it is on a diferent page; and there's no way to search efficiently in long blackboards, just ordered by dates of topics, we cannot read all of them)! And if someone asks you to give a pointer to these pages, you MUST give it (this is a requirement for you as an admin!): we cannot just trust you because you are an admin, and you give a personal injucntion and then threatens others users or massively delete their work without any form of justification and notifications (like you do, using a "speedy delete", but without respecting the documented COM:SD procedure, that you do not even want to that to respect): deletions are never signaled to anyone, don't abuse it. verdy_p (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation Flowchart v1.0 (sic!) - created initially for English Wikipedia, just as a quick draft in discussion (made in Windows Paint). It's completely unreadable: no arrowheads (so you don't know how to navigate i), colorcoded (but colors really hard to distinguish); this is just spaghettis and should not be listed at all in Commons category (except possibly as a joke)! It's a fact, there's never been any policy forbidding these disambiguation pages, but many talks about why they were needed, and about how to name them consistently, and tools developed or adapted, and working now perfectly with them (including wiki editors and pybots).
Regarding the case of Miranda, it was misdirecting by a redirect to a single page which was incorrect (only the small Italian town when there are tons of synonyms): I passed some significant time to look at the many contents that were misclassified and completely unrelated to the Italian city. Miranda is first a person name (surname, or given name for women) then the name of an internationnally recognized hero, then the name given to many pieces of arts, but it is also the name of much more important places than the Italian city. This created havoc. I did not create the disambigatiuon page, I edited the existing page (a forced redirect) because there were many other possible targets.
And the main namespace is not just a gallery namespaces: it is used for galleries, and the policy about galeries applies to them, but not to disambiguation pages (mere list of links) that are approved since long and documented in many pages (which constitute the existing "procedure", which is easy to find unlike what you alledge). But visibly you've decided to unilaterally change the existing policy and apply yours by force.
Disambiguation pages (created outside category namespace) are also listed in "Category:Disambiguation", so this is clearly not a problem. If this ever causes you a problem because of some bot you use, we canplace them in a separate subcategory (like what is done on Wikipedia), but this is actually not needed, just there because it may be more convenient to avoid seeing two lists, one below the other in the list of members. And note that there are FILES in that category (which should probably not be there if they have a media content associated to them, unless that content is a dummy placeholder, e.g. a blank image, or an image showing a visible statement that it is ambiguous, but this should be very exceptional; note that FILES cannot be redirects even if their wiki description page could be, but they shouldn't because FILES cannot be renamed).
And if you think that such policy exists, then you are oversimlifying the problem, as what is shown in this flow chart on the right, whose difficulty to read and ambiguity is evident (visibly made on purpose so no one understands it, and so can do what they think will be useful for many!). It is not simple and nothing has been decided against them on Commons.
So for a single useful page (that already existed, but had a misleading redirect), you block me (you did not even create that page but then forced a reverse on it, keeping the misleading redirection as is, even if it was correct even in Wikidata and other wikis for interlinking, and its disambiguated name was also consistant across other wikis, including in Italian for that Italian town, and in English; all wikis, except very small ones, have chosen to make the unqualified name a disambiguation page: what is a "disrupting" for you?) verdy_p (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now I claim the undeletion of Miranda that you destroyed (this page still has links pointing to it, I have already fixed a lot of them to go to the appropriate page), which was absolutely not "disruptive", and not a "gallery" (so the policy on galery pages does not apply to it), and conforming to the published and approved procedures about disambiguation pages: it just replaced an existing, but incorrect link relevant for just one of the topics (a single place) which just caused havoc (e.g. Brasilian soccer player named "Miranda", files about various Miranda places outside Italy, various statues about the same famous person incorrectly mixed between countries of location, all users being directed to Italy when that person was Spanish and Venezuelian, and a Venezuelian president and hero celebrated in multiple places in America and Europe), blocking all users to find the relevant topics (which was not even linked on the target gallery page for the Italian town). That town was also linked from the page about the American state, and it blocked the regular navigation between these states: it had to be fixed and correctly indexed. verdy_p (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is deleted, now any one can recreate that page to put a gallery here under that name, even if it is ambiguous, and then later any other pages tryuing to link to that name will go to an unrelated topic, not the one they expected (and it won't be signaled to these creators in the wiki editor, like it does when someone points to a disambiguating page; bots cannot detect these other uses that must be corrected only manually). Now that new page may still be renamed, but the redirect will be kept, so this does not change the problem until the redirect is finally converted to a disambiguation page just listing multiple possible targets.
This page met all existing criterias: expected (as demonstrated by existing links), useful (for searches or at last as a transitional way to build other pages and find relevant links), built according to published documentation, meeting all existing enforceable policies (not copyvio for example), unique (not massively introduced), also necessary at least transitionnaly to fix other pages and avoid red links in existing ones, and not creating havoc or unexpected results in other pages. Creating or editing it to match all the expectations (dound by patient search) is certainly not "disruptive" and not a valid cause for being blocked abusively by a single admin reintrepreting the policies or inventing new ones that have never existed as such. I did not cause any demonstrated trouble to anyone with that single page (but the deletion of tyhat page by Jcb certainly caused public troubles. verdy_p (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting massively the disambiguation pages (like what you did without any community consented policy) is what is really disruptive (and highly damageable to Commons and for all its users). So the main namespace can perfectly (and really should) contain disambiguation pages and not just galeries (whose name must be disambiguated). Disambiguation pages in the main namespace are managed exactly like those in the "Category:" namespace, using exactly the same {{Disambig}} template (which autocategorizes correctly both kinds of pages since always, and the way is was documented). verdy_p (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why did I do that? it was part of the job needed to disambiguate many places in South America (sometimes elsewhere) and using consistant naming that would allow to avoid such confusion for the future. It was beneficial to users. You still don't see the interest, but the interest is easy to demonstrate for that page whose name is frequently used but with many unrelated meanings. And it was not at all a massive edit.
It had no problems in terms of functionalities (unless you show that it causes a problem for some tool that is not documented, most probably the private tool you use yourself on Commons to run your bot, which should then be debugged by you because it cannot be inspected by the Community; it's quite easy for tools to detect these pages on other wikis, your tool can do the same: they detect that the disambiguation pages are categorized in a Disambiguation category, done by the template but can also be done with an explicit category tagging in that page, and this is easily detect by the MediaWIki API without even having to parse all pages). Your reasons for banning those pages are still mysterious, untold to others. But not based on any existing policy. verdy_p (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like also to ask the suspension (for the same time as me) of admin rights of "Jcb", for his clear abuse of privileges, clearly unjustified administrative sanction, refusal to give liable evidences (also attempts to hide his own actions), his refusal to comply to *existing* open and documented policies, and for silently changing them without an open and traceable discussion with the Community (it would be a minimum because of its massive and silent deletions of pages not violating any policy, and repeated threats sent to other regular users, without notifying other admins of what he did; I think after looking at his history, that his actions are more destructive and damageable to Commons than helpful, and cause an ununessary growth of workloads to be performed for maintainers that act legitimately but can now no longer work safely without such threat, and cause difficulties for contributors, that now no longer attempt to classify their uploads, this also reduces the number of active visitors and reusers of Commons contents). verdy_p (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still request the cancelation of the unilateral decision made by Jcb, he has clearly demonstrated above that the reason given was completely false (not "disruptive" at all) and was then completely unjustified and then was a very clear abuse of Commons policies on the role of admins.
Jcb is blocking legitimate users for making legit, non deceptive edits, and does not justify his (massive) use of the administrative "delete" action, which is also a violation of Commons policies (he does not even use the "speedy delete" procedure that should first be requested formally like for regular users: being an admin is not an excuse for not using it, so that a second admin can review the request to accept it). Jcb's actions on Commons is really disruptive, because it is voluntarily destructive, and then enforced by an extra measure (with thread on users for not creating legit useful contents (which do not violate any policy and matches perfectly the Commons goals): he blocks users doing any creation, even if this creation is not massive, not spam, not advertizing, not deceptive, useful and intended to help others, not violating any legal right (copyright or other).
As Jcb persists and does not want to admit that it was at least an error from him (that he could have corrected himself with excuses), so this is a voluntary, insistant, persistant, proven, and repeated breach by Jcb of Commons policies on the role of admins; which should then justify that Jcb has its admin role revoked (or at least suspended for the same time than what he applied against me with false reason). verdy_p (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where is that a policy (especially about this talk page)? It's just part of a default option. I've never used the major/minor option, like almost everyone on wikis, it's extremely rarely used (even by you or by Jcb). We are told that talk pages are freely editable by their owner, that can manage their content themselves (like I do for archiving purpose, others just erase old posts and don't mark that as a major action as well). If I follow you logic, you are then requesting to be blocked... Because you also don't change that option.
This option has not changed at all since 13 years (on this wiki), and that's the 1st time ever that I see a remark about it in any wiki. verdy_p (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An I confirm almost no one use it (or very rarely and never consistently). That option was introduced in 2004, but an a informal way, the defaut was changed several times. There's only been a few very old personal "essays" written about it, nobody ever tried to make it a policy because of that. Instead MediaWiki can analyze the change and report the number of items or volume changed and has added the support for diffs. So that option was always used for the user's own discretion, if they want to use it to manage their edit lists when searching in them specific edits they want to continue later. I use another useful option to follow changes in every edited page. And there are various editing tools and Gadgets (including on this wiki) that do not ask for the setting of this option. verdy_p (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also you should avoid flaming words like "syndrome" which is obviously offensive (clearly associated to illness) and does not help resolve this topic. And don't mix topics because your remark is irrelevant (not about me, and not about the reason of my blocking). And you never used the normal behvor which is to kindly ask and discuss something I could change (which is still not mandatory and that is not even specific to me). If you want, you may draft a recommendation and discuss it in an open area (not a temporary noticeboard used by a small commity), so that others can give their point of view and refine your draft. Then ask for a vote (announce it in the appropriate public place, that every commons users, including users from other wikis, can see so they can participate and also discuss it in their own local communities) and start educating users that this should be the new best practice. And you'll then need some reasonnable time before you transform that in a policy (here also you'll need a second vote, but before that the documentation has to be fixed, a relevant page must be created to track the topic or its future revision by keeping its associated talk page open to discussions; that documentation page can have a shortcut created, like other policies, that can then be used to tag edits being performed by others according t othe policy or by admins enforcing the policy).
Without all this, admins have no special right to force the revert of an edit, or to abuse the "speed delete" procedure (in an accelerated way, i.e. without leaving any trace), for what is NOT made according to a regular documented policy (spam, copyvio, etc.), and is not deceptive (relevant for the topic, made according to existing best practices as they were documented), and have no right to threaten other users: in that case they must act like any other regular user (being an admin does not give them any right to escape the normal policies), they must be friendly, be educative, and admit that there may be unexpected errors from any one, including from admins themselves (these can be easily corrected once they are detected, but not after the page was abusively deleted).
Admins are not "directors" and Wikimedians are not applying to a job under a hierarchic supervision, there's no such "submissions" of wikimedians to admins in the Wikimedia contributor terms, and in fact all admins are part of the community that accepted or rejected their candidature to do things that only regular cannot do themselves (such as deletion, because it would expose the project to severe troubles and very disruptive behavior of the whole site, or because it would compromize severely the project neutrality). And Admins must remember that all policies can be changed (except those that are requirements by law, to which the Wikimedia Foundation, and all Wikimedians, including admins, are bound), by a public review and analysis of the problems they cause: solutions to these problems have to be evaluated and their impact measured by some way (so any policy should have a trial period to see if it really works as intended and is not detrimental to the projects, and notably to the participation and reputation).
So please be relevant. I still ask for proofs.
Even after the end of the block I will continue contesting the decision (don't say I'm not allowed to do that), because it is a very general problem that concerns all Wikimedians. It's clear that the only "procedures" that were not respected were not in my alledged "edits", but in what a single admin did by voluntarily violating several existing policies (and massively against other users) in order to decide alone what he thinks is the best in their eyes, and not take into account the legitimate rights and interests of me and others, and without respecting their work. And repeated abusive admin actions, like this one, are severely detrimental to this wiki, and to all Wikimedia projects in general because Commons is (along now with Wikidata) a shared asset used and needed directly by everyone, in all local communities.
The roles granted to admins by Wikimedians, and the way they use their privileges are constantly subject to scrutinization (so admins must not attempt to hide them, except by legal requirement, and it's the WMF that will inform them or will act directly to hide these actions), and even to criticism (with respect of their person) and discussion by any one in Wikimedia, it is not something they can decide thermelves or in their small group. When it will be demonstrated that I should have not to be blocked for this current issue, I'll ask the removal of this blocking period from my public history because it was unfair and cannot be used as a base for justifying any other future actions by anyone, if that does admin does not want to do that, I'll need an ombudsman and will invoke my legitimate right to the group created for that by the Foundation. verdy_p (talk) 07:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo: I still contest that past decision, and even if it has expired, I still request the deletion of that decision from my history, because it was still completely unjustified and Jcb was clearly wrong and clearly abused his admin position, giving a false reason that remains listed (and will continue to be listed forever, even if this talk is deleted or archived). Note that Jcb used the one-week duration because it was looking at this history, and saw a past decision (many years ago), which was ALSO non-justified. But admins don't care about the real history (if they see any entry they don't think at all, and overreact, immediately choosing the next duration length; in this case the one-week blocking duration was also excessive for a single page that did not disrupt anything).
If any decision was demonstrated to be unjustified, it should be clearly removed (by an admin too) from the user's block history, it really matters for the future ! And any admin that took that unjustified decision should have an entry added to his own "public" history for his bad decisions (this is necessary to make sure that admins will no longer abuse their position and other Wikimedians can really evaluate their current role and then decide to revoke that role and give it to someone else that will be more careful). I do think now that too many Wikimedians have been ejected (some permanently) by such past abuses from admins (various only for questions related their personal opinions and disagreements, or because some admin wanted to influence a vote and maintain his current role) and will never return to Wikimedia, that is now synonymous (in their point of view) as really untrustable and very unfriendly.
As well, all past decisions taken years ago should be automatically flushed from user's block history: this is a privacy requirement. All users have a legitimate right to be "forgotten" and such perpetual public history is clearly abusive of user's rights. And users have the right to change (this is a concern especially for early new comers that may have not understood the consequences and were not really aware of how all this worked; they all have the right for a later chance, even if this is a few years after). My opinion is that any public history longer than 3 years is abusive (and normal admins should not even have the right to inspect this history after that time; the only admins that can do that are IPcheck users (within their contract to preserve privacy they still cannot reveal publicly what is shown to them) or specific system admins from the Foundation itself, for legal reasons). Even laws require such deletion of public histories (this is my case as I'm in the European Union, and the WMF should really comply)! These public personal records MUST NOT be subject to the copyright rule (cannot be extended for admin's lifetime+70 years), they are definitely not "contributions" or "author creation" made by admins (because they included some text in the "reason"). To make things clear: any reason given by admin does not belong to them: these rights (if they exist) ARE completely and immediately transfered to the WMF (that will protect the community rights and will conform to laws).
So if you don't want (or cannot) remove this public record, I will complain to the legal department of the WMF (also because your recent reject, after closure, has worsened the decision by unexpectedly confirming it instead).
I read Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_51, thread 31 from 8–12 February, and found that your original block due to intimidation/harassment was totally justified; I support it.
Also I read about your second block due to disruptive edits. In my opinion this was justified as well. Maybe you did not know, but every administrator is given standard reasons when deleting something and (s)he is encouraged to choose one of them. "Gallery without at least two images" is one of standard reasons and it has been so for years (at least since I became an admin in 2013). As gallery disambiguation pages generally do not consist any images, they are eligible for speedy deletion without any discussion or warning.
Every administrator has right to remove blocks from somebody's public record, but I consider your both blocks justified and do not want to remove them from your public log.
You suggest, that all blocks must disappear from public history after some time. For that, appropriate decision should be made in meta. (Or maybe by WMF? I am not totally sure.) For achieving that you must complain into meta (or to WMF?). Also, you suggest to create a bad decisions list for every administrator. This needs another decision from the same entity. Good luck! Taivo (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - at least for as long as the user has no plans to comply with our established procedures - Jcb (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
