Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems: Difference between revisions

Shortcut: COM:AN/U

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.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.
  

Please can someone look at this users uploads. I've already nominated one for a CV, but this user has appeared to have uploaded hundreds of possible CV's as the images have no meta data. I would appreciate if someone looks into this and mass delete if needed. Cheers Flickrworker (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly uploading from this flickr account which hasn't released those images under a free licence. I recommend a mass deletion too... edit:, but on the other hand he is confirmed by OTRS, so probably not a problem though it may be easier for him to change the licence on their official flick account to a free one or atleast confirm that the images are from flickr (on their flickr account)....--Stemoc (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, does he still has to put a ticket on each image he uploads? Which I thought was the rule so a reminder maybe the way to go. Flickrworker (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He definitely should... someone with authority (*cough* admin *cough*) should tell him that..its not a one-off thing...--Stemoc (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have at present some problems with the comments of this user, the first time here, I tried to make him(her) understand that the comment is a bit assaulting, on his(her) talk page [1] as well as by means of Alexander here : [2], and now there is that. I understands that someone can not like my photos, but those comments go slightly too far for my taste. And in the measure or he makes this kind of comment only on my nominations, I think that he shows a blatant will to to not be pleasant, the barrier of the language does not explain everything, a single "not wow" or simply an oppose without comment would be better than an unhelpful assaulting comment. I did not manage to convince him to make efforts, his answer is "be adult", I thus shall have liked that somebody helps me there or prevents him from being voluntarily unpleasant. Even in blocking him for some time, if it is not possible otherwise. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First things first. The comment is clumsey more than anything. However he repeats it, which maybe intentional considering the drama you created on the first image. However he is not a native speaker of English, I do not think that he is being insulting on purpose, although the way you and he behaved the second comment most certainly is (clearly a landscape, no need for the comment but because of you're reaction he decided to bite.). As a native English speaker I do not read it as insulting, OK, just take it with a pinch of salt and try and suggest softer comments from him. Flickrworker (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to make a dispute resolution effort at relevant talk pages (FPC, QIC, VIC, etc.) prior to move here. I would rather stop participating there if I can't manage things there. Here more people (even people don't know what is going on there) respond = more insults :( Jee 13:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the skillfull way the Urmas situation was dealt with, I think this is a bad idea. FPC, QIC, etc. are part of the community, and the idea of ad hoc courts of justice for those pages (which is what is going on on FPC TP) is a very bad one. Pleclown (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Jee, we will try to find a better way. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pleclown, I was away for a week; just returned yesterday with fever and cold. Not in a mood to sit in front of the computer. But still believe, I handled it in the wisest way within the little time I participated there. :) Jee 14:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done For administrtors : I opened this topic and I close it. I start a discussion on the FPC talk page like suggested by Jee. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A little late now, as the comments were made in November, but the set of images are now up for bulk deletion.

A commercial user, ARFISA Representaciones, SCP, has been good enough to upload a large number of images. They are of nuts and bolts: dull stuff to many of you, but as there are many obscure types included, those interested in engineering on WP saw them as quite valuable. It looks like they're a catalogue of nuts and bolts. Licensing is correct. Image quality could be better, but I'm sure that these are what the uploader had and we should be grateful to receive them. Certainly I made use of several at en:WP as soon as I saw them.

The reaction of Commons to this user has been remarkably poor. There are outright attacks on this new user for having the temerity to upload such stuff. See User talk:ARFISA Representaciones, SCP. Several Commons users have threatened blocks, questioned whether these images are "realistically useful for an educational purpose" and even described them as " Is this your special way to vandalize over here? ".

These comments are unacceptable. Per WP:BITE et al. Do I really have to spell this out?

These comments are incorrect. Maybe I'm a sad anorak who cares about nuts and bolts, but I'm happy to have them and WP has already benefitted from them.

The entire set has now been tagged for deletion Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ARFISA Representaciones, SCP. The nomination of "Collection of advertisement. No evidence of permission(s)." appears simply wrong on both counts.

The problem here is obvious. ARFISA Representaciones, SCP is a commercial user. A commercial user who has, in good faith, uploaded content that they control and that they have offered to us under a free licence. We should be grateful to them, not attack them in this way! Or are any commercial bodies simply forbidden from Commons? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the problem here is obvious. You see, the whole Commons comunity speaks with one voice and only brave Andy can save the day. For someone interested in nuts and bolts, you should get a grip. -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's reasonable practice for organizations, companies, artists, music bands, etc to confirm permissions via Commons:OTRS, if they didn't specify free license this on their own web sites or hosting services. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might think that and it's a reasonable change to policy that you might wish to raise.

In the meantime however this isn't our policy. Our upload procedure emphasises the need to specify a licence, rather than to also submit to OTRS, or to host elsewhere first; so then why should our response be (as you did here) to request bulk deletion of uploads for complying with the policy we've asked them too? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If those files are from http://www.arfisa.com/ then we need a mail from their formal mail ID. If Commons:Permission#Where_OTRS_confirmation_is_necessary is vague, consider expanding it. I agree with Andy Dingley that an educative advise on how to proceed on the user's talk page is better than a bulk DR. Jee 16:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agriocnemis pieris male at Kadavoor.jpg looks too professional for an amateur photographer at Commons to have taken it. Should I tag it for deletion, pending OTRS? Should I tag all of Special:ListFiles/Jkadavoor for deletion similarly? That's only the same as has been done here. Of course not! Per AGF, and per your declaration on upload, then I'm quite happy to accept that your GF licence declaration is valid and I have absolutely no reason to doubt the bona fides of either yourself or ARFISA Representaciones, SCP in such a matter.

Commons needs to either require OTRS confirmation for every upload, from the fuzziest selfie upwards, or else it needs to lay off using OTRS as just an intermittent threat instead to bully contributors that some editors clearly dislike as a group (and I'm looking firmly at Ies' comments here). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not supporting any user comments on that talk page; only suggest the the importance of OTRS in case of contributions that are also available on a professional website. I've no problem to provide OTRS; but I have no professional website or personal domain specific email ID. But ARFISA Representaciones, SCP has. Moreover those contributions are scale down versions with watermarks and borders as in the website; so the doubts by Andy king50 is very relevant. EugeneZelenko is one of the most experienced user here to whom we can trust. If there is no need to monitor our contents, no need of any deletions. WMF will delete contents rarely on take down notices. Jee 17:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am an engineer and find it sometimes very disappointing that even basic technical stuff is absent or under-representated in all wikimedia projects. Because there was no reasonable alternative i started removing text captions and frames while getting more and more upset by the obvious and outrigth promotional (ab)use e.g. in the image descriptions, file names etc. whilst delivering very poor quality images of images the uploder certainly has much better quality versions (if he is the copyright holder/website owner). So i came across with the idea to replace as much of them with newer, better images as much as the use in wikimedia projects is concerned. I have camera and access to a large store of screws etc. but until now missing motivation. So i see no reason for deletion from this point of view. The other side is the copyright question. If the images are taken from other websites, the uploader must verify he is copyright owner, usually via OTRS. Anyone can claim to be a representative of X company. And even a sales representative usually is not legally authorized to publish images of his companies webside under a new free license. At least this question must be clarified using OTRS and a official company mail adress. If not there seems only the way to follow the usual way as in any potential copyvio. - Andy king50 (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a continuation of this AN, Эрманарих is continuing their overwrites with File:Escudo de Brisbane.png, File:Coat of arms of Tasmania.png and File:New South Wales coa.png, as well as vandalising File:Standard of the Emperor of Russia (1858).svg. They also opened this DR which should be closed as disruptive. The files should be RevDel'd so this user can not continue to revert, and I'm also asking for a block. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Than to you so disturb the improved files? --Эрманарих (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin deal with this already? I will not respond to a vandal. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for an admin to deal with this. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I reverted the files, protected them for 3 months and gave to Ermanarich the final warning. Next time I will block him. Taivo (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but can you please RevDel the files so they can not revert back? I would also appreciate this DR be closed as disruptive. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After being accused by administrators Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) here Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fredtham59 for being already engaged in known license laundering, I requested explanation on his User talk:Magog the Ogre and leave the following message:

To accuse someone of license laundering is a serious matter. I find photos with appropriate license(CC BY-SA 3.0) and then upload them, no more no less ! I do not contest the images validity but if someone have to be accused of License laundering address your concern and warning to the panoramio and flick users not me! I did not find any rules that said that prior to upload a file with a valid license(CC BY-SA 3.0), I must go through extensive research. If I am wrong prove it, otherwise review your wording as I find it extremely offensive, totally unjustified especially when it comes from an administrators who obviously do not respect one fundamental: USER GOOD FAITH ! Fredtham59 (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Then surprise. Administrator Magog the Ogre here User talk:Marcus Cyron make a clear threat:

The above user is apparently trying really hard to get blocked for license laundering.

This is a serious breach of Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Administrators conduct.

Furthermore :

• Commons:License laundering make it clear that license laundering is not my fault since such uploads may evade detection as copyright, since the source website appears to provide "evidence" for the license. I do not contest license laundering I contest of being wrongly accused of license laundering.
• I also tried my best to explain why I have reason to not suspect "license laundering" prior to upload the files hereCommons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fredtham59 following an invitation on my talk page. Administrator are expected to be fair, exercise good judgment. Visibly we do not have the same concept of "Fairness" Wikipedia:Administrators
• Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others . Does the treat he made should be regarded as respectful and civil ? Wikipedia:Civility Wikipedia:Administrators
• Harassment "Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats". Are administrators above wikipedia policy ?Wikipedia:Administrators Wikipedia:Civility
• Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia but that right is denied, before I can explain myself I am already labeled as guilty of license laundering. Wikipedia:Administrators
• I did follow the procedure by leaving a message on his talk page, he had time to make treat on other user talk page but can't respond to my polite request.Administrator are expected to give explanations and be communicative as necessary . It seems that this administrator have little concern with that.Wikipedia:Administrators

I am not asking much:

• My right to participate to the dispute resolution without treat of being banned.
• Be fairly treated, unless an other administrator will make the final decision, I have good reason it will not be the case.
• Reword template and conversation that said "This user" by " the photos author"
• Formal apologize from the administrator.

Best Regards Fredtham59 (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image ist from dpa. Source is only a place for whitewashing the license. Maybe Fredtham59 don't do this all with intent - but the way he upload images is a big problem for Commons. All of us more active Users here know how it mostly goes. We can not accept that Commons is filled every day with images with incorrect licenses, with white washed images and so on. If users don't understand and don't accept this - they have to go. There's no other way. It is only fair to tell Fredtham59 how it stands. And sorry - normal new users did not find so easy the Administrators' noticeboard. It is hard to belive that Fredtham59 is so new, that he did not knew, what he has done here. Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry - normal new users ...... he has done here.

Really ? Am I a so dishonest person that I first use the wrong notice board Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents then someone copy it on Magog the Ogre (talk). ‎Then I modified the text to upload it here ? In wikipedia language what you just said is considered as personal attack Wikipedia:Civility, it's against the rules. Furthermore, as I said on the version I upload on the wrong notice board : Although I do not care on the photo outcome, since the administrator leave the treat message on a user talk page involved with the dispute resolution, there is a clear COI WP:CONFLICTand WP:NPOV for both users Magog the Ogre here User talk:Marcus Cyron within the consensus-forming process.

 ( conflict of interest and neutrality point of view) and you just make it even more clear ! THANKS Marcus Cyron (talk)

"normal new users did not find so easy the Administrators' noticeboard" : As a fact I just click on Help - and follow the link Admin noticeboard, it might be hard for you but for me less than a minute. Are you suggesting that my skills are bellow than my 8 years old daughter who know how to find a help page ???

You also forget to mention that there is a total of 4 Photos at the exact same moments, positions of arms,fingers, mobile phone ... identical, from 4 different angles. 3 from reputable agency Reuters [3], ANN [4] , DPA [5] and the one you deleted. Furthermore on the panoramio user page it said "I was with a group of photographers"

I should be nice if you want to discuss here to bring to the attention of all not only facts that best match your point of view but all. Fredtham59 (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the incivility, Magog the Ogre commonly uses sarcasm, comedy, and "you're testing my patience" threats when speaking to users about very serious matters including their blocks. I have no comment on the remainder of this complaint. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikimedia policies are not necessarily identical to those in use in Commons; linking to them has not the intended effect. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mean it's not a good idea to hold yourself to the same standards on Commons as you do on Wikipedia just because the "rules aren't quite the same here", if that's the excuse you are trying to make. Regarding civility, I do not like how Magog the Ogre speaks to other users, even ones who I completely agree should be blocked. A recent example is Giorgi Balakhadze, I don't find that response funny but Magog the Ogre clearly does and thinks it's ok. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making excuses for any one, and surely not for Marcus Cyron. But if Fredtham59 wants to present an argument on Common’s admin duties, he should link to the relevant Common’s policies not to those of a sister project. I know that for most English native speakers the difference may seem tenuous, but for the rest of us, there’s a huge diference between what’s inherently an English-language project, where we can be at most welcome guests, and what is an universal project where we all play on a level fiel and English is used as a mere practicality (to cut a long story short). Quoting w:en policies as done above creates an atmosphere I’m unconfortable with. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been taught that civility is about education and not only about written rules. Furthermore as you can see here Commons:Policies and guidelines there is nothing about civility, does it means that I have the right to say whatever I want or administrator have the right to be rude or work without guidelines ? I might be wrong but if wikipedia link to Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Administrators do works on both pages wikimedia and commons which is untrue for most wikipedia link or commons links, the underlying meaning can be interpreted as both be part of a common policy. Fredtham59 (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────┘
To quote a famous saying: ""If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table." Fred's textwall above is a perfect example of pounding the table. Without question, he has a) engaged in likely deliberate Flickr washing, or b) in the (improbable) chance that Fred didn't know better, he is still throwing a temper tantrum and trying to introduce a red herring over the fact that his copyvios are now being deleted.

Users who purposefully upload copyvios or who refuse to apologize for having done so in the past are not the kind of person I particularly worry about making block threats to.

Take it or leave it. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is you shouldn't make threats at all, and that you don't see that as the problem but rather see it as "they're unrepentant sinners so it's ok" should be very alarming. Warning a user that they will be blocked if they continue a certain behaviour is what you're supposed to do, and you should know that. My god how did you ever become an admin? Fry1989 ^eh? 01:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not able to "make threats" to block someone, what does that mean about all the times you've warned someone to stop or they'll be blocked? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of difference in wording. Also I'm not an admin nor do I aspire, you're supposed to be held to a higher level. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magog the OgreFacts are facts and whatever you may think or say, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. Unfortunately you uphold suspicions as facts as they are more pliable to back your short from addressing this issue with civility, fairness and good judgment. Fredtham59 (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solicito que el usuario Fry1989 sea amonestado por falta de etiqueta e insultos, como puede verse aquí. Además se dedica a hacer cambios sin fuentes y a acosarme en mis aportaciones. --Echando una mano (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC) // P.S. Además ha eliminado las referencias que le he dado en su página de discusión // P.S. 2: Este usuario me está difamando más abajo.[reply]
// P.S. 3: Otro insulto más en este resumen de edición. // P.S. 4: Sarcasmo e insinuación insultante en este otro resumen de edición y continua falta de etiqueta en sus explicaciones.

((English)) I request that user Fry1989 be admonished for breach of etiquette and insults, as can be seen here. He also works to make changes without sources and he harass me in my contributions. --Echando una mano (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC) // P.S. He has removed the references that I have given in him in his discussion page // P. S. 2: This user is defaming me below. // P.S. 3: Another insult more in this edition summary. // P. S. 4: Sarcasm and insulting insinuation in this other edit summary and continuous breach of etiquette in his explanations.[reply]

I already removed my remark and I'm sorry I said it. However I am not harassing your contributions, I'm fixing them when you make mistakes. I already posted a source on your talk page which proves you're lying about me editing without sources. You are the one editing without sources, you changed the ratio of File:Flag of the President of Paraguay.svg for no reason. What's worse, you live by the policy of "revert first, ask questions later" as shown on that flag, you reverted back to your strange ratio without a source or reason and then 3 minutes later you reverted back to the original ratio after finding the FOTW source which was the original source for the 1:2 ratio in the first place! You act like you own files, you act like you're so special and that I'm chasing you around and harassing you when I've been trying to avoid you. In the case of the Chilean coat of arms, I have explained to you 4 times now that I changed the torse to all white because that is what the Government of Chile shows it as, and I completely re-did the shield so it is symmetrical. That's hardly harassing your contribution, it's fixing known errors. You constantly revert files after you have been reverted instead of discussing the matter, you have overwritten dozens of files with significantly different versions in violation of COM:Overwrite, you have uploaded copyright violations, you have been nothing but trouble since you came here. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can give so many examples of this user's actions in the last few months which have driven me to near insanity and I said something off-colour in response. I've already apologized, but I will not apologize for fixing errors in a file. If I wanted to harass this user as I have been accused, I'd revert all their COM:Overwrite-violating uploads. I'd revert the huemel and eagle on File:Coat of arms of Chile.svg back to B1mbo's version. The reality is all I've done to this file is change the torse back to white as according to the Chilean Government SOURCE (which I posted on their talk page despite their accusation I don't have sources) and fix the symmetry of the shield. That's all I've changed, or rather fixed because Echando una mano's version had these errors. Now does that sound like harassment to anybody? It doesn't to me. And instead of asking me about my changes, Echando una mano reverted without discussing it. Just like they did on File:Flag of the President of Paraguay.svg, just like they have on a dozen files before this. If you revert Echando una mano for whatever reason, no matter how valid, they will just revert back, they don't ask you why, they don't discuss unless they are forced to, they just revert revert revert and then accuse you of non-existent harassment and not having sources even though you just gave them one. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well apparently alongside the accusations of harassment and not having sources (both not true), I am defaming (defined as the "Act of injuring another's reputation by any slanderous communication") this user by telling the truth about their editing history. I guess next I'll be accused of attempted intimidation, and murder after that. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit linking my above reply as an insult is surely laughable. Anything and everything I say is an insult now. I have been accused of harassing this user which isn't true. I have been accused of not having sources even though I GAVE ONE on their talk page. I have been accused of defamation which is not true. Now my disbelief at this nonsense is being construed as a further insult. I'm sure this response is gonna be linked as an insult next, just you all watch! Fry1989 ^eh? 05:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have already apologized for insulting Echando una mano, however they haven't acknowledged it, and even worse this user is continuing to make false accusations of me trying to harass them and their contributions, this is not true and I've made it very clear it's not true. In regards to the File:Coat of arms of Chile.svg, I have made it extremely clear why I have edited this file. I didn't change anything from Echando una mano's version except that I manually redid the shield so it's symmetrical which it was not in any previous version of the file. I didn't change the colours, I didn't change the animals, I didn't change the crest or anything else. I have also addressed above how Echando una mano has accused me of defamation, when I haven't said anything slanderous about them. Everything I have said is true, the fact they violate COM:Overwrite almost every day by uploading vastly different versions of images over old ones is easily verfiable in their upload log. The fact they revert files without sources is verifiable just by looking at File:Flag of the President of Paraguay.svg's edit history, they changed that flag's proportions just for the hell of it and then 3 minutes later changed it back. The fact they revert files first and then ask questions later is easily verifiable by looking at File:Coat of arms of the House of Colonna.svg and other files where they have done this. The fact they revert to known copyright violations is verifiable by looking at File:Coat of arms of the Vatican City.svg. Everything I have said about this user, negative as it may be, is TRUE! I want these baseless accusations to stop! Fry1989 ^eh? 00:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask for an admin to protect File:Coat of arms of Chile.svg and File:Flag of the President of Chile.svg. Echando una mano is now vandalizing these two files. They keep reverting back on the Coat of Arms and removing my symmetrical shield for no reason. With the Presidential Standard, I don't think they have a clue what they are doing, they keep changing the proportions based on different photos, and their most recent upload changed the flag's colours even though in a previous edit summary they were insistent that the colours should be the same as the national flag, contradicting themselves from only a few hours ago. This is HIGHLY disruptive and vandalous. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As always Fry1989 ignores the sources and vandalizes de files. See this official document in File:Coat of arms of Chile.svg or this image in File:Flag of the President of Chile.svg. --Echando una mano (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Both protected until consensus is achieved on the "correct" version, upon which I have no view. Please feel free to let me know, or request another admin to unprotect, when there is a conclusion to this. Rodhullandemu (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Echando una mano is lying! I've given them a source multiple times, the fact they keep ignoring it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it means they're in dream land! Yes I called them an idiot, and I've apologized for it. But now they are going on a tirade of accusing me of defamation and harassment when all I'm trying to do is make a file better.

Admins, please compare my file from Echando una mano's version, you can clearly see they are the same thing, the only difference is my manually-redrawn symmetrical shield and an all-white torse according to the Chilean Government source. Echando una mano keeps reverting this for no valid reason, it is very clear vandalism and disruption. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The torse is in color, as it can be seen in this official document. --Echando una mano (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completely redrew the shield myself so it was centered, level and symmetrical and you keep fucking that up by hitting the revert button. And according to the Chilean Government webportal, the torse is all white. This is according to multiple sources: 1, 2, 3 and more. Unless you have the actual text of the blazon saying otherwise, then our file should also be white. You keep reverting based on different fluctuating reasons and it is highly disruptive. I can not thank Rodhullandemu enough for protecting these files from your disruption and vandalism. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]