This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Krantmlverma is a serial violator of our upload policies and seems often to re-upload content that has been deleted. They display similar tendencies at en-Wiki. Could someone please look into this: there are numerous current and past deletion noms and discussions, per the notices on their talk page. - Sitush (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
If I may point out, this behavior is also on ample display at hi.wiki. Efforts to make the user understand have mostly proved futile. He replies with hidden snides and plays himself as both a victim and a hero. He has also been heavily involved in self-advertising and glorification. Lovy Singhal (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
They have only today uploaded this, which was deleted previously (as a GIF) as a consequence of this discussion. Honestly, the competence issues are astounding and I would seriously question whether we can be content with any of their extant uploads. - Sitush (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Many of the "own work" uploads are "I have used images from book covers which I have subsequently edited". That's a clear copyvio. —SpacemanSpiff11:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Fastily is an adminstrator here at Commons. He caused havoc with his Dino deletions. I looked at the delinker log and it looks like this is not an isolated incident.
He deletes no source/permission/license images without proper checking. For example vandalized images got deleted (note, response)
He deletes redirects with reason: "Unused and implausible, broken, or cross-namespace redirect" when the redirects are actually in use (note, response)
And this was just in the last 24 hours. I didn't dare digging deeper into the logs. He seems to do a lot of work, but the quality of this work seems rather low. He doesn't accept criticism and refuses to clean up after making a mess. I understand he tries to do what he thinks is best, but this is really harming Commons and it's relation with the other projects (like Wikipedia). What to do with this administrator? Multichill (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please tell Multichill here to stop harassing me? I'm well aware of the errors I've made and it's pretty obnoxious of Multichill to continue re-posting rude, condescending comments to my talk even after I've removed them. Also, I would like to make it clear that I'll not be processing items in Category:Other speedy deletions anytime soon. Cheers, FASTILY(TALK)11:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
That's utter bullshit, and you know it too. Since this simple matter is so apparently incredibly difficult for you to comprehend, let's simplify this to three things: 1) Mistakes acknowledged, and duly apologized for. 2) I'll not be processing Category:Other speedy deletions for at least a few months. 3) Multichill needs to get his little paws off of Fastily's talk page and refrain from dickish trolling since Fastily has already made the last two points blindingly clear elsewhere, prior to Multichill's initiation of this discussion. -FASTILY(TALK)11:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The problem is the real big amount of work, only a few admins work on. Fastily obviously tries to clean some backlogs, perhaps even using automated methods. If he/she does so, I think it shouldn't be a taboo talking or even consider using bots but one would have to ensure that no vandalism took place before they do anything. Or we decide that our backlogs can grow to ∞ but then, we'll have more requests here (on com:an) to delete/close/… or we find a way to prioritize some requests. Wrong decisions cause dissatisfaction but also request no one is working on. -- RE rillkequestions?11:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I think Fastily's responses to Multichill are rather uncivil and shouldn't be tolerated. Multichill has a long history of valuable contributions here, and characterising requests and complaints from him as "dickish trolling" should not be acceptable from any user. In my experience if Multichill takes time out to comment on something, then there is something that needs looking at.
Fastily likes to process things quickly and although deletions are always carried out with the best intentions, he can and does get things wrong. When things go wrong we need a way to undo the damage just as fast (and not leave it to others to unpick the mess), if that means we need better tools (eg an inverse-delinker to quickly reverse part of it's edits before new edits make the automated correction difficult) then we'd better create one.
Looking at the recent deletion of redirects as "Unused and implausible, broken, or cross-namespace redirect" they appear to be in the acceptable category of "unneeded redirects to recently uploaded and renamed files". I think the use of "Unused and implausible, broken, or cross-namespace redirect" as an edit summary is wrong, the reason for deletion is none of those (they are neither implausible, broken, or cross-namespace). A better edit summary would help.
"Uploader requested deletion of unused file", there might have been special reasons for this deletion, but if the only reason is as stated, then it needs a proper deletion request.
I do think that Fastily's techniques are accepted not because they are the best but because there aren't enough people willing to process the backlogs. Whether they are acceptable as far as the rest of the community is concerned, or whether they follow policy is almost the essence of this current discussion. Sometimes I think a bot might as well do the deletions if the files aren't going to be looked at individually. A bot could more consistently look at whether the file or talk page had been edited since a "no permission" etc tag had been added, but it might be more difficult to determine whether the uploader had responded anywhere else (eg a talk page) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Shit happens - that's life. Not uncommon to accidentally delete an image that has been vandalized or where an uploader or other user tries to get images deleted/removed with false statements/claims. Back to normal operation mode please. --Denniss (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Fastily is deleting category:unknown like a bot. And he is almost as unresponsive as a bot. Cleanses his talk page, no archive, and unlike a bot he tells complainants to sod off. In other words, a bot would be better. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
With the Dino deletions, what happened is someone change the license to an unfree one and just deleted everything the uploader even has done, even if the license was not changed at all. The main thing I just ask for Fastily is to just check an image before doing his deletions. His silence on the Dino issues bother me since it was not only a lot of images that had to be undeleted using pywikipedia, but it caused a lot of processes on the Commons to be stopped on here and on other projects and not a single word was said. User:Zscout370(Return fire)17:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
No, no, not silence, but lack of comment. I'm not denying the fact that I'm at fault here; in fact, I have taken full responsibility for everything. I have not said anything, simply because there is nothing to be said. I'm not going to post some apology filled with exaggerated regret and because these kinds of things don't carry any weight and really lack sincerity in every possible way. -FASTILY(TALK)21:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Even if an apology wasn't going to be perform (and I'll never ask you to write one) but more acknowledge what has been posted and talk to the people from the different projects and say "Give me time, but I will fix" kind of deal. User:Zscout370(Return fire)21:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Maybe if need an admin bot, we should get a real one instead of having human admins with bot-like behavior? At least an admin bot would behave deterministically (in contrast to random and irrational), will not be rude to other users, and will do its work much better. Trycatch (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Fastily does a lot of good work. But yes, along with the batch deletions and such comes complaints, mistakes, and so on. That having been said, behavior like this and the reactions like we have here (in my opinion) are sort of what led to his retirement on enwiki. I really hope this doesn't turn into "enwiki round 2". I think one step toward a better situation would be if Fastily communicated more effectively and collaboratively rather than acting, as others have said, merely as a bot. Killiondude (talk) 06:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Canoe1967 keeps removing open DR notice
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Canoe1967 has apologised for some inappropriate remarks, which is always good to see. Non-admin users can close uncontroversial DRs per Commons:D#Closure if due care is taken, and I don't see a real problem in that regard. For the rest, everyone please use more discussion to avoid edit-warring and try to exercise a bit more COM:AGF and generally be helpful and forgiving - and don't see threats where there aren't any. Rd232 (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Fry added the notice originally because she didn't want the file deleted. She just wanted to attract attention to the name of the file. Since then she has withdrawn her deletion nomination and renamed the file. It seems all are happy now except for her.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
"Grow up" appears to be Canoe1967's mantra. The fact remains he had chosen to repeat 3 times something that was explained to him that he can not do. Fry1989eh?00:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
That does not however address Canoe1967's choice of action despite multiple warnings that he can not do that. It's a very simple concept, you can not remove a DR notice from a file while that DR is still open. The user has also chosen to edit war on File:Flag-map of Russia.svg, despite it being explained to him on his talk page that there are two maps and users can chose which ever they prefer. The file he is edit warring on has been the way it is for 15 months, this is disruptive, and surprisingly childish for someone who has told me atleast 7 times now to "grow up". Fry1989eh?00:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
And apparently this isn't Canoe1967's first time removing open DR notices. 00:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I can't read anywhere that says only admin can remove tags if the nominator has withdrawn or the case is closed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
"The case is closed"? What do you think this is, a police investigation? No, we don't remove DR notices until the DR is closed by an admin as either a delete or a keep. Removing the notice not only gives the impression that the DR is over when it isn't, it removes the file from the Deletion Requests subcategory, meaning that you are actually impeding the ability of the DR to be properly closed. Because you have chosen to continue removing notices for open DRs, I must now ask for a 1 day block and an Admin to make it absolutely clear to Canoe1967 why that is not prudent. Fry1989eh?00:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Only an admin can close a DR, something I have said from the beginning. My request for a one day block and/or and admin to explain the rules to this user stands. He clearly doesn't get it, and has been very disruptive. Fry1989eh?02:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
"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. If in doubt, don't do it". First, I have never actually seen it done. Second, there is a qualifier applied: You have to understand the process (which you don't), and it has to be uncontroversial (which the DR itself is not, but your involvement is). Since you don't meet either of the qualifiers (as of now, you may in the future), you can't close it. This isn't something you learn on the fly and just apply wherever you like. You need to actually understand this, and what you have done for the last few hours is tell me to "grow up", go to another user's page to call me childish, and constantly revert to try and force the removal of an open DR tag, rather then accept that as a new Commons user, you could be wrong, and didn't actually put any effort into correcting yourself until I brought up the possibility of a block for your disruptions. Fry1989eh?02:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't controversial, I now have a good understanding of the process, and after I did do it correctly you reverted my closure and made another childish mess that I had to fix.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Wrong!. I've been cleaning up your mess, having to revert your removals of DR notices when the DR were still open. I warned you a dozen times now that you can't do that, and I've explained here the problems it causes, and it wasn't until I mentioned the word "block" that you actually took this seriously. You're arrogant and disruptive, and even here you continue to insinuate I'm a child rather than admit that you were wrong. Because of your behaviour today, you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near closing DRs until you've proven to an Admin you clearly understand the process and acceptable reasonings for a keep. Fry1989eh?02:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
You just do not get it. This is about you, the problems with you. You can't just brush off any concerns and say the matter is resolved without admitting or accepting any mia culpa for what you have done. I'm standing by my original request of a day's block cause this user not only doesn't understand but thinks he's immune to any sort of rules or guidelines or even concerns raised here about his choice of actions. Clearly needs an admin to give them "a clue". Fry1989eh?03:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I hope admin are getting a very good laugh at the antics of this section. That may be why they haven't done anything with us yet. I hope you don't keep threatening to have me blocked, there may be policy against that than can backfire on you. I could be a sock puppet or friend of admin that is just giving you enough rope to hang yourself.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I haven't threatened you with being blocked, show me where I've threatened you in ANY form. What I am doing is asking for you to be blocked because your actions are unacceptable. On the other hand, threatening, or even joking about the possibility of being a Sock, or worse that you would use your friendship with an admin in the same manner as someone who got a traffic ticket might call a relative who's a cop to get out of it, isn't gonna get you very far. Looks like you're hanging yourself buddy. Fry1989eh?03:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
"I must now ask for a 1 day block and an Admin to make it absolutely clear to Canoe1967 why that is not prudent. Fry1989 eh? 00:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)" I would call this a threat.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't addressed to you, it was addressed to what ever admin comes along here and is prudent enough to look at your actions and pull some weight. It wasn't a threat, and only a fool would think it was. Ask ANYBODY here, if "I must now ask for this user to be blocked" is a threat made by the requester to the user in question, you'll get laughed out of here. Go through the last 20 AN/Us, you'll see that reporters requesting a block appropriate to a user's actions is a VERY common sight. "I'm gonna get you blocked!", that's a threat. "If you don't stop doing this and that, you may be blocked", maybe a threat but really more of a warning. "I have to ask that this user be blocked" is the least threatening threat ever, unless ofcourse you feel threatened because you realize that you revert-warred for several hours removing content that you shouldn't have, and attacked another user on multiple pages calling him a child and saying things like "giving you enough rope to hang yourself", and that there's a real possibility that you may be blocked for that. Fry1989eh?03:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Deal with "us"? I haven't done anything but clean up the messes caused by you, generously give you multiple warnings before even bringing your content-removal to AN/U, and even more generously only ask for a one-day block considering you've attacked me on another user's page and threatened/joked about being a sock and getting admin friends to get revenge on me if you are eventually blocked. I have to go to bed, but if anybody is going to be "dealt with", it won't be me. Fry1989eh?04:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
User:Canoe1967: you don't get to mark a complaint against you "resolved", as you did this thread, nor to call a request for a block a "threat". I'll leave the rest for someone else. Rd232 (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. Fry1989 misused a deletion request; it's for getting something deleted, not for use a file you don't want to delete. Once that was dealt with Canoe1967 made a possibly technically incorrect removal of the DR tag; it didn't matter, but it was technically questionable. Fry1989 reverted it, making an incorrect statement in the edit statement. (And note that he's never said he was wrong.) After a little revert-war which Fry1989 as usual seems to think is okay for him and not for others, Fry1989 drags him here, because a dispute about who removes a DR tag on a dead DR that never should have been opened in the first place is worthy of AN/U.
Canoe1967, it never helps to call another user childish. Please deal with the issue, not the person. Fry1989... is there any hope you could try working with someone? Not end up getting in revert wars and bringing everything to AN/U?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not even going to read what Prosfilaes has to say, because his animosity towards be is well documented and it's honestly irrelevant. The facts remain:
Canoe1967 removed the DR notice from multiple files while their DRs was still open.
Canoe1967 continued to do this disruptive action over a dozen times even after multiple warnings that this was not allowed.
Canoe1967 defamed me on another user's talk page.
Canoe1967 edit warred on a file that had been in it's current state for 15 months, to such an extent it had to be edit-protected by an admin.
Canoe1967 closed a DR without proper understanding of the process as proven by his comments here.
Canoe1967 threatened and/or joked about being a sockpuppet.
Canoe1967 threatened and/or joked about getting admin friends to get revenge on me if he did end up being blocked for his actions.
Canoe1967 made comments like "giving you enough rope to hang yourself".
Canoe1967 marked this AN/U as "resolved" as if it was the Graphic Lab, completely brushing off any of the complaints or concerns raised here about what he did and why it was disruptive.
Canoe1967 called my extremely lenient request for a 1-day block a "threat" multiple times, while the real threats were made by him.
I don't care what you think of me, or if I stir up "dramuh" as Russavia refers to it. This is what Canoe1967 did. Ask yourself this, if it was ANY other user who reported these actions, would this end up blocked for a short period and/or have an Admin talk to them and make absolutely clear why their actions were wrong and disruptive? Ofcourse that would be done. That I'm reporting it makes no difference. Fry1989eh?20:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I will aplogize for telling Fry to grow up and calling her childish then. Sorry Fry. It seems there is a delete and revert war going on amoung uploaders and my input on other discussions is being targeted now. I think that is called 'wikistalking'? I doubt I will bother to comment and then vote in any more discussions unless this is corrected. It will just disrupt the project if I do and then they stalk and counter my input. I have admitted that I originally closed 2 DRs incorrectly and then later did one correctly and the other was closed correctly by admin. I count over 10,000 deletion requests on the books. Squabbling editors adding dozens more each day because they don't like the images seems to hinder the project to a great extent. Many are just because they think their uploaded image is better. I tried to close only 2 that were withdrawn by nominator after the issues were fixed and end up wasting valuable keyboard time defending my actions here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Right now, we're beyond "sorry for telling you to grow up". You've made what can easily be considered threats (even if you were joking about it) about socking and revenge, and used language suggesting I might kill myself (even if you meant it figuratively). That's not acceptable in any way here. If it was any other user reporting you, you would have been blocked yesterday, and probably for longer than just a day. I've been incredibly generous with you, I gave you several warnings on your talk page, I tried explaining to you why what you were doing was disruptive, and in the end not only was I forced to come here, a file had to be protected because of you. Fry1989eh?22:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Blocks aren't punitive. We're never at a point where a contributor making a credible claim to behave better will get blocked. I don't understand why you don't see "if it was any other user reporting you" as problematic; surely what's caused that is something you've done.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
If you payed attention to diffs and user edit history instead of constantly assuming I'm always at fault, you'd see I did nothing to warrant this. First time I encountered this user, was after I nominated File:Seal of the Prime Minister of Libya.jpg for deletion. I actualy was planing on nominating it for multiple reasons, not only was it doubtful that the file was what the original name claimed (seal of the Republic), but it's more than complicated enough to be copyrighted, with all those gradients and effects. However, after reading the PD-Libya license, I changed my opinion about that. Canoe1967 voted for a keep in the DR, perfectly within the rights of any Commons user. However, after I withdrew my nomination deciding I was wrong, Canoe1967 removed the DR notice on the file, even though the DR had not been closed yet. After I reverted it the first time, Canoe1967 reverted back to the removal with only two words: "grow up". This quicly became Canoe1967's mantra, in any revision incolving me he said "grow up". He removed the DR notice from the file two times, at which point I warned him on his talk page that this action was not apropriate and to stop or else I would bring it here. He again replied with two infantile words: "grow up". After that, he removed the notice a third time, so I brought it here, because it was clear this user would not listen to me and was under the impression he was doing nothing wrong, and needed an Admin or someone else to say the same thing. Going through Canoe1967's recent history, it turns out he has done this to atleast one other file (that I was never involved with), which shows this user clearly thought that removing DR notices from files where the DR is still open is an ok thing to do. Furthermore, after bringing the problem here, Canoe1967 took it a step further, involving himself in edit warring on File:Flag-map_of_Russia.svg, in an attempt to somehow "protect" it. What he didn't pay attention to, was that the file was overhauled by me on February 3rd 2011, as part of a wider process where I overhauled (and created) atleast 400 flag-maps here on Commons, reducing their file size and making their borders more accurate. My overhauled file has remained that way for 15 months. Anyhow, I told Canoe1967 twice on his talk page that there are two (actually several more than just two) maps with various colours that users can choose from. He didn't stop, but rather continued to revert the file to the extent I had to ask an admin to protect the file, which was done very swiftly. Lastly, here on this AN/U, Canoe1967 has done nothing but brush off the concerns I raised about his disruptive DR notice removals, and use inflamatory language like "I hope you don't keep threatening to have me blocked, there may be policy against that than can backfire on you. I could be a sock puppet or friend of admin that is just giving you enough rope to hang yourself". In that single sentence, he not only suggested I might kill myself (figuratively or not), but made two threats/jokes, one of possibly being a sockpuppet, and the other that he would get admin friends to hand out revenge if he was blocked. Now, Prosfilaes, if you can find ANY interaction between myself and Canoe1967 that warrants any of this, go ahead and list it. But don't post bullshit like "you must have done something to deserve it". Once again, you ignore diffs and history and make your up your own assumptions of what happened here, and once again you are wrong. And no, I don't find it problematic that this has not been dealt with as swiftly as it would if someone else was reporting the incident. I view it as bigoted and lazy. A problem's a problem, and if you're going to ignore it because you don't like the person reporting it, then you shouldn't be an admin. Fry1989eh?02:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
"Giving you enough rope to hang yourself" is not a death threat; it's a common English phrase meaning not taking action against small stuff, instead letting the person do big stuff that everyone will understand and agree need to be dealt with. Reading the sentence in that context shows that he's not talking about revenge; he thinks you will get blocked on your own behavior. You misquote me, and out of context at that. If people aren't taking your reports seriously, then perhaps you should consider why.
Read my above post a second time and actually pay attention. I didn't say "giving you enough rope to hang yourself" was a death threat, I didn't say it was ANY kind of threat (and if you can actually find where I did call it a threat, I dare you to post it in a quote, because I never said it so it doesn't exist). I said it was inflamatory language that doesn't belong here. What I DID say was a threat (and/or joke, I've been generous with this when many would not), was mentioning the possibility of being a sock, or having admin friends do something to me if he gets blocked for his actions. I specifically separated the "hang yourself" part from the "sock and admin buddy" part multiple times. Also, I didn't say you were an Admin. You asked me if I don't see it as problematic when I say that if it was anybody else reporting this, it would have been dealt with and over by now. I simply said no I don't, and that I don't think anybody ("you" was not directed at Prosfilaes the User, it was a figurative directed at ANY admin who isn't pulling their weight) should be an admin if they are willing to overlook a problem because they don't like the reporter. That's either lazy, or incompetent. You can't read anything right, IDK why you try and constantly find problems with me when you can't even get your own things right. Fry1989eh?05:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I went to add a copyvio notice to this user's talk page, to find that it was the 17th. They've never done anything but keep uploading new images.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I am surprised as to how casually Russavia is treating DRs. The DR cited in the above headline was simply deleted by her. Further, for another DR she closes by typing "In scope of plaques in France. No reason to delete, it may be of use somewhere, sometime" - All deleted files have some utility - only they are out of scope on Commons. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC).
I can't see anything on my talk page relating to this. Why have you decided to bring this to the dramuh boards? In relation to your first accusation I will mind you to look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:INTERIOR STAIRS VIEW , OLD HIGH COURT.JPG. Nothing was deleted. In relation to your second accusation, I will not be responding to personal attacks -- accusing others of being "irrational" is dramuh-attention seeking. The file is a photo of a plaque in France (which isn't a FOP violation) and is in the scope of fr:Delphine Aigle. That article is under consideration for deletion on frwp, but that is not our concern on Commons, nor should it be. If you are going to claim COM:SCOPE issues, you need to not only state why it is out of scope (unless it is bleeding obvious), and if you do state why, you need to make sure the reasoning is sound and valid. In this case it was not; it is a plaque denoting that this was the home of Delphine Aigle, a "heroine" of the French resistance -- who may or may not be notable -- again, not our concern. Next time, please use editors talk pages --- they are there for a reason --- instead of taking things unnecessarily to our dramuh boards. russavia (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I think Russavia indeed aludes to "Drama" as in the first and second en:Wiki articles under see-also section at en:Drama_Queen. I haven't yet noticed a "Don't feed the Drama Queen" page (along the lines of en:Do not feed the trolls), but I think there should be one ;-). --Tony Wills (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
PPPS The rename to File:INTERIOR STAIRS VIEW , OLD HIGH COURT,DHAKA.JPG is unnecessary, we do not need to dis-ambiguate file names (see Commons:File_renaming#Which_files_should_be_renamed.3F), the existing name was accurate, but not very precise. The file description page is where details are required (in multiple languages), the filename is just a handle for identifying the file, not a description. Finally if a file is renamed, you might as well fix other deficiencies like turning all upper case into more readable upper and lower case (but note that this is not an invitation to rename it once again, see previous link ;-). (sorry for my lecture :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
As regards to the use of a few words, a message is already posted on her user talk. I wonder why she considers our noticeboards as dramuh boards or drama boards when she is a sysop. Finally, all said and done about INTERIOR STAIRS VIEW , OLD HIGH COURT,DHAKA.JPG, Tony Wills still insists on status quo. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC).
Think "Dramuh" is kind of a LOLCATS spelling. As for drama, cast up your eyes above to earlier sections on this page... AnonMoos (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Tm has reverted changes in many images without any reason. The reverts have undone good changes like high resolution uploads, fixing levels, cleaning brownness etc. Please check. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment. We had this same issue with a Titanic b/w image earlier. It seems some editors like the older original images for some articles. It was decided that newer colourized versions should be uploaded under a different file name. You may try that, then replace with your versions in some articles and see if other editors revert. If so, then consensus should be reached as to which version the articles should use on each talk page. These are just my thoughts to keep as many happy as possible.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This has been open long enough, and consensus here supports unblocking Ottava Rima with the conditions detailed by AFBorchert below. The restrictions will be listed at Commons:Editing restrictions and on the user's talk page. Jafeluv (talk) 10:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry and I deeply regret my actions in late December/early January where I entered into an excessive combative interaction with multiple admin which detracted from the over all prosperity of the community and disrupted honest discussion about important issues. I resolve that if I am allowed back I would focus primarily on uploading images and not participate in or create "drama."
To me personally this sounds as if Ottava Rima is indeed acknowledging the problems that lead to that block and promising to focus on the upload of archival material of Fort Benning he has been working on in January and which was interrupted by the block. Given this statement, I would suggest to lift this block as I have no reason to doubt his word. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - No, just no. I don't believe this. I don't believe Ottava has changed, and I can't believe we have admins naïve enough to trust him. The guy has a history of trolling, and even a month ago was immediately accusing an admin who declined an unblock request. He is a troll, has always been a troll, and will forever be a troll. See also the "my statement" section in that link: nothing but bile. Keep him indefed. Remove talkpage access. Ban from IRC. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - I agree with Mattbuck. He showed/shows the same behavior on EN and Meta; getting constantly blocked for personal attacks, apologizes a month later, gets unblocked and repeats the same procedure again. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言09:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - I always want to think the best of people, and that they can change. If this statement had been the first we'd heard of Ottava since the January block, I'd seriously consider under what sort of upload-focussed edit restrictions we might conceivably unblock (though I'd want some more discussion with Ottava about past actions). However, given the way the unblock request of a month ago went - well, sorry, I don't believe that Ottava is really ready to avoid drama, even if he is totally sincere in his current statement. If he has files he would like to contribute to Commons, maybe someone else can upload them for him; if he's willing to do that, it would certainly count in his favour for a future unblock request. Rd232 (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment Honestly, folks. Do you really want to prove Ottava Rimas claim to be correct where he stated that It is pretty obvious that it doesn't matter what I say or do. The case was closed in January with the rationale that the block can be lifted after a month when the problems are acknowledged. Exactly this is the case now. I do not think that this statement came easily nor do I think that he issues such a statement without taking it honestly. Finally, there is no real risk if we unblock him as we can reinstate the block any time. But we hadn't a deal like this before with him, hence we should proceed per AGF and give him the opportunity to complete his interesting Fort Benning project. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I can't speak for anyone else, but for me it certainly does matter what he says and does. It matters what he said a month ago, it matters what he says now, and it matters what he might be willing to do if he's not unblocked now (in particular, if he's willing to provide files to a third party to upload for him). If he were to engage more extensively and deeply with this discussion, in a really constructive way, that would also help demonstrate that he's both willing and able to put drama behind, and hasn't just wrung an apologetic paragraph out of himself in the hope that everything will be forgiven and forgotten. Rd232 (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Rd232, what do you expect? He acknowledged that he had entered into an excessive combative interaction and he promises now to focus primarily on uploading images and not participate in or create "drama." What do you expect more? Pages of text elaborating this? Rd232, the WMF projects live from putting trust into its editors despite all odds, even if there were unfortunate encounters before. AGF is one of the pillars. We did not went before with Ottava Rima through a cycle at Commons where he after an infinite block acknowledged the drama and promised to avoid this in the future. Please remember also that there were quite a number of voices at the last discussion opposing a block. 99of9s block was obviously an attempt to signal that this must not continue but that there is a path open to return after at least a month has passed. Hence, we are obliged to risk it. He has also a project he wishes to continue and as far as I know he had set his heart on this. If the drama should repeat, it is very likely that an infinite block would be not just reinstated but upheld. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I do agree with AFBorchert. If the contributions are positive (& maybe exclude admin board stuff) then all is well, if not then I doubt there would be any real issues with another block. --Herbytalk thyme16:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
AGF is not a suicide pact. A while back Ottava agreed to be unblocked subject to an edit restriction restricting him to the File namespace; this was later repudiated without consequence - see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_32#Breach_of_previous_restrictions. And now you're happy to unblock without even a formal edit restriction, just a mere promise to focus primarily on uploading images and not participate in or create "drama."? Even though just a month ago Ottava was demonstrating some of the same behaviour that got him blocked? Basically, we're expected to believe that from January to April Ottava didn't change one bit, but from April to May, he had an epiphany, and is now New Ottava (TM)? Possible, but unlikely (there's a reason en:Wikipedia:Standard offer refers to 6 months without problems). I'm willing to believe it's the beginning of a change for the better, but not that it's the end - that's just not credible. That's why I'm suggesting he contribute files via someone else uploading, as a demonstration that he is still genuinely interested in contributing, and not just in being vindicated by virtue of unblock (and once vindicated, will soon revert to the old norms). ... Well, if you really want to craft an edit restriction and take responsibility for enforcing it, and Ottava clearly and explicitly accepts it, maybe I'll change my vote. Otherwise, no. Rd232 (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, using the same terms as that existing one has an attractive simplicity, I suppose. And I in designing that restriction I did try to make it as practical as possible (to permit DR and user talk discussion especially, because if you're allowing uploads that's probably necessary)... So with some misgivings about the chances of this working out, if you're willing to support such a restriction, and to take responsibility for enforcing it (especially in the sense of mentoring Ottava on how to respect it, if that proves necessary), I can live with that. I'd say offer it to Ottava and see what he says - a public response to that should go some way to showing whether he's ready to turn over a new leaf or not. Rd232 (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose It's a step, but this seems to avoid addressing a lot of the issues that he was blocked for. Most of the people [1] was directed at were not admins, and this response leads me to believe that he thinks that statement unpolitic, not wrong.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment OR will probably say I not should contribute to this thread however despite his opinion of me I am quite relaxed about an unblock. It seems that he will either contribute positively to the project - a net plus for everyone, or not in which case another block will occur. --Herbytalk thyme07:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
If the community wanted unblock him subject to an ironclad upload-focussed edit restriction (something like the current example at Commons:Editing restrictions, but more closely restricted to File: namespace, at least initially), I could live with that. But the likelihood of problems arising again is much too high for comfort - and the amount of time, effort and drama involved if a reblock is necessary is also too high for comfort. I'd be more willing to take the risk with more demonstration of commitment to change than one short paragraph just one month after showing the same old problems. Rd232 (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Support If he causes further discontent, he can be easily reblocked. He gets too much into nitanoid arguments but so do a lot of people on the Wiki, including those opposers who just want to make him crawl.TCO (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
"he can be easily reblocked" - doubtful. Very doubtful. Reblock (if it were to prove necessary) would surely be time-consuming and drama-filled, which is why an unblock should not be done lightly (so that hopefully a reblock wouldn't become necessary). Rd232 (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Support unblock per Herby and per TCO. I agree he could be easily reblocked, if necessary. Besides I'd like to point out that admin mattbuck repeatedly has been attacking a blocked editor. Such practice is unexceptable because a blocked editor cannot respond such attacks.
I'd also like to bring up a post one editor left at his English wikipedia page:
I don't get it; how does an attack on mattbuck avoid what you're complaining about? In any case, we aren't complaining about OR's mistakes; going back to the original block request and as I mentioned above, even after he was blocked, he consistently engaged in behavior where he turned any discussion into an attack on the other user, often accusing them of willful intent to damage the project. And this half-assed statement dragged out of him after a multiple-month block, doesn't say he was wrong in making accusations; it says that he was wrong in causing drama with admins.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose In the last months I never saw a constructive collaboration of this user but only barefaced and provocative activity's. If this user wants really to contribute in a positive way he should start with a new account. --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Wladyslaw, in the last months Ottava has been blocked, so you possibly could not have seen any contributions of the user. Besides he may not open a new account. He's blocked, and opening a new account calls "socking" in wikipedia's language, and make no mistake some users will go after that new account as a pack of rabid dogs as soon as it is discovered, and it will be rather sooner than later even if his behavior will be absolutely perfect. Trust me on that, I know.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
As a matter of course I meant the months before he was blocked, which one else? If he starts a new account without droping back in his old habits no one will discover him. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Wladyslaw, have you read what I quoted above? Here's one more time: "During such times, and even in general, we have a tendency to focus on the negative and overlook the positive". Let's please focus at Ottava's positive contributions, shall we? Anyway what I was trying to say is that: nothing horrible will happen, if Ottava is unblocked. Even, if Ottava is again to engage in the behavior that lead to the block, he could be reblocked. Nothing bad will happen to Commons. It will go on with all its free unfiltered porno and hate propaganda images that are not even added to the right categories, which are the the real problems. So let's give Ottava another chance please. He could be unblocked with restrictions. How about unblock with 2 months ban on all drama boards?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
(after EC) Maybe you didn't read what I has written above. I didn't say that he never do positive work, I said that I never perceived that. His agitation was so huge that his positive work became a minor point. As I realized that he also apologiesed at en.wp and after a while nothing has changed I don't understand why this should be different here at commons. Maybe this point I didn't get. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I'm a bit tired of the argument that just because someone does good work, they're entitled to abuse everyone around them. Perhaps we can set up a fee schedule, this many personal attacks for each 100 pictures uploaded or something?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Unblock subject to edit restriction
Subheader added to clearly distinguish proposals: above, unblock without conditions; below, unblock subject to edit restriction. Rd232 (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Ottava Rima is banned from editing COM:AN and its subpages. Where necessary (including starting new threads), he can contact any other editor to ask them to post for him. Ottava Rima is restricted to using only that account. Failure to adhere to these restrictions and expected norms of behaviour on Commons may result in further blocks.
If things go well in the presence of these restrictions then Ottava Rima could ask for them to be lifted after 3 months. Lifting would be subject to community discussion and consensus at COM:AN/U.
These restrictions follow a precedent and were worked out in cooperation with Herbythyme and Rd232 (see above). Hence, I would ask all of you to support an unblock of Ottava Rima under these editing restrictions he agreed to. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Support - maybe I've just missed something, but I never saw the point of the block in the first place. Commons is full of users who are equally or more disruptive (hell, one of our 'crats - Russavia - is banned for a year on en.wp, and Fry1989 engages used to engage in a personal attack almost every time he opens frequently and he doesn't didn't even apologize for it). Besides, I would totally support the idea that, if he has even a hint of a personal attack from now on, anyone can ban him on sight. w:WP:ROPE applies here perfectly. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
You know, I've been holding back on this one for 3 days. First night I saw this, I thought "oh hell no". The next day after thinking about it more, I came to the conclusion of a cautious support for an unblock, and now I'm not so sure again. However, I would like to ask Magog the Ogre to stick to factually correct statements when he chooses to include other users as a comparison. If he can link even ONE actual personal attack I've made inthe last 3 months (a broad enough period of time I would think), I will personally apologize to both the person I attacked and to Magog. But considering I only get in disputes with other users about 1/9th of the time of all my edits here, and my 3 years on Commons is littered with "please" and "thank you", I'd suggest that statements like "Fry1989 engages in a personal attack almost every time he opens his mouth" should be kept out of this. Fry1989eh?00:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Support The user claims that he won't repeat the issues from the past. I think that we should generally try to AGF when a user makes such a statement. If issues occur, it is easy to block the user again. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Support Most of my interctions with Ottava have been negative, and I'm not really sure a leopard can change its spots, however I think he deserves a single last chance, that he be unblocked with a short tight leash, and that the indef block becomes permanent for any trangression at all.--KTo288 (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
As long as Ottava Riema him-/herself assumes good faith, does not take each little disagreement for a large disruption of the work flow of Commons and refrains from misinterpreting what the other party said (just to make it explicit), maybe. Uploading good, free files is no problem and seldom requires interaction with other contributors. -- RE rillkequestions?15:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Support unblock subject to edit restrictions as specified. I sincerely hope that this works out, and we don't end up regretting this. Best of luck to all of us... Rd232 (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Support He has talked the right talk, now we need to see him walk the right walk. Ottava, please note that although the restrictions may be lifted after three months, I take your statement as a long term commitment. --99of9 (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Unrelated discussion on the meaning of the word "indefinite"
*Comment I don't know nothing about this history, don't know that user, and what he did, but if he was blocked indefinitely, maybe Admins had some reasons for that, and, I guess, decide this after a long evaluation process (discussions, debates, votes, warnings, short blocks etc)... And now, as for me, poor anonymous user, what means "indefinitely" in "Commons" english ? Nothing but "temporary", I'm afraid... Please remain constant in your decisions if you want to remain credible. Only my opinion, and nothing personal against the user himself nor the administrators. Thank you. --Jebulon (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Please be refered to this qualification by the blocking admin 99of9 which concluded the long discussion. This qualification started with This block is listed as indefinite, but can be lifted any time after 1 month if it is agreed in a public discussion that Ottava meets the following conditions, followed by some conditions. We are currently discussing here whether they are met or not. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks for explanations. One of you gave me the same in french on my talk page. I understand better now. My issue was with the use of the word "indefinite"...--Jebulon (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
You are not alone, Jebulon. It took me years on Commons to finally realize that indefinite means something like "not clearly defined or determined" in the context of blocks. Initially, I thought it meant forever or for an inifite amount of time. Nowadays I think about it like "a block until it is likely that the circumstances which caused the disruptions leading to the block will not happen again". It is these nuances which are sometimes so hard to grasp for us non-native English speaking users, and which can cause confusion and misunderstandings. --Slaunger (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
userpage is a complete resume, only upload is a profile picture of the user. In total, i would consider this an advertisement, so i warned him.--Trex2001 (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
several of his uploads got deleted already because out of project scope. Warning issued. There are at least 20 or so images left.--Trex2001 (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Comment The notices on his talkpage have only informed him that files have been proposed for deletion. COM:TALK#Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page? suggests that it is fine (but not recommended) to remove text from your own page, and there wasn't really any discussion going on there anyway; the discussion takes place elsewhere. He hasn't been asked to stop removing {{Delete}} templates from file information pages. Maybe he just doesn't know how the process works. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
User at will and intentionally creates duplicate categories such as Category:Kronprinsessan Victoria and Category:Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden (see talk pages there). I have fixed the first one and feel h/s should be asked to fix the other one h-self. No use posting anything (other that a tag about this thread) on h talk page, it seems, since h/s removes everything there. Potential big and expanding problem if it continues. User uploads valuable photos h/s takes h-self, but needs guidance rather urgently. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Never mind, all moved manually using Hotcat, since they needed another fix too. They listed the generic Category:Royalty of Sweden which is superfluous since the Crown Princess category already belongs to that category (if you go up a few levels in the category tree). On the other hand, all of the photos show Category:Prince Daniel, Duke of Västergötland, but his category wasn't listed at all. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I think all of his uploads are copyvio (some are already deleted/nominated), but I'm not sure. Could someone else take a look at it please? Thanks. Trijnsteltalk21:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Could you please keep an eye on him? He has recently uploaded pictures of celebrities and singers, most likely to have all rights reserved. One of his sources may be a flickr washing account (pictures with Copyright watermarks released under creative Commons licence). Thanks!--Ileana n (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
This user uploads his files with his real name Peter van der Sluijs
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Almost all his uploads are pictures of women from behind with the same description that walking or jogging is good for constipation. Others are pencil sketches of women sitting in the toilet. No {{Copyvio}} issues here but I guess the uploads are mostly {{Out of scope}}. His talk page is full of deletion requests. Does this require a user warning? --Sreejith K (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Using file names like these for such images is indeed curious. Yesterday I aked him on his talk page if he wants to write different file descriptions. After that he used different file names of images with jogging women. --High Contrast (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Judging by his talk page, it looks like he's had dozens of files previously deleted, but has never responded to any of the deletion nominations or comments on his talk page. I'm having a hard time believing this user is contributing in good faith. Kaldari (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I only nominated from about the last month, actually already too much for a manageable DR. But an administrator should feel welcome to deleted the older files as well. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Then why does he write captions to his image uploads in English?? This user comes across as ultra-creepy, which is not in itself against Commons policies (though some of the concrete manifestations and realizations of such generalized creepiness may be). AnonMoos (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Reading the NL message I think English may not be the main problem. He seems to have severe difficulties understanding the Wiki system. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
He says that he suffers from autism due to birth complications in his interview to kunstzinnig.nl, and obviously he really has communication problems -- could you simply leave that guy alone? Yes, he uploaded bunch of out of scope pictures, but also he uploaded a lot of great in scope photos (some of them were grabbed by external sites already), he obviously has good intentions about Commons, he really can help and helps to Commons. He messes some things up, but not that much more than some admins and some developers, not enough to assume his bad faith. I agree, it's cool to be a 20-year old without any health or any other problem, but could you all try to tolerate other people who do not fit in that category? --Trycatch (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry if he has problems in life, but he consistently refused to engage in any form of communication about a series of small problems, until all the small problems had built up into a medium-large problem, which other people then had to deal with. AnonMoos (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I can't find any more the tools to insert a warning, project scope, ... message on a user talk page. Where are they gone ? --Foroa (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I noticed this edit by this IP (who previously posted on this user page before, first to announce a death and some other things) telling people if they can out the people who are the adversaries of this user, they will get paid $25K (this user also has done stuff in the past where he offered to pay people if they proved people wrong). I feel this kind of behavior is completely unacceptable, so I have blocked the IP for a year. The block can be reduced if this payment for harassment/intimidation is retracted. User:Zscout370(Return fire)06:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Probably a good decision. Last time when I received a such a concealed threat, one of the admins just imposed a three day block on the user. And I was the second person to receive the threat from him/her. The user, however, never repented giving these threats and is still free to contribute, even though, I guess he's not active now. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC).
The whole IP/Doug_youvan situation is pretty strange and now that a supposed comment that Doug_youvan has passed, then hasn't, is just making things even more confusing. User:Zscout370(Return fire)17:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Man, you people are just chewing on each other...
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Chewing on each other...
Some flaming is fun in a forum...but it seems like that is all we have at this board? And the whole tattling to moderators and arguing all the time about punishments seems overdone. TCO (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Just shows how polarizing a character Pieter Kuiper is here. I've wisely stayed out of it and made some popcorn. Btw, that bird is so damn cute :D. Fry1989eh?21:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The AN/U that is perhaps the most heated I've seen here in recent memory is about Pieter Kuiper, and it's falling along lines of those who have had enough, and those who support him. If that's not the definition of "polarizing", idk what is. Fry1989eh?02:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Those were heated too, but I think Pieter Kuiper's is the only one that's had to be spun off to it's own page. I might be wrong. Fry1989eh?05:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
What is this about? We should put up with intentional and incorrigible cruelty year after year, and if some of us have had it, and fight harder and harder to get something done at last, others should be sarcastic about us arguing while ignoring the argument? The goal is obviously peace and quiet and the bare-ass minimum of a humane working climate. Any other suggestion on how to attain it? Come on! SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Closing thread. While there may be truth to these observations, this board is not the place for them. There's no point adding meta-drama to the drama. --99of9 (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Originally this was a regular deletion request, the nom states his case, the author states his case, then others come in with keep, delete or other commentary. However, this one turned into a personal attack on the author of the image by the nominator, User:Dave1185. As I have seen done many times before, I removed the personal attack and put in the edit summary exactly why I was doing so. The attack was replaced with a further threat against me for having removed the personal attack. Can an admin please have a look?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
From the looks of it, Kintetsubuffalo isn't the one who needs to calm down, and contrary to the closing note, I only saw one person threw around insults. Fry1989eh?02:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I quietly removed other personal attacks earlier on in the discussion. There were two parties to the incivility. Regardless, I support Kintet's removal of off-topic bickering. Mattbuck's closure is also good. --99of9 (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
This user and bot committed vandalism here (this four letter words by OnBot) and here (militan slogan by Supermæn). I asked him about these edits in Turkish Wikipedia and I understood that these edits were done by intentionally. Takabeg (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Fastily uploaded a presentation from UCSD, claiming it to be his own work. Pieter Kuiper emailed his colleage at UCSD and received apparently a response according to which no permission was given by the presenters. Pieter Kuiper filed then a deletion request as IP which was subsequently speedily closed with delete by Fastily with the comment fair enough. But Fastily went on by blocking not just the IP but also Pieter Kuiper indefinitely for block evasion. I find this very troublesome. It is bad enough to have apparently uploaded a copyvio but to block the messenger indefinitely for telling this is something which surely should have left to other admins or some consensus finding process at this board. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
For better or for worse, DR reason adjusted. Do what you will with the blocks (which I believe, involved or not, are inherently correct in terms of policy), but with the understanding that I shall be abstaining from any further contributions to this messy affair. Regards, FASTILY(TALK)08:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, clearly, I was mistaken, and I am quite happy to admit that error. Of course, in my defense, I've only been uploading videos since the beginning of May of this year, and am by no means an expert on that subject matter. I'll be reading up on those policies in the meantime. On a related note, I wish to make it clear that I don't have any issues with the editors currently combing through the several thousand of files I've contributed to this project. Being human, I will inevitably err (in good faith of course) with some of my uploads, and I would definitely like to be notified, in a friendly manner, about questionable uploads. Regards, FASTILY(TALK)08:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
We all make mistakes, Fastily, and we should indeed take the opportunity to learn something from it. What me admittedly upset here is that you blocked the messenger. I know that PK is no saint but I think that this was the wrong block by the wrong admin at the wrong time. Would it be an option for you to revert the indefinite block such that your previous block would be reinstantiated (which would expire on July 7th)? Then we could close this here, I think. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, if I may, I wish to recuse myself from making any new block-related decisions pertaining to PK and delegate that matter to be resolved by the community. -FASTILY(TALK)09:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I think any administrator should not need to be remembered by others never to use the block buttons if you are an involved party. Please refrain from such a doubtful usage of your tools. Blocks like this are far from helpful in gaining community trust. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Nope, and nor will I be taking any further action. The fact of the matter is, I'm done with this fiasco, and plan on returning to quietly developing bots and contributing files in the background. I have little interest in petty drama, and more than enough has been instigated on my behalf. I'm removing myself from this toxic equation, so that perhaps others will follow suite, allowing more reasonably minded individuals more room to quickly resolve the matter at hand. Last I checked, the one thing that differentiates en.wikipedia from commons is the atmosphere of collegiality we possess here. I would like to think that it still exists and that we should, not could, all be doing something productive with our time. -FASTILY(TALK)12:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The witch hunt here was one of Pieter. This is just fallout to what happens when you go off on a witch hunt (and abuse your admin powers, and have a shaky grasp of copyright).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I've no intention of witch hunting anyone but a block such as this was utterly wrong under the circumstances - I am sure you would not place such a block when you were is what appears to be a rather unpleasant dispute with a user? --Herbytalk thyme12:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
At the moment Fastily is doing Commons more harm than good. I lost my trust in him some time ago. This is just another incident in a long chain of unfortunate events. I think it's better for Commons and him if he resigns his adminship. Multichill (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Can all involved parties try to calm down a bit? I feel that the Commons community suddenly has become very hostile. Block here, desysop there. In my opinion, the contributions of User:Fastily and User:Pieter Kuiper are generally good, although the present conflict has stirred up emotions a bit. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I do not feel comfortable with having an admin who is not aware what a fixed work is, when you can legally fix a work, and under what circumstances an unfixed work can be PD. Or to put it simply, he should know better than to videotape somebody's stuff and put it on Commons. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 16:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Also desysop, per Multichill & JN466. An admin who doesn't understand "don't block personally involved, or seemingly involved, parties" and who doesn't recognise the irrevocability of a CC licence shouldn't have a mop. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Don't desysop. While Fastily shouldn't have made that block, as he was involved, PK goaded him into doing it with his malicious trolling. Almost all of Fastily's admin actions here are good, and he recognizes that there were problems with his block of PK. --Claritas
Oy, whatever. One can just as well argue that PK was "goaded () into doing it (by) malicious trolling". The difference is that one user abused their admin rights, the other didn't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Support desysop, it's nothing like an isolated incident or something. @Stefan4. "I feel that the Commons community suddenly has become very hostile." -- definitely. However, not in the last place that's because people think they can get away with anything -- and it's true for both PK and Fastily. It sometimes amuses me how easy to get admin bits on Commons, and how hard to lose them because of abuse -- it should be the other way around I believe. --Trycatch (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think COM:DESYSOP's "some consensus for removal" has been met (I interpret that as multiple users in good standing supporting removal). If a request for desysop is actually going to be pursued, this section might serve a further purpose in drafting one. Rd232 (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
While I am disappointed that Fastily refused to revert his bad block and chose to go into hiding instead of helping to resolve this, I would suggest not to pursue this further into the direction of a desysop request. People have at times a bad day or bad week. We should not make this bigger as it is. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Support desysop. And this is not only because of the very clear abuse of admin tools in the case of Pieter. Which it WAS a very clear and vindictive abuse of admin tools. But also because generally, Fastily just loves deleting other people's work, often on very spurious grounds (for example deleting user generated own work images/maps because the uploader didn't specify "source" (as in "myself") in the template) while him/her self uploading obvious copyright infringements as pointed out above (if I wanted to be mean, I could easily point out several other problematic images, in addition to those which have already been removed, from the user's uploads, but atm I have neither the inclination nor the time to do that). This is what got Fastily in trouble over at en-wiki and after being sanctioned there transferred the exact same behavior here. It's either an issue of competence or some kind of "I get to delete you therefore I win!" kind of game the user is playing, or both, but in either case, it's not the proper approach for an administrator of any website, certainly not this one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek: In regard to deletions that appear to be unjust, I suggest to raise this at COM:UDEL if they have already been deleted and/or to raise this at his talk page. I know that there were already concerns in this direction at this board. We should, however, give anyone including admins the opportunity to discuss this first and then to learn from it. We have an incredibly amount of backlogs at Commons and Fastily tried to do something about this. We should support him in improving this process and should not immediately ask for a de-sysop when some cases went wrong. BTW, anyone including non-admins can help here by checking tagged files before they are up to deletion. If there is a coordination required to avoid the same file checked multiple times we can surely set something up supporting such a process. In case of mistakes remove the tags and notify the user who tagged it or open a regular DR for it if more input is required. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
We should, however, give anyone including admins the opportunity to discuss this first and then to learn from it. Discussion and learning is key, yes. Everyone makes mistakes, the key is to be open to feedback and learning. One of the reasons I'm open to the possibility of supporting a desysop (I'm undecided, there's not a bunch of evidence presented here) is the bad experiences I've personally had in trying to discuss things with Fastily. The incredibly swift auto-archiving (one day!) also effectively cuts off discussion which may not be concluded satisfactorily, in a way that fits rather neatly with the unresponsive attitude I experienced. Rd232 (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Fastily's dismissal of other editors and little issues like the rapid blanking of talkpage comments might be acceptable for an infallible admin. However basic mistakes like the "revocable" CC licence of the dinosaurs are at odds with this assumption of perfect unchallengability. Admins can have it either way, I think there's a recognition that some margin of error is resonable, but they can't have it both ways at once like this. Fastily acts in a way as if they never make mistakes, yet they make them, and make some big ones. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree that threads should stay longer on a talk page of an admin. I wasn't aware of that. And he should move to another archive, the current has meanwhile accumulated 543,188 bytes which takes ages to load. I think from this thread that we should encourage him to take these issues seriously when he returns from his break. Good communication is indeed essential to resolve issues that inevitable occur during the activities of a busy admin. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The talk page issue had been brought up before and dismissed by Fastily. In various fields of admin activity by Fastily, we had the same issue when they hastily closed DRs, deleted images with no source, .. Each time it ended with "I will stop doing these" while letting other users clean up after them. -- Docu at04:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, let it go, friend. Andreas pretty much nailed it. Seems almost like a normal person, not a Wikimeanian. TCO (talk) 03:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
hindi translation of the template
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
You are taking decisions too quickly. You've deleted the Hindi version of the template without taking into account what I'm saying. My translation is not to challenge the English version but only to represent my national language. THERE IS A STRONG NEED TO RESTORE THE HINDI VERSION OF THE TEMPLATE. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC).
but here is no need for yelling in multicolored caps. Just saying...and btw, this is I guess the wrong place to ask anyways--Trex2001 (talk) 06:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I think this user has been hounding me by participating in many DRs that I have started, continuing to revert my edits, getting in massive arguments like here, etc. Furthermore, I think this user should be subject to a interaction ban between him and me for those very reasons. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 01:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
If you can give some diffs on how I've been hounding you, I'd appreciate that because I don't believe I've encountered you before today. All I've done today was (a few hours ago) remove various images which are obviously PD-simple from Magog the Ogre's subpage User:Magog the Ogre/questionably PD-ineligible content. These images include File:2division.png and File:Accessible Media Inc.png which are both extremely simple and the chance of them being copyrighted is nearly zero. You reverted that removal claiming there was no proof these images were too simple. So about a half hour ago I left you a message on your talk page (which you have since removed) telling you not to revert me again and re-add extremely simple images, giving you the two examples above of what you re-added. My message may not have been the most polite, but it was hardly hounding or rude. I then spent the last 20 minutes going through Category:Deletion_requests_June_2012, which I usually do about once every few days, to give my opinion on various DRs. If I've come across any of your DRs, that's mere coincidence, not hounding. I would also like for you to give a diff of where I have gotten into any "massive arguments" (sic) in the last few weeks or so, because I don't believe I'd gotten in one of those either. Fry1989eh?01:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) The page you are talking about is located in Magog the Ogre's user space. Isn't it better to let him decide which logos he finds questionable? He obviously thought that the logos were questionable at some point since he listed them there. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, you know why I said "STOP THIS NOW"? Because you keep reverting me and adding images like File:2division.png to a page that questions files' copyright statuses, when that's so incredibly simple, it's like saying File:RAF roundel.svg is copyrighted, which is rediculous. They're both a set of basic circles. Puhleese. As for the request I be blocked, that's rediculous. You're completely over-reacting, I have not hounded you, you have no diffs even suggesting that, and you really think "stop this now" is a blockable edit summary? Fry1989eh?01:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Stefan4, actually C3F2K has edited that page several times in the past himself, so perhaps you'd like to direct that to the both of us, rather than just myself if you disagree with anyone other than Magog the Ogre editing that subpage. 01:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Going through my recent history, I can't find any DRs started by C3F2K that I've participated in, though I did recently participate in the same DR he has, I didn't even addresse him, I just stated my opinion and added a keep vote. I'm now gonna ask for a boomerang and that C3F2k be blocked for a day for starting this DR accusing me of 1: hounding him (which I clearly have not, I've only ever even posted on his talk page once), 2: following him around to his DRs, 3: getting into "massive arguments", which also is not true, 4: asking for a interaction ban simply because I disagree with him on something, and 5: asking I be blocked for the edit summary "stop this now", which is absolutely civil. Fry1989eh?02:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I found two DRs that C3F2K started that I commented on yesterday, this one and this one. I still don't see any "hounding" (sic), so my request for a BOOMERANG stands. This is a complete over-reaction with false accusations and bad faith assumptions about my removal of PD-simple content from questionably_PD-ineligible_content. Fry1989eh?02:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
OPPOSE -- I can understand C3F2K being slightly annoyed, but coming here seems to be a ridiculous overreaction. Also, there is no COM:BOOMERANG (which would be rather stupid and childish in any automatic and rigid form), so I oppose that too... AnonMoos (talk) 05:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe there actually is, I remember on at least two separate occasions on AN/U where a user made a bad faith or vindictive (I'm not saying this was vindictive, but bad faith absolutely) AN/U about another user, and an intervening admin telling the user to consider themselves lucky they don't receive a boomerang for it. If you oppose such an action, that is of course within your rights. Fry1989eh?06:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the "boomerang" is a metaphorical and figurative implement, like the "banhammer", and does not represent any officially-adopted Commons policy. It's up to admin discretion, and requesting it is not a request that Commons policies be enforced... AnonMoos (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
"participating in many DRs that I have started"? That's not hounding. Nor is engaging in vigorous discussion of an issue hounding. Generally I find it a useful skill on these wikis to realize when I've said all that needs to be said, I'm not moving the person I'm discussing it with, and end my part of the conversation, and do this not for anyone else but myself, because I don't need to spend more time and emotional energy on the discussion, and do this instead of acting like the other person is being outrageous.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
This user has uploaded many images from 1940-50s under PD-art (older than 100 years/life of the author plus 70 years). Tagged some. Please check. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Every single upload by this user has been copyright violation. Recently he/she has uploaded three helicopter photographs lifted directly from the Internet. Previously the images uploaded were taken directly from Swiss government websites, but have been released by the uploader as their own work, claiming to be the copyright holder. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I realize commons community is incapable of reacting to problematic behaviour but... Zscout370 seems to have a serious problem in restraint on using Sysop tools as visible in File:Flag of Israel.svg. He not only reverted my introduction of information template (only to revert himself (kinda)) but also protected the page. Afterwards he blocked me for a day. Zscout370 did not notify me on my talk page and I noticed the warning on his talk page after I had already made my edit and would have willingly stop prior.
I was replacing a few instances of {{Ku}} with {{Ckb}} on pages where the text is entirely in Arabic script. Both templates read the same thing but ckb properly sorts text in rtl and displays a matching script. Both templates display the same word.
[3]19:00, 8 June 2012 Zscout370 (talk | contribs) blocked とある白い猫 (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation blocked) (Edit warring after warnings: You been told to stop with the Kurdish changes; you still did it.)
Your block was for a day and that discussion had nothing to do with ckb language code replacement.
Toaru-whatever -- I realize that you feel extremely passionate about this issue (for whatever reason), but there seems to be very little point in setting up structures on Commons which contradict the decisions which have been arrived at concerning already-established Wikipedias... AnonMoos (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Anon-whatever. I am not passionate. I just see a technical problem that has a negative impact on commons. The current commons template structure contradicts existing structure of said wikipedias as we do have a w:ckb that separated from w:ku in 2010. We are banning the use of language codes for ckb as users will be blocked for using {{Ckb}} in place of {{Ku}} when appropriate. There was no consensus to ban the use of {{Ckb}} on commons and any user can update language codes to something more appropriate. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 21:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
It is a matter of ku vs ckb. One is problematic. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 23:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Users will not be blocked for using ckb in place of ku where appropriate. If someone is translating descriptions or writing original ones and uses ckb, nobody is going to second-guess them. But you started a discussion on the Village Pump, and when nobody, including the Kurdish speakers, responded positively, you went ahead with your changes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I was blocked for that reason. Those replacements were appropriate. The idea was to generate a few examples on how little was going to change should the updates were made. It was for demonstration purposes. I was going to stop after 10 examples even if I was not blocked for it. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 12:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
So? There is no point in using ku for text that is in ckb. This is like insisting on tagging something as Chinese when you know the text is in Japanese. Japanese uses Chinese characters but it shouldn't be tagged as Chinese. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 20:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Is there any oversight on this wiki for admin actions? -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 15:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Jebulon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is adding repeatedly personal, a kind of ironic, s.th. provocative comments at QIC. Latest examples are [4], [5], [6], [7]. In all those comments I see no factually intention covering the candidature itself. This examples are not closing, there are many of them. This behaviour of disturbing I realise since several months now. I expect that this behaviour will end because it is not raison d'être to carry out the personal preconceptions in the functional pages like QIC is one. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
What is finally the purpose of this denonciation ? Yes, I fully agree. And so what ? QIC is a very serious thing, and nothing other than promoting Taxiarchos pictures is allowed there (or, at least, it is forbidden to decline). "Disturbing" the "soft terror" is sometimes necessary. Nothing personal, I ironize only against a kind of behaviour, not against the person, obviously !!!! Let's breathe a bit ! By the way, if you don't know what is a revenge vote, hidden behind so-called technical arguments, please have a magnificient example there. Must be preserved in formalin, and shown in the "Commons User's Highschool" for the following generations, IMO. Too funny. --Jebulon (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
A pity that it's inflaming again. Albeit we actually have the wiki principle here, it would really be better now for both of you, to avoid any of each other's candidatures consequently. @ Jebulon: The recent comments in the QIC were indeed not helpful. I've found a comment by you requesting Taxiarchos to keep away from your candidatures, but, to be fair, do the same concerning his pictures. @ Wladyslaw: Please remove your recent FP vote, although you may (and should) vote in any candidature you like, it's simply producing too much trouble in this situation, which we don't want. Nevertheless, all I've said above is not an administrative requirement, warning or similar, just my humble opinion. Thanks - A.Savin11:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, A.Savin, for appeasing words, you are right and I apologize, I'll try to keep away from Taxiarchos' pictures. Indeed, my comments were not helpful regarding the pictures, because it was a comment about a behaviour and not a technical one, and therefore not the good place to do. A paradox: i've made a pure technical comment under another picture, but nobody asks me for a removal... Anyway, no matter. Ira furor brevis. --Jebulon (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Info As he removed my comments in QIC, I've removed "to be fair" the strong personal attacks by Wladyslaw in FPC, and in order to calm down, I've removed my own previous comment about his revenge vote in the same page.--Jebulon (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I will not talk narrow-minded "if you remove your comment I will remove mine". Here we have a clear misuse of the functional side and a comment of Jebulon. A comment Jebulon criticized some weeks ago against me. Did we have double standards here? --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Let's be clear: I don't ask anybody to do or un-do anything. I absolutely don't care about Taxiarchos/Wladyslaw's oppose or comment at my picture on FPC, anyone is able to have his own idea about this vote and his timing. I just do, for myself, what I think I have to do. I have no idea about bargaining, negociation or "if" or something. I've nothing to "discuss" with Taxiarchos/Wladyslaw because it is simply impossible to question his opinions.--Jebulon (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
We don't need any deviation of Jebulon and let's get back to the basic point: Jebulon weighted because I called votes activity of revenge and now he did. Not only that he did but he don't miss any chance to call pro-votes for my pictures as a kind of "friendly turn" or comments factual dissensions in a very unobjective way. Either Jebulon avowe that he'll stop this behaviour or I request to bann him several days and give him the chance to think about his attitude. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I think Jebulon has already said he'll stop. To be specific, he said: "[...] I apologize, I'll try to keep away from Taxiarchos' pictures." Does this really need further discussion? --Avenue (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Sententiousness promises from Jebulon I have already read here weeks ago. I never asked J. to keep away from my candidatures but I expect objectiveness he obviously can't hold. And J. just wrote that he have tried to keep away but didn't manage. I see this discussion here as last warning to him. Next time I request a ban for him. It's unbelievable to be engaged with such a immature stuff. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
...Or I'll request myself a ban for Taxiarchos because of his use and abuse of insulting words like "Sententiousness", "ridiculous behaviour", "immature stuff" against me. Last warning to him. Resolved until next time indeed, but enough is enough !--Jebulon (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
How can this possibly be perceived as a provocation, when it is made as a response to your comment regarding a review of Jebulon, which goes like this "Your arguments are not comprehensible, indeed they are sadly not really established."?? For me, that is provocative. Shakes head. --Slaunger (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a big difference between saying you don't understand someone's argument (e.g. "I don't understand why you think [...]. Can you please explain why [...]?") and stating directly that their argument is incomprehensible. The former is almost always reasonable; the latter is not far from calling them a raving lunatic. Okay, I'm exaggerating, but not by much. --Avenue (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
There is only a difference if you want to side with Jebulon and you will. One indication is your exaggeration. So your comment is not very helpful sadly. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
As I was trying to say in the section below, you may not realize how it sounds to a native English speaker, but I can assure you that the word "incomprehensible" is much stronger (and places the blame on the other party) than "I don't understand" or "please explain". Your English is very good, but there are subtleties in any language that make it difficult to be diplomatic unless you stick to moderate language. --99of9 (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Proposed closure: interaction ban
I propose that a mutual interaction ban is placed between Taxiarchos228 and Jebulon. Neither should comment or vote on one another's images, nor reply or mention one another's comments, nor visit one another's talk pages. 6 months?
Support Both do great work, but in recent months neither seems to be able to communicate productively with the other. --Avenue (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Slaunger has convinced me an indefinite ban, until both agree to work together without rancor, is better than a fixed term. I'd also prefer not to ban interactions on their talk pages. --Avenue (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Neutral I do not oppose but I don't believe it will solve the problem. Just look at the section below COM:AN/U#User:Biopics: Taxiarchos is a good and valuable contributor for Commons, I've personnaly learnt a lot from him and Jebulon (well I hope) but from time to time he just can't accept review of his own work. I know some comment may seems harsh or unjustified but sometimes it's constructive in its way, may be the one who did the comment can also learn something from the photographer. Sorry for all the talking ... --PierreSelim (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment Really, all that is needed is to avoid getting personal in the reviews. I think it is too far fetched in its proposed form. For instance about talk pages. I do not recall ever having seen any unfortunate interactions on their user pages. Say, if one of the two gentlemen stretched out their hand acknowledging the ridiculousness of the conflict and offered peace, should that not be allowed on a talk page? Frankly, I have not seen any retaliatory votes from either side either. Retaliatory comments yes, but not really votes and they have been not only on own nominations but just as often in consensual reviews. Lenght. Don't like a fixed length - then it seems like some sort of punishment. The point is to avoid further disruption. Instead of x months, I would rather say until they have made a mutual agreement to forget past bad history and work productively within the same subject areas without snide, ridiculing or other baiting comments. I am sure that if a little positive attitude is found, we do not need to use this "interaction ban apparatus". At least I see that Jebulon has ceased firing back with unconstructive comments. Now we just need one more party to calm down. And a settlement. --Slaunger (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is "all" that is needed, but this is not as easy for everyone as it sounds. I agree the talk page ban is probably unnecessary. Things have not always been friendly there,[8] but I haven't seen any major conflicts. I also agree that an indefinite ban, until both agree to work constructively together, would be better than a fixed term. --Avenue (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I suggest a block on this user name. The user can be suggested to opt for an acceptable username, if (s/)he would like to make meaningful contributions to Wiki Projects. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC).
He was already blocked 1 day for this on June 17th, I've blocked him for 1 month hoping he will get the message this time. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I have blocked this user indefinitely for trying, yet again, to revoke his license on images he donated in 2009. This time, he tried to do it by making DR'S that claimed the images were incorrect in some kind of fashion. The last time he did this caused a very major problem at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fastily/Archive_1#Dinosaurs and caused not only the deletion of hundreds of images (by changing the license from free to unfree) but also caused a lot of Commons processes to stop (such as Delinker being blocked from several projects). User:Zscout370(Return fire)05:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't know. Going through his edits he's been mostly updating the links to his website on his many uploads, and it looks like he's nominated a very few of them for deletion along the way due to being wrong. Isn't it possible he's alerting us in good faith about this? You put a block in place that prevents editing own talk page, perhaps you could chat with him about his motives? -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 05:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
If you mass DR your images not even a month after you put the same images from CC-BY to CC-ND-NC just to remove them, then change your reasons for deletion just to pull one over our eyes, I lost a lot of AGF very quickly. I'll unblock the talk page, though. User:Zscout370(Return fire)05:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
On Commons:Deletion requests/File:Triceratops new BW.jpg he claimed that the file was unused, but the file is obviously in use. I have closed all of the DRs with the same reasoning. If files are inaccurate that is a matter for local projects to decide whether to use. Other than that, free licences can not be revoked, and I see this as part of that attempt. russavia (talk) 05:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Nothing justifies indefblock here giving that the user was never blocked or warned before. Moreover, nothing justifies any block here, because it seems that he nominated only few pictures he thought were inaccurate -- while he uploaded ~600 pictures, he nominated because of inaccuracies only ~60. BTW some of these inaccuracies were pointed by other users, e.g. [9], [10], so it's completely beyond me, why people who are not subject experts assume bad faith of experts so easily. --Trycatch (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
The indefinite is mostly for him to stop and discuss on why he wants the images gone. I know some have supported an accuracy issue one some of them, but others are just a reason (I feel) to get rid of images he tried to before by changing the licensing or coming up with a reason to slip a few past by us. He also has been contacted by other users regarding if he was even able to legally upload the images. Once he begins communication on his talk page, I will lift the block. User:Zscout370(Return fire)06:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
??? I do not see any sign on the user talk page or on the thread above, that you have tried to resolve your conflict yourself with the other user prior to coming here. Why do you think I am not calm? --Slaunger (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I do not think Biopics reponse was out of line considering that you had just ridiculed him with the personal insult (note the symmetry) "Biopics: instead of making a speech about your perception specify the category if you can, if not: don't get on our nerves." Biopics was referring to the Taxon requirement for QIs in the guidelines, an entirely valid expectation for a QI. It is part of the homework prior to nomination and not the responsibility of a reviewer. --Slaunger (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
We don't have the same opinion referring to the Taxon requirement but here is (1) not the space to discuss it and (2) it is not relevant for the question and the announcement. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
(EC) You were the one who personalized that thread: "Biopics: instead of making a speech about your perception" ... "don't get on our nerves". I realize that this was probably not intended to be rude, but if this came from a native English speaker, I would consider it rude. And anyway, we have a very clear principle that QI discussion should be about the content of the file, not the other commenters. Given that you were the one who started it, I am not inclined to sanction the response (with a similar level of rudeness). --99of9 (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Please stick to the point and make the difference: "getting on ones nerves" is no insult but a personal statement. This expresses my opinion (but others think similar) and is for sure no invidious term. An insult is a word just having the intention to hurt a reputation and is in most cases just an respectless comment. To call s.o. a troll or s.o. is trolling around is IMO such an insult. If I am wrong please explain it to me and I will gather this word in my vocabulary to call persons that are gteting me on my nerves also "a troll". --14:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
You wrote "our nerves", not "my nerves", so how can such a generalizing comment about a person be a personal statement except if it was in majestatis pluralis. And how come you know what others think? --Slaunger (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I wrote this because also other users are sick of the nit-picking comments of Biopics. But this is not the point and it is for sure no insult. This we don't have to discuss here. Don't deviate and I guess Biopics can also speak for himself. Thank you for considering. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
"making a speech" implies that Biopics was over-dramatizing something, what he actually did was "comment" (and apply the rules of QI to the image). It is somewhat rude to exaggerate in this way, especially if you are also supposed to be discussing the photograph according and whether it satisfies the rules. "don't get on our nerves" is rude because it implies that someone is too annoying to properly listen to or engage with. But the main point is, if you don't like what happens once a discussion gets personalized, then you shouldn't personalize discussions. --99of9 (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
No, the main point is: is calling someone a troll an insult or not. I don't decry Biopics rude style but one the used word "troll". Not more and not less. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree completely with 990f9 here. To say someone is "trolling around" is not polite, but you started it. --Avenue (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I do not called his behaviour "trolling", that is the point. And I haven't started nothing, the antipathy between Biopics and me is older than a year, so no one of us will speak to each other in a friendly way. But it is an extremely difference between an critical inflection and a personal insult he did now. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
You both commented rudely on the other's behaviour. "Trolling around" is probably closer to a direct insult, but the difference wasn't as big as you think. When three people (including two native English speakers) disagree with your interpretation of a communication, that might be a good time to reconsider your interpretation. --Avenue (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Lovely - much appreciated - start a de-admin request please (given I haven't actually edited since I explained my position - so old history really). --Herbytalk thyme17:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Why are you bringing this up here, the administrators' notice board, if you want a checkuser? Even if there is no notice board for CUs, you have the possibility to ask one (or more) of the remaining 6. /RE rillkequestions?18:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Done The user has been already warned in the past, and also blocked few weeks ago (for 3 days). I've blocked him 1 month this time and nuked the uploads.--PierreSelim (talk) 06:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
English: 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.
हिन्दी: यह वह स्थान है जहाँ सदस्य प्रबंधकों से, तथा प्रबंधक एक दूसरे से संवाद कर सकते हैं। आप बर्बरता, समस्याग्रस्त सदस्य या कोई और विषय जिसके लिए एक प्रबंधक के हस्तक्षेप की ज़रूरत हो, यहाँ बयान कर सकते हैं। Please incorporate this Hindi description into this page.Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC).
This user has consistently assumed bad faith in my edits, and it's now coming out as a deliberate attempt to discredit me in any dispute we're both involved in. The user started the above AN/U about myself, but then withdrew it after his lack of diffs or evidence coupled with the objections of two users I rarely get along with anyways. However apparently C3F2k hasn't let it go, because he just added this comment to a DR we're both in. Yes, the file happens to be one of my uploads, but I do not see how that is in any way relevant to my objection to it's deletion, and evidence towards why it shouldn't be. This is targeted harassment, plain and simple. Fry1989eh?21:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Please be careful with the usage of this noticeboard. The DR will resolve itself, sufficient people seem to understand that PD-textlogo applies. No need for discussion here. (btw, you linked to the wrong diff.) Ices2Csharp (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
No I didn't link the wrong diff, I picked the exact one I wanted thank you very much. Now, if C3F2k had made that comment alone, this wouldn't even be here. But the fact that he started an AN/U of me only a few days ago asking for me to be blocked and banned from interaction with him simply because I disagreed with him in a few DRs (where I was absolutely civil despite my objections), and the fact it failed after two other users who I don't get along with anyways objected, and his lack of evidence for ad hominem accusations like "hounding" and "getting into massive arguments", preceding this choice of comment in an attempt to discredit my objection to the deletion of Dish Network logo 2012 just because I'm "the uploader", I consider a targeted attack on myself. It's bad faith assumption that simply because I'm the uploader that makes myu objection less valid, it's frankly irrelevant because uploaders are always allowed to defend their files that are nominated for deletion (and in fact encouraged since whenever a file is nominated, a notice must be placed on the uploader's talk page so they can replay), and this user has assumed bad faith towards me from the very beginning. And I'm not the only user that C3F2k has asked to receive a punishment for having the audacity to disagree with him in a DR, he's only been on Commons since May 20th 2012, and in these less than two past months, he's started one AN/U for a user to be blocked for disagreeing with him, and started a de-adminship request against one of our most prolific admins because Jim had the audacity to keep a file that C3F2k thought was "dodgy". Fry1989eh?22:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
This is why I proposed an interaction ban in the first place. Also this seems to be misuse of the noticeboard. Plus, where have I assumed bad faith? And also I am still trying to get the hang of Commons. Do you want me to leave? This is why I quit from Wikipedia, because of this. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 00:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The interaction ban was absolutely preposterous, I had only encountered you maybe a few days before you started that AN/U about me, we never even fought about anything, all I did was give my opinion in a couple DRs that you happened to be involved in as well, some you started yourself, some you didn't. For being "brave enough" to not agree with you about whether a couple files should be deleted or not, I get an AN/U asking I be banned from interacting with you, and blocked for "hounding" you, something which I never did, I had never even gone near your talk page or addressed you directly in any of the DRs. You completely over-reacted, and others agreed. But now you're going further, you deliberately added a comment on this DR pointing out I happen to be the uploader of the image in question. Now I ask you, how is that relevant? What possible factor does that add to my objection to the file being deleted, and whether or not my objection is valid? Maybe you didn't do it to try and discredit me, maybe you just felt it was something that should be pointed out, but then when I went to your talk page, I find out that you created a De-adminship Request for one of our best and calmest admins just because he decided to close and keep a different DR that you disagreed with. If you want to get along with people here, you are gona have to learn that not everyone will agree, and when they don't, that doesn't mean they're bad, it doesn't mean they're harassing you, and it doesn't mean they should loose their admin powers. Do I want you to leave? I rarely want anyone to leave Commons, and so far, you're not one of them. But I would like you to not single out people just for disagreeing with you in DRs, and asking that they be De-admined or blocked or banned from interacting with you because of it. Fry1989eh?01:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I will have to learn that. But remember I have only been around here for 1 month, which is not very much. And I would've put that tag on any other DR if the uploader commented, not specifically you. It just alerts of a possible conflict of interest. And yes, I do regret that de-adminship request. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 01:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I had alot to learn when I came here 2 1/2 years ago, I still have things to learn. And regret shows that you understand when your wrong, but an interaction ban is only warranted when there is massive disruption and harassment by one user against another. Fry1989eh?01:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Continuation
C3F2k if continuing to follow me around and stir up problems. Today has been part of a continuation of my above complaint. I edited File:Best Western logo.svg back on the 19th, removing the Registered Trademark symbol. I have my own reasons for this, which can be seen on the file talk page. Anyways, VernoWhitney disagreed with that, and we ended up having a discussion on the file talk page outlining our views. We never did come to a formal agreement, but an informal one has come to pass since VernoWhitney has left the file to my revision without the mark for over 4 days. Today, C3F2k "stumbles upon it"and reverts me claiming there's no consensus. I notified him on his talk page (twice) to joi in on the file discussion page, but instead he removed that from his talk page both times and continued to edit war on the file 4 times, the final one threatening to report me "to the admins". He did actually do that, only to remove it moments later saying it's "better off taking it one on one". He then when to an admin Morning Sunshine's talk page to directly request I be blocked, for an edit war he started. Directly asking an admin on their talk page to block another user without looking into the details is not only wrong, it's dangerous, causing an admin to block the wrong person, or give out indiscriminate blocks without knowing the details of the situation. Once again C3F2k shows disregard for proper process here, continues his attempt to intimidate me, and it needs to stop. I'm tired of being followed around, I'm tired of him asking for my block whenever he and I cross roads and happen to disagree, and most importantly I'm tired of this user disrespecting proper process for dispute resolution such as talk pages and (when neccessary) AN/U boards. Fry1989eh?01:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
related note I have warned C3F2K and blocked Fry1989 for edit warring on File:Best Western logo.svg (Fry has previously been warned in similar circumstances). After the block expires, if an alternate version is desired, it can be uploaded to a new location. Fry1989, your "informal [agreement]" with VernoWhitney was no agreement at all - there were multiple reverts from both parties after the last talk page post (before this latest flare-up). VernoWhitney's leaving the page is a credit to them as the one who first got tired of the revert war, it is not an agreement that you were correct. --99of9 (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I'm glad that you were at least attempting to talk, Fry1989, but alas you both failed to cease fire before actually commencing discussion. --99of9 (talk) 03:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
How someone with 0 contrib before this thread can be in conflict with another user. No conflict, no thread, lets archive this. --PierreSelim (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
This editor has a peak in appearance since this Kuiper Pieter discussion started due to his block. His obligations there are welcome - anyone is of course allowed to take part in this discussion. Nevertheless there is a problem with his tone there and his use of rough words surrounding the discussion - especially against the User:Fæ. The most recent example can be found here. This is an inappropriate and offensive use of rough words. The rest of Volunteer Marek`s snappy responses can be found here. User:Volunteer Marek should use a civil language so that his arguments can be taken seriously which could help to solve this Pieter Kuiper case. Thank you all! --178.10.107.11013:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The typical WC & Co. behavior. Picking one contributer, digging up some facts, make an awful disgusting story out of nothing (not backed up by facts, or presented in worst light possible)¹ and followed up by attacks (on-wiki and off-wiki) by the whole group - with the only goal to drive away the target. I still have the hope that one admin or a group of admins has the guts to protect the projects future from such scoundrelly creatures.
¹ If the adminship still does not understand about what I'm talking, take a look at such pages that only serve this purpose and are written by this WC creatures: [15], [16], ... --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言14:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
scoundrelly creatures? WC creatures?? Dehumanize other editors much Niabot? In a comment about civility no less? Seriously, how is referring to other humans as "creatures", in an obviously derogatory manner NOT subject to an immediate block? Or is it just that the rule you try to apply to others don't apply to you?
I'm not even gonna bother clicking on the links (to what exactly? Your own personal blog or something?) as I'm genuinely concerned as to what may pop up on my screen or get downloaded to my computer where I to do so.
And editor "178.10.107.110". Who exactly are you? Why are you hiding behind an IP address, despite your obvious familiarity with the issue here? While attacking others anonymously may seem like great fun, it's actually sort of cowardly - and your claims tend to get discounted by others appropriately. So let's have a username here, ey?
There was nothing wrong with any of my comments. Or at least, if there was something wrong with my comment then the original comment by Fae was obviously even worse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Has repeatedly uploaded copyvios despite an end-copyvios warning. Please delete the new contribs (tagged) and deal with as appropriate. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff05:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Several uploaded protected images, O Globo as a source, all material on this group is protected. Sorry my bad english. Fabianomsg01:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
User:Niabot using deletion nominations as retaliation
The User:Niabot is antagonizing me by wiki-stalking my uploads. Note that shortly before his nomination of a parade float photo of mine, he was trolling my Talk page, and nominating another photo of mine for deletion. I noted at the time that Niabot had singled out my parade photo in particular (because he has a vendetta against me alone), while letting pass the numerous other similarphotos of the Electrical Light Parade. Credit where it's due, User:Russavia at least made the other lighted parade photos disappear, since mine was made to disappear, so the ruling was applied consistently. Nonetheless, the actions of Niabot beyond reasonable doubt were not sincere Deletion requests, but rather a petty trolling amusement for him. I request that Niabot should be warned. -- Thekohser (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
If you mean that by my removing your trolling comment from my Talk page, and you reading my edit summary that mentioned that I'm uploading content to Commons, that this was an invitation for you to wiki-stalk (that is the term, yes?) my uploads and find fault with two of them, where one was exonerated, and the other was brought down by only a very loose interpretation of a French law on lighting displays, as it would hypothetically apply in the United States, then I suppose we can all applaud the interpretation that this "informed you" about the uploads. -- Thekohser (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Entschuldige bitte, aber bei dem Kommentar konnte ich gerade einfach nur lachen. Es war so amüsant zu lesen wie du es versuchst schlichte Tatsachen zu verdrehen und Mücken die Rüsselnase aufzusetzen. Schau dann erst einmal eine Runde Fußball, bin sowieso schon in bester Stimmung. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言19:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Suck it up. I'm a little tired of people complaining about people nominating their files for deletion based on valid copyright issues.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
That's an interesting (but expected) response. The hypocrisy begins to leak out here, because very recently (maybe you weren't aware, Prosfilaes) a user who was found to be nominating files for deletion based on valid copyright issues was banned in large part due to that practice. So, it would appear that if you're in the "in crowd" on Commons, revenge nominations are something you tell the victim to just "suck up"; but if you're not in the "in crowd", then the same sort of revenge nomination is a blockable offense. I'm beginning to see how it works here on Commons. (By the way, 50% of Niabot's revenge nominations were determined by the community consensus to lack any copyright issue at all. I wonder what would happen to a police officer who shot an innocent bystander every other time he was aiming at a lethal criminal?) -- Thekohser (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I do know about Pieter Kuiper. You'll note that he has a long complex history where a lot of the people whose files he nominated for deletion were told to suck it up. It could be hypocrisy; or you could be looking for any excuse to stir up trouble and paint yourself as persecuted.
Your metaphor is stupid. On the flip side, we might wonder about your uploads; what would happen to a food manufacturer where 50% of the tested jars of product held a deadly disease?--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Damn, you're good, Prosfilaes. Working from the bottom up, I'd say that if my metaphor is "stupid", then that makes your converse metaphor equally "stupid", right? And, from the top, I'd say that I know about Niabot, and I'd say that he has "a long complex history" here on Commons, too. So, I guess we're back to Square One. Will Niabot be warned about issuing deletion nominations as an act of revenge or trolling? Or, is that too horrifying a thought for the "community"? -- Thekohser (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Of course my metaphor is equally stupid. It's amazing; people go into a volunteer community and abuse people, particularly the community as a whole, and and wonder why people don't want to work with them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Niabot knows well enough that there are limits to the acceptability of this behaviour, but the Pieter Kuiper case shows that those limits are quite high. Two DRs re one user, with one DR successful, isn't enough to make a fuss about. Niabot can, if he wants, follow the same advice I gave Pieter: when it comes to people he has disputes with, he can look for alternative ways to handling issues than raising DRs himself. If further issues arise, we can tackle them then, but a certain amount of ignoring (alleged) motivation and focussing on facts does help. Rd232 (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, Niabot seems to be learning from this incident by calling me a "disgrace" and assesing my images as "crappy quality". Look at this crap! I'll just leave the wise administrators with this disgracefully uploaded, crappy quality image that I shot with my camera and donated to Commons. Cheers! -- Thekohser (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
There's no call for such rudeness in response to a legitimate question, and I've said so on his talk page. (However, the Epcot rainbow image you asked him about is objectively not of the best photographic quality; the flower image is much better. I'm sure you can see the difference too. There is Commons:Photography critiques if you're interested.) Rd232 (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you, Rd232, that my Epcot rainbow image is not of the best photographic quality. However, I think the purpose of adding the photo to Commons was to provide a unique perspective on a rather interesting alignment of the rainbow with the Epcot logo on Spaceship Earth. In fact, I would dare say that mine is the very best image combining "Epcot" and "rainbow" to be found on Commons, if we're talking about naturally-occuring rainbows. At any rate, surely all of my uploads are of a higher quality than the image uploaded by User:Mjenkins33, yet I haven't seen any criticism whatsoever directed toward that user's work. Just a hearty Wikimedia Commons Welcome on his Talk page. (Then again, his image upload was taken with a camera back in the year 210, so perhaps the point of his image is simply the miracle of electronic photography existing in the era of Septimius Severus. Maybe space aliens provided Mjenkins with either Roman Empire era optics, or perhaps time travel. Take your pick.) -- Thekohser (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, yes. You're well aware of the antagonism between you two; there's no need to dwell on this particular remark ("...crappy..."), which is just another example of it. Your own evaluation of your contributions shouldn't depend on such remarks any more than the Commons community's does - you shouldn't feel a need to prove it's wrong. In short, just ignore it. Rd232 (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Just if you like to read more about whether using crap for one's work or not is appropriate, I have a full thread of this on my talk page archive (In short: I asked someone to stop using "crap" but the one disagreed that "crap" is inappropriate for describing Niabot's work). If you also want to know more about my dictionary, let me know ;-) -- RE rillkequestions?21:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment what can administrator do about that ? It seems a discussion has been started by Materialscientist and the disagreement seems to have stoped (discussion seems to be the solution). --PierreSelim (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no need for a discussion at all. You can't move MIME type: image/png to .svg due to MediaWiki's build-in check that MIME type matches file-extension. Perhaps SLV100 will get it. If SLV100 wants to help, (s)he can translate File:Licensing tutorial en.svg to Turkish so we have a real SVG and not this pseudo-one. -- RE rillkequestions?09:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not complaining - I don't know good Turkish but I guess one of our friends can communicate the problem to this user. Hindustanilanguage (talk).
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Two counts of personal attacks. One rather mild when AnonMoos refered to a valid edit as "blatant malicious vandalistic trolling"[17] and followed it up with a far grosser personal attack on the talk page, "Your knowledge of racism appears to be chiefly confined to a certain smug satisfaction in being able to use Wikimedia Commons as a platform in the dissemination of extremist hate screeds"[18] // Liftarn (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
My assumption of Liftarn's alleged "good faith" already frayed pretty thin five years ago when I saw all the antics and nonsense he indulged himself in on Wikipedia page "Talk:New Antisemitism" (where he had a boundless capacity for ignoring any facts and evidence that did not support his preconceived positions, and for substituting opaque acronyms in place of any form of cogent and reasoned argument), and my impression of him did not improve on Commons, where repeated all his old tricks, and added to them his "gaming of the system" so that he can use Wikimedia Commons as a platform to promulgate the hatemongering of vicious bigoted racist Carlos Latuff.
In the current matter at dispute between us, the matter was talked into the ground almost five years ago at Image talk:Gathering of eagles.jpg, and what consensus there was was against Liftarn, but now he has returned to the matter apparently for the sole reason that he likes to stir up trouble and cause controversy (which is what some people would call "trolling"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
And a few more personal attacks[19] including "In fact, I notice definite tendencies towards what psychologists would call "projection" on your part. You promote and defend the hatemongering of vicious bigoted racist Carlos Latuff". // Liftarn (talk)
Whatever -- I've had to deal with your unfortunate behavior for five years, and for almost all of that time I could hardly avoid noticing the quite obvious fact that whatever it is that you accuse others of, you're often very guilty of it yourself. Psychologists know this as "projection". Furthermore, you've been very zealous in trying to remove any trace of explanation or categorization of the fairly obviously vile bigoted racist hatemongering cartoon File:Cry-wolf.png as being what it is, so in that case you're defending the hatemongering of vicious bigoted racist Carlos Latuff (which of course you originally chose to upload). AnonMoos (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Nothing done - I think that while AnonMoos should probably mellow a bit, Latuff is a controversial subject, and I think that the less discussion we have about that here the better. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Request to reopen
Ahem... This issue actually has nothing to do with Latuff (except that AnonMoos don't like his political views). Instead it is about how to categorize islamophobia. Is is a form of racism, similar to antisemitism (as various experts say) or is it not (like AnonMoos say). That is the core issue. // Liftarn (talk) 06:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion was closed because you presented yourself as the innocent virtuous aggressed-upon victim of personal attacks, and that allegation didn't pass the Commons admin common sense standard (which is the real main policy here). If you wanted the substantive factual issues to be discussed here, then you should have raised them... AnonMoos (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Personal attack against me, the files that I should have supposedly destroyed were in fact deleted in cause of copyright violations committed by this user, look User talk:Marc. By the way only administrators could restore files, so Marc's prompts to me are pointless anyway. Hereby I request the removing of Marc's last offending edit on Commons:Requests_for_rights and a final warning for him.--IusticiaBY (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
So yes, you are unreliable and dangerous. And you are very impolite too, because you don't respond and don't even try to repair what you have done (ask for restoration and reupload on Wikisource). I have spent several hours to make some files ; in a few minutes, you have thrown all in trash. Marc (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
All deletions look correct to me. Files have to be in the public domain in both the source country and in the United States in order to be uploaded to Commons. The mentioned books are not in the public domain in the source country since the authors died less than 70 years ago. Thus, the files don't belong on Commons. If French Wikisource has other rules, then the files may be uploaded locally there. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
After User:Marc doesn't stop to repeat the harassment against me, I'm hereby requesting a substantial block against him. He didn't kept the rules of Commons, he offends other users and and he shows no insight into his misbehavior.--IusticiaBY (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
As I said, I talk about the books on Wikisource. You can't simply delete a file without any consideration for what users do on others projects. This is why I have asked IusticiaBY to do the necessary to repair what he did. So, I have tried to discuss politely with him ; but he don't respond. And now those accusations and he requests to block me... I think it's enough ; this is insane. Marc (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Commons can't host files which are not in the public domain in the source country. If French Wikisource depends on copyright violations being present on Commons, then this is only a problem for French Wikisource. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
You may have noticed that I talk about the use of the files. 16:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
So, for you, when you don't respond, you are polite ? when you refuse to do the necessary, this is a polite behavior ? Incidentally, I didn't know that this is you who decide what can be uploaded on Wikisource or not... Marc (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Marc the problem is that you are not on frwikisource here and by our policies on copyright it seems you are wrong, and that the files couldn't be host on commons. IusticiaBY did what we do everyday on commons to remove copyvios, i.e. tag files and notify the user. It's an sysop that have deleted the files, but please stop being aggressive against IusticiaBY who used the regular process. Now to me the problem is that Commons and frwikisource do not applies the same rules on copyright and it's quite clear by reading s:fr:Wikisource:Respect_du_copyright that Marc believed the files were PD. --PierreSelim (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
No, the problem is that I talk about the use of the files. There are now some books on Wikisource without files, and no one cares about the fact that these files must be restored and reuploaded on Wikisource. I don't have some of these files, and it has took me several hours to make them. You think I am aggressive, but what would you think if someone destroys your work and does not care about it and does not respond to you ? What is so difficult to understand ? Marc (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
No, this is not exactly the same thing, because a single file may be used for proofreading thousand of pages, and when you delete a file, you destroy the work of several users on Wikisource and you ruin the very purpose of Wikisource. But I see this is not your concern, so I don't intend to stay more longer on commons. Marc (talk)
I have one question: as it's copyvios, shouldn't the book be deleted from Wikisource instead of discussing on COM:AN/U ? --PierreSelim (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
C'est problèmatique là si wikisource et commons n'acceptent pas les mêmes oeuvres ça risque d'arriver plus souvent, donc pas la peine de se presser, mieux vaut résoudre le problème de fond. Maintenant, tu me demandes d'uploader un texte qui est sous droit d'auteur en France, c'est un clair non pour moi. --PierreSelim (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) The files are in the public domain in the United States, so strictly speaking, they are not copyright violations in the Untied States, although they aren't allowed on Commons. What matters is whether they are allowed on French Wikisource or not. Of course, all of the files are copyright violations in all of Europe (except Belarus where some of them are in the public domain), so any Europeans editing the pages on Wikisource or uploading djvu files with the books may be taken to court by the copyright holders. Some of the files are in the public domain in Québec and some files might be in the public domain in French-speaking countries elsewhere in the world (e.g. in Africa), but many of the files are copyright violations in every French-speaking country, which looks odd for a project meant for French-speaking users. s:fr:Aide:Respect du copyright#Œuvres qui sont dans le domaine public contains a list of misunderstandings about copyright law, so it is not clear which legal standard French Wikisource is using. For example:
"Œuvres publiées avant 1923." This is a US rule: such works are in the public domain in the United States, but are often copyrighted elsewhere, e.g. in Europe, as we see in this case. So is Wikisource using US law?
"Œuvres publiées dans l'Union européenne, en Australie, au Brésil, au Nicaragua, au Nigeria, au Paraguay, au Pérou ou à Singapour dont l'auteur est décédé depuis au moins 70 ans." This is a rule applying in the mentioned countries: such works are in the public domain in the listed countries, but may be copyrighted in the United States, which is the reason for COM:WikiProject Public Domain/URAA review. So isn't Wikisource using US law?
"Œuvres publiées aux États-Unis après le 1er mars 1989 dont l'auteur est décédé depuis au moins 70 ans." This, again, is a rule applying to the European Union, Australia, Brazil, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru and Singapore, but not to the United States. If the publication was between 1 March 1989 and 31 December 2002 and 70 years already have passed since the death of the author, then the work is always copyrighted in the United States until the end of 2047, since you can't create works posthumously. So isn't Wikisource basing the copyright status on copyright law at all? --Stefan4 (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Avant de faire des allusions insultantes, tu devrais considérer la situation en connaissance de cause. Wikisource francophone suit les lois européennes dans l'ensemble, mais publie des textes libres de droits aux USA en ajoutant un avertissement à chaque texte. Je rappelle que des textes français libres de droits aux USA ou ailleurs, mais pas en Europe, sont publiés massivement par : Gutenberg, Internet Archive, Google, HathiTrust, etc. Wikisource a eu des problèmes avec Gallimard à ce sujet, mais l'affaire n'a pas été très loin. Ensuite, si nous ne suivions que la loi des U.S.A., la majorité des contributeurs francophones seraient hors-la-loi ; si nous suivions la loi européenne, nous serions dans certains cas hors-la-loi au point de vue US ; si nous suivions les deux, un juge US pourrait quand même faire supprimer des œuvres en vertu d'un obscur traité non appliqué depuis 15 ou 20 ans, et donc en réalité on est toujours à la merci de la loi américaine. Avant de s'en prendre aux contributeurs, il faut donc voir avant tout que la situation en elle-même est peu compréhensible, voire parfois à la limite de l'absurdité. Marc (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
A priori Wikisource (fr) devrait respecter le droit US et le droit français voir foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy/fr (les exceptions aux droits d'auteurs doivent être « en accord avec les lois américaines et celles des pays où le contenu du projet est le plus consulté »). Personne ne conteste à quel point c'est hallucinant et inadapté, mais on ne peut pas faire grand chose là. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Manifestement, Wikisource dans son ensemble ne suit pas cette règle. Cela voudrait dire que des suppressions importantes de livres seraient nécessaires si vraiment cette règle absurde devait être appliquée. La fondation Wikimedia a une politique intéressante pour promouvoir la connaissance. Marc (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
D'ailleurs, quand Gallimard a demandé le retrait de certains textes, et que ces textes ont été republiés malgrè cette règle, la fondation était parfaitement au courant et je ne me souviens pas qu'on nous ait objecté quoi que ce soit. Marc (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Ce genre d'argument n'a pas sa place ici, on applique: Commons:Critères d'inclusion/Principe de précaution. Pour le message d'au dessus, tu te trompes sur un point, on essaye pas de promouvoir la connaissance, mais la connaissance libre ce qui est complètement différent. Maintenant je ne vois pas vraiment ce que tu veux qu'on fasse à part enfreindre les règles de notre projet qui sont différentes de celles de la version francophone de Wikisource. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Ce n'est pas un argument, c'est un constat que c'est manifestement le cirque. Et comme je viens de le dire, cela ne concerne pas que la version francophone de Wikisource. Marc (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
This is a sad story.
Once upon a time, this user was a valuable member of both this community and en.wp. They have uploaded many, many wonderful images to this site and in the past improved many articles at en.wp. Unfortunately, they have also exhibited some very problematic behaviors. What those behaviors were is not relevant as they were en.wp's problem to deal with, which it did. Mbz1 was blocked from en.wp by the Arbitration Committee earlier this year., and was later banned altogether by the community[20]. Since that time Mbz1 has been on a relentless crusade across multiple WMF sites, stirring up trouble and trying to get the banning overturned. Everywhere this user posts they try to re-ignite this debate and stir up more confrontation. Those of you that contribute at Meta are probably already aware of this situation, since there was a big dust up over it there back in February and March. MbZ1 has also carried their fight onto this site even though there is absolutley no connection between the problems that got them banned at en.wp and commons. This has included trolling my talk page, for which they were blocked several months ago and now harassing WMF staffers who have user pages here in yet another sad, pathetic, hopeless attempt to whine and cry their way into getting somebody besides other uses banned from en.wp to agree with them. They have added ridiculously melodramatic and self-pitying "retirement" messages to their userspace but are still here bothering foundation staffers and others with this nonsense. They are no longer making any contributions to this site that have any value The negatives now far outweigh the positives and I believe the time has come for them to take a nice long break. Clearly, this is not something they have the self-control to do themselves so it will have to be a break enforced by blocking and/or banning.
The trolling of me is in my talk page history. You can see that they tried to drag en.wp disputes over here.
The WMF staffer harrassment is visible at User talk:Sue Gardner#For the record and User talk:Steven (WMF)#Global bans and why this proposal is wrong and in this thread [21] which Phillipe chose to remove entirely from his talk page as he had repeatedly stated that neither he nor WMF would be involved with this. As you can see from these threads specific users from en.wp, myself included, are insulted and mocked repeatedly in these requests despite the fact that Mbz1 claims to be the victim of bullying.
I know these polite, professional people are too busy to come down here and ask the community to ban this user so I am doing it for them.
Please keep in mind that this discussion should not be in any way about the right or wrong of what happened at en.wp or Meta, but rather about what they have been doing right here on Commons. Note their very extensive block log here including two blocks already this year for importing this dispute to Commons.
(I will be watching this thread but I will not be responding to any comment by Mbz1, who at this point is nothing more than a troll and should be treated as such. I also anticipate that the first thing they will do is to try and make this discussion about me and others who tried in the past to calm them down but eventually got exasperated by the melodarama and self pitying whining that never seems to end. I suggest you not let them steer comverstion in that direction but rather focus on what they have been doing on this website which is the only reason to ban them from here.) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
(EC) Beeblebrox, concerning your statement They are no longer making any contributions to this site that have any value', mbz1 uploaded File:2012 Transit of Venus from SF.jpg on June 10, which was promoted to featured picture status with 10 support votes on June 25. Now I have had good and bad experiences with mbz1 over the years. But if you want me to take your complaint seriously, you need to stick to facts. That also implies that your first paragraph, which contains a lot of claims without any evidence, should be backed up with diffs IMO.--Slaunger (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The first paragraph is just background. hjeir own posts confirm the basic fact that they are banned from en.wp. Why they were banned is not the issue, that is a different website, which is the whole point of why importing the dispute here is a bad thing. Unless that point is seriously in dispute I don't think we need diffs. My bad though on the recent image, I can't say I have reviewed every single edit they made in the last few months, I just happened to run across one pf the discussions where they repeatedly insulted me and other en users and did not bother to let us know we were being discussed, with staff no less. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Given that you overlooked an FP in the most recent contributions it would perhaps be a good idea to retract that part of your report? And I am sorry, but the first paragraph screams "citation needed" for about every four words following the introductiry appraising lines. "Relentless crusade"?, "stirring up trouble"?, "sad, pathetic, hopeless attempt to whine and cry"? You are using a lot of very loaded negative words in that paragraph without a single dif of reference to evidence, while asking to ban on of the most productive creators of featured and highly valuable pictures on this site. This is a serious matter, and I think it is to be expected to do your homework. Be factual, show diffs, do not impose your own interpretation on other users, but let them desice themselves from the evidence. Now I am not on friendly terms with mbz1 myself after our last encounter in April this year. But yet I respect this (sometimes really obnoxious) user, and the "trial" shall be fair. Thank you. --Slaunger (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The pathetic whining can be seen in the diffs I provided of discussions right here on Commons. A lot of talk about being the victim of bullying and abuse, while at the same time attacking the personal character and intelligence of those she considers the bullies. The crusade is manifest in those remarks also. To the rest of us this matter was done and overwith many months ago. Yet here she is bothering the staff with melodramtic threads that end with statements like "Yours sincerely being lynched forever" along with an image of a lynching victim. The evidence that there is a problem here, at commons, is all right here and already linked. If you bother to read them you will not need diffs from other sites. On several of these threads she even brings up an incident from 2010 where due to an error on my part she was blocked for about fifteen minutes, as if that has anything to do with what is going on now. this person has demonstrated that they are either unwilling or unable to leave this dispute in the past and not drag it on and on on every site she is still welcome on. as you can see she was just reblocked at Meta[22] for the same thing and is trying to hide behind the hot-button word "bullying" when what is really going on is an exteemely unhealthy obsession with overturning en.wps decision to show her the door. Don't let this nonsense be dragged onto commons as well, it has no palace whatsoever here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for redacting the comment. I had bothered to read the links, but did not see quite what you see. The new block on meta is questionable IMO. --Slaunger (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I'd certainly support an edit restriction banning Mbz1 from pursuing non-Commons issues on Commons. But a site ban is not necessary. There is also the fact with her long history of valuable contributions and one recent contribution, there are many people who still hope she'll continue contributing her excellent work. Rd232 (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree. We do not punish users with a ban (there is no such thing as a ban on Commons as a matter of fact). The point is to avoid further disruption, and as I see it, an edit restriction would be well suited for that purpose. --Slaunger (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I assume my point about melodrama is now understood. I am not asking for a punishment, I am asking that this stale dispute from another website not be allowed to be continued here. I am asking that my name and the name of other users from en.wp not be continuously smeared just because Mbz1 thinks they are Winston Smith, a lynching victim, or an innocent girl being attacked by wolves.. (these are all comparisons Mbz1 has made herself). I am asking that she not be allowed to harrass Foundation staff about a matter that she has been told dozens of times to let go of. If that means a comprehensive restriction prohibiting her from ever mentioning these matters again on this website, that's fine so long as it is made clear that a single violation of said restriction will lead to a block without talk or email priveleges. Anything less than that has already been proven to be innefective. Additionaly, she has already proven, here, at Meta, and at en.wp that she will break such restrictions, and that no promise of "retirement" can be taken at face value so that should not be taken into consideration. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
This is exactly what I predicted in my original post. Instead of discussin why she has harrassed WMF staff about this she is attacking me. and the old standby " you haven't read the evidence". Expect to hear that a lot. Never mind that the supposed evidence is not germane to the matter at hand, whether or not Mbz1 has been harassing staff and make extremely uncivil personal attacks such as the one she just made against me right here. i don't believe I am behaving like a screamong lunatic out of 1984, just asking that this nonsense be stopped. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Dear Beeblebrox, I did not harass anybody. When I say something I provide at least one diff to support my words. About you I said you were unstable and here are a few diffs to confirm my words: edit summary: "what an asshole";edit summary: "the lunatics are running the asylum";edit summary: "fuck this site and the abusive cowards that for the most part administrate it.";"go away now you abusive disgrace of an admin";an outburst on English wikipedia. Any more? Now do you believe I attacked you, or it were you who attacked yourself? I provided the diffs only to demonstrate what kind of users voted to ban me, and in general what kind of users voting for bans, claiming they provide a fair representation of the community consensus. The posts I made to the talks of WMF staff talks was not to punish anybody who lied about me during my ban discussion, not even getting unbanned, but only to protect me in my real life because I was editing under my real name. Another purpose of my posts to WMF staff talks was trying to make them to stop bullying, not only bullying of me but all bullying on their sites.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Enough - this is rapidly descending into unnecessary unpleasantness, and a ban isn't going to happen. Mbz1 claims to have retired, so hopefully no action is needed at this time. Further attempts to pursue non-Commons issues on Commons are unwelcome, if Mbz1 does that at some point in the future, then an edit restriction should be proposed here. Rd232 (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Mbz1 is not retired in any meaningful sense. Isn't that worth a bit of discussion? They were working on File:2012 Transit of Venus from SF.jpg a week ago, and posted to User_talk:Steven_(WMF)#Global_bans_and_why_this_proposal_is_wrong this month, where they made incredibly nasty remarks about six editors; they said, quote, "So I was community banned by an idiot, a sicko, an involved bully, a psychotic obsessed liar, a criminal's promoter and an unstable admin." I think that's current unnecessary unpleasantness that Mbz1 shows no remorse for or any evidence that they intend to do otherwise in the future.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I did provide diffs to explain my language (by the way unlike any of the users who supported my ban), and I did said that I am willing to publicly apologize to at least some users, if somebody will be kind enough to explain to me, where I got it wrong. So far nobody did :( I also said that I opened to suggestions about changing my descriptions. I have no personal problems with any of the users I mentioned (I even feel sorry for some of them), but I had to explain why I believe their votes should not be taken into account during such important matters as ban discussions of an editor who edited under a real life name. Anyway, let's please stop the drama now, you did not add anything new to this thread anyway. Isn't kuiper's thread enough already :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I have to object to one user deciding that this Is not going to happen for the following reasons:
This discussion has been open less than a day
Mbz1 has recently enagaged in this harrassment with three seperate staff members despite being told literally for months to let it go
Their remarks here make it clear they do not understand why characterizing other users as lying psychopathic bullies is not the way to proceed when you are in fact the source of all your own problems
No one is denying that they have made some really excellent contributions to commons. Her photos are fantastic. That in no way, shape, or form excuses the harrassment and personal attacks
She has shown a consistent pattern of "fake retirements" done whenever things get stressful. They have all been fake and she always returns and comes back to the exact areas where she was causing problems in the past
I'm not super experienced with how these things work ar commons, never had any trouble with another user here until now, but I cannot accept that a user can post to WMF staff pages making accusations of the nature Mbz1 has with impugnity. some sprt of sanction against this behavior is needed or, for the reasons already stated here, it is virtually certain it will happen again and we'll be right back here again
No disrespect to Rd, but I really feel this closure is premature. I have said my piece and am content for the community here to make a decision on this, but let it be a community decision, not one user who decided it just won't happen after so short a time. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, now, blocks should be preventative, not punitive. You will have a time to come back here, when, and if I will come back here and post something new about you because now it looks like you came here to punish me as you did on English wikipedia. Right now this thread is nothing but a waste of time. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
No disrespect to you Beeblebrox, but given the history between you an attempt by you to ban Mbz1 on Commons was always going to lead to a lot of drama about non-Commons issues. It would have been better to have had a quiet word with a Commons admin than try to tackle this yourself. Rd232 (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Beeblebrox and Mbz1: Please do not turn Commons into a battleground for conflicts that took place at en-wp and at Meta. I do not really like to see comments at Commons talk pages that refer to persons they were in conflict with at other WMF projects as incapable of making intelligent decisions because of its instability even if it is backed up by some difflinks which did not exactly show a behaviour which is becoming of an admin of any WMF project. Likewise I do not like to see how this case was opened here by calling for a ban which is more likely to escalate this conflict to Commons than to put it to a quick end.
Here is my suggestion: Mbz1 removes the unhelpful characterizations of other editors (or, even more preferably, the entire comment) from Sue's talk page. Whatever possible injustice happened at another project it is not helpful to carry this to the next project (with the exception of Meta perhaps). And Beeblebrox retracts this unhelpful ban request in consequence. Afterwards, both Mbz1 and Beeblebrox should no longer refer at Commons to each other's conflicts and contributions outside of Commons. Would this be acceptable for you both? --AFBorchert (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Well the tread in question was responded by two WMF staff members. If they felt it should be removed, they would have done it. Besides I was always told on English wikipedia do not remove or even change comments that were already responded by others. And this was my last contribution to Commons. So long.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Problem solved, except you're probably lying, just like you were lying all the other times you said you'd leave Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Mattbuck, I really can't see how your comment could accomplish anything of use to anyone, unless you were hoping to goad Mbz1 into responding.
I more or less agree with both AFBorchert and Mbz1. If Mbz1 decides to return, could they instead strike out the relevant comments, noting the reason for doing so underneath, i.e. that Commons is not a good forum for such comments about conflicts outside Commons? Part of the problem here is that better forums have been blocked off. --Avenue (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
"better forums have been blocked off" Very true and cuts right to the heart of this matter. This user will never stop beating this dead horse. That is why she has been booted from these other projects. Without sanctioning here, she will do it again. Every time she has promised that she is leaving it has been a lie. She lacks the self control to just accept that she was wrong and move on. I never wanted to drag this onto commons, it has no place here, but it is the only opening she has to keep going on and on about it, which is why I suggest she be forcibly made to stop, either by a tightly worded editing restriction or by blocking. It's the only logical course of action given the overwhelming evidence that she will not stop just because she is asked to, which she has been by arbcom and the community at en.wp, by the community at meta, by several admins and threee WMF staff members here on commons. Look at her block log and tell me you believe she will just stop on her own and not come back with this nonsense at some point in the future. It has no place here and there is a simple way to stop right in front of us. I really don't understand why so many users here are unwilling to sanction somebody who is repeatedly harassing other users and staff members about an issue totally unrelated to commons, or why anyone would take her at word when she has broken it again and again. She was already blocked twice here over this and a dozen or so other times for other issues, and we're going to take her at her word that she is now suddenly willing to let it go? Don't fall for that. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Wel she said she would stop here, so let go for now. You can't block/ban someone for something that might happen in the future. There is time enough for that when it occurs. Just let go now. ASF for a last time. B.p.22:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Nothing is happening here on Commons currently that indicates that a block of someone who has contributed substantially to Commons even needs consideration. --Herbytalk thyme11:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
As I'll be offline for some days, an eye should be kept on this user who has — despite warning — overwritten File:Emerson Sheik.jpg (originally uploaded by a different user) 3 times with his version, claimed to be own work, but obviously a copyvio, as it had been published earlier in an uncropped version[23]. In addition, File history suggests that he is likely behind this IP's 187.5.48.121 (talk·contribs) nice comments ("Oh god, are you retarded? have mental problems? this file has no definite source, understand?")[24] and ("You're crazy? have mental problems? god, this file is other source, is a older image has no definite source, understand?")[25] which were posted within 30 minutes after my first problem tagging of his 2 uploads. Account (3 days) and IP (2 hours) now have been blocked, but who knows. --Túrelio (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I would like to start a discussion about this user, and the possibility of unblocking him with some restrictions or something. From my own observation, the user has poped up here over the last few weeks under new accounts with a suffix number like "Jermboy1", and when it's blocked, create a new one like "Jermboy2" and so forth, and most recently not even bother and just use different IPs. Also from my observation however, is that this person hasn't truly done anything harmful. Infact, he has become useful to me, as I've been uploading a lot of files lately pertaining to road signage, and he has shaved off a lot of time for me by cat-sorting my images appropriately and adding the files to the right pages.
If people agree, I wouldn't mind seeing if we could approach this differently. Instead of blocking every new account and IP we see, would it be possible to contact the user and get them to agree to one single account? If this person would agree to that, and to stick to road signage which seems to be their main focus, I don't see much harm in that. I'd like to see how others feel on this, admittedly, I've only become aware of this user recently, so idk if they have a past or not. Fry1989eh?03:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
If Jermboy27 (talk·contribs) wants to be unblocked then it is up to them to come forward by asking to be unblocked via the main account which is blocked. At this stage I'm opposed to see them unblocked since they have continued to upload hoaxs, failed to give sources and the fact that they keep socking via new accounts and IPs shows that they haven't learnt what they are doing is disruptive. Bidgee (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll not comment on this for now as I'd like to think first however I do think it would be appropriate to offer the community some background to this. See recent links are here, here and a fair bit with links here. Thanks --Herbytalk thyme06:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Gustavo neto
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Hello. I have a serious problem. Gustavo neto does not stop harassing me. As it ignores the warnings, can you please block it. Thank you.--Principal adjoint (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
what is it, I just ask him to do some kits and he says that I chase, if he wants to be the Wikipedia and the Commons, must receive application kits. --Gustavo neto (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
But the problem is that he told me he stopped asking me to design the shirts, and im yesterday asked me to make one. I think that my participation will not be on Commons at all the same since the incident with Gustavo neto.--Principal adjoint (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Gustavo. No, Principal does not have to "receive application kits", he is a volunteer. It was ok to ask him once to do you a favour, but he is allowed to say "no", and then that should be the end of it. Please do not ask him for anything more until he indicates that it is ok again. --99of9 (talk) 07:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I'm really sick of this Gustavo neto. He keeps harassing me with his football shirts. He always asks me to draw him while normally it is for him to do. I told him to stop, without success. NOW! So, I ask you to block at least one day for him to stop bothering me. If this continues, I will retire from Commons just because of him. Thank you for your understanding.--Principal adjoint (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Similar to the Serbia and Kosovo dispute, there has been alot of POV and arguments over Morocco and Western Sahara. This map is supposed to be of Morocco without Western Sahara, and there are other SVGs with WS for users who support that claim to choose from. This user reverted the map back last year in August to include WS, and just recently did it again today. Please provide a sound warning to the user that this will not be permitted and there are other maps to choose from. Fry1989eh?22:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there any ethics and/or civility guidelines at Commons?
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed Pointless and discussion which is going no where. Nothing actionable, they were questioning User:Serdechny contributions and understanding of copyright. Bidgee (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I wonder is this an O.K. talk for the authorized users at Commons? (administrators and lincense reviewers in particular.)
Here's the situation: A fellow Commons user, who openly puts {{LicenseReview}} tag to each of his uploads from external sources, is supposed to have "views on copyright, views that are radically different from the views of the rest of the crowd".
My question: Is that a fact, that User:Trycatch invested with the power to decide, what views do I have on copyright? Can administrator User:Rillke openly express his feelings of pity and confusion about "why Serdechny [i.e. me] was never blocked" for that.
If the answer is "No," I'll appreciate a lot somebody warning these two gentlemen. — George Serdechny11:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The conversation but it was not directed to you. You, btw. have cut off the most important part of the quote for Flickr-washing and did not indicate this. I would furthermore appreciate if you would look at the YouTube - accounts before uploading anything under the aspect of how trustworthy they are. Thank you. -- RE rillkequestions?12:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
"The conversation but it was not directed to you." Sorry, my have not understand what you are say. I would furthermore appreciate if you would look at the YouTube - accounts before uploading anything under the aspect I would appreciate, if you would look at the uploaded files. >90% of them are provided with e-mails of uploaders (not only e-mails, but phone and conventional mail as well,) which is more than enough to suggest, that besides of checking their accounts, I've previously contacted they via e-mail to make sure they relly are the title owners of the uploaded material. — George Serdechny13:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Discussing blocks is commonplace and is not at all a personal attack (see this entire page!), and "pity" is your word, not Rillke's. With respect to your views on Copyright, I guess if you ask, Trycatch can probably point out which views you've expressed which suggest this. If you've engaged in Flickrwashing in the past (I haven't checked), then it seems like a reasonable claim. --99of9 (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Umm, okay, I don't recall ever having come across you before... I thought you were asking a serious question. My mistake. --99of9 (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure I'm asking a serious question. And I'm looking for some serious answer. But it's definitely not you, who possess such an answer, so your mistake's excused. — George Serdechny13:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Not done I don't see any problems here, sorry.--PierreSelim (talk) 06:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC).svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment. We had this same issue with a Titanic b/w image earlier. It seems some editors like the older original images for some articles. It was decided that newer colourized versions should be uploaded under a different file name. You may try that, then replace with your versions in some articles and see if other editors revert. If so, then consensus should be reached as to which version the articles should use on each talk page. These are just my thoughts to keep as many happy as possible.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Done, blocked for 1 month. Upload deleted. --M0tty (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - No, just no. I don't believe this. I don't believe Ottava has changed, and I can't believe we have admins naïve enough to trust him. The guy has a history of trolling, and even a month ago was immediately accusing an admin who declined an unblock request. He is a troll, has always been a troll, and will forever be a troll. See also the "my statement" section in that link: nothing but bile. Keep him indefed. Remove talkpage access. Ban from IRC. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Support If he causes further discontent, he can be easily reblocked. He gets too much into nitanoid arguments but so do a lot of people on the Wiki, including those opposers who just want to make him crawl.TCO (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Resolved
surprised to see that the language-toggling options are not there into the templates. Can anybody please help me in integrating this template and its translation? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC).
Info As he removed my comments in QIC, I've removed "to be fair" the strong personal attacks by Wladyslaw in FPC, and in order to calm down, I've removed my own previous comment about his revenge vote in the same page.--Jebulon (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Neutral I do not oppose but I don't believe it will solve the problem. Just look at the section below COM:AN/U#User:Biopics: Taxiarchos is a good and valuable contributor for Commons, I've personnaly learnt a lot from him and Jebulon (well I hope) but from time to time he just can't accept review of his own work. I know some comment may seems harsh or unjustified but sometimes it's constructive in its way, may be the one who did the comment can also learn something from the photographer. Sorry for all the talking ... --PierreSelim (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
It looks like a duck to me -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Thrinaxodon_BW.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=72107561){kind=link}
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Shonisaurus_BW_2.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=67088224){kind=link}
![[24]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Emerson_Sheik.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=73801676){kind=link}
![[25]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File%3ATite.JPG×tamp=20120705072457&diff=prev){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.svg/15px-Facepalm_(yellow).svg.png)
. No chance in the world this is a personal attack. — George Serdechny 13:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)