Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 26

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

User:Tvstrela

Please block Tvstrela for continuing to upload copyrighted logos even after receiving an end of copyvios warning. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for one week.  ■ MMXX  talk 01:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong user name

My user name is "Juan lacruz", is it possible to capitalize the surname to become user "Juan Lacruz" ? Thanks in advance

Juan

Please see Commons:Changing username. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wetenschatje

Hello,

Wetenschatje has been edit warring Angelus' valued images nomination (see User talk:Yann#VI images). After a warning, I blocked him for 3 days. However, I would like another admin to intervene for I don't want that this block is seen a personal issue. I removed the block. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I request to stretch the blocking time cos w.s. is cheating here. --79.27.139.77 22:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Don't see the reason why Wetenschatje was unblocked. His behaviour will not chance as he did'nt chance his not compliant to rules given contra. I disbelieve that we will an improvement in his disturbing activities. But we will see. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Yann could be considered involved as an admin (at least I do), and it was good judgement of Yann to reconsider and unblock W.S and post here for second opinions. Thank you!
It is pretty clear from W.S. latest post at the VI talk page that W.S. no longer wants to be a part of the "vanity circus" at VI (his words). As I have known W.S. for years, he is not likely to participate in VI again when he makes such a statement. Thus, no reason to reblock now, as there is no risk for future disruption. Whereas I think some of W.S. edits were disruptive (and very annoying), I have no doubt that they were done with the best of intentions for the project - to keep its standards high. However, his edits to scopes were done against clear community consensus in a POINTy manner.
Having said that, I think the aggressions against W.S. has bordered a witch hunt. I do think the VI community should be a little more open-minded to criticism in the way things are done and a little more roomy. W.S. actually had a point. --Slaunger (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Auto insurance

All of this user's edits have been to spam the webste of an auto insurance firm onto insurance-related images. I have undone all the edits, but the editor should be blocked to prevent further disruption.

And if anyone could point me to where I can request rollback, I'd be grateful. I have it on en-wiki and have found it to be useful. It would have come in handy just now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked and you now have rollback. Cheers! Killiondude (talk) 06:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Miniotx

Is a bit of a problem user over in the English space. Now he has decided to migrate over here to pursue his very strange agenda regarding Opel/Vauxhall. Mysterious removals of categories and countless "see alsos". User also doesn't communicate very well, I have only once seen a response to a query.

More problematic is his steady stream of copyvios. Every single image in his gallery is stolen, many with Opel or Vauxhall given as sources but many with "own work" stated. I marked some images as copyvios but quickly realized that Miniotx hasn't created a single image itself. I suggest a removal of all of these files and a warning which could be turned into a block if there is no response. Oh, and how does one acquire rollback rights?

File:Opel OPC 2011 logo.jpg
File:Vxr logo 2012.jpg
File:Opel combo 01.jpg
File:Opel zafira iaa 01.jpg
File:Opel combo 1.jpg
File:Opel zafira tourer 1.jpg
File:Opel zafira tourer 2.jpg
File:Opel logo 2009 .png
File:Opel insignia blitz.jpg
File:Opel Astra OPC 2012.jpg
File:Opel logo opc grill.jpg
File:Opel opc 2012 logo blitz.jpg
File:Opel Mokka.jpg
File:Opel Corsa OPC 2012.JPG
File:Opel corsa opc facelift.jpg
File:Opel Mokka 2012.jpg

Mr.choppers (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well that looks familiar. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I deleted almost all images uploaded by this user and warned him. I will be keeping an eye on his future uploads. mickit 20:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been more explicit:
are all blatantly obvious sockpuppets of a long-term copyvio vandal here and on English Wikipedia. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I indefinitely blocked the three accounts. What should be done about the ones that Micki didn't delete? Some have pending DRs and some are PD-textlogo. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Only one left, and it won't last long. Thanks all, especially to LX who provided me with the material needed to hopefully block him from en.wiki where he has been very disruptive as of late. Feel free to weigh in there if anyone has additional evidence. This character will doubtlessly be back again in the future, but now there are another few editors on the alert for Kalaua. Mr.choppers (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

GI Jack (talk · contribs), Consortium (talk · contribs) and more

User:GI Jack, who has uploaded nothing than copyvios so far, seems to be another incarnation of User:Consortium, who even claims on his userpage "'We're a consortium of a many users. We are MANY!" And per this edit 80.214.5.17 (talk · contribs)[1] seems also to belong to these guys. --Túrelio (talk) 08:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Guillermo Ramos Flamerich

Hi,
can someone please look into the contributions of Guillermo Ramos Flamerich (talk · contribs)?
The editor has been active for close to six years on enWP, and there have apparently been serious copyright problems; See en:User talk:Caracas 2000#CCI and en:WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Caracas 2000 for some background.
I don't know whether there actually is a problem here. Moonriddengirl mentions some conflicting EXIF information, but that can just as well be innocent. Not sure about File:Salvador Garmendia 1.jpg, image page claims it was PD in Argentina.
Can I drop this into your capable hands?
Thanks, Amalthea (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Cecilio Acosta sculpture.JPG is a photograph of a protected work (subject born in 1946). I see a number of similar images. Photographs taken with a EX-Z60 may be the work of this user. The source of some other images is said to be the Fundación Rómulo Betancourt. The current copyright notice at that website is "Copyright © 2011 fundacionromulobetancourt.com. Todos los derechos reservados."[2] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocking as an argument in discussion

See also the related discussion at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_25#User:PereslavlFoto_.282nd_time.29.

Administrator User:Blacklake has an option to block other Commons participants. He used this option to block me. [3] His aim was, to keep the short description of this photo and to remove the detailed one. [4] The full description shows Blacklake's point of view about the image subject, as well as the opinions from other users. To avoid any other opinion but his own, this user prefers to block. Blacklake says I'm «pushing my original research», while the full description includes the view of many users from several discussions. The full description of this photo contains hyperlinks to the mass media sources telling about the depicted place. Needless to say that Commons allows «original research» in descriptions. Can someone help with this cause? Thank you.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Your description is completely out of line as was pointed out many time before. The text on the graffiti should either be translated as is or a reasonable explanation be given, Commons is not a place to suggest that antisemites are actually simply opposing the rich-poor divide. I would defend the block in this case, it is a very reasonable action by Blacklake. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 14:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
No one should be called anti-Semitic for in-scope uploads.[5] The revision history of the file shows that PereslavlFoto has reverted a number of other editors over the filedescription.[6] This must stop. Commons does not tolerate attacks on its editors based on in-scope uploads. PereslavlFoto may bring allegations of personal attacks to COM:AN/U. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Your description was a clearly antisemitic original research. Desriptions should be clear and accurate. Without concoctions and unnotable antisemitic opinions.--Abiyoyo (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The graffiti in question depicts an antisemitic slogan in the park, and the park is known for hosting various activities of Russian ultra-right organizations. PereslavlFoto repeatedly changed the description, adding that the Russian word "жид" (ehtnic slur for jews, literally "yid") has another meaning "a gready person", so the meaning of the graffity was not clear and two equal translation must be indicated. In fact this second meaning is kind of outdated, derivative from the "yid" meaning (jews were deemed greedy) and whenever the word "жид" appears in a political slogan, everyone in Russia knows what it is all about. Taking into account that PereslavlFoto has tried to push his unusual point of view on different issues (e.g. categories) on several occasions and discussing the problem with him often turns out to be too exhaustive, the only way to stop the edit war between PereslavlFoto and several different users was to impose block on the user. --Blacklake (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Besides I must add that PereslavlFoto often uses trolling-like methods (see here for example). --Blacklake (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for that dif. I think your block was measured and proportionate. I warned this user in December, 2011.[7] I think longer blocks are appropriate if this user persists in edit-warring.[8] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
You did not warn. You took part in a duscussion as well as other Commons users, and your point of view was respected then. In the next step you moved your reply to other place of discussion. [9]--PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • In order to understand, why the discription looked like anti-semitic, one should note, that in Russia it is a typical trick, used by antisemits to say "yes, we are against 'yids', but we are not against jews". Antisemits in Russia often say that 'yid' is a "greedy jew" or a "greedy man", or something like that, trying to legitimate a clearly derogative term 'yid' (жид) in political discourse. The slogan 'down wiyh tids' rule' is a clearly antisemitic one and imposes that bad and ugly jews have all the power in the country and have to be deprived of this alleged power. Trying to say "well, it's not about jews, it is about greedy and corrupted government", like PereslavlFoto did, looks like a typical ruse of a described sort.--Abiyoyo (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Administrator Rd232

Would someone look into this?

  • Later in the discussion at Category_talk:Hidden_categories, Rd232 makes the following incorrect statements:
    • "since November 2010 these categories have been labelled "Non-topical/index" when shown at the bottom of File pages"
    • It seems that Rd232 still hasn't found their way to file description pages as there is no such things on file description pages.
  • Further on his comment, Rd232 seems to suggest that me (and Mormegil) haven't following proper channels before implementing a change. This despite that we followed a proposal made on the guideline on categories (Commons:Categories).
  • It seems to me that Rd232 is violating Commons:Talk page guidelines and misleading that community by substituting his own proposal to mine. As he doesn't seem to understand the topic well, his comments seem confuse users further.

-- Docu  at 07:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

    • I've no idea why Docu feels it appropriate to come to ANU with this (demanding some administrative action) without discussing it with me first. I guess he was right about the summary I added (it was very late at night when I added it; I couldn't sleep but was very tired); but I was just trying to neutrally summarise what I thought was being said. Anyway I've now moved it down to a new subthread. Rd232 (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I've corrected the "Non-topical/index" error in my summary (it applies to category pages, not file pages - I had it right and then changed it... I was looking at the code in MediaWiki:Hidden-categories... I was tired :) ). Rd232 (talk) 12:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The above comment was made when the talk page I mentioned had the following form:
Category_talk:Hidden_categories#Moving_to_.22Categories_with_HIDDENCAT.22
It seems to be repeat problem that you keep editing other users comments, rearrange threads and hide sections you don't like. You even make non trivial edits to your own timestamped comments without noting changes. You even continued doing that after this was brought up here.
If you keep dealing with requests to administrators while not feel well insisting on "amount[s] of discussion", it seems that you are somewhat misguided. You should consider limiting your administrative contributions to non-talk pages. --  Docu  at 13:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
If you want me to respond to the vague points you mention you'll have to be clearer and more specific. And by the way, edit requests are only for uncontroversial edits or edits with a clear consensus - and one person agreeing with himself does not qualify as "consensus". That's especially true when it's a site-wide change, where more input is needed. Finally, your November 2010 edit request introduced a difference between the English interface and (as far as I can tell) all other languages, with no attempt to do anything about it. For a multi-lingual site like Commons, this is not trivial. It's bad enough having missing or incomplete translations, without changing English definitions without any attempt to get translations updated. Rd232 (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Rd232 in regards to the edit request - there is not consensus for a name change yet, so the edit should not be made until consensus has been achieved. Also, this seems like something that could be very easily solved with a friendly talk page notice. Not sure why the editor felt the need to bring it up here. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Administrator Rd232 has been requested not to tamper other users talk page comments in the past, but still persists. This independent of the question whether he understands categories at Commons or not. --  Docu  at 13:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
"Tamper [with]" implies bad faith. Please do not make such remarks without evidence. Also, just to be crystal clear, the text I added which looked like it might have been attributed to someone else because of its location at the top of the thread was put there as an introduction to the RFC which I started in order to not merely block your totally premature edit request I had declined. I was trying to be helpful, and made a formatting mistake due to tiredness. Most people would manage to have let that go by now. Rd232 (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I asked you in the past not to move comments around. Still you keep doing it. The text you added doesn't only look like it might be attributed to someone else, it looks like it was there before others commented on it, while they just responded to a standard category move request.
In addition, it seems that in this case you handled a protected request addressed to an administrator while being involved in the debate. Clearly this is not an acceptable behaviour for an administrator. Can we rely on you to refrain from both in the future? --  Docu  at 05:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Um, I came into the debate via that protected request, after going through the edit requests category. And in fact in the subsequent discussion I was more sympathetic to the proposal than some others. Honestly, don't you have better things to do? Rd232 (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If this discussion did not involve me, I would at this point be warning you for harassment. Yes, you don't like the way I try to move discussions forward; collecting every instance of this as if it proves anything looks vindictive, as a response to the rejection of your edit request.

  1. Already discussed, and the diff itself proves it wasn't "manipulation" as I commented in it referring to the text I'd added.
  2. Relates to this edit by Docu, which is an actual example of messing with someone's comment, by substituting a previous version of a template I used to prevent the minor template update I did, in response to Docu's comment, showing up there.
  3. Docu's broken diff to a user talk comment refers to hatting a section at VP and splitting a section at VP after Docu had been unhelpful enough that I tried to move things forward.
  4. Commons talk:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 2) requires no further discussion. It was the best I could do in the circumstances to contain the mess I'd made (the nature of which is irrelevant here).
  5. "Addressed to an administrator, but handled by Rd232" yes. What strange phrasing, as if I'm not an admin. I later mentioned prior discussion relating to hidden categories yes, but it had nothing to do with renaming the hidden-cat category. (draft text for a proposal). And by the way, whilst I consider en:WP:INVOLVED a fundamental principle of adminship that I respect as much as possible and reasonable, as Docu is so fond of pointing out, Commons is not English Wikipedia, and Commons actually has no policy on this. Probably it should, but my todo list is already quite full, and the lower number of admins (especially if you take into language issues) means some thought and discussion needs to go into drafting something on that.
  6. Handling an edit request by Docu - well I had addressed the specific reason to revert, and he was free to open another request to revert my changes, which he immediately did, and it was ignored for two months (it's still there now, as if anyone would seriously revert at this point).
  7. Without a reference to a specific thread this is useless, hardly better than "there's more bad stuff here".

Really, you've wasted nearly an hour of my time responding. To what end? Rd232 (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I think COM:MELLOW applies. Docu, I understand that your relationship with Rd232 is mistrustful. In part, I suspect that is due to the vagaries of written communication. But, if you and Rd232 can't work with one another and sort out matters of this sort between yourselves, please work on other things. Let others deal with Docu's edit protected requests, if they are willing.[13] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Fine by me, though Docu's attitude to me has been pretty consistent from the moment I arrived on Commons, and I've never understood it. I'd previously concluded that I should give up on trying to build a better relationship and just try to keep my dealings with Docu to a minimum; clearly that's a position I should return to (I don't hold grudges, and have a certain tendency to forget past problems). Whilst it is sometimes unavoidable (I'm not going to stay out of every area or discussion Docu happens to be in), edit requests is one thing I can just leave, or else request others to address (edit requests tend not to get prompt responses, especially if there's any technical element). Rd232 (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Doug youvan

It appears to me that Doug youvan (talk · contribs) may be attempting to use Commons to harass User:Kraaiennest (en:User:Crowsnest), e.g., Commons:Village_pump#.2410.2C000_Donation_to_the_WMF.2C_if_.... [14] This may be in response to incidents on en.wiki, where Doug youvan has been blocked since 2008 for block evasion and disruption, and off wiki.[15][16][17][18] I suggested that as an involved party that he not discuss the work of Kraaiennest (Crowsnest).[19] He chose to ignore my advice. His comment to Kraaiennest, "Please be aware that I am not criticizing you..." seems disingenuous to me based on a careful reading of his other posts in that section and User talk:Kraaiennest.[20][21] "$10,000 Donation to the WMF, if ... anyone can prove that the attribution of 'File:Deep water wave.gif' as 'own work' is true" strikes me as a implicit and unsubstantiated allegation of bad faith.[22] While we neither endorse nor dispute actions taken by other wikimedia projects, nor do we judge Commons users on behavior that occurs elsewhere, we strongly discourage users from importing conflict from elsewhere to Commons. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not all all like his comment that he was emailing colleagues of Kraaiennest. It would be a very good reason to block him /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Plus he begged for us here to get back at en.wikipedia where he would continue the same things. Plus he also nominated images for deletion and threatened to send images to the FBI. Too much, so I have placed a block. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
User appealed, if anyone wants to look at that. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
He's suggested an edit restriction, I am limited to file uploads (images) pertaining to my mathematics work and image descriptions, but nothing else, for a period of one year, without prejudice. Which seems fine to me. Comments? Rd232 (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
By image descriptions, does he mean from his own uploads (I think it should be)? But he should also be allowed to participate in DRs pertaining to his own uploads, IMO. Prof. Professorson (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that's meant, and certainly how I would interpret it. I agree about the DRs. Rd232 (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
His explanations do not make the work in the nominated images more intelligible. He has not apologized for his attacks, he is actually continuing them. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
"the nominated images"? Rd232 (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pi.tif for an example. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
He attacked Crowsnest on his talk page after being blocked.[23] That is, in part, the behavior that led to the block. He has chosen not to strike that attack. Consequently, I think the block should stand. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not feeling he gets it. The way he tried to get us to get back into En.WP, the way he responded to the block, [24] (which is not only an unproductive way of handling a DR, but seems off-target), etc.. And most of his recent uploads have been problematic; even after several of them have been deleted, there's still stuff like File:Jesus Christ.tif (not insulting so much as pointless; even if we had established the value of "tuple images" (apparently his own creation, which he refused to explain at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pi.tif), there's absolutely nothing be gained from mathematical manipulations on ASCII values of strings, File:Help Wanted.png (polemic at best), Category:Schrödinger's cube and its contents (which, like the tuple images, seem to have no relation to anything established and aren't explained), and File:Relativistic P = NP Computation.png (which was inserted by himself into a talk page on WP while blocked, using a sock puppet.) I get the feeling he is not a user that will come back and be fine.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, Prosfilaes gives a good description of the problems. After 4 years here and on en-wiki (with several socks), Youvan gives me the impression he still does not (want to) comprehend the purpose and operation of the project. In majority, his contributions appear to be incomprehensible original research, out of scope, self-promotional or disruptive; often burdening other editors. E.g, how many times people have not warned Youvan to refrain from porting his en-wiki problems to commons ([25], [26], [27], [28], [29], etc.) and he still does not get it: even in his appeal to his block. [30] -- Kraaiennest (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Roland zh – or "is it ok with users that don't want to communicate"?

Hi. I'm just not sure what to do. Roland zh did this edit, that puzzled me, so I asked him/her some questions about it in a polite way, but *he just removed it with an explanation that really did not make sense to me. I tried to follow up, but the reply was that *he was not interested in "discussions". How should I interpret this? Right now I have no idea if *he is right or me. Should I revert his/her edit or not? Is it really ok with users that are "not interested in discussions"? How can you collaborate with someone who won't communicate? I'm puzzled... Danmichaelo (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello,
I reverted to a previous version, and added a message. We will see. Yann (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the support Yann! I consider myself done with this case. Danmichaelo (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I have the exact same problems with Chu, who also reverts any and all changes made to images he considers his "own". He has responded to me once, stating that he "hates interference", but always clears his talkpage. What can one do? I will assist you in keeping an eye on Roland zh, who does appear somewhat less than civil. Mr.choppers (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
That's even worse actually. At least Roland zh had no problem with me reverting his/her edit, so next time I will just revert instead of trying to discuss first (there should have been a warning on the userpage: "Please revert my edits rather than discuss them" :)). Chu seems like a candidate for a short-time block in my eyes. Danmichaelo (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Roland is a guy who is difficult to communicate with, but his edits are very helpful. He is doing an excellent job with categorizing images in Commons, especially those related to India. But unfortunately, he does not like interference. By the way, I have nominated this image for deletion because I think its a derivative work. --Sreejith K (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
And since I am from Kerala and has first hand information about Indian politics, feel free to discuss about this subject on my talk page. --Sreejith K (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Sreejith, it's very nice to know who you can contact when having questions :) And your deletion nomination is sound, I think (I just didn't think about that myself) Danmichaelo (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Ronald zh mentioned that he would like to use file talk page instead. I am not sure if persistently reinstating the thread on his TP is reasonable. Artem Karimov (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
In fact he did not mention that he would like to use the talk page. I actually asked him directly about that, but he was "not interested".[31] Also, as I wrote to him, my questions was about his edit, so it made a lot of sense to ask him directly. And I would say it's quite "reasonable" to use a talk page to try to talk ;) Oh well Danmichaelo (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

File:ТКУ 32.jpg

Please, help me fix the image. In some small resolutions it is not displayed correctly. I tried to download two times - it is useless. Thanks. --Anford (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Full resolution works for me, the thumbnail is broken. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 17:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Please purge the cache.[32] To purge a cached image, go to "Page History" and change "history" to "purge" in the URL. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
That photo is certainly not {{PD-old-70}}. Jafeluv (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I just hung a {{Delete}} on File:ТКУ 33.jpg -- although I can't read the source page, it has a clear (c) on it and as Jafeluv says, the image is not old enough to be PD.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Zoubeirtbourski (talk · contribs)

I have a rather strange impression from the 6 uploads[33] of this user. What troubles me more than the fact that most were copyvios, are the filenames, description and content of the images, that smell rather antisemitic to me. Opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Blocked indefinitely for harassment. No place on Commons this kind of people. Yann (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Wikieditor234

Wikieditor234 (talk · contribs) was blocked in October 2011, but has continued to upload copyvio images, including today after many previous uploads were deleted. --Ytoyoda (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done blocked indefinetly, second block because same reason --Ezarateesteban 14:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Artem Karimov

On top of previously mentioned problems, now he engaged himself into edit warring: File:Standard time zones of the world.png.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Protected for one week. Discussion is to occur on the talk page. Use {{Editprotected}} to request changes before expiration of protection. russavia (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Great, thanks. May be at some point he will realize that if everybody tells him that black is black and he is the only one to insist that black is white, than smth might be wrong, but protection as a temporary decision is fine.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
It is more important that all involved understand that slow-revert wars on files such as this are disruptive not only to Commons, but also to other projects which are using the image. Is it imperative that all parties discuss the issues on the talk page of the file concerned. There is nothing more really to say in this matter from where I am sitting. russavia (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Funny. No exceptions for Kosovo. All separatist movements or none. That simple. Artem Karimov (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
By the way, nice monitoring of my contribs. Waste your time more. :) Artem Karimov (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense. Would you really exclude the United States from the map? At a certain point a separatist movement becomes a legitimate nation. Kosovo has achieved at least some of the markers of being a legitimate nation, and therefore it's not being exceptional to list it as one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
In that case Abkhazia and South Ossetia should be included as well. Along with Trasnistria and Northern Cyprus. They are all de-facto states. Artem Karimov (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope you will also help to protect the File:Terlezky-2010-doloi.jpg with its previous detailed description, instead of the current one that appears to hide the relevant details about the subject of this photo. See the story above.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

How about I, instead, leave the file unprotected, remove the English description entirely, and place all on notice that the next person to revert, or add any English description at all, without engaging in at least a one-week discussion on the talk page, and with some resemblance of consensus, will receive, courtesy of myself, a two week no-expenses paid vacation from Commons. No-one has used the talk page on the file, so no-one is innocent in this instance. russavia (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
How about the following purely-factual text (which is necessary for ordinary English speakers to have any understanding of the context) be permanently left in place: "Grafitti reads: «Долой власть жидов», where the word «жид» is a derogatory term for «Jew». (The non-derogatory Russian word for «Jew» is «еврей».)" AnonMoos (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I have always included this in English description, as your addition is important, but not full explanation of the photographed scene. So, if we include it, we are to include other details. With your explanation it becomes visible that the slogan is derogatory, but is stays unclear about why the slogan is against governing powers.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Seems fair, because the most full description was collected in the same way. I discussed the question with other editors and they either added something or explained the theme to research. Also, the question does not depend on the language. The trouble is, one side is inclusive and prefers to show all attitudes; other is not, and prefers to show only their own attitude. To protect his short description and to avoid any other opinion but his own, one administrative user preferred to block me, and he seems to be against any details and explanations in this description. You may see the discussions. They started here with no result, and continued there. In the 2nd discussion I learned there was «место собраний праворадикальных группировок», so I checked the mass media and added the explanation in Russian about «Russian national unity». The 3rd discussion was there, and it appeared that the description must avoid «own idiosyncratic views», so I kept and increased the number of hyperlinks to the sources in the description. Next discussion was kept in DR and helped to improve the translation.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Let's say that we have a picture of the gathering of Flat Earth Society, and somebody in the description spends 2 paragraphs explaining how these people actually do not believe that the earth is flat, but actually oppose the doctrine that earth quakes are caused by the plate techtonics. That "full description" would not be helpful. The main reason for that is that it's misleading. In other words the fact that some description is longer doesn't mean that it's better. It's the same with this photo, the shorter description with the translation of the text written actually gives clearer understanding of what is depicted there than a wishwash of "The word 'kike' actually means something different, because the park has been known for kicking out nazis who wrote this slogan". VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 16:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

To all groups, please take it to the talk pages of the files concerned. That is the essence of what I have stated above. There is no more need to reply here, when valuable time could be spent on discussion of issues relating to the files in question. Thanks, russavia (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyvios: Sakawat crsc

Can somebody please take care of Sakawat crsc (talk · contribs) – I started going through his uploads and they appear to be virtually all of them copyvios. I tagged about one third of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and please watch out for the Wikinger vandal [34] messing up all the taggings and warnings. Annoying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --Ezarateesteban 14:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, not quite – what I meant was for the remaining, not-yet-tagged files to be nuked too. Do I really have to search Google-images and tag every one of the remaining ones? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I went through them one by one. Deleted half a dozen as obvious copyvios, tagged some as out of scope or probable copyvios, and left some, all taken with two Nokia phone at 1200x1600px , which seem to be unlikely copyvios.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I've recently tagged two of MichelleTaylorr's uploads as potential and proven copyright violations, and find that the user has a history of this behavior. Is it possible to either block the user from uploading, or require their uploads to be vetted before going live? — Fourthords | =/\= | 20:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Mmxx blocked this user for 1 week MorganKevinJ(talk) 00:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

User who has uploaded tons of (exclusively?) copyvios

See here. Can someone sort this out? Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Errùwen

Hi Admins! This User is uploading a lot of stuff, lots got deleted already. Seems to be very resistant against any kind of counseling. Latest works are some .ogg files which he/she claims as own work. The files have different speakers, so that can't be true. Maybe a little block for a few days helps? ContributionsThanks! --Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 04:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Warned user about blocking policy. Let us know if the user continues MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Annab 99 (talk · contribs)

All the uploads from Annab 99 (talk · contribs) are from the flickr album https://www.flickr.com/photos/96336933@N00/ and none of them are free. Please nuke all the copyright violations. --Sreejith K (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Annab 99 left me a notice on my talk page that the licenses of these files has been changed to a free license. I have put a message at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Five_flickr_files to undelete these files. --Sreejith K (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Martin H.

Martin H. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Multiple edit warring against several users in Category:Quality images by country and all subcategories, where he removes the topic categories (e.g. "Photographs of the UK" from "Quality images of the UK"). I requested on his talk page (as well as a further user did), but user Martin H. does not see a need for any discussion on this issue. The most strange thing is, that user Martin H. removes topic categories from just a part of QI subcats, without doing it for other ones (like Category:Quality images of Japan and many more; not to mention similar categories for Valued or Featured images) and bringing chaos in the system this way. - A.Savin 13:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The same situation was with other category tree, when a user took categories with typical names of "This street" or "That street" or "Third street", removed them from a mother-category "Buildings of Town" and collected them into into a mother-category "Streets of the Town". The issue was, there were no images of streets in these categories, only images of buildings. When asked about the reason to collect the buildings images into the streets super-category, that user kept silence and avoided any explaining speech. Now there exist several empty and useless "streets" categories. Maybe someone will pay attention and solve this issue.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Give us some specific images, please. The cat names are not very helpful.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
You're free to open a separate topic, but in this section I expect only comments on the issue I submitted. And the edit warring by Martin H. unfortunately seems to go on. - A.Savin 16:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The quality images related issues are a long standing disagreement (See for example User_talk:Martin_H./Archive_19#Featured_pictures_of_the_United_States) between "maintenance" and "topical" categories. I could not find immediately other similar discussions.
While I share Martin's concerns about the danger of deeper and deeper side categories that form a parallel system to the current category system (it could lead to quality image categories for each "topical" category), I disagree that those are really maintenance categories. The fundamental problem is that indeed we have on Commons no "labelling" system that allows to select in a certain category media with a certain attribute, such as B&W, video, audio, SVG, QI, VI, Featured pictures, aerial, panoramic, date (range), superseded, ... and more arguably heritage buildings, author, ... So we have a permanent problem to find compromises about the depth and visibility of such categories. It is true that Martin is rather inflexible on his point and that he don't want the same discussion to be repeated over and over again. --Foroa (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This seems more like a policy issue than a user issue. It needs to be settled whether QI categories and the like are to be within the topic category tree or not (and that's a job for the Village Pump or a RFC, or perhaps elsewhere, but not here). Of course, long-term it would be best if Commons' browsing system was intelligent enough to do filtering and sorting, including by quality status... Rd232 (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Sanzana45 & User:Sanzana

Keeps uploading copyvios after final warning. Moros y Cristianos 19:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

From a duck test I guess Sanzana45 is a sockpuppet from Sanzana (same kind of copyvio, same nickname). I have blocked Sanzana45 for 1 week (double of Sanzana current block). However I doubt we can get something from this user, he seems to just ignore warnings. --PierreSelim (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Shining Sky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

All her images are/were copyright violations. She was warned a lot of times. Allan Javier Aguilar Castillo (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

All images deleted and the account was blocked for a week. Béria Lima msg 18:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of file list Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Afghanistan

I have compiled the list of files under Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Afghanistan that are tagged with the template in question. Seemingly all of the images tagged with this template has a problem one way or another (some should even be re-tagged). The images are expected to comply with the three conditions below.

  1. The work was first published in Afghanistan.
  2. The authors of the work are citizens of Afghanistan and are not also citizens or permanent residents of any country that participates in the Berne Convention.
  3. Within thirty days of its first publication in Afghanistan, the work was never published in any country that participates in the Berne Convention.

I was going to make an effort (with the help of others) to review the individual images to make sure if they are complying with the three conditions the template presents and try to re-tag them with something more suitable.

A user (admin) Cambalachero (talk · contribs) has removed my entry to the above page twice so far: with this edit a second time. I will not revert a second time.

I find this disruptive as the user has removed the entry twice so far making the individual analysis of every image difficult. The list would have made it possible for the discussion of individual images to be more visible. This is the purpose of COM:DEL. Alternative method is individually nominating 703 files one at a time with 703 new entries to com:del which in my view would be very disruptive.

-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

See here. Stefan4 agrees as well that the list is out of place there. I must point that so far there's only a single user proposing to delete that template, which in fact was kept with large consensus two times before. I must point as well that even if there are files with that licence without enough author info, that's not a problem of the license itself but of each individual file, and this licence is not more subject to insufficient info than any other random one. I pointed him that he may tag images without such info on a case by case basis, which is not the 703 files of the whole category. Cambalachero (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I must point as well that mass deletion requests to purge copyright violations from a group of images (such as a user's uploads, a certain category, or in this case all images using PD-Afganistan) are only accepted if there's an actual evidence or reasoning to go on. For example, a user with 20 confirmed copyright violations and 10 remaining suspected images, or a portion of US WWII photos tagged with PD-1923. If no such reason is provided, then there will be no mass deletion. Cambalachero (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
COM:DEL is the location where such items can be listed in bulk so that multiple people can process it demanding that I process 703 files all by my self is hardly fair. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 18:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
You can ask for help on Village Pump. I agree that nominating files for deletion without looking at them is not helpful. When you nominate for deletion, you already say that you believe that the file should be deleted... VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 18:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

OTRS needed

I loaded up today 35 pictures, which were donated by Mrs. Natália Carrascalão Antunes, but I couldn't find the place, where I can add her eMail-adress for the confirmation, that I am allowed to load up the pictures here. Her eMail is [removed to stop spam harvesters] . Greetings, --Patrick (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The email for OTRS is permissions-commons@wikimedia.org User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! I requested now the confirming eMail by Mrs. Carrascalao. --Patrick (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Social Survey

After I enter wikipedia.org on my web browser URL, I was greeted with this Social Survey, after which it offered a MAC Book Air as a reward. Is this real? Is this an authorized Wiki offer? -- 22:10, 26 February 2012‎ 98.148.242.146

That's more of a Help desk question... AnonMoos (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
No idea, but it seems dubious. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
You probably misspelled the address. wikipedi.org and wikipeia.org, for example, are scam sites. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/๋ and User:Pinkie Pie

Good morning,

๋ has created an account to (i) tag himself as a sockpuppet from SalfEnergy (ii) tag similarly the account Pinkie Pie.

This last account claimed to have immediately pictures to upload and asked for a confirmed flag (but uploaded nothing). His activity were to open a DR on a .xxx logo, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Xxx tld logo.jpg.

This is a suspect behavior. --Dereckson (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. While I were writing this section, Tiptoety blocked the account with the reason Cross wiki blocks due CU information, the CU in question done on en.wikipedia. The account Pinkie Pie should be watched. --Dereckson (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Just picking up on that myself - I think all accounts are now locked. --Herby talk thyme 08:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed: Tiptoety reports there is a global block on Pinkie Pie. --Dereckson (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

User :TheDarkFever

This user is repeatedly uploading copyvio pics taken from other sites passing them as his own work. He has been repeatedly warned here and in En wiki, but has ignored the warnings. Please block this user.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Techman224Talk 14:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Paperquest actions

As pointed out on Village Pump, this user is uploading PNG files made from JPGs (not a very productive thing to do). But all the files I've looked at have extraneous sites listed as the source rather than the JPG image. So it appears to be a spam excercise. Block & rolback? --Tony Wills (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting to clean up this and I put an indef block on this user: he is not here to contribute to commons (if someone wants to be nicer than me feel free to change the duration or lift the block). --PierreSelim (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Andreyxavier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

All his images are/were copyright violations. He was warned a lot of times. Allan Javier Aguilar Castillo (talk) 03:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Speedied his latest and blocked for three days.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Jpullokaran 's abuse language on User_talk:Kiran_Gopi

I felt sad to see that User:Jpullokaran has used an uncivil and becoming language for User:Kiran_Gopi on his talk page. I request the admins to look into the matter. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC).

I am not much worried about User:Jpullokaran language, beacuse he may got irritated with my DR requests. As it is occurred only once please ignore. Thanks Hindustanilanguage for pointing out the issue here. But I am seriously concerned on some of his uploads.--Kiran Gopi (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The most uncivil there was "Have you waked from your sleep?" and it's not really something horrible. Somebody whose english abilities would be higher could write something significantly more stinging while staying much lower than that on the radar. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 09:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I have left a notice on the user talk page asking him to be civil. I do not think we need to do any more than this in this case. --Sreejith K (talk) 09:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
VolodyA! V Anarhist, How do you rate use of the word "Idiots" for Kiran Gopi? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
In that context i didn't even notice it. Probably because it's not "You are an idiot" (where it'd be a noun) but rather "Idiots..." (an exclamation). So one can easily have substituted it with "Geez" just with a raised tone of voice. Of course if you are looking through the short post waiting to be insulted about something, you will; but that isn't a statement about the language, but rather about the intelligence of the person feeling an insult. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 09:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
So, in essence, if someone uses this language, you won't feel insulted. But then, there have been instances when I differed with people on Commons and elsewhere on totally different issues. But I never resort to such adjectives. Do you? Hindustanilanguage (talk)
He has been warned by Sreejith and I think we shall not do more because to me it's an isolated fact. Do you suggest another action or shall we close this topic ? --PierreSelim (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
No, I think we should close the issue for now. However, if the user again resorts to this language again, we'll have take this background into consideration. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC).

Marcos tw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Many of his uploads are/were copyright violations and claimed to be and image reviewer. Allan Aguilar (disc.) 21:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done I've nominated the last few for deletion. --99of9 (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Spongebobtomi2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Hello,

Can you look imports of this user. Copyvio ? Thanks ! --M0tty (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I see you have deleted the images - I blocked for a while though looking at them I doubt we will see any great value from this user... Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Esttoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Account created to spam. Allan Aguilar (talk) 06:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Nuked everything; let us know if he recreates the deleted content and all that… --O (谈 • висчвын) 08:00, 05 March 2012 (GMT)

Gringopme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Copyright infringement by this user. Fabiano msg 22:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Last warning. all deleted --Ezarateesteban 00:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Maribel7788 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Almost all her uploads are/were copyright violations. Allan Aguilar (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


Add my two cents (I added a second complaint, didn't see there was already one) Advice resistant. Continually uploading protected material, claims own source for all images. Has history of vandalism warnings on eswiki as well. --Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 22:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Second block, one month the next must to be indefinetly Ezarateesteban 00:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Roiman19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

All their contributions have been copyright violations. Allan Aguilar (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done warned. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Elariel1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Many uploads from this user have been copyright violations. Allan Aguilar (talk) 05:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for 3 days. Copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Guillermo Ramos Flamerich

Hi,
a while back I notified you about an account whose enWP-edits prompted an ongoing copyright investigation.
I'm not sure if anyone has actually looked into his uploads, but I hereby notify you that he has now returned with the account Tierradegracia (talk · contribs). The one image uploaded by that account appears to me to be a clear copyright violation.
Amalthea 16:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done, thank you. File deleted and user blocked.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary discussion deletion by Rd232

moved from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism to here since some people think here is no vandalism involved. --Saibo (Δ) 14:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

here - please revert. --Saibo (Δ) 02:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What an ironic post. This reversion by Saibo arbitrarily deletes discussion; his diff is me restoring it. The content he was trying to restore through reversion was all moved to the talk page (Commons talk:Requests for comment/PD review). Also quite amazing to see an administrator, having provided enough disruptive comments to require them to be moved to the talk page, then to treat the removal as "vandalism" (Commons:Vandalism: a "malicious change"). Rd232 (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Not my problem that you have inserted some other comments in the meantime to hide your deletion. You are welcome to reinsert them. --Saibo (Δ) 13:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
It is your problem, since you deleted them, and it is quite obvious that my additional comments were nothing to do with you (don't be so egocentric). And you can cut this sort of nonsense right out - the relevant part of your comments was preserved, and you're welcome to make more relevant comments. You are not welcome to attempt to further disrupt an RFC about how to apply Commons policy because you disagree with that policy. In my email to you I commented
As I said in the closure at Commons:Deletion_requests/All_files_copyrighted_in_the_US_under_the_URAA, "Most of the rest of this discussion relates to moving all or part of Commons to outside the US, or using uploads to local projects more. Users who want to discuss that further would be best served with a separate RFC on that topic - perhaps Commons:Requests for comment/Commons Abroad and related ideas." If you want to do that, feel free, but please don't seek to further comment in unhelpful ways on an attempt to figure out how to comply with current legal requirements.
Now, please understand that you are being disruptive, and that this is not acceptable behaviour, especially from an admin. Additionally, you're using an inappropriate dispute resolution mechanism (vandalism noticeboard). Rd232 (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Moved. --Saibo (Δ) 14:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do the both of you want? I'd be more than happy to look at both of what you have to say, and likely come up with the result of sending you both to your rooms without dinner, if you want me to. Or you can both act like admins and discuss this on your talk pages and resolve it. We are probably used to pissing matches such as what seems to be occurring by less-experienced editors, but from admins...wow...just wow. russavia (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi russavia, thanks for your comment. What I want is stated right at the start. Rd232 restructured (in fact it is a deletion) a discussion in the way he likes (up to now I avoided to mention: some here might remember that this occurrence is not the first time if this controversial restructuring) and I do not agree with that but he insists to delete my comments by reverting. --Saibo (Δ) 15:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually when i came across this discussion, i first thought that Saibo has lost it. But then this is out of line. Removing discussion because it's 'heated' is equivalent with trying to channel it in the direction that one wants it to go. Such moves, especially during the heated discussion are very contravercial, and should be avoided wherever possible. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 16:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
It would help if you quoted the full edit summary: move heated meta discussion to talk, keeping quote of materially relevant part [emphasis added]. All the comments moved to talk were because they were disruptive, or responses to those comments which added nothing to the discussion of the RFC subject. Moreover they were almost entirely meta comments (complaining about the RFC or the Commons policy it's based on, not participating in it). Moving these comments was necessary because such disruption should not be tolerated. I tolerated quite a bit, but when Saibo came back again with the same disruptive comments, it was too much. After those comments a previously active discussion had no contributions for a week, and a causal element cannot be ruled out. But whether the disruption succeeded or not, there is no doubt that Saibo intended to stop the RFC achieving anything, and by definition that is disruptive. Rd232 (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I clearly stated what I want in the AN section you (Russavia) closed:

User:Saibo has repeatedly made disruptive comments at Commons:Requests for comment/PD review‎, per his apparent belief that the second bullet point in the heading of COM:L (media must be "in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work") is not in fact policy, and that therefore attempts to ensure that PD-tagged images comply with this are some sort of "US-centric" chauvinism. I eventually moved those disruptive comments to the RFC talkpage (quoting on the main RFC page the only part that actually was relevant to the RFC), and pointed out by email that if he wanted to change policy, he was welcome to try. In response he raised Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism#Arbitrary_discussion_deletion. He is now edit-warring this claim into the RFC page, and from discussion at AIV and his user talk page clearly is not going to desist.
Please assist in preventing further disruption. I ask that an admin give him a final warning, and remove his inappropriate claim. Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Rd232 (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

As for "...discuss this on your talk pages and resolve it..." - I already emailed Saibo (immediately after moving the material to the RFC talk page, to explain), and attempted further discussion at his talk page. You can see the results for yourself. Rd232 (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Is "...discuss this on your talk pages and resolve it..." meaning a deletion of discussion content and ensuring that it stays deleted by reverting its restore? Do you know Doublespeak? --Saibo (Δ) 19:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The content wasn't deleted, it was moved from the RFC main page to the RFC talk page, where it should have been in the first place. And you're replying to a comment about user talk page discussions. Rd232 (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not know what you mean with "And you're replying to a comment about user talk page discussions". But, really, I stop that discusion here with you now. Enough time wasted. --Saibo (Δ) 23:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
"...discuss this on your talk pages and resolve it..." just above - you even quoted it! Rd232 (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, as a gesture of goodwill, I've created Commons:Requests for comment/Commons Abroad and related ideas to enable more discussion of how to reduce the need for Commons and other Wikimedia projects to comply with US copyright laws, an issue obviously of great concern to him. And I've mentioned it at Commons:Requests_for_comment/PD_review#Reducing_dependence_on_US_copyright_laws. Can we now remove this claim from the RFC page, and draw a line under this silliness? Rd232 (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Again doublespeak. You are the one who demands this discussion - not me (like you try to put it here). I fail to see how this should be "goodwill" - to the opposite since you use try to coin (or establish/push it as solution) the term "Commons abroad" (that is a non-neutral page title). More comments on this on your RFC page.
If you which to "draw a line" then restore the deleted discussion parts. --Saibo (Δ) 19:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Well there goes that olive branch... Look, I'm not coining or "pushing" anything. "Commons Abroad" was coined by Dcoetzee in the URAA DR (as far as I know) as a perfectly reasonable handle for the idea of hosting files outside the US, where they might not be subject to US copyright laws (though it's probably not that easy to really dissociate WMF from such a non-US-based Commons). The fact that you cannot seem to get your head around the fact that Commons is hosted in the US and run by a US organisation and subject to US laws is not my fault: I've tried to explain it to you. And I've raised the RFC I previously suggested you start, because it gives you (and others who were interested, the DR had plenty of activity) a chance to discuss whether there is a way for Commons (or at least other Wikimedia projects) to host content currently subject to US copyright restrictions. Rd232 (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Again, I do not need that discussion - the content ever was and belongs to Commons. And if the WMF does see any need that hosting this public domain (except in one country) content does not fit their home jurisdiction they can think about what they want to do (that may be moving to another country). --Saibo (Δ) 20:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC) But, ehm, that here is the wrong place to discuss that. --Saibo (Δ) 20:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I raised it with Jimbo in December, and the response made it clear that moving abroad wasn't something the WMF would consider at the moment (practicalities, plus moving to another jurisdiction means then being subject to those laws, which may be much more restrictive in some regards like free speech or fair use). The WMF position is quite clear, that copyright violations should be removed, and URAA creates a new class of copyright violations. Nobody likes it, but that's the situation. I wouldn't mind if you were energetically trying to change that somehow, but all your efforts seem to involve some form of denial of the facts. That denial (to bring this back ontopic) extends to disrupting attempts to deal with the situation as it exists, and that disruption is what I attempted to deal with. Rd232 (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not agree with your deletion attempts and you don't like that so you deleted my comments ("deal[t] with"). Of course my comment and even my presence is disruption from your point of view since it is the opposite of helping with your "effort" (quoted from somewhere else). Probably it is also disrupting by the community that you have very few people behind your back and willing to help you with this "effort", hmm? --Saibo (Δ) 22:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I've explained my and your actions repeatedly, and engaged with your bizarre, unsupported and illogical position on Commons not needing to respect US law (which you'd previously tried repeatedly to inject disruptively into a discussion on how to comply with US law), and tried to feed that into a constructive direction (ways to reduce the impact of US law on what Commons wants to achieve). At this point you're just repeating yourself, with decreasing amounts of rationality, both here and elsewhere. Frankly, I'm starting to wonder how compatible with Commons adminship is the belief (which you apparently sincerely hold and cannot be shifted from) that Commons does not need to comply with US law. That's quite separate from the disruptive way in which you have expressed that belief, and then attacked me when I dealt with that - which is in itself a problem. Rd232 (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I am not really sure why you are commenting on my admin rights here, but, well: If you think that the community wishes that I, the disruptor, should not be an admin, then please make a desysop request (note that this is no recommendation you to do so). As said above: I will not further waste my time in this discussion with you. --Saibo (Δ) 23:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
No, a desysop request needs some prior consensus and anyway I don't wish to pursue it on the back of a single incident which hopefully can be settled fairly soon (even though your unwillingness to respect the laws applicable to Commons is rather concerning). If you wish to end this incident, just remove this claim or allow me to do it. That's all. Rd232 (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
That is why I did not recommend that - I am happy that you are able to see it the same way. --Saibo (Δ) 01:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've moved Saibo's objection notice (using {{Fact disputed}}, used to mark disputed media descriptions or file names, i.e. if you believe that the content of the file does not match its description) to the RFC talk page. I'm hoping that this can be an end to this. Saibo's objection is noted, without disrupting the RFC. It remains the case that all kinds of participation in the RFC are welcome on the RFC main page, whilst objections to the RFC (and other discussion about the RFC) belong on the talk page. Rd232 (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Block request

I request that User:Saibo be blocked for 24 hours for disruption. This recent edit at Commons:Requests for comment/PD review, combined with a failure to engage in further discussion (and outright comments above that he will not engage in further discussion) indicates a willingness to continue pursuing his campaign to disrupt the RFC in question. This cannot and should not be tolerated. Rd232 (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

withdrawn, since apparently nobody is willing to seriously examine the reasons for it. Rd232 (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that Saibo has overacted, but it was an example of some awesome trolling by Rd232. And it's not an honest belief by Rd232 which can be reinterpreted as trolling, it is blatant twisting of every rule in the rulebook to attempt to get the most effect out of one's actions. To make sure that my words are not just an empty accusation, i'll back them up now. There were two discussions going on: PD review and Better search. In the first one the discussion has began going in the direction Rd232 didn't find useful, so all the comments which disrupted moving forward were moved away to the talk page, and any attempt to bring the discussion back was countered. At the very same time Rd232 watched as any discussion about improving the search deterriorated into demands for censorship, which has almost completely killed most of the potential behind it; not only were these sorts of discussions not removed, but Rd232 has engaged in them (right now real proposals have 2 or three replies, most of the energy is spent combating the trolls... yes i know that it's best to ignore them, but then it appears like the community actually wants the censorship, so it's a catch 22 situation). I must confess, i have considered moving all the demands for "safe search" off that RFC onto the talk page, just to see what would happen, but have decided that it'd be POINTy bahaviour, and wouldn't be helpful, but i can bet a lot that i would not have much support from Rd232 on such a move. Due to this clear contradiction, and abuse of the position i think that it can be understood why Saibo has reacted the way one did. Yes, it was wrong, and yes, one should have had a cooler head, but sometimes trolling does get the better of us. As i have mentioned Rd232's actions have almost caused me to engage in disruption myself, but in the hindsight i'm glad i didn't. Please block nobody or both parties in this dispute, and don't take sides in this dispute by blocking, as that would only worsen an already heated situation. Thanks. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 16:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  1. "the discussion has began going in the direction Rd232 didn't find useful" - simply untrue. Barring Saibo's repeated disruption, it was going just fine.
  2. "watched as any discussion about improving the search deterriorated into demands for censorship" - untrue on multiple fronts. (i) nobody, but nobody, is asking for something that could be honestly called censorship (ii) I started the RFC with two main subsections, one on "effective search" and one on user-controlled filtering, and I've repeatedly moved subsubsections to maintain the distinction.
  3. There is no contradiction, no POINTy behaviour, no trolling. I've acted to protect an RFC against disruption by someone who clearly should know better. The root of that protection is moving comments to the talk page that belong on the talk page. Pretending that the two sides are equal here is like saying a vandal and the person who reverts the vandal are "two sides". Rd232 (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, external observers might consider V Anarhist/Beta M's comment in light of this comment of his at Commons:Requests for comment/improving search within hours of the RFC being launched. Rd232 (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
You've disrupted the discussion, you got a response. Pat your own self on the back and move on, no reason to add an insult to injury and demand to block the person. I'm not going to continue this discussion. You've trolled me enough, i'm trying to stay away from anything with your name on it for a while. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 16:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Saibo's disruption on this issue is ongoing and apparently intended to continue, that's why a block is necessary, especially as there is much future work to be done, with much future potential for disruption if he remains determined to do that. As for you, despite some fairly outrageous contributions of yours to the "safesearch" discussion (some of which many would consider "trolling", though I try not to use the term), you clearly have something to contribute to the Effective Search discussion, so I'd urge to continue with that, assuming you're able to keep disputes out of other areas. Rd232 (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose a rather disruptive block request. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
    • This is not a vote. Contribute to discussion, or don't say anything at all. Rd232 (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Yet another example of Rd232's heavyhanded managing of discussions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
        • I agree with this comment by Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Well I'm not going to apologise for being willing to use a variety of means to keep discussions focussed, moving, relevant and on-topic. Occasionally annoying people is a personal price I'm willing to pay for the collective good of not having discussions that go on endlessly, uselessly, or die out without conclusion, etc. Generally I accept pushback against my managerial efforts; in this case, I cannot (well I did initially, when Saibo undid my collapse of part of the comments, but later persistence showed that this acceptance was a mistake), because the underlying comments are disruptive, and because there is every reason, given the user's views, to fear that this disruption will continue. Without the undertaking I asked for, or a block to make clear the community's views of this sort of disruptive behaviour, the implied threat of more disruption will remain. Rd232 (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose a rather disruptive block request. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 17:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Again (as I said to Pieter), this is not a vote. And again (like Beta M), this is a user who has been involved in the recent heated "safesearch" discussion in disagreement with me. Can we have some neutral observers actually take this situation seriously, please? Rd232 (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I would like to add that Niabot has a history of disrupting Commons in order to prove his or her points: [35], [36], [37]. I don't believe that Niabot can be considered a good or neutral judge on what is or isn't considered disruption. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. It takes two users to create disruption diff1 diff2 diff3. And in particular this is pretty egregious, it's inappropriate to edit other users' discussions and comments against their wishes and over their objections to do so. -- Cirt (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose block – Per Cirt. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Against the block, please both of you discuss calmly without reverting each other (I'm sure you can do it: you are both of you two useful contributors to the project). --PierreSelim (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately it ignores the fact that (i) we have stopped reverting; Saibo's notice is left there (I tried moving the notice as a compromise to document his objection to the move of the comments, but that was rejected as well) (ii) Saibo has explicitly said he will not discuss it further (iii) my most recent offer to him to end this sensibly (on his talk page) was apparently rejected (certainly wasn't engaged with). At this point, Saibo is apparently unwilling to do anything but enforce his position through further edit warring; he's not even willing to promise to desist from future disruption on the same issue elsewhere. Quite how I'm supposed to resolve this through further discussion escapes me. See also the section below. Rd232 (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Now what

  1. So far the only people to have commented are people I have had unrelated disputes with. There's no sign of that changing, and the issue has had plenty of exposure.
  2. Those commenting seem to think that Saibo's comments should not have been moved.
  3. Those commenting seem unwilling to meaningfully address Saibo's behaviour. The nature of Saibo's comments and disruption, and apparent willingness to continue that disruption, and unwillingness to discuss the matter any further, has not seriously been discussed. Saibo has rejected repeated attempts of mine to resolve the situation in some constructive way. Apparently this sort of behaviour is just fine.

Commons:Requests for comment/PD review has had no substantive comments since Saibo's disruptive comment of 22 Feb. Nor have any of those involved in the topic commented on the dispute about moving the comments. It looks rather like Saibo's attempts to disrupt Commons' efforts to deal with a class of copyright violations arising from the URAA is going to succeed. (Aside: nobody on Commons likes that this new class exists, but it does.) I can only conclude that worrying about moving some disruptive comments from an RFC main page to the RFC talk page ranks far above dealing with copyright violations in Commons' priorities.

The question then becomes, "now what?". The logical outcome seems to be:

  1. Restore the disputed comments to the RFC main page
  2. Close the RFC, since it's nearly been open 30 days and is dead, and restoring the comments will help ensure it remains dead.
  3. Change COM:L to reflect Saibo's view that files do not need to be PD in both the US and the source country, at least for URAA cases (or even broader - he seems to think Commons does not need to respect US laws at all). This view has been implicitly endorsed by the refusal of people to engage with the disruptive expression of it.
  4. Change US law to permit 3, since Commons is subject to US law. Or possibly try and figure out how to avoid Commons being subject to US law (Commons:Requests for comment/Commons Abroad and related ideas).

Rd232 (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm definitely involved, but I find Saibo's editing here very problematic. He has a problem with a policy, and yet he isn't willing to take it to a forum about changing policy, or even acknowledge that he's arguing against long-standing policy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Stop feeling sorry for yourself. You only have yourself to blame for being so pushy. And I had more disputes with Saibo than with you. As for the issue: yes, Commons should change policy. Give it some time. There is no immediate hurry. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Despite one comment supporting my actions, I've restored the comments on the main page and closed the RFC. The disruption may or may not have been successful, but the discussion did grind to a halt, and at this point any harm arising from the comments has been done. So since Saibo and others continue to object to the move, I've restored the comments, as it makes no difference now. I've created Commons:WikiProject Public Domain, and trust that if anyone tries to disrupt that, this will not be tolerated. Rd232 (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Help needed with non-collegial behaviour

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


I have images that are within scope and in use, and some have been kept after a two deletion requests in 2010 and 2011. Now their existence once again questioned with the exactly same arguments by User:Takabeg with support of administrator User:Jameslwoodward which consistently exercise dependent judgment by unconditionally supporting every action of User:Takabeg. With that support of an administrator-friend User:Takabeg engage in personal attacks and harass other independent voters on these deletion requests. As for the facts:

Exibit 1

At Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kobe_Luminarie_(2008).jpg User:Takabeg nominates photos of Kobe Luminarie and a photo of a manhole cover. Administrator User:Jameslwoodward votes pro User:Takabeg without a single note about that photo of a manhole cover which is not a photo of Kobe Luminarie and thus is not related anyhow to the arguments for deletion of his or User:Takabeg, proving that he, User:Jameslwoodward, indeed has his judgment compromised. See also User:Takabeg personal insulting comment to User:Maculosae tegmine lyncis there.

Our actions are not similar. The law and evidence are same. As you know, participants of previous DRs ignored the law and evidences. The copyright holder prohibits the use of their name. Takabeg (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, I also provided my evidence for the case of the Tower, but that is not the problem here. The problem here is that you're intentionally trying to delete an innocent photo of a manhole cover mixed with others and an administrator User:Jameslwoodward supports that your wrongful decision. Like your trying to pay in a shop with four true coins and one counterfeit coin. Laitr Keiows (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
No, the problem is your failure to assume good faith. The manhole cover is in Category:Kobe Luminarie because it commemorates it, so it's not some random manhole cover that has no link. It's not unreasonable to put it in the same DR with other FOP issues on the same topic. Rd232 (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The photo of a manhole cover isn't a photo of Kobe Luminarie and couldn't possibly be a copyvio per restrictions on architecture declared in FOP#Japan. There are four other Japanese manhole covers here on Commons and they're are not subject to any deletion requests as far as I see. This suggests that the photo of a manhole cover commemorating Kobe Luminarie is in this deletion request by mistake. Laitr Keiows (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The only mistake I see is that you don't seem to have actually read FOP#Japan. If you had, I'd expect you to acknowledge that it mentions artistic works, which it may be argued the manhole cover is. That makes it fine to include in that DR, even if the file is ultimately kept. Rd232 (talk) 10:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
These covers are mass produced and you can find them all around Kobe (I live here), still one may argue the manhole cover is an artistic work of some sort, but I think there should be separate request for that. Laitr Keiows (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I should have noticed that the manhole cover was not properly included in the DR -- the file name was right there in the list. My apologies. I should point out that no one who had commented in the discussion had pointed out the manhole cover until after my last comment there.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Exibit 2

At Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Tower_of_the_Sun_in_Osaka.jpg both User:Takabeg and User:Jameslwoodward take similar actions and ignore every argument from previous two deletion requests by turning into personal attacks against participants of those past debates telling that they "don't know Japanese copyright law" which may look like User:Takabeg and User:Jameslwoodward are both experts in Japanese copyright laws, but they are not. This deletion request also includes some files that don't depict the Tower of the Sun as a whole and don't fall under the main argument for deletion, proving that once again User:Jameslwoodward has his judgment compromised.

When I read this message of Maculosae tegmine lyncis, I understand that he's (she's) a beginner and help him/her (A, B). Takabeg (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
It is good that you help beginners, but why do you think it is right to tell someone you don't even know that "it's nothing but your own opinion"? Especially I don't think it is right to greet a novice (which you knew he or she is) with these words subtly spiced with humiliation and insult. This your phrase fells much like personal attack, which are not allowed here on Commons. We got to be polite, courteous, and civil here. Laitr Keiows (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I ignored nothing here and made no comments about anyone. My only comment was that we had an opinion of a Japanese copyright lawyer that specifically said that the Tower of the Sun was not covered by the Japanese FOP exemption. The fact that Takabeg and I agree on this is not somehow evidence of a conspiracy, but simply that we both think that User:Laitr Keiows is wrong.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Exibit 3

At Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Backus,_Garden_at_Hiroshima,_Autumn.jpg both of the subjects support each other once again and don't even bother to make a little research on that work in subject and instead prefer to blatantly harass me questioning the upload. I couldn't find a similar document here on Commons, but there is a Wikipedia policy WP:MTPPT that prohibits recruiting anyone who agree with you for the purpose of supporting your side of a debate.

I've asked some question about Backus' paintings to User:Jameslwoodward (here) before I uploaded his paintings. Jameslwoodward replied and provided information about the status (here). It's very natural for me to ask Jameslwoodward on this issue, when the related DR is opened. Takabeg (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
It may look natural to invite someone to take your side of a debate, but, see, if everyone would invite their friends or colleagues to vote for one's side of a debate, every debate will be won not by ones who give best arguments, but by those who have more friends. If you'll look at that deletion request you'll see that there you, instead of finding evidences and truth, tried to pressure me and other readers with subtly related claims into believing that you're right, instead of finding actual evidences, which what I did. Laitr Keiows (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Not only I find it very strange to see two users act accordingly in three similar cases, but what worries me most is that their action may lead to deletion of innocent free images and harm the project. Please assist in preventing further disruption from these users. Laitr Keiows (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't recruit Jameslwoodward. I asked him because I've uploaded paintings of Bucks with the explanation of Jameslwoodward. I didn't know his opinion on that painting. Maybe he could say "copyvio". That's all. Takabeg (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
P.S. As you said, I believe wikipedia is not a democracy. The important is showing evidences. Laws and evidences are superior to personal arguments and claims of users. Takabeg (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest a little more AGF. It is very common for users to agree with one another about deletion requests. James is a very very experienced commons user, and it's highly unlikely that he is trying to get files deleted that he doesn't think deserve deletion. Anyway, you should at least notify him of this discussion. --99of9 (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, a handful of cases of a highly active admin agreeing with another user is not the basis for a complaint. Focus on facts (copyright laws and evidence etc), and COM:AGF. Rd232 (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, User:Jameslwoodward may accidentally agree with Takabeg resulting with that image of a manhole cover above and some other images featuring the Tower of the Sun on the background deleted because Takabeg packed them into one mass-deletion request by mistake. Now, how do I fix that mistake? How do I stop deletion of innocent free images? Laitr Keiows (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
"innocent" is an inappropriate word to use. As for your question: it's perfectly possible for some files in a mass deletion request to be deleted, and others kept. Just make a case in the DR to distinguish those you think should be treated differently. Rd232 (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Would it be enough to leave a comment there stating that the photo of a manhole cover isn't a photo of Kobe Luminarie and couldn't possibly be a copyvio per restrictions on architecture declared in FOP#Japan? Laitr Keiows (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
That's a content question for the DR itself. Rd232 (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The DR doesn't have a single word explaining that the photo of a manhole cover should be treated differently. Laitr Keiows (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
So write one. You noticed the issue, and you can make the case that it should be kept for a different reason to the others. --99of9 (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Before you continue this conversation, please notify Jim as I requested above. --99of9 (talk) 10:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Laitr Keiows (talk) 10:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
As Takabeg has explained above, he and I had worked together on File:Backus,_Garden_at_Hiroshima,_Autumn.jpg when he first uploaded it. It was, therefore, perfectly natural for him to come to me when User:Laitr Keiows put the {{Delete}}tag on the file. Note that he did not ask for my support, but merely "what do you think of this [DR]". No competent, trusted, user is looking for anything other than clarity and an appropriate closure of a DR -- if User:Laitr Keiows had raised something new in his DR, then I would have been happy to see the file deleted.
He says above,
"don't even bother to make a little research on that work in subject and instead prefer to blatantly harass me questioning the upload"
This is far from correct. Before commenting on the DR, I looked once again at the WP:EN biography of the artist. It was obvious that the artist, Backus, was not in Japan in Autumn 1946 as Laitr Keiows thought and that the work was created while he was still in the Navy. I also don't understand "prefer to blatantly harass me questioning the upload". There is nothing in the DR that is anything other than a straightforward statement of disagreement. Neither of us mentioned Laitr Keiows in our comments in any way. If I am "blatantly harrassing" another editor whenever I disagree, then I confess I do it many time each day.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Laitr Keiows, why should Jim (or Takabeg or anyone else) be conspiring against you or the works you uploaded? More realistically they are pointing out that one or more files that you uploaded might not be eligible for being here. Nobody here has any reason to conspire against anyone else. Anyone is entitled to have their own opinions. Sometimes I do not agree with either Jim or other Admins, but this doesn't mean that Jim (or any other admin) is conspiring against me (nor I am doing the same, of course). When facing these matters we all should always make our best in assuming good faith and considering that an admin's task is never easy. In my humble opinion you'd defend better the files that are matter of RfD by providing uncontestable reason why they should be kept, rather than complaining about a supposed conspiracy -- Blackcat (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
PS if this is not clear it's my fault , please tell me! :">
PPSS: I would also add that nobody of us is happy to delete a file, especially if it's an uploader's own work and properly licenced, because any deleted file is a little piece of knowledge we must be clear of; unfortunately for us we also have to deal with copyright laws and respect anyone's intellectual property. This is hard to deal with for anyone, especially when dealing with very well done photographs, but if we want to keep a free project plenty of reusable contents we can't do much but eliminating unfree material.

Apparently this is all over, and the OP has even apologized. --99of9 (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


User:PereslavlFoto

PereslavlFoto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The Category:Photographs by author is clearly for non-wikimedia photographers; see introduction there: Collections of photographs used with permission of their non-wikimedian author. User PereslavlFoto will not realize and does editwarring on his own user category to be added there since several weeks now [38]. - A.Savin 21:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You're right, and I've removed the category. But I can't help wondering... The distinction seems to imply that Category:Photographs by author are photographs by "important" authors, without importance being defined. Just being "non-Wikimedian" seems a bit unsatisfactory. Maybe we could add a criterion, like "author has an entry in any language Wikipedia". (We'd need a new category then for non-Wikimedian authors without an entry, and naming it might be tricky.) Rd232 (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
The author is notable as a photographer by standards of at least one Wikipedia?--Ymblanter (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
This bar is too high (e.g. probably the most of White House photographers are not notable). And I especially dislike importing Wikipedia notability rules for Commons categorisation. Trycatch (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Seems to have a high vanity degree and maybe he is world famous in Pereslavl-Zalessky. Not worth to waste time on discussions between notable, less notable and maybe almost notable. --Foroa (talk) 07:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
We already have the Meet our photographers page to put ourselves into the light (there is one criterion: 10 featured pictures). --PierreSelim (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
PereslavlFoto does not seem to have non-wikimedia photographer activities, so it is quite clear to me that his user category should not be included there, at least as long as we have not decided to mix up user with photographer categories on Commons, or PF has come out himself trustworthy as journalist or similar. For his continued edit warring (just look at the revision history), he should get at least an administrative warning. - A.Savin 11:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Kobac

I have some serious misgivings with Kobac, who has a real problem with incorrectly tagging images for deletion for lacking sources, when he actually suspects the images in question of being copyvios or such. See for instance User_talk:Ragdoll8 for examples of images marked for deletion for "missing source", a seeming result of haphazard usage of visualchange.js. Only after I have responded on his talkpage has he instead listed these images for deletion as being copyvios (which they are). But the fact remains that Kobac plays fast and loose with deletion methods instead of following correct policies. When brought up on his talk page, where I have asked him to desist at least a half dozen times by now, he just demands that I show him a page in policies that says he can't use the labels willy-nillily. I imagine stating such a policy wasn't thought necessary, since it should be obvious to anyone.

Other examples of careless usage include File:NissanGloria95.jpg which was tagged for deletion as part of a wave of deletion requests. Marked as having been uploaded by a user called Suland, who was editing a lot of Nissan Gloria/Cedric-related articles (and adding pictures) six years ago, the car in the photo bears a vanity license plate with his name on it. Naturally the original en:wp file is long since deleted, since the transfer took place five years ago. Many pictures were thus incorrectly deleted, yet Kobac remains without regret and continues to haphazardly mark perfectly ok files for deletion. I have pointed out that placing incorrect deletion tags on images he suspects of being copyvios is not the right way to go about things, but he persists: a newer example of Kobac knowingly mis-tagging.

Anyhow, I am not asking for a block or anything, but just for some admins to patiently explain to him that deletion tags are to be used appropriately, and often a simple deletion request with a resulting conversation is the way to go - especially when dealing with minor attribution issues from users who are now long since retired. Mr.choppers (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done See User_talk:Kobac#Please_use_correct_tags.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

BekaRonaldo9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

All of this user's uploads have been of copyrighted images of Frank Mir. User was notified each time as the images were flagged for speedy deletion. User continued to find another image off the web of Mir to upload. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad112

Can anyone please block Muhammad112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), a vandalism-only account and delete the redundant images they copied from Commons and re-uploaded? This user has already been indeffed at en.wiki. Dr.K. (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

User:XHolmes

Rather than tagging all of his uploads individually, I figure it might be better to just post a comment here. Anyway, User:XHolmes has uploaded a number of pictures related to Chicago. At least some of these pictures were previously uploaded to Flickr by a user named Brule Laker. I have contacted Brule Laker, and he has told me that he is not associated with XHolmes, and has not granted permission for his files to be used.

These are the files I found that seem to be taken from Brule Laker's Flickr albums:

XHolmes uploaded a number of other pictures, and I'm not immediately sure where those came from, but I suspect they are also being used without permission. Zagalejo (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Косю Косев (talk · contribs) sockpuppet of Kossis (talk · contribs)?

Косю Косев (talk · contribs) seems to be a sockpuppet of Kossis (talk · contribs), as he uploades the same images of doubtful ownership which Kossis already uploaded some weeks ago. Both accounts claim their uploads as "own work". --Túrelio (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Quack. Blocked indefinitely. Deleted obvious copyvios.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

A question concerning deletion from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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.
It is not uncommon for admins to moderate the discussions at the administrative boards to keep them on focus. Removing a comment is not necessarily a suppression of an opinion but an attempt to keep these boards functional and the individual threads on-topic. This does, however, not imply that such moderations cannot be questioned. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
See #Reopened re: Rd232 below. --  Docu  at 11:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Today I added an edit to the comments section of the discussion called Noticeboard disruptions and cross wiki problems [39]. Rd232 removed the comment before he closed that discussion, and put this edit on my talk page [40]. Although Rd232 said my comment was in the wrong place, and he may be right, I completely fail to understand his reasoning, because my comment was in the comments section of that thread. Is there a particular protocol that applies to the discussions here that I have violated? An explanation would be much appreciated. Thank you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

And now Rd232 blocked Schosha. Totally unacceptable. Deadminship is order. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I've blocked the user for disruption. The original comment was merely misplaced; pretence at failing to understand why is disruptive trolling. Don't fall for it. Rd232 (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
"Trolling" here is not agreeing with Rd232. Who abused his power over the block button. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree, posting here doesn't warrant a block at all. Techman224Talk 21:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) No, trolling is pretending that there's anything remotely constructive about insisting on restoring a comment which was placed in the wrong thread, after this has been pointed out, and the thread closed. The claim to not understand why it was the wrong section I simply don't believe; but if that were the issue, he could have asked that in our conversation on his talk page (started with me notifying him of his error, and asking him to finish the fixing which I'd started, by reposting somewhere else). He didn't; he chose to come straight here. Furthermore, he chose not to post his comments in the correct section (or the other page I suggested as perhaps more relevant), demonstrating that he doesn't actually care about having his opinion heard. This is disruptive trolling, and we should waste no more time to discussing it, because that would only give him the satisfaction of achieving his goal. Rd232 (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The only disruption I see is 'forcing' you to perform an out of process block. And a week's block too. What do you think you'll be preventing from happening for the next week? Nah, if anything this is punitive for having the gall to argue with you over the lame ass kiddy fiddler policy you imported from en. You've screwed the pooch on this one young man. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
As I already pointed out on his talk page, if my issue was my disagreeing with his misplaced comment, I'd have left it in the section when I archived it. Instead, I told him on his talk page it was misplaced, and asked him to post somewhere more appropriate. What is the block preventing? Well on the evidence of this trolling, it's preventing trolling. Rd232 (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
So you think it takes a week to prevent this so-called "disruption"? In your opinion it was an inappropriate place to post, it wasn't in his and to make sure he came over to your way of thinking you blocked him for a week? Sorry son, that's a really, really bad way to use your sysop utility belt. <shakes head> --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
"In your opinion it was an inappropriate place to post, it wasn't in his and to make sure he came over to your way of thinking you blocked him for a week?" - I don't know why you're misrepresenting the events, but I tire of correcting you. Please review what I've already said, and if need be, look at the history and logs. Rd232 (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Presumably you tired of correcting him too? I'm sorry Rd, but I've already said how it looks from here. If I have anything else to say as the discussion continues I'll say it here rather than splitting it over two locations. In summary I believe you were wrong to block him, you were wrong to make it a week and you were wrong to use your bit to solve a disagreement. I'll leave it to others to voice their opinions now. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
"the comments section of that thread" - is that trying to imply that a random subsection header saying "comments" entitles you to ignore the thread topic? And lest we forget, you explicitly posted an opinion in support of a user expressing an opinion in that thread after that user had been told their opinion comment was in the wrong section. It's plenty enough AGF that the original post was a genuine mistake; there's none left now. Rd232 (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=68139428 – The comment isn't in the wrong section. The comment is meant to be in the same section as Tarc's comment, and it was. Since the block and the block rationale are being contested by multiple individuals, the block should be removed or reviewed by an uninvolved, independent sysop. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Tarc's comment is also in the wrong section, as had been pointed out in the first line of the first response to Tarc's comment, and as is pretty obvious from the section title ("Noticeboard disruptions and cross wiki problems"). Malcolm should have seen both. He was wrong to comment there, instead of the main Beta M section, just as Tarc had been, but at least Tarc had a sort of excuse that the section was partially about him. Rd232 (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, looking at the diff again, the indenting of Malcolm's comment makes it an irrelevant butting-in to a discussion between two admins about whether to act, rather than just an irrelevant comment that bears no relation to the thread purpose. Rd232 (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I see sarcasm in the Malcolm Schosha's words, but trolling? not so much. It often depends on the eyes of the beholder if somebody's sarcasm (or just annoying behavior) is trolling. That's why non-obvious blocks like this should be done by uninvolved admins. Trycatch (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any sarcasm in the relevant comments. That wasn't an issue. Rd232 (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
A quick look at this suggests that uninvolved admins should review this block I think. It looks to me as though the block was placed in haste and possibly not that rationally. Blocking talk page access seems plain wrong at this stage. I would look further but will be off wiki for a few days shortly. --Herby talk thyme 10:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
"Blocking talk page access" - what? Access to his user talk page is intact. Rd232 (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Yep - got that wrong - I did say it was a quick look and I will not be here to deal with this. However I do think a week is ludicrous and I tend to agree with Docu's comment below - removing stuff not liked is getting to be a habit. --Herby talk thyme 10:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
"removing stuff not liked " - I have never moved stuff I don't like because I don't like it. There is always an administrative/moderative reason for the removal or moval or collapsing, and it is always intended to improve discussions. (And when listening to Docu, bear in mind he's been antagonistic and unconstructive towards me the moment I became active on Commons last year.) Rd232 (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be a repeat problem with that administrator. He keeps removing or hiding comments he disagrees with. Previous reminders here and elsewhere where just fruitless as now. As he increasingly combines this with his administrator role, I suggest we put an end to the later part. --  Docu  at 10:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sequence of events

Since there are various incorrect claims floating around, maybe this will help clarify things.

  • 15:05, 10 March 2012 Schosha places a comment on the ANI/U board. "Any person involved with or expressing any sort of advocacy on behalf of "childlove"...should be removed from the project". This is in a section headed "Noticeboard disruptions and cross wiki problems", which is a suggestion from an administrator that certain users should be blocked for their actions. The comment is irrelevant to that topic. It is a response to a comment by another user, Tarc. Tarc's comment is also in the wrong section, as had been pointed out in the first line of the first response to Tarc's comment, and as is pretty obvious from the section title ("Noticeboard disruptions and cross wiki problems"). Malcolm should have seen both. He was wrong to comment there, instead of the main Beta M section, just as Tarc had been, but at least Tarc had a sort of excuse that the section was partially about him. The indenting of Malcolm's comment also makes it an irrelevant butting-in to a discussion between two admins about whether to act, rather than just an irrelevant comment that bears no relation to the thread purpose.
  • 15:37, 10 March 2012 - I archive the section (as it's concluded - no action will be taken), removing the misplaced comment
  • 15:42, 10 March 2012 - I notify Malcolm of the removal and suggest he repost elsewhere. (I also comment on the substance, but it's quite clear that it's an opinion separate from any reposting - Feel free to repost in the right section).
  • 18:15, 10 March 2012 Malcolm demands restoration of the comment in the archived section (and responds to my comment on the substance), and threatens to take the matter to AN/U.
  • 21:06, 10 March 2012 Malcolm declares he doesn't understand. He doesn't ask for clarification.
  • 21:19, 10 March 2012 Despite being warned that a demand for restoration would be considered disruptive, he goes off to post at AN/U to ask for clarification, having failed to ask me for one.
  • In the interim, Malcolm fails to post his opinion anywhere else, as suggested, thereby demonstrating that the demand to restore a misplaced comment in an archived section is trolling (he didn't actually want his opinion heard, as part of a live discussion where it would be relevant - he just wanted to make trouble).
  • 21:24, 10 March 2012 Rd232 (talk | contribs) blocked Malcolm Schosha (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation blocked) for disruptive trolling.

Rd232 (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It does not explain the intimidating language in the warning, and it does not explain why Rd232 would need to take action in person. Irritation about impertinence is hardly an explanation either. The explanation could be prior history between Rd232 and Schosha on enwp, as alluded to by Schosha on his talk page. Rd232 should not import such personal conflicts. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
"Intimidating language"? You mean Restoring it, or demanding that it be restored, would demonstrate an intention to be disruptive.? Rd232 (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree that Pieter may have a point here. Assuming the issue is resolved the two of them should try and avoid one another I think. --Herby talk thyme 13:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that we had there was another discussion with the same administrator here not too long ago:
It seems that he still fails to understand that he can't edit other users contributions. Besides he shouldn't attempt to "administrate" or "moderate" discussions he is involved in either. --  Docu  at 15:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
It comes to something when admins can't even moderate a thread on the Administrators' noticeboard aimed at other admins, to remove comments that have no bearing on the thread topic. I guess you'd prefer giving carte blanche to anyone who likes to come along with irrelevance or deliberately disruptive comments. As for wanting completely uninvolved users to moderate a discussion - how do you expect that to happen? We don't have such an abundance of users wandering by lengthy and complex discussions who will read them, deal with the rare inappropriate comments that sometimes happen, but refrain from commenting before (in case it happens) or after (in case they're subsequently accused of involvement post-hoc). It's an entirely unreasonable expectation. We don't have a cast-iron separation between moderators and contributors, and we can't. Your conclusion therefore appears to be that (in practical terms) there can never be any moderation. That is, as I said, carte blanche for disruption, irrelevance, and the breakdown or slow death of discussions. Rd232 (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Participation to discussions on AN isn't limited to administrators. As it's primarily your attempts "moderate" by hiding, moving, removing, editing, re-contexting other users talk page contributions that seem problematic, you might want to leave that to other participants. --  Docu  at 15:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Overturn block?

  • Overturn Sorry Rd232, I do not consider this a good block. Malcolm's version (that he was replying to Tarc and unaware of other sections) is plausible. It is not customary on Commons to remove another user's comments from discussion pages unless they are in violation of policy (e.g. personal attacks), so it is not surprising that Malcolm was annoyed and asked you to restore them. AN/U is an appropriate place to bring a user dispute like this. Refraining from re-inserting his comment is not evidence that it was originally for the purposes of trolling, it may simply be evidence of self-control. (P.S. obviously not everyone knows correct indentation convention) --99of9 (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I concur fully with 99of9. I can't really see a reason for even a day's block and certainly not a week. --Herby talk thyme 13:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
    • "Refraining from re-inserting his comment is not evidence that it was originally for the purposes of trolling, it may simply be evidence of self-control." That's not what I said. It was the failure to post either the same or a similar comment somewhere more appropriate, not the failure to reinsert the same comment in the same place. Rd232 (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I've unblocked Malcolm Schosha as there is wide consensus here that opening a question at this board like in this case should not be punished by a block. From the interchange it becomes clear that Rd232 and Malcom Schosha were in disagreement whether the comment was appropriate and whether it was justified to remove it. I understand Malcom Schosha's posting as a query for a third opinion in this matter which should always be legitimate. Even if such requests appear to be annoying to the admin who tried to moderate and/or close a discussion, we as admins should be careful not to intimidate users by blocking them for asking questions. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks to all who offered support, and to AFBorchert for unblocking me. I want Rd232 to know that my intent was not to provoke a conflict and, if my edit actually was in the wrong place, that certainly was not intentional. In the context of what I saw, it seemed the only place to put such an edit. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Well the next time someone tries to help you contribute your opinion where it'll actually be relevant and listened to, try not to spit in their face. I told you where else to post, you could have asked for clarification of that, and if you'd still wanted it back after that, I'd probably have done it, since at worst it would be useless. Insisting on something useless is disruptive. It was pretty obvious why it was useless, but if you really needed help understanding, you only had to ask me. Asking at a noticeboard before asking me is a strategy that someone as experienced as you knows perfectly well will maximise conflict. With the best will in the world, I find it hard to believe that this was not your intention - because whilst I have forgotten our long-past en.wp history (I very vaguely remember the topic was Israel/Palestine) and certainly bear no grudge or ill-will (but then I always find it hard to bear a grudge into the next hour, never mind the next year), apparently you do, since you keep mentioning it. Rd232 (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Rd232, In my view your action, deleting my comment from this noticeboard, was unjustified and extraordinary. I did ask you to restore it and you did not. Neither did you ever show that any harm could result from my comment staying where I placed it. I said I would ask for the opinion of other administrators, on this noticeboard, if you refused to restore the comment. Taking a question to a noticeboard to get the views of other users is not disruptive, it is good sense. If it turned out I was in error, I would have avoided repeating the mistake in the future. As for our past history, I certainly do remember that you played a part in my site banning from en-WP (which I still regard as unfair) and as an editor in an editing dispute that lead up to that. There are other administrators around, and if you think some sort of administrative action should be taken against me, you should refer that to one of them. I would appreciate your consideration in that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The harm was mostly to you - having your opinion placed somewhere irrelevant and archived (discussion closed). I was archiving in response to your irrelevant comment, to prevent a slight possibility of minor harm arising by having a split conversation develop that ought to be linked with discussion elsewhere, in a thread that had served its purpose. Because that archiving made your comment even more useless than its mere misplacement made it (misplaced just as much as Tarc's was), I thought it would be helpful to remove it and say "hey, it didn't go there, put it with the rest of that discussion". As to "played a part in my site banning from en-WP" - I can honestly say I don't remember that at all. Now that you're jogging my memory, I do however dimly recall making an effort to accommodate your wishes in relation to your userpage at some point after you were banned (something to do with Google indexing and renaming). If you want to remind me, feel free to do so, by email or on my talk page. (Or we could let bygones be bygones.) Rd232 (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
No, there is no "harm" to me at all, and I was not expecting my comment to be preserved for the ages. What I regret is that you do not show any indication of understanding that your removing my edit was not the correct thing to do. I was not expecting an apology, but your defending your actions even now, is regrettable. Considering that, and our past history, would you be so kind as to refer any administrative action against me that you may think necessary to other administrators? I would appreciate getting at least that little from this discussion. Thanks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Reopened re: Rd232

Following a discussion with AFBorchert, I was authorised to re-open this thread. IMHO, the earlier closure didn't allow the Rd232 to retract his previous statements and re-assure us that going forward, he will stop attempting to "moderate" and edit other users comments in discussions he initiated or heavily participated in. --  Docu  at 11:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I had restored this thread from a subpage. I just noticed now that it was actually Rd232 who had archived this thread to a previously unknown subpage called "./User problems/Geni's allegations against Beta M". Neither Geni nor Beta M are being discussed in this thread though. --  Docu  at 12:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
[41] Also I opposed the moving of other sections to that subpage before Dcoetzee did it. Rd232 (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Sorry about this. --  Docu  at 12:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
[42], [43] – Dcoetzee was the one who archived the thread. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The thread was archived by AFBorchert, here. Dcoetzee moved the closed thread to a subpage. Rd232 (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

(edited the section title for more clarity (it was "Subpage") before. --Saibo (Δ) 22:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC))

A certain topic is starting to entirely take over this page. Perhaps all content relating to it should be moved to a subpage. Rd232 (talk) 08:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Geni's allegations against Beta_M. The RFC suggestion would raise issues about whether it was a user RFC by the backdoor, and I don't think "user problems" is a problem in the page title. Rd232 (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow. (diff | hist) . . Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems‎; 16:39 . . (-161,611)‎ . . ‎Rd232 (talk | contribs | block)‎ (subpaging). I saw that and thought you'd moved all related things too... bloody hell, it was bigger than I thought. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I considered moving some or all of the related things, but I thought that probably wouldn't help the subpage discussion. However I've just merged a new (just-created) section because that seriously risks having lots of new discussion on the same issue and splitting the conversation even more. Rd232 (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
You know that I do not like moving my comments around. My comment is not about Beta and/or Gini. If others agree with you, well, do it - but please don't yourself. --Saibo (Δ) 17:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
If the section does not become an attempt to prove the truth of what you claim is defamation, I'll spend an hour on a boring backlog of your choice. (And if it does become such an attempt, it will obviously have been better kept together with the main existing discussion.) Rd232 (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, what do you mean ("attempt to prove the truth of what you claim is defamation")? Do you mean that I want to trick somebody to provide information which should not have been made public? --Saibo (Δ) 20:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
No, I was speaking to consequence, not intention, which I have no reason not to AGF about. Rd232 (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't get it, specially the relation to the section moving. But, let's leave it that way. You will find boring backlogs also without me. ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm also moving all the other subsections there which I consider immediate "fallout" from this discussion. I didn't leave soft redirects because there's already one redirect there and everyone interested should already have watchlisted it. I believe it will help to contain all the major drama in one place, to avoid driving away any followers of this board who don't want to get involved. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
You break links to those sections. And I do not agree that "fallout" should be put away - those are sections about other subjects. --Saibo (Δ) 21:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
To quote myself: "I considered moving some or all of the related things, but I thought that probably wouldn't help the subpage discussion." Archived sections are not a problem, I think, the issue is with any new ones. Rd232 (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay I'll add redirects, feel free to move the sections back if you prefer, but I think the current state of things is more productive. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
It's done now, let's not move things back and forth. Rd232 (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I restored one of the threads, as it's actually about Rd232 editing discussions .. --  Docu  at 11:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


91.2.127.40

91.2.127.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) nonsense deletion request and false block information on talk page of a user --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Left no-vandalism warning.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Mattbuck and User:Rd232

Now Rd232 removed this Mattbuck's comment and blocked him for "Blatant trolling on a sensitive topic." Really, I don't see any "trolling" in Mattbuck's words. For me it seems Rd232 simply can't distinguish trolling from sarcasm (not in the first time). Even if Rd232 thought there was "trolling", block of a highly experienced admin with clean block log without any warning looks very heavy-handed overreaction. I believe there is a continuous problem pattern with User:Rd232 -- he tends to micromanage discussions, remove other people good faith comments because of minor problems. --Trycatch (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I cannot comment on a pattern, but this particular case is a blatant overreaction. I tried to reason with Rd232 on his userpage, but he seems to have himself dug in, "standing by" his block. --Dschwen (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
No, a 24 hour block for something so blatantly unconstructive is entirely appropriate. Rd232 (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
"I don't see any "trolling" in Mattbuck's words" - then you don't understand what trolling is. The post is an exemplary example of trolling. The post claims to be a policy proposal (even the section head said that) which includes the words As such, anyone who has ever, is currently or ever might post a message on [named external website] will be summarily banned for disrupting the project. No proof is required that the user is/was/will be a [user of that site], an accusation by any user or anonymous IP is enough, and no protestations of innocence will be accepted. Rd232 (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
From en:Troll (Internet):
"a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion"
Trolling is the associated verb. The post was undoubtedly inflammatory and intended to provoke emotional response. Rd232 (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
By the way, sarcasm and trolling are in no way incompatible: In sarcasm, ridicule or mockery is used harshly, often crudely and contemptuously, for destructive purposes. It may be used as part of the effort to provoke an emotional response. Rd232 (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I stand by the block. He knows the sensitivity of the topic, and the way heated discussion of it has spread across multiple pages on Commons (and onto en.wp and meta besides). It is difficult enough as it is to get anything constructive out of these discussions; there is zero excuse for this kind of behaviour. And that's without considering that it might have been an intentional effort to disrupt such discussions because he severely disagrees with the discussions. I didn't consider it because of COM:AGF, but that fact that it is possible to consider that illustrates the trolling nature of the post. Rd232 (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

1 full ack Trycatch and Dschwen. All I can see is just a not quite seriously meant, sarcastic proposal which was added at VP one time, without editwarring etc. A simple removal and maybe a polite appeal to cool down a bit on his talk page would have been enough. A 24h block is absolutely disproportional and is to reverse immediately. - A.Savin 13:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

On a less sensitive topic, yes. The irresponsibility here requires more than mere removal. Rd232 (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the topic's sensitivity is just the point here. No need imho to add more fuel to the fire in this issue. But a 24h block of a parttaking user is inflammatory. - A.Savin 14:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Seeing the trend here, I'm going go ahead and unblock in an hour or so when I'm at lunch. MBisanz talk 13:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

There's not even an unblock request. It is puzzling to me how eagerly people defend disruption on Commons. Rd232 (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
@Rd232, I think blocking Mattbuck was neither necessary nor o.k., as he posted this "proposal" just once and did not re-instate it after it had been deleted, very different from other discutants. Even we admins should be allowed sometimes to show our feelings, provided it's not a personal attack. The underlying case seems to be rather complicated and our procedures to deal with it very deficient. I would therefore recommend you to lift Matt's block. --Túrelio (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Trycatch, Túrelio, et al. I think Mattbuck's "proposal" was an edgy, sarcastic, but not totally unacceptable, response to a situation he didn't like. Any block was unwarranted, even if he had been a relatively new user. Blocking an experienced user (50,000 edits here), let alone an Admin, should be done only after consultation with others.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

As Rd232 has already unblocked Mattbuck, IMO we can consider at least this thread as resolved. --Túrelio (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to weigh in in favor of the unblock anyway. I want to make it clear that like the others I find this block to be unjustified, and I don't want it to be brought up later as a claim that Mattbuck is anything but an exemplary user. Emotions are running very high about this topic, yes - that is not a reason to suddenly move the goalposts and be obsessive about civility, but rather, a time to give everyone (including Rd232) a little slack and recognize that mistakes are being made all around. Wnt (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
the fact that this from mattbuck passes without comment or warning (never mind block) suggests some slack is being cut. Rd232 (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, it seems that Rd232 still thinks that he was right from the start, defending Commons from the "disruption" by Mattbuck. It's somewhat ridiculous giving the consensus above, but this is his business. If he will continue to do these strange things, it will be the topic of another thread. Trycatch (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
This precedes the VP post by 10 minutes, and Matt said in his unblock request "this is how I vent". It's not acceptable, and he knows that. To me, that merits a block. But I'm getting that Commons' attitude to disruption is that causing it is fine, whilst combatting it is bad, so I will try to adjust to that. Rd232 (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rd232. Thank you for lifting the block. I think that was the right thing to do. I do not agree with your conclusion that "Commons' attitude to disruption is that causing it is fine, whilst combatting it is bad". Rather, the discussion shows quite clearly that what is perceived as disruption differs a lot from user to user. In this case you just do not have the same perception of disruption as most other admins and users who have commented here (myself including). I think the key point is to accept that there will always be different ways to see things, and that sometimes you have to compromise or bend if you want to be part of a community. I believe it is called to "show empathy". I can say for myself that there are a couple of prevailing ways of thinking and norms here on Commons, which fit badly with my own values and annoy me from time to time. For me, though, it is outweighted by the higher purpose of Commons, and by some great Commons friends I have gotten to learn over the years. --Slaunger (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, thanks, I suppose that's just a nice way of putting what I really meant. My frustration on this subject, BTW, is not limited to this one incident. Rd232 (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, that comment was addressed to me probably more than anybody, and I say, leave it alone. I understand his frustration, indeed, share it. Wnt (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
"that comment was addressed to me probably more than anybody" - I don't see why. Rd232 (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Because I was mentioned in the post before, and because the day I side with Delicious carbuncle over Mattbuck... well, let's just say the Devil's bangin' on the radiator, but there ain't nobody listenin'. Wnt (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Could admins reframe from making arbitrary blocks based on "trolling" in matters about this without consensus. It seems that blocks have been made and have been overturned, especially by admins involved. I'm not going to name names, just sending this out. Thanks. Techman224Talk 22:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The block has since been lifted, discussing whether the block was right or wrong is just going to create more drama. Now that Rd232 has lifted Mattbuck's block, this discussion is resolved. Bidgee (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


User:Ppb-gera

Ppb-gera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Problem: it's an old known user at de.wp () that comes permanently back, and every time he has to be blocked. He is stalking User:Christine Türpitz inside wikimedia-projects and within reallife. Ppb-gera now claims several problems with legality of some photos of the user CT - but there aren't any problems. He has told many times what is okay and what not, but he starts his attacks again and again with the same words. Ppb-gera is just copy&paste every time the same things. Nothing he will resolves, he will only stalking. At de.wp there is a abuse filter only for this user because. Additional he signs with --*!Controller der Bildrechte!* (translation: Controller of the image rights!) what should be a no go.

Some other accounts related to this:

* Jogo.obb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) This is a different user! --Seewolf (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

--Quedel (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Additional: deleting the edits relating to user Christine Türpitz should be done, his discussion-site should be deleted. --Quedel (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Jogo.obb is a different user, Ppb-gera is already blocked globally. --Seewolf (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Add those

--Túrelio (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Great, it seems to work. --Túrelio (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Heman25

Heman25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Copyright infringement by this user. Source by images. (c) Todos os direitos reservados. Fabiano msg 03:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done He is already blocked for a month for the very same reason by Lymantria. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

cool down blocks re Beta M

Cooling off (un-)blocks have been proposed at /Geni's allegations against Beta M#Proposal, and more eyes are needed. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC) p.s. can we keep this note from being archived?

PayasitasNifuNifa

PayasitasNifuNifa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Most of their contribution has been copyrighted media. Allan Aguilar (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done I see this was dealt here. Techman224Talk 17:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Centpacrr - unnecessary alteration of images

An editor, User:Centpacrr has a frequent habit of altering photos beyond what would be considered helpful. In short, on some level he feels he is doing good by making all these changes. On another level it is little more than a really bad habit. For better or worse I've taken the liberty of going back and restoring some of those images to their normal condition, yet he has since gone back and reverted those changes back to his version. Here are a few examples: 1, 2, 3 On more than one occasion and by more than one editor he has been asked to cut back on these unnecessary (and sometimes harmful) alterations, yet he persists. I would ask that an administrator get involved and ask him to stop. If it's felt that he may do as he pleases, I'll drop the matter and let him alter images as he wishes. – JBarta (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you point out a discussion with this user related to this matter (other than the commented diffs) ? --PierreSelim (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Here are three four: 1, 2, 3, 4. – JBarta (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Reply: What the complainant calls here "unnecessary alteration of images" is actually just a difference in philosophy on image repair. The few images about which he/she is "complaining" are a couple of dozen of the more then 500 from which I have removed watermarks in the past couple of months which while doing so I also found were underexposed in full or in part, or which clearly required some degree of color correction as well needing watermarks removed. For some reason the complaining user feels that every image, no matter how flawed, is sacrosanct and should never be altered in any way, so the issue here is not that I have damaged or defaced any images (the alterations that I have made are almost always quite slight and essentially only noticeable when compared side-by-side to the original file), but a difference in editing philosophy between myself and the complainant. I have had a number of discussions with this user (who in what I perceive as a possible attempt to intimidate me claimed in one of them to be "...in the U.S. Witness Protection Program, currently residing in New Jersey. In the not too distant past I was an enforcer and occasional assassin for a well known crime syndicate") explaining that there is more than one acceptable way to treat images and contribute to WP. The most recent of these discussions occurred just today (March 16) and can be found here. I will stand by the final comment I made in that discussion (to which he/she has not responded as of this posting) as my "answer" to this "complaint". Centpacrr (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the dispute is fairly simply solved, carry on doing whatever work on images you think necessary, and if you think it is an uncontroversial change, upload the new version over the top of the original. If someone reverts the change, then there is controversy after all. A revert war serves no purpose at all (and is highly disruptive), simple solution is to upload the changed version as a separate file and link the two through "other version" in the info box. NB this is not an invitation for someone to revert all your changed versions, that would be extraordinarily unproductive. It is also not an invitation to assume that all your changes are uncontroversial: taking note of why changes are reverted might save uploading images twice. ---Tony Wills (talk) 06:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I guess we'll leave it at that for now and hope for the best. Thank-you. – JBarta (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: Please see COM:OVERWRITE for the proposed guideline, which is similar to the comments of Tony Wills. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

User Saibo

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.
The issue regarding Saibo's user page has been resolved by Saibo himself. No further action or discussion is necessary.

Saibo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Saibo has inserted on his userpage a false claim that he has been locked by User:WMFOffice as an office action. The edit summary accompanying it mimics the global block log entry of User:Beta M. Saibo has also created Commons:Office actions/User blocks, and added a link to it from Commons:Office actions. This follows a request that he be blocked by the Office himself.

This behaviour is unacceptable. Combined with previous attempts to disrupt Commons' efforts to deal with copyright violations, I do not see how it is tenable for Saibo to remain a Commons admin. And if this behaviour continues, it must additionally lead to blocking. Rd232 (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: he's willing to edit war to have this false claim on his user page, and again uses a misleading edit summary to do so. Rd232 (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Isn't this more an issue of cooling down and a temporary problem until the two issues have been settled? I understand that Saibo is unhappy about the Beta_M outcome and I'm not happy about it myself either: Commons lost a valuable contributor. I'm not happy about the URAA issue either and I understand Saibo's frustration although I also understand that the files must be deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The convention for a request from a user to be blocked is to honour it. Though the request was directed here at the WMF, any Commons administrator has a clear rationale to fulfil Saibo's request at face value, least until such as time as they ask for an unblock. --Fæ (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:DENY. We shouldn't block Saibo. Saibo wants to be blocked just so he or she can feel that he or she can have a false sense of moral superiority. Saibo isn't Mandela, and we shouldn't encourage him or her to feel as if he or she is a martyr or a victim. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Don't think so. He requested an "OFFICE action", which cannot be performed by an admin. --Túrelio (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, this only leaves the question, can someone be trusted with sysop tools who uses templates to misrepresent an action as that taken by WMF legal and thereby potentially risk the reputation of the Foundation and the Wikimedia Commons community? This has gone beyond just asking someone to stay mellow. --Fæ (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Rather not, if he insists on having that misleading statement on this userpage. But, in view of the emotions about the terrible "procedure" with Beta_M (not the OFFICE action), I would give him a few hours to cool down and re-consider his action. --Túrelio (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose I think he has only a bit over-reacted in this extraordinary situation, please do it not, let it be a warning. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 14:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm really sad about all this history, especially since it is occuring on my first day as a Commons admin. I strongly disagree with the action done by the Wikimedia Foundation, who acted like the wikipedia-en community was more legitimate than the Commons one. I also think Saibo is a great contributor and admin here who was very friendly and helpul with me. It means I'm totally empathetic with his rightful anger. However, I think the tools he used to express this anger are against Commons policy, while being incapable of suggesting a both cordial and effective alternative. Léna (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Should Commons:Office_actions/User_blocks be deleted or modified? It expresses the opinion of Saibo rather than WMF or Commons policy. It also is a violation of COM:POINT. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Unusually, I find myself agreeing with MDS. Speaking as a volunteer, I think it's pretty obvious that Commons:Office_actions/User_blocks should be deleted without delay. It's just unhelpful. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:POINT has no meaning here. Please refer to a Commons policy.  Comment Usage is that a user can revert on his userpage or talk page, so the edit war is not founded for me. For the rest I have no opinion. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The edit war was over misinformation. Saibo could've simply created a banner that said, "I don't support the actions of the WMF." --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Irony, saracasm or jokes are allowed on user pages. If it violates a commons policy please link it here, before reverting someone else userpage (it is not generally welcome). --PierreSelim (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Office_actions/User_blocks&diff=68405747 – You're forgetting about Saibo's actions outside of the userspace. Saibo shouldn't be creating faux policy pages. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
It was written in a partisan way, but it fills a legitimate need. We shall have to change the Office actions page to reflect this possibility. I also think that Saibo's idea of listing office actions on Commons for community transparency is a good one. It is also useful to point out that office actions will not be explained. It's just a bit of copy editing. I actually just finished proposing the merge when the article was deleted. Wnt (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I just completed merging in Saibo's content as I recollect it, with a bit of reworking. [44]
Saibo's a bit of an idiot in these things. I have deleted the page and removed the banner from his userpage. Let's just leave it at that. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I've revisiondeleted the edit summary Saibo originally used. It mimics the global block log entry of User:Beta M and may be misleading if left in the page history. Rd232 (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Now Saibo is playing games like this. Rd232 (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sadly — despite all friendly comments — it seems he wants to go. --Túrelio (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saibo/Editnotice&diff=68412699&oldid=67713046 – Should Saibo really be deceiving visitors to his or her talk page into believing that he or she can't reply, when in reality, he or she can reply? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that we just wait for a day or two and hope that he will calm down. This is most certainly a temporary issue and when we all get back to normal after the discussion which led to an office action, I'm certain that Saibo will have calmed down too. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Frankly I doubt that waiting a couple of days will change anything, but I'm willing to try it. Rd232 (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I took the liberty of reverting both. Petulant or not, users should not be allowed to create deceptive edit notices or templates. Saibo's departure was not of the WMF Office's doing. Tarc (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


Collapsed section not about User:Saibo. Interesting discussion to continue/move somewhere else, but off topic for this noticeboard. --99of9 (talk) 09:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

 Comment Thats what you get when you let WR, the pirate bay for disruptions, troll around at will. Guess we will need to think about a fork. EN is already lost (i have no hope for it), Commons on the way to be lost and the Germans aren't happy anymore. Better soon as too late. PS: Count me in -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 18:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

See, commons like the above are complete bollocks and reflect rather poorly on the complainer. There are two fundamental flaws in your outlook. First off, yes, in some respects the Wikipedia Review is a proverbial "wretched hive of scum and villainy", there are certainly people there that I do not like nor care for their activities or beliefs. Like any gathering of people, there will be some very good, some very bad and most who fall in the middle. You choose to see only the lunatic fringe and then stereotype the rest based upon the actions of those few. Second, I think it is safe to say that there are no WR fans within the WMF, that some up there probably share your regrettable outlook. All someone at WR did was connect the dots as to who Beta M is and what he has done. Its not like the WMF is just going to take some random person's word for it, esp when they come from a perceived-as-hostile-to-the-Wikipedia website. Obviously they, not being as dismissively partisan as you are in this case, evaluated the evidence and saw that it was pretty damning. Like others noted, perhaps they know more than any of us to but have for obvious reasons chosen to keep that private. Tarc (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
PS: Was this and this really necessary? Tarc (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Diskussion:Kurier&diff=100957035&oldid=100956473 --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I see you did your homework. I guess i should leave the project together with Saibo. It's so far away from the roots and ideals (compared to when i made my first edit), that I don't really see that my efforts would help to improve something. Instead i would only nourish the worst kind of humans; and i don't mean Beta_M. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 19:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I just said on Saibo's talk page that if he was trying to make a point with the fake edit notice on his page, it doesn't work because it comes off as petulant and immature. That sadly applies here too (there's no need for the Dumpshit stuff etcetera). Either you do not realize who badly you look with this lashing out, or you do and you do not care. It's sad either way. SirFozzie (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Why should i care about a project that is immature enough to divide humans in first and second class, while putting evident lies on the main page? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 20:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
You obviously DO care, or you wouldn't react so strongly. I wasn't questioning your value as a Commons editor, I am saying (and continue to say) that the behavior shown in this case is petulant and immature. Not only does it reflects badly upon you, it taints the viewpoint that you are trying to promote (your belief that the actions taken here were a mistake and wrong). SirFozzie (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Geni's_allegations_against_Beta_M&diff=68420175&oldid=68420071 – Here's another example of petulance and immaturity. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Let me help you. You missed the following edits:
-- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 21:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The whole procedure was immature from the start till now. You call my behavior immature? You can do so. But this does not change anything or my opinion that you failed to be human. PS: Making links long to provoke attention is childish. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 20:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Dang it, WMF didn't "divide humanity into first and second class". Though Jimbo has said this repeatedly, the question of whether someone will actually be banned by them for being a pedophile or advocating legalization of pedophilia hasn't actually been put to the test. What has been put to the test is only that if someone has a child porn conviction (now known for a fact - do any of you disagree with that?), and they lie to us and say they're not that person (anyone disagree?), and they linkspam for multiple sites they operate (any disagreement?), and they advertise at least one of these sites specifically to high school students ... well then WMF eventually is going to step in and global lock the account. And bear in mind, it's not like the guy is really locked up like when he was in a cell in the U.S., he just has to use a different IP address and not be recognizable and we can't possibly stop him. Is that really such a terrible injustice that you have to quit/fork the project over it?
Oh, yeah ... and if you do... what's your donation target for the Paedofriendly Wikifork? You guys are acting like donation money grows on trees. Wnt (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Lets say someone edits Wikipedia. It somehow comes to light that he was previously convicted for a crime X, but he never advocated anything related to this insode the project. Under the current premise i have to assume that he would be blocked, ignoring any good intentions he might have. Thats what i mean with human of second class. Another example would be campaign against a user done off-wiki. Lets use my user name for an example and postulate that someone else would write under my name Niabot (which is quite unique) things that i have nothing to do with. Would this be enough to provide enough "evidence" to block my account? I don't know, but I have to expect that it would be enough.
It wouldn't be a pedofriendly wikifork, it would be fork that declares that improper behavior has to be found on-wiki and not off-wiki, since we don't have any control off-wiki (no history, no evidence of who was the real author, ...). But when it comes to donations, then we are in satire like situation. I once claimed that Wikipedia (the WMF) would sell itself for more donations. Jimbo wasn't happy about this statement and we had a longer mail conversation in which he made clear that this wouldn't be true. But it's a satire at the moment when you have to read inside any discussion that we have to obey to norm X or to do it like Y because we would loose donors if we don't. I did not count, but it was used as an argument dozens of times inside the image filter debate. Should i believe Jimbos keen statements or should i agree that money is the motor for project decisions and not it's ideals? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 00:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
(We should probably transfer this debate somewhere else, Talk:Child protection maybe?) Because I don't think we should focus our policy against advocacy/political opinion per se I didn't track this much, but I recall several things documented e.g. the link to a pedophile's site on FreeNet (i.e. an anonymous network that effectively allows child porn) from the Pedophile Movement article. Whether that's advocacy, I don't know - that's the problem with banning advocacy, it could include all kinds of things ranging from things that are already clear violations of current policy to things I myself do (e.g. disagreeing with aspects of the proposed policy...). While there were some links that could readily have been falsified I was convinced some of them were quite difficult - as I said somewhere previously, if he'd said someone was faking communications from him I'd take it seriously, but it would be very hard to fake all the stuff that eventually turned up. I do understand you have a valid argument that money is not an excuse to surrender our ideals - whatever temporary financial advantage Commons could extract by censoring, say, porn, or Muhammad images, or material critical of Goldman Sachs, it would never really be worth it. That said, the donors here are more than just paying for influence - they're fellow-members of a project and an organization, who are trusting that we're not going to stand idly by while the Pied Piper leads their kids away. I mean, this project tries to make decisions by consensus, by a sort of democracy under core principles, but is the democracy just which editors argue on a page, or who has the bit for adminship on Commons, or does it count all the people who go to chapter meetings, all the people who vote for WMF board of directors positions and so forth? They have some right to influence decision making, especially when that decision is not to violate some core principle we've agreed on (as censorship would do) but only to impose an extra heavy penalty for a particularly scary type of linkspamming (which is how I choose to interpret this action, even though I know that's probably not accurate and they likely did it based on a logic I would disagree with). Wnt (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Perfect example of moral panic. Wnt has no evidence against Beta_M whatsoever, but Beta_M invited students to a wikia-hosted student wiki! It is so suspicious! Kill him! [It doesn't matter that Beta_M was a student himself back then, does it?] Using dark fantasies instead of hard facts to blame the person is what distinguishes witch hunt from fair process or solving of legitimate problems. What about donations -- the idea that WMF began to sell its core principles and its volunteers for donations is not exactly flattering for the WMF. I'm not really want to work for free or to help in any way to a non-profit organization that's going to sell you to a lynching mob for a handful of dollars. Thanks to w:Hanlon's razor ("Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity", if anybody forgot what is it), I don't think it was real reason for that idiocy by the WMF. Trycatch (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
BTW: An illustrative conclusion from Schwarwel seen yesterday at the Leipzig Book Fair. Considering the state of of the project it is read as "Zensurpedia - Die Welt des Wissens nach Ansicht amerikanischer Gesetzeshüter", "Censorpedia - The world of knowledge as seen by American law enforcement officials". It suits so perfectly. So i will be off for my second day at the fair. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 06:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 Comment The whole thread could be closed altogether. Saibo changed the text to the ok one, the "problem" is solved, there is nothing to discuss here anymore. Trycatch (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Xanderliptak rides again

ResolvedJDF6574 has been blocked

Over on en, Alison found that User:JDF6574 was a likely match to User:Xanderliptak, who has been blocked indefinitely here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I have created this case for further investigation; as I myself have not dealed with this in the past. Best regards. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 10:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Not sure the CU can give you something, the ban is more than 1 year old, CU have access only to the last 3 months history. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I know, but there might be some data stored in the log which could eventually help. As CU at other project log data sometimes might help a bit in the investigations. Very best. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 11:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
That's the last person we need to come back. Hope the CU works out. Fry1989 eh? 19:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Collaboration with en.wiki CU or steward is also possible. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
We're working on this on the CU list.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd ask a request to be filed in a manner to track the existing sockpuppets (or a lack of them). I am not sure this noticeboard is the right place to address CU related post/results. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 10:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Resolved. User blocked. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 14:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 14:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Dandy_vg

Today this user start to ploading not free photos he found on the web and don't want to stop despite warnings. Please take some action.-Oleola (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard&oldid=68607299#Quick_block_may_be_necessary --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 17:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Andshel

Andshel (talk · contribs) Personal attacks against me and Artem Karimov. Kobac (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

In the discussion you refer to, both of you are spreading personal attacks. - A.Savin 17:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Futbol60194Cris

Futbol60194Cris (talk · contribs) This user is a minor, a child who is uploading photos of another childs and babies without the permission of her parents and the photographed child's parents. Take care with the uploads of this user. See OTRS id ticket:2012032110014588 --Ezarateesteban 00:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious how you know this user is a child, and female no-less. Fry1989 eh? 00:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Well it isn't in the permissions queues since I can't access it. Anyone have access to info queues? Techman224Talk 01:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The child's father sent an email to OTRS, it is in info-es queue --Ezarateesteban 11:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I deleted two files with the reason "No permission according to ticket:2012032110014588". Was there a specific reason for not doing it yourselft ? --PierreSelim (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The ticket only involves the image that I deleted yesterday --Ezarateesteban 13:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Then I'll probably restore the picture, and start a DR. PierreSelim (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Lscom

Lscom (talk · contribs) This user has uploaded a series of sports pictures, most of them of professional quality. EXIF mention different camera bodies and different authors and press agencies. All pictures are related to the fr:Levallois Sporting Club, one of the biggest sporting clubs in France. The account's name tends to indicate they are related to the club. Very probably the club bought press pictures, and uploaded them on Commons to illustrate their articles, but I doubt they have the right to do so. In any case I will contact them. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Beta M

Beta_M (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Moved to subpage due to volume of discussion

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Geni's allegations against Beta M

Adding timestamp for auto-archiving: issue is now closed. Rd232 (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Noticeboard disruptions and cross wiki problems

Moved to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Geni's allegations against Beta M

Adding timestamp for auto-archiving: issue is now closed. Rd232 (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Peter Damian (talk · contribs)

Moved to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Geni's allegations against Beta M

Adding timestamp for auto-archiving: issue is now closed. Rd232 (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Fred the Oyster

Moved to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Geni's allegations against Beta M

Adding timestamp for auto-archiving: issue is now in a different thread. Rd232 (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Mistress Selina Kyle

Moved to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Geni's allegations against Beta M

Adding timestamp for auto-archiving: issue is now closed. Rd232 (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

SilkTork

Moved to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Geni's allegations against Beta M

Adding timestamp for auto-archiving: issue is now closed. Rd232 (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Wiki95pedia

Wiki95pedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) This user has uploaded nothing but copyrighted images. Allan Aguilar (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Nuked and blocked for a week. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

AN/U section headings

Can we please stop the fashion for putting {{Userlinks}} in section headings? It's too long, and makes the table of contents hard to read. {{User}} is OK, but really the username is enough, and {{Userlinks}} (or a variation of it) can be provided below the section heading. Rd232 (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's awful. I changed the currently active sections to remove this TOC clutter. --Denniss (talk) 12:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Toilet

User Toilet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has uploaded many private photos of his holiday (click). I do see the problem with COM:PEOPLE, as I doubt he has asked every single person for approval.

As Toilet is known to use commons as private photo storage (e. g. here), I suggest deletion and block him indef, since he has never ever responded to claims or questions about his doings here, just uploads (see reason for his first 3-month block). --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

PS: Again he has uploaded the deleted files (1, 2,...) we had so many deletion discussions before. I'm really sick of renominating this again. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Mostly OK photos, you should not ask for permission if the photo was taken in a public place. Trycatch (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
? If u take a picture of a person with recognizable face, it is not "okay", maybe they donna want that every person can see her/him. And pictures like that or hardly "public". --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
It's ok, see COM:PEOPLE (though the laws vary from country to country). What about the mentioned photo -- it looks like a public performance or something. Trycatch (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
It's a little tricky. I think these are good photos and well within scope, but a lot of them are from Peru, where generally you need permission to publish a photo of a private person taken in a public space. Someone with some expertise should follow up. - Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Country specific consent requirements#Peru suggests that the issue is not so straightforward. P.S. As a side note, it was a bad idea to introduce country-specific laws to COM:PEOPLE. The picture was published on Commons, in the US, by a person from the Netherlands, why the supposed limitations on publication of it in Peru matter? Now we have to analyse all these extremely tricky laws (and probably delete some useful educational pictures) without any benefit for Commons. Trycatch (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not the right place to discuss Common's policy, but a short answer: That's because we're not only gathering pics but free content, really free, to spread it to anybody for any purpose. In some muslim countries there can also be a quite issue to publish pictures of people. In Germany and the Netherland you're not allowed to publicly show everybodies face even if seen in public.
Seems to be a selfpromoter. There are, additionally to the COM:PERSON stuff, some images that show himself so that authorship "own" is questionable. --Martina talk 21:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
To be hosted on Commons the work should be "free" only in copyright sense of this word, see Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. Commons generally do not care about non-copyright restrictions (if it's legally possible in the US, of course), dunno why the exception for personality rights was made. Of course, it's not the right place to discuss, and so on. Trycatch (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggest to close this section per Commons:Non-copyright restrictions / per Trycatch. Commons not comprised such laws in the past. If there is an issue with some files and specific country laws, start a deletion discussion or a discussion elsewhere. COM:AN isnt the right place for this, implementing such rules is not done by administrator attention or intervention. --Martin H. (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

But then we still have the issue about those hand-drawings User Toilet is uploading every time after the deletion of them. This is btw the reason for his first block. I donna see any sense in deletion discussions if the uploader gives a fuck on them. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
PS: Again I have to stress that User Toilet is uploading tons of private holiday photos from Picasa, regardless copyright or scope issues. He is not interested in constructive contribution rather sees commons as an advertisment/free web space. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • topic ban for anything with people in it. This to be considered broadly, as the most easily implemented. This includes drawn art and photos, regardless. Precise subject is not to be a matter for discussion, even though some images are "innocent" of the problem here. The last thing we need is a per-image argument.
Photographing rear views of anonymous joggers and the uploader's obsession with defecation are just not a good combination. We don't need this, we don't need the bad press of another Daily Mail headline for wikiperverts.
Otherwise a simple ban. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Question

Could someone explain to me why my telling russavia, on my own talk page, to "eat shit" was grounds for a one week block given to me by an involved administrator? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Because it was a personal attack, I guess? - A.Savin 16:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
It was not a personal attack, although it was certainly disrespectful, and intended to be so. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Because that sort of behaviour is not acceptable on Commons. Simple as that. It doesn't matter where you post it, it is simply not acceptable. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Mattbuck, you blocked me for a week despite the obvious fact that you are an involved administrator. For instance, perhaps you remember calling me a "troll," in a discussion over your refusal to do more than give a warning to a user who had made a obviously antisemitic comment [45]. But despite that problematic involvement, you now see nothing wrong with giving me a one week block for saying something on my own talk page that harmed no one. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Personally I would support a de-adminship of Mattbuck. He's trigger happy, and doesn't shy away from conflicts of interest. Fry1989 eh? 19:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I would support a de-adminship of both: Mattbuck and russavia. mattbuck is too screamy, and he responded to email canvassing by russavia, and blocked me for three weeks! russavia misuses tools when involved.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
And he is really in no position to criticize vulgarisms. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
It looks like a direct personal attack to me (okay, I'm a sensitive soul with thin skin but this appears pretty blatant unless you can provide sources showing that Russavia is a coprophile) and rather than putting forward a request for an unblock with a meaningful explanation of why it was not meant as a personal attack, you go on to declare your block as "wiki-fascism". Not a statement that an independent administrator would read as you intending to support the mission of the project or something that can be read as a commitment to foster a non-hostile Commons environment. --Fæ (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
How is telling someone to "eat shit" a personal attack? It's an insult absolutely, but it doesn't attack them as a person, it doesn't say something about them that's not true, and to me it's pretty much the same thing as giving someone the finger. Fry1989 eh? 22:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Fæ, it was disrespectful, intentionally. You have not connected the dots to show that is a "direct personal attack." I did not request an unblock because it does not matter very much to me if I can edit on Commons or not, and I can live perfectly well without it. But that does not mean I do not think the block unfair. If you think I do not have the right to ask, and to question the block, show me the rule forbidding that. (Was the part about the "non-hostile Commons environment" supposed to be funny?) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Russavia came to you with a politely worded request. You could have said no, go away, or not replied. Replying with "eat shit" is extreme and reads as a personal attack to me. Anyway, as you don't care about the reality of the block, the discussion here is overly hypothetical. You have every right to question the block and ask about the policy behind it though I don't understand why you failed to do that at the time rather than now. I'll leave an answer to the involved admins to explain if they want to, though as one of the "norms" I might guess Commons:Blocking policy looks like relevant policy and mentions the "hostile environment" thing that you think is some sort of joke. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

 Comment a "personal attack" is a form of en:argumentum ad hominem - "an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it". "Eat shit" is not an argument, it is merely an insult. Now that we have that wikilaywering out of the way: yes, for such an insult, unqualified even by an accompanying statement explaining the sentiment, a block is certainly appropriate. Context also matters, and for such an insult to be a response to a perfectly reasonable suggestion to move irrelevant discussion off a blocked editor's talkpage - yes, 1 week is within the bounds of reasonable. Rd232 (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Rd232, I did not reject russavia's warning, that I not return to that discussion on Fred's talk page, and I have not not returned. Nor did I say I would disregard his point. The block was a nonsensical exercise of administrative powers. It is absurd. But if the block is for a week, or a month, or a year, makes no difference to me because there are other things I can do. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I did not reject russavia's warning - really? "eat shit" is not a (nasty) rejection of the (polite) request? This thread is drifting into troll territory. Rd232 (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Figure it out for yourself, Rd232. Did I return to Fred's talk page, either then or later? Did I say I would? As for you once again accusing me of being a "troll," the last time you did that it was suggested you avoid interactions with me. But you have chosen to ignore that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
No, it was (AFAIR) suggested that I avoid admin action in relation to you, which I have. And I have not accused you of "being a troll", nor even exactly said that you were trolling here - though frankly, I think you are trolling. We are discussing your two-word statement; that is unambiguously a rejection of the request it is a response to. That you didn't then do what the request asked you not to do proves nothing about that statement (maybe you weren't going to do anything more anyway, maybe you changed your mind later), especially as your opportunity to do it was swiftly limited by a block. Rd232 (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Keeping in mind that blocks are not punitive but protective and that it seems Malcolm Schosha still seems to think that such expressions are harmless (which means he's likely to carry on in much the same way), I'd say it was too short and should be extended. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
It does not follow. LX, you need to work on your rational thinking. If I had returned to the discussion on Fred's talk page, then lengthening the block would make perfect sense, but my answer to russavia (ie "eat shit") did not even imply an inclination to do that. In fact, when I got that warning from russavia, I was trying to convince another user to stop placing his edits on Fred's talk page because they were not helpful in the circumstances. Once that user stopped harassing Fred, there was no reason for me to return there. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Please check your accusations of irrational thinking at the door. Regardless of whether or not that particular situation is resolved, if you don't understand that such language is unacceptable, you're likely to use it again on Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Certainly I will continue use the language I choose to use. But Mattbuck, who blocked me has used such language too, and so have many others. Should all of them be blocked, or just the particular ones you want gone from Commons? It seems to me that you want to re-engineer human nature to suite your personal preferences, which is very irrational. But, of course, if the Commons administrative class decides that my presence here is harmful, then they will send me into wiki-exile, and it will then be my part to depart without sorrow. Nevertheless, the claim that my responding to russavia on my own talk page, by saying "eat shit," has harmed him or Commons is absurd. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Don't mistake your own inability to mind your language for human nature. I stand by my original point. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
LX, I made it clear that what I said to russavia was entirely intentional. I was careful and deliberate in my choice of words. Considering that, if you think think my presence is harmful to Commons, the logical next step would be to introduce a motion to ban me. If you endorse one level of absurdity, then why not go up another level and see if you can get me banned for that? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Whether you are impulsively or deliberately rude, there's nothing about human nature that says you have to be. You are responsible for how you conduct yourself. You've stated on an administrator's noticeboard that you intend to continue to act uncivilised. If admins are reading, that ought to be sufficient to extend your block, so I don't know what "motions" you expect from me, but I'm not going to waste my time. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Martin Kraft

Martin Kraft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User makes here File:ARD_Karte.svg an edit war and reverts repeatedly to a "candy-colored" map that is not a good solution for encyclopedic use. Here in File talk:ARD Karte.svg is a discussion but there is no consensus for the version of Martin Kraft. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a confusing statement. Matrin Kraft created the new blue version to replace the "candy-colored" map. Martin however finds there is not a clear consensus for his new version, so he reverts. Some other users ignore the consensus-building process that is still ongoing. Martin reverts back from his version to the status quo. And he gets reported here for that? --Dschwen (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
You should check the file history of File:ARD Karte.svg clearly. There was no consensus for this version that was to close to the CD of ARD, this one was a compromise of User:Ben774 that Martin Kraft constantly reverted. And please do not chance my contributions. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
More over Martin Kraft was requested from a german admin the day before yesterday not to apply this very coloured version. I have uploaded a new compromise. We will see if Mr. Kraft will accept this. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Wladyslav, I did check the file history, and Martins move to upload over a heavily used version was not a very smart one. However he is seeking consensus now. There is more than one person needed for an edit war. And it is customary in this forum to change loaded section heading to more balanced ones. No need to snap. --Dschwen (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
This statements are qualified for finding a compromise in your opinion? --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Cherry picking one outburst hardly paints an objective picture of what is going on here. --Dschwen (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
If I have overlook a constructive contribution of M. Kraft since I am searching a compromise you can link it to me. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • To me it looks like an editorial problem. I would suggest to accept all versions under different filename (split the history file), and move this discussion where it belongs on wikipedia. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • urgs. first, there was a multi-colored map that nobody really seemed to like. martin created a new version, uploaded it to a different location, put it up for debate (also on dewiki), a few users (two or three) supported it and one user, Ben774, didn't like it. lacking further voices, martin then uploaded his version as a new version of File:ARD Karte.svg which led into an edit war with Ben, eventually ended by martin at some point (march 22); ben argued that there was no consensus at all. yesterday he brought the issue to the attention of dewiki administrators, and i proposed that we continue to wait for further input, asked for such input, and got myself involved, arguing -- as all other participants, including one who joined the debate afterward -- that i prefer martin's new version. Ben continued to argue that the white-colored logos were factually wrong and misleading to the reader, and then proposed a "compromise" version, uploaded by him under a different name (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ARD-Karte-BLAU.svg). after waiting a full 41 minutes for comments, he then finally uploaded it to File:ARD Karte.svg. what happened during those 41 minutes? one user argued the he'd prefer some version of martin's proposal, and spoke out in favor of either Ben's version with colored logos or another, considerably older version with black logos. another user, CellarDoord85, who had already been involved beforehand and then argued in favor of martin's proposal argued that he finds that Ben's proposal fits better the context in which it appears and proposed that File:ARD Karte.svg gets reverted back to the original "candy-colored" version and that martin uploads Ben's compromise to the place where he had uploaded his original proposal, so that we can change the image inclusions on dewiki to the different file name while others can still use the candy-colored version.
    and so, as ben now uploaded his derivative work of martin's proposal to File:ARD Karte.svg, martin reverted that change, arguing that there's no consensus yet. Wladyslaw intervened, asking Martin to stop with his arrogant behavior. and, well, now we're in the middle of the nice revert-game that has led to this report. ah, meanwhile, another version has been proposed by niabot, which inspired Wladyslaw (and seriously, i have no idea how one can get to such an idea after the course of this intense debate) to upload yet another "compromise" version to File:ARD Karte.svg, this time one without any consensus at all.
    proposal: as pointed out yesterday in response to martin's notification of administrators on dewiki, i advocate to leave the image as it used to be (i.e. in the colored version) and just upload other versions under different file names (i have some understanding for martin's approach, though, because if it hadn't been for this "controversy," just uploading a new version over the old one would have been the most efficient move after all -- however, it is no longer). we can then discuss on dewiki which image should be used in articles; there is now plenty to discuss, thanks to the several new version, some of which i also like. there's no urgency whatsoever in this matter. —Pill (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 Support as the most reasonable approach. --Túrelio (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Then, please restore the colorful map. I just protected it because I don't want a lot of reverts there. And honestly spoken, I don't want to participate in this war that was completely unnecessary and shows one more that discuss before taking action is important and there is no need to rush. Thanks -- RE rillke questions? 18:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The colorful map is for encyclopaedic use not suitedable and I do not see a majority for this. Apart from that the decision what kind of map should stay is to discuss here File talk:ARD Karte.svg. Here is the wrong place for that. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Sure the multicolored version has huge deficits! It took me more than a week to promote this insight against several revert-attacks. But this doesn't imply, that it has to be replaced by Wladyslaw's favored version, who oviosly wants to nail the topic down by that. We still have an [discusion]!
Therefore I support Rillkes suggestion to revert the grafic to the old version, till we have an decision!--Martin Kraft (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Just started one last attempt to solve the conflict in a resonable discussion and vote in File talk:ARD Karte.svg. I decided to give it a another try on Commons, bevor moving the whole thing again. So everybody is invited to contribute his proposal, opinion or vote! -- Martin Kraft (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting argumentation: we should revert to a flaw version of the map because you dislike that "my version" is the live version at the moment. A very personal view, that is why you started an edit war, not only against me but also against Ben774 and that is the reason why you are announced here. The content is not to be discussed here and every one knows the place where it is. No need for undeviating linking at the page. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
ResolvedM0tty blocked the user for 3 days and deleted the copyvios. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I request admin intervention in this DR. The uploader acknowledges the copyright violation of his uploads and yet threatens me saying "i'll still stick around and trust me i'll make sure that your existence here is unquestionably challenged! Good luck and get a life." Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC).

✓ Done Blocked for 3 days and image deleted. --M0tty (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Please see that this user does not resort to such attitude against any other fellow user. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC).

Stenny21

Stenny21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has uploaded several files which have sources but are obviously grabbed from the internet with no regard for licensing/copyright. The remaining three uploads are all tagged for having no license but could I suggest they are deleted early, as they are all from obviously copyrighted sources and there's no realistic possibility of permission or a free license. I have given a warning. January (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Since he hasn't done anything after the only warning, I don't think any further action is appropriate now. If he offends again, then a block. All of his uploads have been deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_26&oldid=264579191"