Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 32

Silly and useless deletion.

This was really a silly and useless deletion: File:Frazier_Peak_directional_sign.jpg. Surely somebody could have replied to my message about this. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I had it restored. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) :There was no evidence of permission to publish. You had from Dec 24th to add it to the image's information. No-one did, the file got deleted. What was your message and here did you leave it? And are you the copyright holder of the sign? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

He was also notified at en.wikipedia, but I did not see any kind of response there and nothing at OTRS. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Same question as Fred -- what message? Except for the post above, User:GeorgeLouis's last edit on Commons was in July.

@Fred -- I don't think the sign is a problem. There is nothing there that is eligible for copyright. The issue is the photo itself, as the description calls out a third party as the photographer.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Wikiquote-logo-th.png

1. File:Wikiquote-logo-en.png
2. File:Wikiquote-logo-th.png

These files are protected. Please change their category to Wikiquote logos‎. Thanks. --taweethaも (talk) 09:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- Common Good (talk) 10:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

How do I change licensing info?

Moved to COM:Help desk#How do I change licensing info?

Adding time stamp for archiving. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

File:King Manisarus (ca. 115 AD) of Corduene.png

Text and drawing are taken from this blog despite being described as 'own work'.

Adding time stamp for archiving. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

duplicate-archive

I'm trying to upload an image, but I get this warning message "Unknown warning: duplicate-archive" and the file is not uploaded. I have searched the file name, but it seems not to have another file with the same name.

The URL of the image is http://elrosal-cundinamarca.gov.co/apc-aa-files/32616338306135366536346166303134/ESCUDO_1_thumb.jpg

Is the coat of arms from a city. Thankyou!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by J.viveros72 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 21. Nov. 2011 (UTC)

Adding time stamp for archiving. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

place for rfc for policy change for software screenshots?

As the highest EU (European Union) court already in 2010 has decided (German reception of this decision: [1]) that the graphic user interface of a software program cannot claim copyright protection if it is not an original creation (threshold of originality) of its producer, the current Commons' practice of rather summarily deleting software screenshots might not be necessary. Accordingly a :de-user has developed a template for such uploads, refering to the above mentioned court decision. What would be the most appropriate place on Commons for a discussion about this issue? --Túrelio (talk) 10:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Can I presume that my suggestion to delete those Photoshop screenshots the other day is what has triggered this? I'd be interested to see an RfC on this subject myself. I'd like to see what the Commons threshold for originality will turn out to be, unless, as usual, wiki definitions tend to be somewhat, errr, hazy and mostly subjective. As for its location, well I don't have a clue, but at a guess somewhere in Commons space, perhaps Commons:RfC/Screenshots? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: your first question: may be it was the last incentive[2] ;-), but I know that some :de-users were uncomfortable with our practice since quite some time. --Túrelio (talk) 10:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I actually hated having to do that, but the PS v5.1 gui is quite original and doesn't really share standard windows gui features. Illustrator does, but PS doesn't, which is quite strange, but there ya go! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. You acted (and I have often done the same) as of our current practise and policy. If the proposal comes through, it will likely require a case-by-case discussion. --Túrelio (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

w:Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc. is the most relevant case in the US, though I will point out that the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 on it. Is there English language description of the case? "Threshold of originality", out of context, isn't very helpful in this case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally I don't think that court case is relevant any more what with the advent of Windows 7, Gnome 3, KDE 4 etc as programs are no longer locked into one type of gui display as has been the case in the past. Graphic design (and API freedom) has made a great deal of difference to application's user interface. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of anywhere better, I suggest a thread at COM:VPR, with advertising wherever seems helpful. Rd232 (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete erroneous prior versions of these images?

Is is possible to delete the original versions of 3 images which I have now updated with corrected files? The originals of these three had the wrong time and location in the Exif header data. It's the location data that I'm particularly concerned with having correct (and that is derived from a GPS log using the timestamp). It's possible to leave the original, faulty versions hanging around, taking up space and with some small possibility that they'll be used by someone in error. It appeals to my sense of order to just have them removed from the system. These are the files:

• File:Old_Mines_LaMarque_House_26.jpg
• File:Gov_Daniel_Dunklin_Gravesite_07.jpg
• File:Doe_Run_smelter_Herculaneum_22.jpg

Again, the current versions of these are correct, it's just the versions that were initially uploaded that are in error. Thanks. Kbh3rd (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done russavia (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to correct one misunderstanding above -- almost nothing is ever deleted from Commons. When we "delete" a file or version of a file, it is simply removed from general public view, but it is saved for all time, so no space is saved.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

User:MCFowler com

Are next username okay because there are web-address.--Motopark (talk) 07:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

 Agreed. I blocked the account as a violation of COM:ADVERT and Commons:Username_policy#Inappropriate_usernames and left a suggestion that he use User:MCFowler instead.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Cribs from all the world (Poggio a Caiano)

The entire contents of this category are copyright violations (derivative works), except maybe a couple of them, such as File:Cribs from all the world 044.jpg. I tagged a few, but I think it's rather pointless to tag each and everyone of them (leaving an annoying template on the uploader's talk page every time too). Can someone please delete them? Thanks. Prof. Professorson (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with you that these probably infringe on the copyright of the creators of the various creches, our firm policy is that this sort of infringement requires a DR. I suggest you follow the instructions at Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

3 moves

Hello, I am currently doing a series of graphics of the structure of US, Commonwealth, Soviet and Axis divisions in World War II. Having created earlier graphics of the US Armored divisions and the US 1st Cavalry division under names that now do not align with the name of all the other graphics, I would ask an administrator to please move the following graphics (created by me) to the new names (also listed). With many thanks and best regards, Noclador (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• File:US 1st Cavalry Division WWII.png move to File:United States World War II 1st Cavalry Division 1942 Structure.png
• File:WWII US Heavy Armored Division Structure.png move to File:United States World War II Heavy Armored Division Structure.png
• File:WWII US Light Armored Division Structure.png move to File:United States World War II Light Armored Division Structure.png

Just use the {{rename|<new name>}} tag on each of the files description page. It makes the file movers' job much easier then --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks - will do that right now, Noclador (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Restore

Please restore the files File:TallytaCumys2.jpg and File:Tallyta Cumys & Ewerton Luis.jpg. As argued here, these files do not violate any copyright because the author is the same user who posted these photos out of Wikipedia. I also ask to close and archive the discussion. Leandro Rocha (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Requests for restoration belong at Commons:Undeletion requests, not here. I note that the cited DR will probably close as Deleted because the image is both out of scope and a possible copyvio. The image and the related page have been removed from WP:PT.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Why come to Administrators' noticeboard when COM:UNDEL is -> that way? Is there any desperate rush to get these images undeleted? They will probably only end up in a deletion review much like the other one is right now. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Revision deletion

For reasons that will be obvious to many, I've just created a draft to fill in a gap in Commons policy: Commons:Revision deletion. This draft is intended to document current practice; it also creates the possibility for future restriction of use of RevDel (en:WP:REVDEL is very prescriptive). I suggest some initial tinkering with this draft, and then moving to adopt as a policy, and then consider possible amendments (which would have the effect of changing practice via the policy). Comments? Rd232 (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

RevDel is covered on Meta in its subsection of the Oversight policy and is not to be used in situations besides those described. We cannot, because of privacy concerns and other concerns regarding the tool, vote to liberalize its usage. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the oversight policy has not been rewritten to take into account the different parameters of the RevDel extension, therefore there is no current policy governing RevDel. The only references to RevDel are the developer help page. If you wish to wiki-lawyer, let's all join in shall we? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Objection! -mattbuck (Talk) 02:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"if you wish to wiki-lawyer" - jeez, Fred, the guy doesn't need encouragement! Rd232 (talk) 05:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

From Meta's Oversight#About - "This software is called RevisionDelete and has mostly replaced the old Oversight extension by now." It is the same thing and not "different parameters". It was partly extended to admin as a whole in the software but it does not mean that they do not follow the same rules. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a software issue. Oversight rules apply to oversighters qua oversighters, whatever tool they're using to hide revisions from everyone except oversighters. Wikilawyer EPIC FAIL. Rd232 (talk) 05:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Software issues aren't given prescriptive limits to its use. As you showed on your proposal, there are four justifications provided. Those four justifications are listed on the Oversight policy. There is a reason the two are the same. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That's because it's a draft containing elements of an existing document. It's only just been started and isn't anywhere near finished. It has to be further tailored for use on Commons. Is it a nice view from up there in the clouds? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

@Ottava Rima: There exist two levels of hiding: The first level hides contents just for non-admins, the second level hides it for admins as well and keeps it only visible to oversighters. Originally, two different techniques were used for these deletions but since recently, they have been unified under the new RevDel extension. However, the two levels still exist and are both supported by RevDel. The oversight policy at Meta just applies to the second level, i.e. to that level which is reserved to oversighters. All this may be somewhat confusing and not that well explained as this has recently been changed without adapting all these policy pages. The point is that just a technical interface has been changed which caused the term RevDel no longer to be precisely relating to one of these two levels only where it before applied to the first level of deletion only. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Both levels of hiding have the same privacy related requirements and cannot be used on a whim. That was the point. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope, that is your own invention, Ottava Rima, that does not stand up to the existing practice and policies. At en-wp you'll find two separate policies: en:Wikipedia:Revision deletion and en:Wikipedia:Oversight where the former has a far broader inclusion of cases. The point of Rd232 is to establish at Commons a policy for revision deletions that is adapted to the needs at Commons. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"where the former has a far broader inclusion of cases" Nope. Rd232's attempt to broaden the policy into the absurd and prohibited was shot down. That isn't a coincidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope, the proposed revision deletion of contributions of banned editors who are just banned you are refering to is not something which is currently here under discussion. Just compare the existing policies and you'll see that the scope of revision deletions is far broader than that of suppressions. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

there were two proposals I made there; one (removing RD5) cleanup which would tighten the en.wiki RevDel policy, and the other (a proposed RD7) which would have legitimated a practice endorsed by some admins and not covered by the policy. The aim was to resolve the conflict between policy and practice, one way or the other, and if the amendment was to be accepted, to regularise and ideally require prior consensus. Please stop dragging up things from other projects, decontextualised and spun to suit your views. Rd232 (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"endorsed by some admins and not covered by the policy" That was my point. Some admins doing it doesn't mean it is supposed to be used for that. Sigh. Admin shouldn't have been doing something like that without getting the policy changed (which obviously wasn't going to be changed per the discussion, making them acting in a rather irresponsible way). Such things seem to happen a lot lately and I find that rather upsetting as a whole. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"Admin shouldn't have been doing something like that without getting the policy changed" - well yes. That's why, in response to discovering the practice I was previously unaware of, I attempted to change the policy, in a way which would either regularise the practice or make it clear that it was not covered by policy and therefore not permitted. (RD5 gave a ludicrously large loophole which was claimed to permit it, which was part of the reason I proposed removing RD5.) Rd232 (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

@Rd232: I think the policy page should make clear to which of these two levels it refers to to avoid the confusion we just observed here. Perhaps we should distinguish between revision deletion (first level) and revision suppression (which is tied to the suppressrevision right which is reserved to oversighters). This should be distinguished from the term RevDel which should refer to the extension only which implements both. Secondly, the section When Revision Deletion may be used is too narrow. It should instead apply to all cases where regular deletions are permitted but where just a revision needs to be removed. A PD-Art image with non-free frame is just one of these examples. There are numerous other cases where we upload a new image over an old image where the old one has to be deleted for whatever reason (as it depicts something, for example, which makes it a derived work, or violation of personality rights etc). --AFBorchert (talk) 08:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The tool menu makes the same statement that the Meta Oversight policy does, and RevDel is not to be used merely where "deletions" can be used but where there is privacy or copyright concern only. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I realise that you desperately want it to say that, but alas it doesn't. That's just your interpretation. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've added a bit to the draft. It would be helpful to add more common cases, both into MediaWiki:Revdelete-reason-dropdown and into the policy; but as long as the cases are just examples, it doesn't really affect the substance of the policy, and therefore I think adopting COM:REVDEL as policy doesn't need to wait for that. Rd232 (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Reboot

This thread has got rather sidetracked, so let's try and reboot it. To restate: I've created a draft to fill in a gap in Commons policy: Commons:Revision deletion. This draft is intended to document current practice; it also creates the possibility for future restriction of use of RevDel (en:WP:REVDEL is very prescriptive). I suggest some initial tinkering with this draft, and then moving to adopt as a policy, and then consider possible amendments (which would have the effect of changing practice via the policy). Comments? Note: I would like to get a Sitenotice up within a week, unless serious opposition emerges either to that time frame or to the principle of the policy. Rd232 (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Fred the Oyster

Fred was warned on his user talk page about his disruptive behaviour on the 1st January and has received feedback on this page about his unacceptable trolling. Considering his sustained attempt to disrupt sensible exploration of the issues with Ottava Rima's long term contributions, and considering the rest of his disturbing and aggressive contribution history over the last week, I recommend he be considered for a block, even if only for a relatively short time, so that discussion on this noticeboard can reach a conclusion without appearing to be a free space for abuse, ridicule and unacceptable language. --Fæ (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Russavia told me to walk away. I did at the beginning. Fred heaped some of the worst abuse I've ever seen and the votes followed after that. I have found this incredibly upsetting for many, many reasons. Is it too much to ask for that I don't get outed, told to kill myself, and attacked in every possible way? And people say I harass and all I do is ask for proof. I am kicked to the side without evidence but when there is clear abuse no one acts on it. How is that really fair or protects the people of Commons? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You find it upsetting. Well boo hoo. I will not defend Fred's constant replies to everyone here (even though some of them seem valid questions), but that you find it upsetting is a massive irony when it's all you ever seemed to do (I'd show links but I'm on a smartphone, but all you have to do is look at the links and diffs above and you'll see Ottava is an expert at it). So don't be a hypocrite, especially one that's white as snow. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never told someone to kill themselves, I've never attacked someone in such a way, I don't cuss, and I don't do any of that. I have only ever commented on rationales for deletions and I leave it at that. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Where exactly did Fred tell you (or anyone else) to kill themselves? Quote and/or diff please. (And "I have only ever commented on rationales for deletions" - do you want to withdraw that, or wait for someone to disprove it?) Rd232 (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

[3] In response to Herby saying how to deal with me, Fred lists a well-known poison used by people to commit suicide by taking more than a small quantity (like taking too many Advil or any overdose). It is also used in lethal injections for that reason. Dr. Death in the United States used it as his prefered aid to help people commit suicide. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

←For continually making counter-productive and disruptive comments Fred the Oyster has been blocked for a period of three days by Harej (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). While I'm saddened it had to be taken to this level I support the block. Tiptoety ^talk 20:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Should have happened a long time ago. See my previous complaints about him. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Magog that comment is completely unhelpful and doesn't belong here. I also question Tiptoety's posting the block of Fred here. It only distracts from what this discussion is about (Ottava Rima), and the blocking admin should have had the discretion to post it. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Fred started the indef request against me after I followed Russavia's advice to walk away from the initial dispute. Fred's actions are telling about this whole process and the problems related to it, especially with no evidence of problematic behavior, a clean block log for a year and a half, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This block is in effect. Further pile-on here is unnecessary and distracts attention from other current threads. I'm archiving this thread. --99of9 (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Rename account

Hi. Please rename my account: Advisors → Advisor for create SUL (ru, en, bg, commons). Advisors (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that then be a misleading username? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Fred, I agree, but there's a problem here. "Advisors" is an SUL account with 26,757 edits in an impressive list of different WPs -- mostly WP:RU -- in the last three years, while "Advisor" is an account that exists on several WPs, but not Commons. Therefore, the account that signed the message above is already an SUL account, so I don't understand the request.

If, somehow, this request does not come from the account with 26,000+ edits, and he or she is a newish user, then I think he should pick a different name, as "Advisor" suggests a special status which he does not have. While it wouldn't fool an experienced Commons editor, a newbie might think it was someone special.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

He is a respected ru.wp user and an admin--Ymblanter (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not the problem. I don't understand this request, because the account "Advisors" is already an SUL account. "Advisor" is not, but "Advisors" cannot take it over, since it is already in use. And, respected user or not, I think it is a bad name. I won't block a long time user account with a bad name, but I won't create a new one with a bad name, either.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds to me like he wants to change his user name globally. My own personal opinion is that this would be a bad thing. He may be an admin at his home wiki so could perhaps justify it there, but certainly not globally. I know en.wp wouldn't allow it. I don't believe we should either. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually enwiki did allow it. This, that and the other (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion for privacy concerns

I ask please to speedily delete the image I just uploaded, File:Grimaldi superiore.JPG, as I discovered I left in it some private information I don't want to share. I'll reupload a clean version of the image. Thank you =) --Raminus (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Would that be because of the copyright notice in the EXIF? With the list of copyvio notices on your talk page it doesn't look good. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Per Fred. What I am also wondering is why other pictures of yours do not show any usefull EXIF-data, all are referring to Adobe Photoshop. And what happend btw with your Canon PowerShot G7? --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Done -mattbuck (Talk) 19:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons_talk:Deletion_policy#Privacy

I've made a proposal at Commons_talk:Deletion_policy#Privacy. I'd appreciate more input there; I hope to get enough clarity on the community's views of the general idea of the proposal to justify opening a Sitenotice to get the change approved. Rd232 (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal filemover right of Americophile

Dear all. Please take a look at this and this as a reply to my removal of the filemover rights of Americophile. What's your opinion about it? Trijnstel (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You surely don't mean your funny typo (.. just renamed the filemover right ..) ;-).

While I admit not being accustomed to filemover rights, I wonder whether the user had ever been warned in advance before the rights removal. --Túrelio (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. ;-) Trijnstel (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Trijnstel, I wouldn't see a big problem with the renamings that were requested by the uploader, like File:Colombia - Risaralda - Mistrató.svg to File:Colombia - Risaralda - Mistrato.svg, see here. While it wouldn't be necessary to remove the accents and perhaps advisable to ask the uploader why he asked for the renames, I wouldn't make this a point for removing the filemover rights. The renaming of galleries (like this one) are not really helpful in my opinion but they are not related to the file mover privilege. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

@Túrelio: No, there was no warning before. At first User:Trijnstel removed my filemover right and then asked for an explanation.

@AFBorchert: Criterion no. 1 is "Uploader requested" and it doesn't matter why the uploader requested to rename his/her file. About those galleries, can I ask why Deutschland gallery title is in German rather than English? For the same reason کرمانشاه gallery title must be in Persian rather than English and it doesn't matter how long its title was in a wrong Language (i.e. English). I think Commons:Gallery#Naming_conventions is a policy and must guideline and is better to be respected. AMERICOPHILE 10:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Galleries is actually a guideline ("standards or behaviors which most editors agree with in principle and generally follow.") Rd232 (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

fixed but it makes no difference because we have Commons:Language policy that is actually a policy and explicitly states "Gallery names should generally be in the local language." AMERICOPHILE 12:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

@Americophile: Please take a look at کرمانشاه where all descriptions are in English. This mix is, in my opinion, not helpful. Multiple galleries in different languages can happily co-exist to the same topic. But this is just my opinion. My main point, however, was that I do not think that the removal of the file mover right from you was justified. At least not on the ground that was refered to so far. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Regarding galleries I would also suggest to take a look at this essay by Nilfanion. I find in particular the section Language support noteworthy. This is not policy but something to be considered. --AFBorchert (talk)

Thanks for your comment. I understand you. I am working on galleries regarding to Iran. Just have a look at ایران and its history. I'm making them bilingual (Persian as the local language and English as the international one). There are not lots of Persian-speaking users here and it takes a long time to correct all of those galleries but I will never abandon them. The only thing that I need is time (It took about one month to move about 300 images from Category:Iran to subcategories but finally I managed to clean this main category). I will do the same for the galleries about Iran. Regards. AMERICOPHILE 13:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Some additional info. In contrast to categories, galleries have no language limitation so anyone can create galleries in the place and language he wants to. All members can contribute to it, but the intent of the rule is that a gallery retains at least the language selected by the gallery creator. So indeed, naturally, we will find mostly "Gallery names (should/will) generally be in the local language". But if a Chinese team decides to develop a number of galleries in Russia in the Chinese language, we should not allow that people rename and/or convert is back and forwards to Russion or English. --Foroa (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not simply #REDIRECT[[target]] them instead of moving. And as pointed out here, the user in concern does not want the "rights" back. And I saw no abuse. But I have no strong opinion regarding file-moving: On the one hand, if you go through the upload-log you have to trace moved files and this makes it especially more difficult for tools relying on the log (2 of my scripts and pretty log) on the other hand some people hating mistakes or want to prevent that someone else makes the same mistake by simply copy&paste the file-title and appending some numbers/ words, so you can say the earlier corrected, the better. In my view MW is responsible for this drama. Files could have unique IDs that never change and a title. -- RE rillke questions? 15:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review canvassing

Closed per AFBorchert's earlier comment --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Quebrada de la Cébila.jpg

Could I please get an administrator to delete the middle revision only, uploaded by Abelrom on 21 April 2011, of this file? Not only does it go against COM:OVERWRITE, but it's also a copyright violation taken from https://www.panoramio.com/photo/25607969. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

•  done 6 January 2012 Zscout370      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Church of Condemios de Abajo.jpg

This file, which previously had the rather generic name File:Iglesia.jpg (Spanish for "church"), also needs to have some revisions with unknown licensing status deleted. Please deleted the revisions by Alfasina, Kukenan, and Cd tenerife. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done: Thanks, --AFBorchert (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Pueblo.JPG

Please delete the middle revision by Kukenan, as its licensing status is unknown. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done: Thanks for the notice, AFBorchert (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Rd232 desysop

---

There seems to be some disagreement if this should be archived reguarly or hidden. Why would this need to be hidden? --  Docu  at 06:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think "hiding" stuff has the opposite effect to the intended one - it merely makes folk want to know what happened a why. Leaving such pages means most folk looking will get bored long before they read much. But that may just be me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It is kind of strange that most comments by or about that users end up being hidden in one way or the other. --  Docu  at 20:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a Wiki; there is no hiding since it's all there in the edit history, and I don't think we have RevDel here. All remains visible, if you have the nous to find it. Rodhullandemu (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

RevDel is part of MediaWiki. See COM:REVDEL draft policy. Rd232 (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

"most"? It must take some very advanced statistics to reach that conclusion. Rd232 (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Rd232 Wheel Warring while Involved

Extended content

Closed --Herby talk thyme 15:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC) For clarity & info Enough time spent distracting folk on this one. --Herby talk thyme 17:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC) I have asked the original admin who moved this into its own section to allow for conversation to intervene because Herby is clearly involved and his threats to block the reopening of this is the same problem that Rd232 committed - admin disrupting Commons and acting in a matter unbecoming. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC) For the information of the community I have blocked Ottava Rima for a day for ignoring my warning to him. I really would prefer folk to discuss any unblock with me as wheel warring is - in my opinion - one of the daftest aspect of Wiki land. Equally if there is some pressing reason why the community feel that this thread should continue to distract from what needs to be done on Commons then any of our regular contributors are welcome to re-open it if there really is any more to say. Doubtless a de-admin request for me will arrive in due course however if Commons folk are unable to get with the work here then rights are quite pointless anyway. --Herby talk thyme 17:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC) A one day block is measured and proportionate, in my opinion. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Note: User:Fastily removed the block, saying "no edit-warring, block was made by involved admin" (Herby's block log entry cited "edit warring", though it is clear from this comment pointing to this comment that Herby didn't literally mean edit warring). Interestingly, Fastily apparently didn't consider himself involved, even though the thread in question was sparked by a reversal of his blocking action - and the blocking action was of a user Ottava has had a severe disagreement with. Finally, Fastily stated "you are an involved admin. If Ottava is to be blocked, someone else needs to make that call.", without explaining Herby's involvement, or acknowledging that Ottava had had an unblock request turned down by another admin. All in all, this looks to me like a rather questionable decision by Fastily. Rd232 (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC) I would like to point out that I am NOT involved in this wheel-war thing, and I felt that this thread had outlived its usefulness given that it was no longer about wheel-warring but instead just more mudslinging, and so I declined Ottava's unblock request as I considered Herby's actions legitimate. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC) You sought for me to be banned, constantly involved yourself, made an involve decline of an unblock, and even cussed me out in the middle of a public IRC channel without any legitimate reason. I've never used the word you used to anyone, nor ever said anything like that. You aren't impartial and you've been really incivil in multiple locations. There are many, many witnesses and your attempt to boot me from the IRC channel was overturned. You are not thinking clearly and that is a problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC) For the record, here is how you got back into IRC: 06/01/12 21:52:18 * mattbuck sets mode: -b *!*Ottava@108.124.12.* -mattbuck (Talk) 02:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC) After you were forced into it. You should be glad you are still allowed to stay in IRC when you make such extremely incivil comments. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC) (redacted by Ottava) Ottava, no, you are lying. I can tell you (albeit it's a first hand source and so doesn't pass your beloved WP:CAPITALLETTERS) that no one forced me to unban you. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC) This is why I've never registered to use IRC. The lack of transparency is not good. Rd232 (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Closed again. And like Herbythyme I would like to ask all to keep it closed. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Important: Transfers from he.wikipedia.org

Matanya (talk · contribs) is transferring files from he.wikipedia.org to Commons.

Just to name a few problems:

1. There seems to be no individual review. (see 2)
2. he.wikipedia.org seems to have a problem with copyright violations (e.g. File:God of war-gos.jpg, File:God of war 3.jpg – covers of PlayStation games – remained there for one year before being transferred to Commons)
3. There are a lot of reproductions of modern artworks uploaded without author details and permissions (e.g. File:קסטל_עקדת_יצחק_1947.jpg, File:פרדריק_ר._מאן.jpg, File:קסטל_הללויה_(כתב_יד).jpg, File:קסטל_אישה_עם_פרוות_שועל.jpg) please see Túrelio’s response regarding FOP in Israel
4. most uploads have no description at all
5. The bot user uploaded thousands of such files today.

--Polarlys (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If I remember correctly from discussions some years ago, Israel copyright law has a rather broad FOP exemption, see Commons:FOP#Israel, though there was/is some dispute. BTW, Matanya is an admin colleague. --Túrelio (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but we still need to know: Who created it, where is it located, is this really a reproduction from a public space or another source. Some images might be okay on he.wikipedia.org but not on Commons. Even if we exclude these images we still have a lot more images without sufficient source information and images which are obviously copyright violations. --Polarlys (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC) PS: Most of as played with automatic or semi-automatic transfers in the past, but IMHO no user should transfer thousands of files within several hours and without review. Look at File:מיילי_חתוך.jpg and compare it with File:Miley Cyrus @ 2010 Academy Awards.jpg. This is certainly not covered by FOP: File:Eminem - Stan CD cover.jpg File:ספרים_1.JPG. These uploads require weeks of coordinated clean-up. --Polarlys (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have used a bot to move the category cc-by-sa-3.0 from he.wiki, and marked all with botmovetocommons for further review by me. I will review all of the moves and will fix all needed, including deleting those how don't apply here. please be patient and I will get it all. best matanya • talk 14:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Question: does he.wiki have a Fair Use policy? It's not listed at m:Non-free content - perhaps you could update it. I ask because if it does have such a policy, then it would seem to make more sense to do a review before moving, so that any licensing errors can be fixed in a way that the images may still be used locally as fair use. I'm guessing that you know this, and that therefore he.wiki doesn't have such a policy - if so, please do update m:Non-free content. Rd232 (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you want to review around 2200 files you uploaded today? Most files i checked had no sufficient description, they were already deleted on he.wikipedia.org (as far as I can see) and most files lack an explicit statement on authorship and source. How many months will you have to work to fix this? Please clean your local project before you upload copyright violations here. Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC) PS: If you ask me: Restore these files on he.wikipedia.org, delete copyvios, add source information, nuke them here.

Israeli editors have a very relaxed attitude to copyright, see User:Pieter Kuiper/Freedom of Panorama in Israel for galleries of images that violate commons policies. And this DR for claims that Israeli money would be free becase of FoP. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Translations required

The file File:کنگره جبهه ملی دوم 1341.jpg has been tagged for speedy deletion, as lacking info to prove it's actually in public domain as the licence requires. Someone contested the deletion at the file talk page, but I don't understand that language, I don't even know which one is it. Can someone check what does it say, and clarify if the user is saying something that may help keep the file? Cambalachero (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• That's Farsi. User:Mardetanha could help I hope.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Please check Commons:Requests for comment, thanks. a×p_de^Hello! 15:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Backlog universal replacing after file moving

Hi! The backlog of "universal replace" after file moving is getting bigger and and bigger on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. Would some administrator(s) be kind enough to have a look and move them over to the actual command page, at least the clear cases? I try to do my own afterwork manually when I can, but not everyone do that. Thank you. --MagnusA (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Still growing. If no one wants to deal with the backlog, maybe I will run for adminship. :) Techman224^Talk 06:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker (file replacement) is off line at the moment, and we are waiting for the bot administrator to get it back up and running. No ETA at this occasion. Copying the into the list will just get a full list, so at the moment they are better where they are.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Loupes

New editor, undiscussed re-working here of Category:Loupes from a form of magnifier to a commune in France. This should have been done by disambiguation of some form, not simply deleting the earlier category. Both categories have notability and should be preserved.

Does anyone have the time to explain this and sort it out? I'm afraid I won't have for some time. Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest category:Loupes (Gironde) for the municipality. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorted per Pieter. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a new editor, signed in Commons since 06/06/2005, > 6250 edits (I just have problems with my "unified user signings"). I thougnt that categories in Commons should be named in english language. Anyway, in all languages the city is named Loupes, even in en:Loupes. What was the problem with what I had done as there were no links to this cat ? ℍenry (Babel talk !) (Francophone ?) 16:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but none of that made sense. Loupe is an accepted English term for a small magnifying device so was and English title. There were links to that category, how else could you have manually uncategorised each of the files that it contained, e.g. here, here, here? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I added the description from en_wikipedia. Oddly the interwikis at en:loupe seem to be about magnifying glasses.

To avoid that confusion here, maybe we should just disambiguate at Category:Loupes and move the category to Category:Loupes (type of magnifying glass). --  Docu  at 17:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for disambiguation, the category will not be flooded with photos of the French village. Cannot compare this problem to category:Models. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I just think that you should no longer worry about that category. In fr:WP, I shall use this link. To those who maybe don't know it, fr:loupe is the french word for en:magnifying glass. ℍenry (Babel talk !) (Francophone ?) 17:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Permission Error on Flickrbot

Iv been trying to upload the image [7], which Iv convinced the photographer to change the licensing to allow use on wiki. However, Iv tried uploading a few times and Flickrbot under different names (which Iv used loads of times prior to this successfully) gives me an error saying it matches and entry on the local or global blacklist and requesting me to post here. Can someone help me please? AroundTheGlobe (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Id: 40735548@N00. Please try https://www.flickr.com/photos/40735548@N00/44979152/ as the source in flickr upload bot. When does the permission-error occur? When you press save on Commons? And concerning File:Outreachbarnstar.png you might be interested in reading COM:MAXTHUMB.-- RE rillke questions? 12:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

When I clicked next to go to Commons. It worked now, thanks! Yes, Iv uploaded a lower resolution after my first attempt. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Undelete request for OTRS

Could some kind admin please undelete the following

• File:MSP Mating Friction1.png
• File:MSP Mating Friction2.png
• File:Metal particles.png
• File:MSP impregnate metallurgically.png

and add {{PermissionOTRS|id=2011110510012329}} Images should be CC-BY-SA 3.0
I would ask the deleting admin User:Yann, but he's not been around for a bit. Many thanks,  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. However I am not sure those images are in scope. They are part of product promotion article (which probably will be deleted) and have very little explanation of what is in those images, to be reasonably useful for other purposes. --Jarekt (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

SUL login + titleblacklist problem

I just attempted to login to my alternate account, "Hurricanefan25 in the storm", and already have globally merged the account; however, when I try to log in, it says that username is blacklisted. Can someone address this problem? Thanks. Hurricanefan25 (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

After a discussion on IRC, I determined that the account is blacklisted due to the 30-character limit at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist:

.{30,} <newaccountonly> # No usernames longer than 30 characters - this includes the "User:" prefix!

Is there a reason why this limit exists? Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

At dewp we had this discussion just some days ago: de:MediaWiki_Diskussion:Titleblacklist#L.C3.A4ngenbeschr.C3.A4nkung (translation). As we could find out why it was that low at dewp we have raised it to match enwp's limit. I think nowadays the limit should be rather global than local. Very annoying if you can register somewhere only to find out a year later that you have chosen a username which doesn't work everywhere... ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it should be a global filter, not a local one. Or, if it's local, it should at least be increased to 40 characters, so that people don't encounter the above issue. Maybe a request for comment (or is it uncontroversial)? Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons Delinker leaving a bit of a mess

Hello, in this edit, the CommonsDelinker has made a bit of a mess of removing an image, presumably because it's in a "double image" template. I'm not sure if the bot is intended to leave things neat and tidy, but the result is a bunch of wiki markup exposed in the image box. Just wondering... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that we should blame CDL for the template's poor design. I would encourage you to use named parameters rather than positional parameters with templates. It makes for more resilient templates, and usually makes them far easier to understand. In that template, if the filename had been removed it should degrade gracefully.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not blaming anyone for anything. And I don't use the "double image" template on Wikipedia, I just saw an article that had been made messy by the bot's edit. I just thought whoever administered the bot over here should know, that's all. That's what the instructions on the bot's talkpage said. Never mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

vandalismo-meter

Do we have something similar to en:Template:Vandalism information for Commons? --Túrelio (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't it depend on Huggle, which still doesn't work on Commons? I don't entirely see the point anyway. Rd232 (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

File upload

An administrator is needed to upload a new version of the File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-lv.svg, where a spelling error has been corrected. --Gleb Borisov (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. If you could find the appropriate license for the copy on lvwp, that would be nice. The Wikipedia logo isn't in the public domain. On Commons we use {{copyright by Wikimedia}}. Killiondude (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Undelete request for OTRS

Please undelete File:Ambigram-8-eight-math-2-1-5-rotation-mirror-basile-morin.gif, and add {{PermissionOTRS|id=2011120810000941}}. Agreed license is "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported)", TIA,  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the proper place for such requests is COM:UNDEL. Prof. Professorson (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Common revision deletion reasons

Common revision deletion reasons are listed at MediaWiki:Revdelete-reason-dropdown.

I suggest expanding/improving this list a little, like this:

• Common deletion reasons
  • Copyright-related
    • Copyright violation
    • Deletion request which only requires deletion of old revision(s)
    • PD-Art image with non-free frame
  • Other
    • Inappropriate personal information
    • Personality rights issue: file version which includes an identifiable person in a private location who has not given consent to the upload
    • Editing while logged out, revealing IP address
    • Potentially libelous information
    • Usernames which are disruptive or constitute personal attacks

Are there any other common reasons to be added? On a related note, I've created Category:Candidates for revision deletion since {{Non-free frame revdel}} already existed and was categorising images. Are there any other reasons that could have a revdel template like that? Rd232 (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As a general rule I am not a fan of changes these unless it is really necessary - those of us who use such things rather more often than many admins get used to where they are on the list - changes confuse us simple folk. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think it's not hard to get used to a change in position. And this minor and temporary inconvenience is worth it, I think, for the permanent improvement in clarity of logging of revdels, as well as long-term ease of use for admins. But, if that's an objection generally shared, we can retain the existing order (without subheadings) and just add new entries at the bottom of the list. That would not be my preference, but better than nothing. Rd232 (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Frederico1234 and File:AzzamInterview.jpg

User:Moonriddengirl has tagged File:AzzamInterview.jpg as a possible copyright violation, but User:Frederico1234 keeps removing the tag. Moonriddengirl's reasoning seems sound; this may need administrative attention. Jayjg (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

But we've generally kept images like that; cf. {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Feel free (anyone) to undelete if I'm wrong :( --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case, then {{PD-Egypt}} would be wrong, as it says, "In order to be hosted on Commons, all works must be in the public domain in the United States as well as in their source country" and itself sets out the 1946 deadline. But how is this in keeping with Meta:Resolution:Licensing policy and the head of Commons:Licensing, which emphasizes that:

Wikimedia Commons accepts only media

• that are explicitly freely licensed, or
• that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work.

This content is demonstrably not public domain in the United States until and unless the law is overturned. Commons isn't permitted an "exemption doctrine policy" that would allow it to permit copyrighted content anyway, even on the basis that it might be okay in the future. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You are entirely correct, but, as it says at {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}, we are trying to figure out what to do and, meanwhile, as Prosfilaes points out, generally we keep such images. The reasoning is, I think, that since we frequently keep images that are PD in the USA but not elsewhere (published in the USA in 1922, author died 1950), that symmetry suggests that we should keep image that are PD in the rest of the world but not in the USA. But, our servers are in the USA. In any event, single images are not the best place to argue policy, so I suggest we keep this. Herby disagrees, so I won't undelete it -- perhaps it is time to decide the question raised at {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope - Herby says feel free to undelete, not a problem to me (the edit warring was). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems to there is something particularly unique about this image as it is a scan of a press clipping. The Berne Convention and 2002 Egyptian copyright law explicitly state that copyright protection is not afforded to mere items of press information. What is the application in that respect? Would an interview be covered under those terms? It is, after all, the interview that is the focus of the image. Maybe someone fluent in Arabic can attest to whether the 1954 law provides a similar exception.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I would interpret that to mean that you can't copyright the news -- copyright goes to expression, not facts. This, however is a clipping that includes significant text as well as a photograph, so I don't think we can use that as a reason to undelete.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized that was probably the meaning.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

cat-war

A few hours ago 82.205.32.14 (talk · contribs) removed all Israel-categories from about 50 files and categories[8], mostly related to the Israeli settlement city Ariel. In order to avoid the next editwar/drama, I would ask someone who honestly considers himself "objective" or neutral enough in the Israel/Palestine conflict, to look into this. --Túrelio (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm probably not "completely objective" but clearly as a general principle something does not have to be "in Israel" (regardless of the issue of disputed territory) for certain "Israel" categories to apply. For example the people are still people "of Israel" no matter where they live, the buildings are Israeli architecture even if they are built in disputed territory, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 02:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak on this particular issue, but my opinion is that "X in Y" categories can include things which do not specifically happen in Y - for instance, I'd say that some Canada Day revellers in London would still count for 2011 in Canada. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no axe to grind in this debate either, but nobody has asked the IP editor to give reasons for his edits, nor explained any applicable policies on his Talk page. Surely that is the first step to take, before possibly making a mountain out of a molehill. Furthermore, he has not been notified of this discussion (until now). Rodhullandemu (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ariel is (correctly) described by English Wikipedia as "an Israeli settlement city in the West Bank." (ditto German Wikipedia: "eine Stadt und israelische Siedlung im Westjordanland." and French Wikipedia: "une colonie israélienne située dans les montagnes de Cisjordanie en Territoires occupés.") This means it can be within Israeli categories but not Israel categories (on English Wikipedia it is categorised in both "Cities in the West Bank" and "Mixed Israeli settlements".). Problem: the IP created Category:Ariel, West Bank, which refers to the same entity as the existing Category:Ariel, Israel. The latter should really be renamed, as it strongly implies that Ariel is within the country of Israel, which it isn't. The former is correct, but may still create unnecessary conflict. The obvious compromise candidate for a category name is Category:Ariel (city) (at least 8 Wikipedias use this approach for naming their article). Rd232 (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Category:Ariel (city). Takabeg (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

AN is not the place for what is essentially a content dispute. It is of course untenable that there are 2 categories for the same entity, and again AN is not the place for such discussion. It should be taken to COM:CFD so that it can get broad discussion on any outcomes. russavia (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hm, well that seems to have squashed admin action(?), and in the mean time, the old category has been emptied and content moved to the new. I've therefore created Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/01/Category:Ariel, West Bank. Rd232 (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Image needs rename

• File:1938 campaign sign on building at 36th Street and Cedar Avenue, Cleveland. - NARA - 550133.jpg
• File talk:1938 campaign sign on building at 36th Street and Cedar Avenue, Cleveland. - NARA - 550133.jpg

I have explained the mistake, 1938 in place of 1947, at File talk:1938 campaign sign on building at 36th Street and Cedar Avenue, Cleveland. - NARA - 550133.jpg #Title date 1938 (URL above).

The title is awfully long but I know nothing about it except the incorrect date, so a move to File: 1947 campaign [no other change] seems appropriate. --173.166.8.157 18:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I see from looking at the catalog entry that the production date is 07/1973, but the entry's name says it's 1938. Anyone know if it was made on the production date or was just sent to the archives on that date? Techman224^Talk 23:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Ottava Rima

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

I have given this a bit of thought recently and feel it is time to air this and see if there is any consensus in the community.

Ottava Rima's visits to Commons seem always to generate considerable heat and far less light. His current foray here has had quite an effect on an RfA, led to a de-RfA and made for a number of threads on admin boards complaining about many people's behaviour here. He states on my talk page that he doesn't "harass people - I annoy or bother" while seemingly incapable of understanding that people who are "annoyed or bothered" may well see it as harassment. Previous interaction on Commons have usually led to similar outburst on these boards and attacking various admins/users who do not see the world through his eyes.

There is a sense in which this sort of behaviour seems to me to be "enjoyed" by some folk and is certainly a trait on many en wp interactions (again it is the way it seems to me). However there is a vast amount of work to do here on Commons and few folk to do it so the fact that they get bogged down in dealing with whatever is bothering Ottava Rima currently has, to me, a less than beneficial effect on the general well being of Commons. As such I see little net benefit to Commons in allowing Ottava Rima to continue with, what is to me, his harassment of folk here and I wonder if a block might be in order.

If the community see this different I will happily accept the community's view and get on with dealing with the growing backlogs. It would be good if Ottava Rima would understand the effect his behaviour has on others however none of my interactions with him have suggested that is likely so sadly I see this as the only possible way forward to ensure some degree of peace on here. Thanks for your time --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments and votes

further comment - It is never easy to interact with Ottava as he does seem tyo take over any space on a thread and I would like to see the opinion of other people who work on Commons and care about it.

A couple of points

1. I did support Fae and equally struck my vote quite quickly - something that Ottava seems not to want to note - it was the same on my talk page
2. I stress again - I am not saying Ottava is or is not anything. I am saying that he behaviour has a certain appearance to me and seems to lead to disruption. I am being very careful not to be uncivil and I understand what it is like to be on the receiving end of behaviour but I still cannot get Ottava to understand that which is at the heart of this issue - he does not understand the effect he has on others.
3. I have never sought revenge against anyway here or in my personal life - in my view it is a completely pointless waste of time. I am seeking to promote a Commons with a good working atmosphere.
4. Ottava speaks of me crossing a line a tear ago. I have no recollection of what it was about however with maybe 40k admin actions and being human I do make mistakes - when it happens I rectify them and apologise.

I'll not be around much but I would like to see other people's views here about how to solve this issue. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The best thing to do at the moment, IMO, is to disengage with Ottava, and them with you. They have already stricken their comments below, so I have archived that part of the discussion. It would be great to have the rest of this discussion archived as well, in order for people to disengage completely and get back to doing something useful. It would also be great if all involved editors would agree to stop such discussions for a period of time in order to give tensions the opportunity to dissipate, and then if other, truly important, things need to be discussed, they can be done without the tensions boiling below the surface. russavia (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• If he continues to reply to every sentence making misleading and false statements I think the best we could do is to permablock him. I do not see currently any net benefit of him contributing to Commons.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence for such a claim and it is incivil. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It's in verdana on my screen. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Support - It's not as if he has shown any demonstrable benefit to the project, other than to give good reason for his own block that is. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The above user believes that posting pictures of underwear is a legitimate form of discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes he does, he even knows how to link to an image correctly too. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

As anyone can see, "Per Ottava" is a very common statement on that RfA. Being right or pointing out the wrongs of others will make people uncomfortable, but that is exactly what is needed. Silencing those who point out abuse is abuse. Herbythyme said of Rd232 who is going after me: "However I am not a fan of dramas and somehow you seem to attract them sadly". I had nothing to do with that incident as Rd232 has caused drama almost non stop for a long time both here and on Wiki and has been deemed to use adminship inappropriately there and against the rules here. Herby, however, has had a long negative view of me because I stood in his way a year ago on other matters where he crossed the line. That he would make the claims above while ignoring actual harassment against me, misusing the term against me, and try to intimidate is absolutely shameful. He was the first supporter of Fae, an absolutely horrible candidate for Adminship. Embarrassed, he wants to go after me to save face. Commons doesn't need such petty and disruptive behavior that he has shown. This is merely revenge and he knows it. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Would you like a last meal then a cigarette, or the cigarette first then the last meal? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support - Ottava has become an even bigger pest than usual recently, and I truly fail to see any downside to his being blocked. That said, he has not been the only person being disruptive, I would caution everyone to please remember that we should always be mellow in our interactions. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yup, mellow is always better than threatening, especially on people's home turf. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• For the record, my support is for an indef. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

 Comment Herbythyme's comment sums up the issues, but merely wonders if "a block" might be in order. That's not really specific enough as a proposal for people to vote yes or no. Question: what is it that Ottava does which is valued on Commons? If we can identify that, there's an outside chance we might devise a way to get him to focus on that, which would be better than outright block. Rd232 (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Support indef block of Ottava Rims. He is antagonistic, vindictive and only causes drama. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment at this time I withhold a formal vote. The problem is that OR does not value anybody else's opinion apart from his own or those supporting his latest Don Quixote moment. If you look at the recent discussion around deadmin'ship, every vote that was made contrary to his proposal had OR's comment beside it. I find that sort of behaviour degrading or harassing or a form of bullying. He is not the only one who does that behaviour it but he is the champion. Without respect for others and for difference then a wiki doesn't work, or it gets bogged down in politics, not in achieving. All of us need to watch out for continued opinion-making, as saying something over and over neither adds to its veracity nor changes the weight of argument. Personally I would like OR to get involved and do some real work, some heavy work in content namespaces in one of the wikis (here or elsewhere), he has the skills and knowledge. What I think OR needs to learn to do is to keep out of the named Project namespaces, start being a wiki-contributor, not a wiki-nuisance. That is up to OR to acknowledge and to demonstrate. If that commitment cannot be made then he should push off, either on his own steam, or as the will of the community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 19:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support indef. Ottava's contributions here suggest that he is more interested in trolling rather than employing his genuine ability in constructively contributing to the wiki. --Claritas (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment I see very strong parallels between this situation and last year's discussion about Longfellow/Poetlister on Wikisource. In both cases, the drama began behind closed doors, with John Vandenberg deciding to launder the account history of a highly controversial Wikipedian in order to help him pass an RfA on a smaller Wikimedia project. Once this decision had been made – “from on high” as it were (I’m not sure why anyone sees en.wp’s ArbCom as a reliable source for anything, but seeing as some apparently do) – sysops felt obliged to carry it out until the situation became untenable. In both instances, it’s Ottava who protests the loudest, blaming the administrators who he sees (not without justification, imo) as having enabled the situation. But the apple of discord isn’t the sysops, or Ottava, or WR, whatever their respective flaws, it’s the returning controversial user. Banning Ottava will merely kick these problems down the road, when they’re even more difficult to solve because the users are more entrenched. Anyone remember FT2? That took years to address, resulted in bans of quality contributors (for “harassment”, natch), resignations of those who aided his coverup, and a whole lot of real icky press. Promoting an obviously problematic user did not improve his behavior, but only scaled his madness across the community. I wonder what we can learn from all of this. At the least, it seems very obvious to me that it’s Fæ who should be banned.67.168.135.107 21:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

  I dispute the relevance and the factual accuracy of your assertions. One has to love it when the brave come in to muddy the water with anonymity, throwing aspersions, and not addressing the issue at hand. Deal with the matters at hand and if you wish to have a separate discussion about your concerns then please start it. See troll.— Preceding unsigned comment added by billinghurst (talk • contribs)

  • I was trying to be polite by not mentioning that you, Billinghurst, were a big part of the problem on Wikisource. When Ottava asks for a sysop to be removed following an error in judgment of this nature, it's only natural that you sympathize. So Ottava's contentious, annoying, etc. He's an honest man, which counts for a lot when one considers that the veracity of a wiki is premised upon trust. By real-world standards, Ottava's done absolutely nothing wrong. The same cannot be said for your freakish pets67.168.135.107 23:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

    Meh! Enjoy your distorted reality, though I don't see why we need to be burdened with it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Support indef per long history of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose - O.R. is endlessly argumentative, but (as for example Herbythyme's talk page shows) it takes at least two to create an interminable argument. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yup, and you should know. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• But it takes a master to end up being part of every argument. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

  Well he has been shown to be a baiter. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose - This user's approaches may be viewed as eccentric by some groups consisted of users who have silimar point of views. However, there is some truth in what this user says. And I think this user have an interesting eye for issues. Even if users deny this is revenge, seen from third parties, it just looks to me like games of revenges. This issue must be reconsidered when involved users can keep their coolness. Takabeg (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Support indef. I'm sorry, but there's a reason Ottava is already indeffed from two Wikimedia projects (en.wiki, en.wikiversity; see also related behaviour on meta, discussed at m:Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima): it is an extraordinary signal-to-noise ratio in his communication; there are simply too many errors (if you apply incredible levels of AGF and assume they're all errors) and he is unwilling to acknowledge corrections or the validity of other points of view. He also engages in activity which those on the receiving ending may perceive as harassment, whilst being hypersensitive to any comments on this behaviour, yet freely accusing others of this type of behaviour (along with much else besides) on the basis of little or no evidence that holds up to scrutiny. This is cumulatively disruptive, as is quite obvious from anyone who spends much time engaging with him. All of that said, I would have given him one last chance to show that he can leave this drama behind to a reasonable degree (I'm a softie...). But this casual accusation of criminal activity (RL stalking of Ottava) against an admin on another project who had indeffed him crosses a line. Enough. Rd232 (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • • Addendum: Ottava has emailed me some details which show that the accusation is not a casual one; it's something he believes he has evidence of. However, the further details of Ottava's behaviour on other projects I'm seeing make me reluctant to change my vote - it's just too much evidence that the problematic Commons behaviour is a long-term pattern. Rd232 (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
      • "Something he believes" is still "casual", in any case how does it justify his disruptive behaviour? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I find it telling that you link to Ottava's comment in a request to desyop you that he started just the other day. Are our egos so fragile that we can't handle someone proposing that we've done a bad job?67.168.135.107 00:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
    • • I find it telling that you just look at the page title and not the actual post, which wasn't about Rd. Duh! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Not sure about indef (the user has some very good uploads), but at the very least ban on Commons namespace and talk pages is a long time needed thing. As Rd232 pointed out, Ottava Rima generates much more noise than useful signal -- even if he has some potentially good position in the discussion, he is able to find completely incorrect arguments to defend it. Combine it with constant harassment and bullying of the users he don't like for whatever reasons or simply disagree with, and you'll get a user without whom Commons would be a better place -- more welcoming and less combative. Trycatch (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Blocking would make Commons more welcoming? That does not make sense. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Why not? In the real life "blocking" of disruptive persons makes the world much more welcoming place. Trycatch (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Well obviously not to Ottava, just to every other editor he's likely to come into contact with, argue with, "harass", "bully", "annoy", "bother" etc. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure it out. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Let's just stop the hatred and personal attacks and get back to being friends again. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Under those arguments, we would block no one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Just to put Kevin's !vote in perspective. Kevin was a user who showed up out of the blue support Ottava's campaign to modify WV custodianship practices, as the first foray in his campaign of revenge after he was desysoppped. Kevin voted on this when he had zero prior contributions to Wikiversity.[9] The situation escalated, and when Ottava began threatening users with being blocked (by unnamed admins or stewards, the story shifted) "any time now," and my requests for an independent custodial review went without action, I blocked, and immediately consulted the community. SB_Johnny, ironically unblocked, for procedural reasons, not addressing the problem (which was one of my first clues that SBJ was a bit unclear on the concept), and much further drama ensued. In the move to desysop me/ban me, Kevin again supported Ottava's position.[10] Nobody was "personally attacking" Ottava, he was on the offensive, against an array of users (not just me) and this has been repeated, over and over. People like Kevin, who have enabled Ottava, including administrators who have unblocked him, for example, on off-wiki assurances of good behavior, and then who paid no further attention when he returned, rapidly, to the problem activity, as happened at meta. Good people, I assume, but naive. I am not !voting here because I'm not a regular Commons user, I just want people to know that Ottava's behavior has continually incited such responses, and he is definitely out to punish anyone he perceives as an enemy, and he lies to do it. And when others say he's lying, some people assume that they are lying, and few care to actually review evidence. He's lied here, about SB_Johnny. I'm using "lie" here, not as a moral reprimand, but to refer to such flagrant disregard of truth and sober judgment that the effect is as-if the deception is willful. He may believe these lies, himself. (And one of his frequent accusations, also seen on this page, is that those who disagree with him are lying.) Once upon a time, he was a valuable content contributor. He's become a troll, and he knows that. It's his expectation to be banned, he's acknowledged it.) --Abd (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Support I appreciate the effort of Herby to forward a real problem. No clear idea however about a possible neat solution. Like many contributors, I manage to avoid to get involved in such time consuming discussions of tens of pages that bring little progress. A real shame that such a well versed talent is used to bring no added value whatsoever. --Foroa (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I'm getting rather tired of DRs being filed with accusations that anyone who disagrees with OR are being disruptive and that holding certain opinions is a blockable offense. OR also throws around claims that people are lying when they're merely reading material differently then OR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • As per requests for examples: If you search for Ottava Rima in Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Disney_Junior_Logo.png, you get a long thread where he starts off accusing everyone of putting the WMF in danger and encouraging copyright infringement, and builds to "Making false claims about what others say is a blockable offense, and you have crossed the line pushing a view that has no basis here. I clearly said "only generic signatures are uncopyrightable", and your attitude will lead to you being removed if you don't cut it out It is one thing to be wrong, but you are being disruptive and wrong, which ends up only one way." In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Game-Genie-NES.jpg, OR starts out fairly reasonable, but ultimately to devolves to "Trying to claim an image of an individual and complex edges is somehow related to a case about a smooth blue bottle alone is disruptive and bannable. You are pushing what is outright ridiculous falsehood to try and rationalize keeping what clearly violates copyright law. There is no place for that here." This is fairly standard with OR; if you disagree with him, then you're being disruptive. [11] may be amusing in this context, but OR saying "Content doesn't matter. Bans are arbitrary, just like unbans. You should know that by now." demonstrates that he basically doesn't understand why he gets banned. I oppose any temporary ban; if his bans at Wikipedia and Wikiversity haven't taught him anything, what good is a temporary ban here going to do?--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "You have made claims that are factually wrong without doing any research, and that is disruptive."[12] Of course Carl Lindberg agreed with me against OR on this subject; the claim that I was factually wrong apparently is still {{cite needed}} and the claim that just being wrong makes me disruptive adds heat and no light to the discussion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
    • You are trying to say I should be banned for sticking up for copyright and defending Commons from illegal activity? That is really saddening and shows how your vote here is only for the destruction of this community. Your attempts to smear me afterward only verify that there is something really wrong with you. It isn't a coincidence that I've been the one actually harassed here, outed multiple times, had sock puppets attack me, etc. The opposition to the ban doesn't have such individuals among their numbers. There is a reason for that. You want to bully a person who actually abides by the rules and pushes for our policies to be enforced, and that is really not what Commons is about. Have you no shame? You made really horrible claims on many, many DR and you should never have been allowed near one. Now you want to get rid of me for pointing out the obvious and it isn't a coincidence that many others with similar inappropriate actions and conduct are joining you. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I further submit the above abuse as further evidence of why we should ban Ottava Rima.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose I oppose these pile ons of the so-called 'community' as a matter of principle. Playground bulling, stop it. Yes he can be very irritating but I found out years ago the easiest way to deal with him is to ignore him. Occasionally he makes some good points. Peter Damian (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Ottava is continuously threatening other people; if that's not appropriate behavior, then we should put a stop to it. If you don't like it, take your advice and ignore it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment Why is this a vote? Evidence/Examples of disruption should be shown by voters instead. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 17:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • You're quite right. Much of the voting is dominated by personal experience; someone should take the time to make a case that users without that can make a reasoned judgement on. Until then (or if no-one does), you can do worse than look in the COM:AN archives. Rd232 (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    • A search wont show anything - I've been with a clean block log for a year and a half and without any warnings because I don't violate our policies. You have defended in email Fred's telling me I should kill myself as a joke where that is normally seen as incivility warranting a block. I have never acted in a way even close to him so I don't understand how you can claim that I should be banned while defending him. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
      • "You have defended in email Fred's telling me I should kill myself as a joke..." - in case it wasn't clear, I ceased our email discussion after this post. It is bad enough having to correct your frequent misleading statements onwiki, where everything is documented; I cannot do this for email. And furthermore, I consider you (mis)using the comments I made on this topic against me a breach of trust; it was a private communication with no indication that I would accept it being made public. Rd232 (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
        • You stated that my statements are misleading, then give me permission to post the email, because I know for a fact that you right there are making things up and hoping you can claim I am making misleading statements without any proof because there is none. And anyone can summarize private correspondence without a problem. Your defense of really, really bad behavior in email with your unjustified statements is something that the community really needs to consider. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose Btw, I think everyone who does not share my opinion should be blocked (or what is this about?). --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Whatever it's about, it's not about his opinion. For me, it's about his continuous accusations of lying and disruption and demands that anyone who disagrees with him should be blocked.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Not to mention the continuous hypocrisy and his marvellous gift of hyperbole. He could also do with a getting himself a sense of humour whilst he's at it too. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support The patience of the Commons community is not limitless. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Quickly wearing out his welcome across the project, Commons is just the latest front. Tarc (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • User's first edit since 29 Nov 2011, and 7th edit on Commons. Rd232 (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment I have been really bothered just following the edit patterns of Ottava on numerous pages on my watchlist and on AN in the last month or so. For a majority of the time I have experienced the edits as uncollegial and non-mellow, and with a lack of empathy. I am very happy to see what appears to be some kind of introspection and self-reflection now being applied by OR, both with an apology on Herbys page, and a statement of disengagement here in this thread. Although it is late for that, I am so naive to consider it a sincere attempt to change, and as I do not see any kind of disruption going on right now. Therefore, I do not see any reason for blocking right now, since blocking is not a punishment but a tool to prevent disruption. Moreover, I am glad to see that OR does not seem to take the bait which is repeatedly being laid out by Fred the Oyster. I find this baiting counter-productive, and I request that also FtO applies a little introspection in this process. FtO systematically ridicules a user in this section, which is being critized in public. This is also uncollegial and counter-productive in my opinion. --Slaunger (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ottava isn't being quiet out of good character, or because he's willingly disengaged, that isn't in his character. He's gone quiet because things have backfired on him per WP:BOOMERANG. He has to stay quiet or risk alienating yet more !voters. If your only experiences of Ottava are based on a few pages over the last month then you do not know the guy at all. I've been watching him pull this shit for years. He just gets better at it and as a result cons folks like yourself. This is the guy who is quoted as saying that he will do, say or agree to anything to get his own way. I'm not in a position at the moment to give you the exact quote and the link to it, but I shall dig it out tomorrow (UK). Please don't fool yourself, Ottava is a real piece of work, take it from me I know him better than you which is why I take the piss out of him. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• You may be right that it is a deliberate disengagement to avoid backfire, but per AGF, I do not see a reason to block as long as the current disengagement lasts. But I do think you fill a disproportionate fraction of this thread, which seems to add no new information, but just has the purpose to alienate OR. For me it is like being in a court room and someone throws rotten tomatoes while yelling at the accused. That is something which belongs to caricatures of medieval court rooms and it is incivil in my book, nomatter if the accused is guilty or not. --Slaunger (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Support So much for my AGF hope of self-reflection, introspection and disengagement. I do understand that Ottava reacted on Fred the Oysters repeated spiteful comments after first disengaging, and I endorse the block on Fred to prevent further disruption, but that Ottava still does not get that many user feel harassed, and that he consistently continues to twist facts, make me change my mind. I am reluctant towards an indef block unless it is conditioned that Ottava can return if he acknowledges that his actions were disruptive to the community. I could also support a solution, where Ottava is banned from participation in community and user pages, and can continue making good contributions in the File name space. If contributions in File name space was non-disruptive for, e.g., three months, he could be granted access to all name spaces again, or be banned entirely from Commons. I am in doubt though, if the latter restricted access approach is practically realizable. For instance if one of is uploads were nominated for deletion, should he not be allowed to participate in the discussion of that? --Slaunger (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Anyone can feel harass, and anyone can make up a false claim of feeling harassed. We do not work that way, and saying that people feel harassed without any evidence is harassing me. Wikipedia has that in its policy for a very clear reason/ You claim that I have to acknowledge my actions were disruptive? Which ones? Where I asked for proof of wrong doing? That is the very basis of everything. To request and support a ban, you need actual evidence that warrants it. You can't just say "I feel this is true". There has been absolutely no evidence because there is no evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Support taking his behaviour on other wikimedia projects into account --Neozoon (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC

•  Oppose, as a matter of principle. Pitchfork politics is never a good thing. Everyone should return to their respective corner at this point and let project affairs get along as usual. Blurpeace 01:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Until the next time? And how many times after that is acceptable to you? --02:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• If you don't like how this is being done, how should it be done? Or is there no way that someone who is not a complete vandal who gets blocked on sight but is considered disruptive nonetheless to be dealt with?--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Support blocking is a preventative action to stop on going disruption to activities of Commons, after going thru the events of the last week or so I see why such action is necessary over that same period I can also see that what was needed was an immediate block but that would have just inflammed an already tense situation. This discussion to get wider community input was the only alternative available, I'll say again Commons is reaching apoint where it should consider something like ARBCOM to address these types of issues, without it conditional sanctions arent readily enforcable by the whole community. Indef blocking OR is they way to prevent further disruption Gnangarra 04:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support He hasn't changed his offensive behavior over 1 year. I don't see there is a possibility to change his behavior. – Kwj2772 (msg) 09:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose for indef, but  Support for a 3-month-block followed by a sort of probation time of some months. In case the user returns to his problematic behaviour, then an indef block follow. --Túrelio (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose} 100% oppose what is extremely disappointing. Russavia asked for everyone to disengage from the beginning, and I accepted because I trusted his neutral judgment. What I get in reward is to be nastily attacked, dragged through the mud by people canvassed from WR, told to kill myself, etc. I have not been blocked in over a year and a half. There are no warnings against me. This situation started when I thought Herbythyme unfairly singled me out and I asked for any proof. He claimed he felt that I was harassing people but provided no evidence. I asked for evidence and it came to here instead. Still, no one has pointed to links or diffs of my supposed wrong doing that warrants an indef. We do not go from no blocks and warnings to indef. We also don't allow some of the most nasty and vile harassment that I have suffered through this. I had a sock puppet out me twice while making nasty homophobic slurs against me. I had another user posting repeatedly pictures of underwear while harassing me. People who voted in support for Fae have come out en masse to ban me as have people who have very little background here following a post on Wikipedia Review looking for support to ban me. Is this what Commons is about? Immediately banning people without any actual evidence or proof of something that warrants it while allowing for some of the most vile insults and attacks to be made? How is any of that fair or appropriate? How does any of the above aid this project in any way? If I am banned, I have no faith that Commons will continue as a true project because it means that the policies that the community once passed are completely meaningless. This is utter anarchy, and it deeply saddens me to see this happen in a community I've been part of for a very long time. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Support His interaction with me under "Response" below is a good example of the behavior that I don't like.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing down there is incivil or a violation, or even inappropriate. "I don't like what he said" is not an appropriate ban statement. You also claimed that Herby was not saying I harassed people, but that is not a legitimate claim when someone throws out an accusation - it doesn't matter if you "think" it or claim it as fact, it is still an accusation and still needs to be verified with evidence according to our policies. Your vote above is exactly why I and many others feel that this vote is a sham with many people making really inappropriate claims that will only destroy Commons. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose It takes two to tango, and if you've got into a tussle with him then either grow a spine or ignore him. John lilburne (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support – user's contrib history since about 23 Dec is something like ~16 File contribs to ~200 Talk contribs. At this rate, WMF will be dedicating an entire server to his talk history. Doesn't even seem to work on Commons material between replying argumentatively to people, just seems to sit there, wait for a reply he dislikes and respond. In the time in-between why not continue to contrib objectively? Don't see any inclination that user is interested in anything but feeding the drama and provoking others. Ma®©usBritish ^[Chat] 22:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Did you bother to see how big those files are? They are compiled myself by hand and formatted. It takes a lot of work to produce even one of those documents. And how is voting on deletion nominations not work? That is what most people do. Merely uploading images isn't what all Commons is about and I find it odd how you think I should be banned because I don't contribute enough images. That isn't a blocking rationale or part of our blocking policy. And how can you say I waited to reply when I left for quite a bit? Your support doesn't make any sense. Also, why did you criticize Russavia for warning Fred when everyone else felt that Fred deserved to be warned for his attacks on me? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe it doesn't, but this does: your responses to everyone who "supports" your block represents a huge WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. This is not about me, or my responses, or anyone else's for that matter. You seem to realise you're in a bad predicament, and want to drag as many of your detractors down with you as possible, even if you don't know them. Clearly, you are dangerous to the project. I did not in fact criticise Russavia, but Fred's observation that Commons is mellow. You obviously didn't see that, so kindly mind your own business, and do not attempt to manipulate things you do not understand. Also, I don't believe file size matters. And given your behaviour is detrimental, as you seem to tip the balance between "contributive" and "disruptive" the wrong way. I don't know you, don't like or dislike you, I simply exert my right to support a block. That's how this system works. You're not supposed to fight it, but to accept it. No hard feelings, but.. tough luck. End of. Ma®©usBritish ^[Chat] 22:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Any outside observer can see that I have responded to very few supports of my ban and that I purposefully walked away on Russavia's advice for many days. Marcus's claims are not founded in looking at what actually happened. He accuses me of being dangerous to the project because I pointed out his assessment of how many uploads I had ignored that each djvu that was hand built by myself with many, many hours worth of work had hundreds of images in them. He claims "file size does not matter" but said I did not do enough work by listing only edits. This is a mentality at odds with Commons. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• You've responded to a number of supporters here, even going so far as to harass usertalk pages, including mine. Blatant trolling. This isn't an election, and I doubt you're doing yourself any favours by attack those supporters through snide remarks or trying to make bad out of their contribs. The only person being assessed here is YOU. See the WP:IDHT accusation above? It's well founded. Ma®©usBritish ^[Chat] 22:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• You've revealed that your vote was made to disrupt. You cannot honestly or civilly claim that my post on your user talk page is "harassment" or "blatant trolling". You claimed I only added a few images when I pointed out I uploaded hundreds. Strike your personal attacks or I will ask an admin to intervene. If you can't respond to people decently then there is a major problem, and it is obvious that if you are going to behave in that manner while claiming I should be banned that you have no clue how people are supposed to behave on Commons. And if you think that I'm the only one assessed and that you are allowed to get away with such nastiness then you will only find out the hard way that such is not true. Everyone is supposed to treat people decently and you have shown your unwillingness to do just that. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• You can ask the Queen of England to intervene for all I care. You are simply digging a deeper hole; how can I "disrupt" a consensus which is already not in your favour? Foolish remark. And how do you have the nerve to dictate to people hoe they're supposed to act when this consensus is about your conduct, and you're indef'd from 2 other projects? Hypocrite? I don't need to be willing to do anything other than  Support your block. If you feel you have the right to argue the toss with everyone doing that, go right ahead. You won't gain anything, and I have nothing to lose. You're living in in the realms of fantasy where you're always right, and everyone who wants you blocked is uncivil. Keep playing that stuck record, and humming the same tune. I have nothing more to say, and won't strike anything. An admin wouldn't need to intervene, if you hadn't been imposing in the first place. You only have yourself to blame. Ciao! Ma®©usBritish ^[Chat] 23:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• (ec) I see no such comment that Marcus's vote was disruptive, nor has he been anything but decent in his interaction with you here. I believe the biblical phrase (Matthew 7:3) is And why behold you the speck that is in your brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in your own eye? -mattbuck (Talk) 23:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Decent interaction now means to call people trolls for pointing out that my uploads were more than just a handful? Where is my statement harassment or trolling? No one can rightfully claim it is so so his response claiming otherwise is flat out wrong and your attempt to say he is correct in making the claims is really inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Trolling/harassing is in the act, not the words. Will you just get the point, and shut up.. I'm not changing my !vote, no one will remove it, so you're not gaining anything. WP:SNOW. Ma®©usBritish ^[Chat] 23:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• It isn't a vote, it is a discussion. That combined with your misquoting of something that clearly does not pertain shows that your rationale was meritless. Any objective admin would discount it, especially with your bad claims about my contribution history which were proven false and met by inappropriate and incivil claims of trolling by you. Your own behavior verifies why your opinion should be ignored. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• "It isn't a vote, it is a discussion." – Wow, I wondered why I placed an ! before the word vote to create !vote. I thought you were supposed to be experienced? As for you, yes it's a discussion.. one which you're keen to usurp. Your constant blah blah blah replies and belligerence verifies why you should be blocked. My claims have never been proved false: [13] File contribs since 23 Dec = 18. [14] Usertalk = ~85. [15] Commons = ~220. Remember, this is MY reason for justifying my !vote (note the !) and therefore your rehashed totals are of no interest to me, and are based on false premis that "big uploads make me less disruptive". If you had tried presenting them more objectively, politely, maturely and less battleground troll format you might have got somewhere. As is stands, your attitude sucks, and has only served to highlight to reviewing admins even further what lengths you will go to to disrupt discussions. Clearly there is a matter of WP:COMPETENCE to be considered here, along with WP:IDHT, lack of WP:CONSENSUS, and persistent circular arguing. And yes, harassment. I've asked you several times now to shut up, and you won't. So add WP:POINT to your list of skills you lack to make Wiki/Commons work. Your plague of responses will only serve as a big WP:BOOMERANG. You wanted infallible proof, you got it! Ma®©usBritish ^[Chat] 00:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• You made a 100% false claim to say that I haven't uploaded that many images and, when this was pointed out, you attacked me, called me a troll, and made vile accusations that are not within our behavior standards. Instead of apologizing, you continue to act incivilly and abusively. There is no excuse for that and your unfounded attacks makes it clear that you wont be lasting long in this community because you are 100% unwilling to abide by our behavioral standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• [16] Adding 13 more frivolous, aggressive and time-wasting edits in the last 12 hours, plus 0 other contribs, to the count. More interested in WP:BATTLEGROUND than contributing, still remains my primary support reason. Ma®©usBritish ^[Chat] 12:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Re "user's contrib history since about 23 Dec", comment on 4 Jan - what the heck does a user's contribution record in a random 12-day period covering Christmas and New Year have to do with anything? Rd232 (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The time period is irrelevant. If he could manage over 300 talk and AN edits, he could manage more productive edits. Clearly he was active and Xmas/New Year didn't stop him from what appears to be his usual charade of jumping on other editors, running to admins and seeking to defend himself whilst belittling others. But as you pointed out.. busy time of year, yet it didn't slow down his disruptions which a number of other editors have noted in detail. Troubling mentality from someone who claims to be so perfect themselves, showing no humility. Ma®©usBritish ^[Chat] 03:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Since Christmas, I added 697 images (275 + 167 + 276 + 173 + 3 + 79) and not counting today's. Each of those were hand put together, cleaned up, formatted, etc., which takes a lot of work and it takes literally hours for them to upload on my computer. When I pointed this out, Marcus claimed I was harassing and trolling, which is really unfair. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

[17] says 9 files, and life's not fair. I still claim and stand by both remarks, and I don't think it matters how many hours, days, or weeks it took you.. there are many, many editors here who spend hours on Wiki and Commons, what makes you any more special? I've been working on an article for Wiki since last April.. that's 8 months, btw.. and I'm miles from finishes.. want to play Top Trumps or do you concede the point? Why the hell do you keep replying to me.. wanna go to a chat room or something, you're so persistent.. like a kid with no humility. Are you even surprised that people are supporting a block just based on your behaviour here in the last few days without even needing to look into anything else? Ma®©usBritish ^[Chat] 04:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

9 files with over 697 images. And it does matter how much work goes into them when you are claiming I haven't been spending any time doing work. You contradict yourself. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"Contradict" is clearly too big a word for you to understand. I don't make a point of how long my edits take, because I don't care.. time isn't money here. You made the point to gain sympathy votes. Didn't work. Ma®©usBritish ^[Chat] 12:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Now: "and I don't think it matters how many hours, days, or weeks it took you" Before: "Doesn't even seem to work on Commons material between replying argumentatively to people, just seems to sit there" - When MarcusBritish is provided clear evidence that his claims were wrong, he instead turned to attacking me. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ship sinking fast! I'll play you a song. *slow violin* Nearer, my God, to Thee, nearer to Thee!. Farewell RMS Rima. Ma®©usBritish ^[Chat] 13:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Præterea censeo Ottavam esse delendam. (btw: I do have an account with edits here - I just don't want to use it for !voting here out of fear of repressalia) 189.227.219.196 01:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment Please provide a reason (and evidence). Without a reason, an IP vote does not have any weight at all. --99of9 (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Because he's the kind of guy that makes me reluctant to express disagreement with him out of fear of how he'll react/revenge himself (given that usually I edit under a disclosed identity). I think ample evidence has been provided here and at other projects. 189.227.219.196 02:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• I am sad that we all waste our time in too much meta work than in working for the project - but it seems to be not really avoidable sometimes. This section here lacks hard facts for a indef block - few diff links. Instead there are quite some votes from non-regulars. Many of us, myself included, know of problems we had/have with Ottava in discussions (in one of the recent ones I have ignored Ottava at some point (22:41, 2 December) and he was asked to stay mellow for "attacking people and calling into question their good faith"). But I also think that Ottava does now know that he cannot continue this previous behavior (he may name it "annoy or bother"). All in all: I  don't support a block. I am even slightly opposing an indef block. Neutral for a temporary block (as e.g. proposed by Túrelio). --Saibo (Δ) 02:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no need for diffs -- Ottava Rima continued his behavior on this very page (see e.g. #Harassment). "But I also think that Ottava does now know that he cannot continue this previous behavior" -- why? Several indefblocks in other wikis didn't change him a bit, he didn't learn from them anything, why do think that just fear of indef on Commons will help? And it didn't help -- after the start of this discussion he continued the very thing he was asked not to do (see #Harassment -- he harassed Jameslwoodward over his use of the word "harass"). Not only he don't learn anything from all these comments, he simply do not have strong enough self-preservation instinct, so there is no obvious way to make him to follow the simple rules he was asked to follow. Trycatch (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
    • That section was started by me and was about false claims of harassment. There is no bad behavior there, but one of the users who agrees with you was blocked for his actions in that section. And "several indef blocks"? One was on en.wikipedia, which was a one year ban that I received 2 FAs and had both a Board Member and an Arbitrator move my content over during the time. The other was on en.wikiversity by a guy who not only did not have community consensus to have ops but who admitted on Wikipedia Review (where he is a moderator) that he thought it was fine to call me and people I know irl without permission. And complaining about the use of a word is not harassment. It has never been harassment. However, false claims of harassment like you have made are dealt with by the Harassment policy: "Making accusations of harassment can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly. " It can't get more clearer than that. Your continuing this incivility isn't good at all and verifies that you have no real claim here. You can't just go around throwing around claims without evidence and saying that disputing the false claims is evidence of impropriety. That is incivility on both counts and can't be tolerated. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
      • ^^^^ It seems that Ottava Rima works hard to prove the point of the block supporters -- he didn't change, he is not going to change and he will continue to do the things he was told not do unless he will be banned. Trycatch (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Again, I point to [18], a recent post where he said that "Content doesn't matter. Bans are arbitrary". To me, that shows that he has failed to learn from not one, but two bans from Wikimedia projects. en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava_Rima_restrictions#Statement_on_ban_appeal_by_Ottava_Rima specifically says "As he has exercised his option to appeal the ban, his block will now be converted to an indefinite block", so his claims that it's a "one year ban" seem counterfactual. And as that section pointed out, right before he appealed his Wikipedia ban, he was placed on editing restrictions at Commons, so even active carrot and stick seems to have failed to inspire good behavior from OR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
    • You purposefully left out that not only did I get 2 FAs during that period but that an Arbitrator moved over content of mine onto en.wiki and so did a Board Member. Furthermore, the claim of a probation here is not founded if anyone read the actual conversation. Finally, your own actions prove that bans are arbitrary, as all it takes is smearing and pretending that proof isn't necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
      • It doesn't matter how many FAs you got. What matters is if you worked well with your fellow editors. If you want to create Rimapedia, go for it, but staying here means you agree that you have to work with other people.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
        • 2 FAs after a ban shows that I am quite able to work well with others. After all, how could I improve a page without being able to directly edit it? Most people don't even have two FAs and I had two after I couldn't edit. I had 12 total. Your claims don't match up with the reality of the situation. And Prosfilaes, seeing Saibo's comment and him being the one I probably disagreed with most, your claims that I can't work with people is unfounded. I merely asked for evidence and others refused. That isn't my problem working with people but others being incivil and unwilling to back up claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Túrelio's idea is one of the best that I see here; however, Ottava's disruption needs to stop. Any proposal to halt it would be great. --Guerillero 04:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Early suggestion of closure

Conclusion It looks like there's a fair consensus for blocking here... shall we get to this? -mattbuck (Talk) 22:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC) You mean after only two days following a holiday with most of the people gone, heavy voting from WR people with no significant history here (and heavy canvassing from them and from people on IRC to try and get me banned, with evidence of both), abuse and nasty attacks by multiple users there, and many people like Russavia telling those that this whole thing is inappropriate and should stop? You really have some nerve asking for the above and your vile comments to me over IRC makes it seem like your statement there is definitely not in the best interest of Commons. There has been no evidence provided for a block, no blocks on my account in over a year and a half, and this is not the appropriate forum nor was there a true discussion or justification. I have received emails from 4 admin who were disturbed by this vote and who have not even responded yet, and the comments here mostly say that this whole thing is inappropriate. At least pretend to be objective. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC) I count at least 10 votes from Commons regulars in favour of indefinite blocks, and about three from regulars opposing. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC) I've already pointed out how you undercounted the opposes and ignored the comments that go against an indef as an appropriate response. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC) No, something like this needs to run for at least 7 days, unless the outcome is near-unanimous, which isn't the case here. Rd232 (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Fair enough. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC) I'm collapsing so that this doesn't distract the discussion. --99of9 (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment After the previous indef, Ottava Rima accepted unblock conditions that restricted him to the main namespaces. Were those restrictions lifted at some point? Can't seem to find a discussion about it anywhere in the AN archives. (Also, Ottava Rima doesn't seem to have made any mainspace edits for several months after the unblock.) I'd be interested to know what happened to the previous conditions which sounded pretty reasonable. Jafeluv (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The previous conditions were not accepted by the community. There was a private arrangement worked out. The person who I complained about being allowed to edit was indeffed for his conduct irl. I can provide more information off Wiki because of the nature of that person's behavior and what led up to the whole situation isn't fit for public discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Support I am not a liker of permanent bans, as they are generally not fully effective, and feel that a reflective break is more effective. In a comment above I talked about behaviour change, and I see no clear evidence that OR sees that he can or should behave differently (and no I didn't read all contributions), yet there are sufficient clear statements that OR's behaviour and approach is disliked found to be unacceptable to community norms, disruptive and often both purely troublemaking to the point that it is affecting the effective functioning of the community and administrative function. We are not all wrong. I don't see any indication that a different approach is possible, so if OR cannot be here with changed behaviour, and the choice is of OR or no OR, then I fully support the proposal, while not liking my decision.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Billinghurst, our experience is from Wikisource where I called for you to be punished by the community for what I saw as aiding Poetlister, who was a banned user. Not only was that behavior opposite of what you are stating today, but it shows a personal motivation especially without any proof. "dislike" is not a reason for a block. No one likes those who disagree with them. However, two people who disagree with me, Pieter and Saibo, don't support the indef block proposal. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

1) struck disliked and put in a more pointed and specific comment about my perception of the expressed behaviour; apart from the fact that there are many people like or love people who disagree with them. 2)There you go again casting aspersions, does it ever end? Not only is your commentary irrelevant to this issue, it again show how you deride people and twist a situation. I have no where addressed your behaviour or your circumstances at other sites, as it is simply irrelevant. More and more you are prepared to damage and injure other people to save your skin or to have your way; it is getting to grand heights of petulance and self-indulgence.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think incivil edit summaries are appropriate and why do you think such helps your point when you make claims against me without evidence? You accuse me of casting aspersions when you lack proof, cast aspertions, and then provided an unnecessarily incivil edit summary. How can you claim to have any right to talk about any others when you, in one post, have crossed multiple lines of civility? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose I find this quite challenging and I surely do not have an overview about all the late interactions of Ottava Rima. Ottava Rima states himself that he annoys or bothers but does not harass people. In some occasions I see, however, actions which I would call harassment like this edit connecting a user with previous accounts which was in no way of significance to Commons. Unfortunately, Ottava Rima apparently failed to see the problem of this as he went even so far to file a desysop request against the admin who revision deleted this for good reasons. However, I see also that Ottava Rima was himself harassed and despite of this he disenganged himself by retracting the desysop request and by following Russavia's advise. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As a note, I have talked to Fae directly about the matter and apologized to him on IRC because the deletion rationale (which was why I mentioned a possible previous account in the first place) was not what I initially thought it was - it appeared at first that there was a self-nom deletion and I originally felt that there was some hypocrisy in getting a self-nom deletion while opposing it in other places. However, it turned out that the summary used to delete was wrong and that there was an OTRS matter. This completely changed the whole discussion and made the previous accounts meaningless. I do not like how people on WR approached the whole matter and many of them also attacked me, which makes me feel sympathetic to Fae's treatment by them. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this note and clarification, Ottava Rima, and I agree that WR was a major force in this drama. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose per AFBorchert.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support; Community patience exhausted. Constant accusations of bad-faith actions have become extremely disruptive. Powers (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but any objective admin would instant dismiss your support because it is 100% false. All accusations I have made have been 100% correct, with sock puppets outing me blocked, users being really incivil and starting this blocked, it blatant that an involved admin wheel warred inappropriate, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Support

Speaking from direct experience, our excessive tolerance of users who mean well but are unable to adopt compatible interaction patterns discourages contributions from many people who would otherwise contribute more actively. In this case you need look no further than the responses in discussion (esp. in the hatted 'response' section): We see the same interaction pattern which can be found in practically every disagreement that has arisen with this user no matter how (un)important the subject has been. Collaborative work is simply impossible in the face of this level of dogmatic argumentativeness, egocentric interpretation of the facts, and constant resort to (slightly) disguised ad hominem. Prior attempts on this project and others have demonstrated that no lesser method than an indefinite block would be adequate.

For those suggesting lesser remedies such as timed blocks, which have been previously attempted here and elsewhere, how can you rationally expect any change in behavior when the involved party claims that everything is right and proper? Even though these measures have already failed to produce results? An indefinite block can always be undone should some evidence emerge that some change might be expected— should the participate say that they'll change their ways or limit their involvement to completely uncontroversial areas, but that isn't the case here and now.

I'm not sure why we have trouble indefing when someone constantly explodes discussions, in a rather objective manner, and insists they've done nothing wrong when we don't seem to have a problem when someone replaces images with penises and insists that that they've done nothing wrong. We may feel sorry for the disruptive user's sillyness, but we still should block to prevent the disruption. --Gmaxwell (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never exploded in a discussion and have always been calm. Your characterization is 100% baseless. You lost your use of ops on IRC because of your previous abuse of me and you were threatened with de-admin here by many members for blocking me because I said that Sue Gardner's statement that the WMF should not tolerate admitted pedophiles should apply to Commons. The embarrassment and loss of face that you suffered and caused you to withdraw from this community and IRC because of your baseless and inappropriate attacks on me then disqualify you from making any claim about me, especially when you smear me like you did above. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The above user has very few recent edits and only connection to this is his activity on IRC, where there has been quite a bit of canvassing especially in admin channels. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Just commenting to point out the claims above are pure fantasy and I don't want silence in the archive to be taken as agreement with the claims— I've lost no rights anywhere, I don't recall anyone "threatened with de-admin", I haven't been in any admin channels, or even directed a single new party to this discussion.--Gmaxwell (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Support, based on Ottava's actions in this thread. --Carnildo (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

My actions have been appropriate. Others have been warned and blocked for their actions. There is a reason for that. It isn't a coincidence that people have made accusations without proof, attacked me to the point they had to be blocked, there were socks that outed me, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The above user has very few recent edits and promoted the keeping of clearly copyrighted images while making really bad arguments about copyright law that were just not true (such as trying to argue that a smooth blue bottle with gold lettering was the equivalent of a complex logo on a complex video game device). He didn't like it when people pointed out blatant copyright law and tried to defend our policies. Even the original uploader was fine with the removal of the images and uploading them as fair use on Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. --Carnildo (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Peter damian, AFBorchert and others. Theo10011 (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose - I don't think Ottava is 100% responsible, or even necessarily 50% responsible for most of the drama that has occurred; he's usually had valid points. But my reading of the situation is this: people are just sick of drama and the likes. And I agree. That's why I pinged Ottava on IRC and told him I would oppose under the condition that he stop it all, right now, no matter how unfair any of it is - whether it is:

• Poor reasoning about images by Fred/Fry1989/Rd232/etc.
• Poor conduct by Fred the Oyster in a thread about Ottava's possible ban due to objections about poor reasoning about images by Fred/Fry1989/Rd232/etc.
• Rd232 unblocking Fred's talk page in a block for conduct by Fred the Oyster in a thread about Ottava's possible ban due to objections about poor reasoning about images by Fred/Fry1989/Rd232/etc.
• Arguing about the thread closure about Rd232 unblocking Fred's talk page in a block for conduct by Fred the Oyster in a thread about Ottava's possible ban due to objections about poor reasoning about images by Fred/Fry1989/Rd232/etc.
• Arguing about the block which was somewhat related to the thread closure about Rd232 unblocking Fred's talk page in a block for conduct by Fred the Oyster in a thread about Ottava's possible ban due to objections about poor reasoning about images by Fred/Fry1989/Rd232/etc. (this hasn't occurred yet, but it certainly could).
• Are you seeing a pattern yet?

Anyway, to get back to my point. He has agreed to stop the drama. And I actually believe him. Now, I've had the darnedest time understanding most of the supports, so my oppose isn't as clear as I'd like it to be (I prefer to take one side of an issue only when I understand all sides well). But this is my opinion. And I think Ottava is actually a better community member than many of us here. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

What's hard to understand about the supports? I want Ottava to stop accusing people who disagree with him of being disruptive and threatening them with being blocked. Before I accept that he'll change, I'd like to see him accept some responsibility for being banned from Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

That's the thing; you're doing here exactly what you want him to stop doing to you. You want him to accept responsibility for past grievances but to drop his grievances against you; he wants the reverse. Instead, I suggest it's a pointless argument and everyone move on. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about grievances. In the future, I want him to stop accusing people of being disruptive in DRs. That's not a past grievance; that's future behavior. If he has a legitimate grievance against me, I would like him to bring it out; so far no one has agreed with him that I or most of the other people he's accused of being disruptive are in fact disruptive, and the people he has demanded be blocked have not got blocked.

I'm not demanding an apology from OR, but if a serial offender is complaining that the justice system is arbitrary, I fail to see why we should believe he's going to change. In fact, I fail to see any evidence that he thinks the behavior I'm upset with is part of the drama.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Support block because ottava has wasted more community resources here than he has given and every response he makes is a new form of smear campaign to alienate and used an excuse to call other members out under the pretense of a defense. He's not a good member and has proved how disruptive he is willing to push everyone through the five or more stupid sections on this pages which incite arguments and aim to either cloud his own or make others angry and damage their reputation. I see a lot of reputations being damaged on these discussions but ottava is the one pushing the issue into hellish proportions against members and sysops with no sense of understanding what HE has done wrong. He's refused to take the blame for any thing while making others look bad. His defense is poor and juvenile and his conduct brings out the worst in everyone but appears to be his natural attitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.200.11.131 (talk • contribs) 7 January 2012 09.18 (UTC)

This comment is by an IP with no prior edits. Rd232 (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Disruption -- warning

I have now removed two images from this thread, and have given warning to the person inserting those images on this thread. This is a warning to everyone else, that if they should post such images to this thread, I will block without question for disruption of Commons.

I will also add that, quite frankly, that editors are acting in an infantile way. I am sure that I am not alone in saying that all of those involved are engaging in what I see as disruptive and battleground behaviour. I am again suggesting that you all go and do something else before blocks are handed out all around for personal attacks and disruption. russavia (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I struck my call for Herbythyme's block and I'm disengaging. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Harassment

This all started because Herby claimed that I harassed people and refused to give any evidence of that. Such a thing has always been against our policies and is universally prohibited across the WMF. You cannot smear people without evidence, and you cannot hide such claims behind "I feel". If you can't provide evidence, you have to strike your claims or withdraw. This whole discussion started because Herby refused to cite any evidence, and there isn't any evidence in any of the supports to ban me. This is especially true of James, who makes it clear that he doesn't need evidence to make negative and disruptive claims. That is not allowable and it is shameful that admin are not enforcing our standards. The only one who has actually been harassed here is me, who had to put up with being outed multiple times, have sock puppets harass me, have some of the worst incivility and attacks lodged against me, told to kill myself, etc. For any admin to dare claim that I harass others without any proof is so incredible inappropriate that it is a sign from them that they don't care about any rules and are really not here for the best interest of Commons. Accusations need proof and evidence. You can't just throw about dangerous frivolous claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

For evidence, see User_talk:Jameslwoodward#Disappointing where Ottava Rima has come four times in fifteen hours with insults and threats.
Definitions of "harass" include:

• OED -- "to trouble or vex by repeated attacks"
• my desk dictionary -- "to disturb or irritate persistently"
• Wictionary -- "To annoy endlessly or systematically"

Four times is certainly "repeated", "persistently", and "systematically" and, as noted above, he himself has said, "I don't harass people - I annoy or bother".

I rest my case.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ottava behaving like a dog with a bone and never letting a point go if he thinks he's right (which seems to be most of the time) can have the perceived effect of feeling harassed. For example, on Jim's talk page as linked to above Ottava harps on about "harassment" being a legal term and based on that premise he perceives himself to be right to deny the charge. In the process he harasses Jim about it. He fails to understand that we aren't in a court of law and Jim is using the everyday meaning of the word, the same meaning that the reast of us are using. So basically Ottava gets something into his head and charges off trying to make people see things from his PoV, unfortunately in most cases his PoV is so skewed from reality that most of us don't get it. As a result of that dichotomy Ottava gets frustrated and his opposite number gets harassed. Anyway, that's the way I see it. Ultimately because of his strange mindset he is being disruptive. The disruption comes because in being subjected to his 1000s of words of explanation and attempts to change your mind we are unable to get on with work that would better aid the project. Basically his rants do nothing to aid the project and take many hours away from it. It seems that the only way to prevent this happening is a block. A method deemed to be appropriate by every other project in the wikiverse. Anyway I can't think of an alternative that doesn't involve duct tape and headphones. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Going to a person's talk page over concerns is not harassment. It has never been harassment. As an admin, you should know better than to throw around such unfounded claims and I have asked two admin to review your actions and hopefully block you because you wont stop making absolutely unfounded defamation. Admin are not allowed to act that way. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Not if it's only once or twice about the same point/subject, but when you do it repeatedly, especially if your 'target' is unwilling to continue the conversation (either by direct suggestion, or by indirect means such as trying to steer the conversation to a conclusion) then this is harassment. If someone is feeling harassed then what you are guilty of is harassment regardless of what you think it is. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

1. An admin being questioned or challenged about their actions or statements cannot be deemed harassment when it is a direct and to the point challenge. 2. Harassment requires a level of personableness as part of it - being outed, for example, was true harassment against me. 3. Harassment also requires wikistalking, i.e. the following of a person between many discussions and pages for the sole reason to follow them. I have not done that in any way possible and no one can make the claim I did. I rarely post on talk pages, and my deletion discussions are not based on individuals or topic. Mostly, I page patrol and when I see a discussion hasn't had anything there or looks interesting I will opine. Making claims of impropriety without clear evidence is a major no no and it is that way to protect people from abuse. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"Harassment also requires wikistalking" -- no, absolutely not. Wikistalking is harassment -- harassment is not necessarily wikistalking. And comments like _this_ are why I supported the indef above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

And comments like yours are why I and many others think you were never fit for admin. w:WP:HARASS is very clear on how it is used. It isn't harassment if it is isolated and about good faith attempts to deal with issues. You should know that and your lack of actual participation here combined with your lack of defending our actual policies is why your vote and opinion doesn't matter. The only way for it to be harassment is for the user to be followed across multiple pages, which is wikistalking. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

In the first place, in case you hadn't noticed, this isn't w:. In the second place, the definition of the English-language word "harassment" takes precedence over Wikipedia's page explaining it as it applies to Wikipedia. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

No. Harassment has a very specific connotation and has ramifications. That is why the Wikipedia page clearly says Like the word stalk, harass carries real-life connotations—from simple unseemly behavior to criminal conduct—and must be used judiciously and with respect to these connotations. You are not to throw around the term without clear evidence regardless of what you claim the word means. All admin are supposed to know this. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Got it. In future people aren't allowed to feel harassed because some pseudonymous editor has written a definition for it. You'll be telling us next that Wikipedia is a reliable source. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If I said I felt that you were murdering people or raping people, that wouldn't be okay. Merely "feeling" something isn't enough to accuse someone of impropriety. False or meritless accusations are inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

LMAO. Could an admin please tell me at what point in this comedy am I allowed to start taking the piss? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Firstly I refer you to my reasoning of your behaviour above. Secondly you can use as many words and bullet points as you like to try to define it but none of them matter if the persona you are talking to is feeling harassed. You cannot turn to them and say "no you can't be feeling harassed because I haven't done bullet-pointed note #2". Can you not understand the very simple fact that if someone is feeling harassed then you are harassing them. It's a very simple notion, how come you aren't getting it? Do you require someone to fit into one of your definitions before they can feel an emotion? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the definition Fred, it seems a good one. To test it out, it would seem fair to try and apply this to your contributions. Making suggestions as aggressive as advising that an editor should kill themselves, as you did on this page for Ottava Rima, or offensive statements in deletion requests such as "You may have a predilection with penises, but I was referring to you talking out of your arse", I would certainly say are covered by your definition, particularly as your sustained high level of personal comments about me in recent days on different discussion pages have left me "feeling harassed". --Fæ (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I rather doubt you felt harassed, pissed off maybe, murderous possibly, but you aren't the sort to feel harassed. So during these periods of harassment how many times did I come to your talk page to harass you? Taking a few pops at you is hardly harassment, but if that's how you want to portray yourself then that's fine by me, so you say your felt harassed. My response is: either get some better come-back lines or don't get yourself into these situations as a result of your own machinations. I'm afraid I can't feel any sympathy for you and I am incapable of empathy, you seem to end up reaping what you've sown. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Fae. I find it offensive to be accused of harassment without proof because there is a lot of substantial evidence showing that I have been harassed here. I have been outed, abused, etc. Those like James, Sarek, etc. have no problem turning a blind eye to the real problems while lodging false claims against me. That is really, really upsetting and not appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you do make me laugh. I cannot believe that the infamous Ottava Rima can be so fey and thin-skinned. I can believe that you feel the sympathy vote is in sight and that people will believe you. Some will of course, but I rather doubt the majority will fall for it. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

From w:WP:HARASS: Accusing others of harassment Making accusations of harassment can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly. Everyone involved in this discussion knows this, and I have asked for evidence over and over without any. That is really incivil and inappropriate, and it is shameful that admin here think they can act that way. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Or alternatively you have been deemed inconsequential and no-one can be arsed to look them up. The problem isn't so much as finding the evidence, it's trying to narrow down the best one when there is so much to choose from. Now I have to admit that I've not felt harassed by Ottava, lucky me, but I have seen him harass others, repeatedly. Unfortunately this is a man who wiki-lawyers in defence of emotions raised in others. Rational discussion is not going to work I'm afraid. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never harassed anyone, and this is yet another example of unfounded accusations, which constitutes incivility. The above user was warned many times for incivil conduct regarding me and it is an example of how those seeking my ban are completely unable to act within our behavioral standards and our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Quit canvassing for blockers, Ottava. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that this thread is about you harassing people, I don't see that someone accusing you of harassment is out of line or incivil. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This thread is about false accusations of harassment and the unwillingness to provide any proof because there is none. That has always been incivil to act in that way and you know that. Major claims need major evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing? This is an admin noticeboard and the people I contacted are admin. Admin are supposed to be contacted about such incivility and blocks are the only appropriate response. You cannot make false claims like that. It is highly disruptive and blocks are the only way to prevent you and others from continuing to act in such an utterly destructive way. Your lack of self-awareness in your violating many of our policies is really damaging to this community. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

As this is an admin's noticeboard why would you need to cherry pick an admin away from it? Admins are already here monitoring it. But something just occurred to me. Out of your last 100 edits, how many, as a percentage, do you feel have directly benefited the Commons project? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Because the admin involved have stated something previous on the board and might not have seen the update that requires their immediate attention. Pinging admin on their talk page during a discussion somewhere else is standard. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

 Comment This very subsection is illustrative of why Ottava has to go. It starts with the claim "Herby claimed that I harassed people"; what Herby actually said was He states on my talk page that he doesn't "harass people - I annoy or bother" while seemingly incapable of understanding that people who are "annoyed or bothered" may well see it as harassment. This is just yet another example of the way Ottava views reality through special Ottava lenses, and it is virtually impossible to get him to remove them through the force of rational argument. Ottava complains about a lack evidence (rightly) - but given his own problematic relationship with facts, and the argumentative and at times wiki-lawyering approach (cf use of English Wikipedia harassment policy above) to the factual claims of others, together with frequent accusations of disruptiveness and the like, make it not entirely surprising that nobody has yet given a comprehensive overview of why Ottava has to go. Add to that the sheer familiarity (eg m:Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima, en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions), and it's unsurprising that some users mostly active on other wikis drop by to comment. Rd232 (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You annoy and bother a lot of people and people have pointed that out over and over. Does that mean we should ban you for harassment? I asked for evidence and no one could produce any because there was none. That is the very basis of our standards. As an admin, you have to rely on evidence in all decisions. So far, there isn't one valid support because there has been no proof. Your not only ignoring of Fred's bad behavior by trying to say it was fine in email shows that you don't understand the meaning of disruption or what blocks are about. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

So, on the one hand you complain about lack of evidence (rightly), and on the other hand, you're willing to cite private correspondence as if it were "evidence". To make matters worse, you don't provide a full quote which I can publicly verify as accurate, so that others can make up their minds based on what I actually said; you just summarise misleadingly. This behaviour is highly reprehensible, and frankly disruptive. Now, don't mistake me: this is not an invitation to discuss this any further. Rd232 (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I could easily post a screen shot. Evidence is evidence regardless of where the evidence came from. You tried to justify Fred's bad behavior as a joke while condemning me to a ban. That shows hypocrisy and that your support of an indef cannot be taken as a sign of good faith. Admin are required to act properly and your own overturning of another admin regarding Fred's block while involved combined with your attempts to justify his atrocious behavior are more verification that I was right to put you up for de-admin. You have yet to recognize how horrible his actions have been and you have attempted to get rid of me to hide from your bad behavior in this. Revenge isn't becoming of an admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I reject the accusation of revenge; I'm simply not the sort of person who does that. As for the rest of your comments: the best thing I can say is that they are a reminder that the very best thing you can do for Commons, Ottava, is to talk to every active user about a subject of importance to you. It is by far the swiftest and most efficient way to ensure that community support for your ejection is forthcoming. Rd232 (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Not the type for revenge? ArbCom said you made involved admin actions. You were proved to have made them here not only before but just recently in wheel warring against another admin's block of Fred. That by the very definition is revenge action as you are using your ops in a way that you aren't supposed to do it. The only possibility is that you are incapable of understanding that you aren't allowed to use ops like that, and since you've been warned so many times by so many people that it has become too blatant for you to plead ignorance. You were proposed to be de-admin and you want to get back at me. That is the only legitimate reason for you to try and say I am worthy of being banned without evidence while trying to excuse some of the worst hatefilled speech from Fred as a "joke". Ottava Rima (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"involved admin actions" - no, just one admin action, with strongly mitigating circumstances. And I admitted my error and committed to do a reconfirmation RFA (but resigned instead because I was retiring due to RL reasons). Whilst I would be greatly surprised if Ottava actually cares what happened, if anyone else does, I left a note with more details at Commons:Administrators/Requests/Rd232 desysop#Response by Rd232. Rd232 (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There are no mitigating circumstances when an involved admin wheel wars. You really should be blocked for this utter disruption. It is shameful that you are trying to justify. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is this troll being allowed to continue with his selfish campaign of harassment and circular arguing. They wouldn't tolerate this level of abuse on Wiki ANI.. he must have stolen hours of editor time to serve his own interests of goading his pro-block editors into pointless arguments. I don't see any level of intelligence or community interest here required to collaborate with people.. and I've never even crossed him. All he does is attack others, wikilawyer, lie, and spread rumours and accusations across admin talk pages whilst canvassing for supporters. It's an utter joke.. can't you just throw him at ArbCom or some form of RFC for his persistent war-mongering? The better this thread is closed, the quicker everyone involved can get back to doing what interests them.. and he can go find a new.. hobby and people to harass. And I say harass because his en-Wiki blocklog shows he has harassed people before therefore he is capable of it, whether or not there is evidence. A leopard can't change its spots.. and a spade only digs graves. Ma®©usBritish ^[Chat] 20:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Query – can someone tell me how long consensus' run for on Commons and for how long we have to watch Rima attack all his detractors, derail the "block !vote" and make enough WP:SOUP out of the matter to distract reviewing admins from following the main line of thought? Ma®©usBritish ^[Chat] 11:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• My experience is that discussions of this sort run a week or two, longer if comments on the substance of matter continue. It isn't necessary to respond to all posts. If it is necessary, one response should suffice. Once issues and positions are elucidated, further discussion is unhelpful. Heeding these precepts would shorten many of the discussions on this page and make them easier to follow. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Quite strongly in all respects per Walter Siegmund for what it is worth. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Breach of previous restrictions

As Jafeluv pointed out above, Ottava was made subject to an editing restriction on 10 July 2010 as a condition of an unblock from an indefinite block. Those restrictions were [19]

User:Ottava Rima should only edit uncontroversially, in the main, File: and User: namespace (including their respectives talk namespaces). Ottava should show that he has constructively edited Wikimedia Commons for 3 months, and after that time he will be able have to ask his mentor (hence User:Diego Grez) if it is an appropriate time to request the relaxing of the restrictions. Therefore, a new discussion should be prompted here (Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks & protections). If consensus is gained, Ottava will be able to edit again the other namespaces guardedly. If Ottava attempts to edit outside any of the already mentioned namespaces while restricted, he should be re-blocked at any admin's discretion.

Ottava accepted these restrictions[20] and was swiftly unblocked (within minutes, before the mentorship in the restrictions was sorted out; it's not clear from the subsequent discussion what happened in relation to the mentorship). However, no request to remove restrictions appears in the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections archives postdating his restrictions (5 through 9, currently). So it appears that Ottava breached the letter of his restriction; if he cannot at least point to an adequate discussion on removing his restrictions somewhere else, then I see no reason why the original indefinite block should not be restored. Rd232 (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

In fact, regardless of whether these restrictions were ever lifted, somewhere, Ottava's contributions show that they were not lifted before he began to seriously engage in the Commons namespace again. Rd232 (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The restrictions expired after 3 months. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. 3 month, then request to the mentor, then discussion on an admin noticeboard, then consensus on the noticeboard, and only then lift of the ban. Well, anyway, the restrictions were breached by Ottava in less than 3 month after the unblock, he began to poston various talk pages in ~1 month or something. He should have been indefblocked 1.5 years ago, but wasn't because of the lamentable (but, fortunately, amendable) mistake of the community. Trycatch (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Except that the community didn't go for it at all and there were many other things going on. The matter was between me and an user that admitted what amounted to criminal activity and has nothing to do with anything people are trying to bring up. You do not want to open up this bag of worms, especially in trying to claim that Gmaxwell's block would have stuck when there was quite a lot of people demanding his head over it and his abuse of another person's cloak in IRC to use ops to intimidate me. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Not only did the community not approve the restrictions and there doesn't need to be any "request". Stop wikilawyering something that clearly does not exist. I was unblocked not because of Diego but because of Gmaxwell who the original issue was with. You really have no clue what you are talking about. Diego was also a banned user from en.wikipedia and not an admin, and the community didn't respond to it for a reason. This is just more of people absolutely having to make things up because they have no legitimate reason to ban me. There were no legitimate reasons to block me in the past year and a half, so that definitely means there can be no blocks. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Q: Did you accept the proposed edit restrictions? A: Yes you did. Q: Did Gmaxwell unblock you in response to the proposed edit restrictions? A. Yes he did. Now explain to me again how the edit restrictions disappeared, with diffs (since I'm afraid I'm back to not being able to trust a word you say without verifying it). This is an honest question - maybe the edit restrictions did indeed disappear. But you were unblocked on the basis of them and cannot claim that they never existed in the first place. Rd232 (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

A blocked user does not determine restrictions. A blocking admin does not determine restrictions. The community does, and the community found them distasteful. The block was going to be overturned regardless especially when the user Gmaxwell blocked me over was indeffed over the very things I charged him with, which was off Wiki actions of a possibly illegal nature. That same user was banned on en.wiki for those possible off Wiki illegal actions. You really have no clue about the situation and your are fishing out of desperation. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I asked you to provide evidence for your claims. I am not "fishing" - I saw Jafeluv's comment and I'm trying to follow it up. You're not helping. Rd232 (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"I asked you to provide evidence for your claims" NO. You are the accuser. You made up a claim that clearly has no community consensus. Then you tried to justify claims of harassment against me without evidence. This is more of your blatant hypocrisy. You have refused to demand evidence when it was clearly needed but the accusations would harm me, then you want me to prove another baseless claim as untrue. That is completely incivil and really, really bad behavior. As an admin you are supposed to know better instead of being blatantly wrong to the point that it is utter abuse. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to know why you think there was "clearly no community consensus". At the link I provided the consensus is for the principle of the edit restriction, with the choice of mentor a point of dispute. (One user objects to the restriction, but it's not clear what alternative they'd have, and another professes not to understand the situation.) But this is moot anyway; if you agree to a restriction in order to be unblocked, then if you are unblocked those restrictions apply unless they are specifically overturned, either by the unblocking admin, or by the community. Since you refuse to provide evidence of them being overturned, I can only conclude that they were not. And you know what conclusion flows from that. Rd232 (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There were no counter proposals. There was no community agreement on a mentorship. There was serious doubt about the proposer of it. The block was already being discussed as being removed on multiple pages. You aren't objective and you've made it clear that you are willing to abuse your adminship while involved for whatever reason. Your statements here are completely incivil as they have been for a while now, and you are clearly abusing your adminship multiple times in terms of the block button. Why are you continuing to act this way? How do you think anything you are doing is anything but destructive to Commons? Are you purposefully trying to destroy it? Is your objective to chase editors away in any possible manner? What do you hope to accomplish when doing that? Having Commons all to yourself? What right do you have to act that way? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You can bluster all you want, but if you refuse to provide evidence that the restrictions which you agreed to as a condition of unblocking see Gmaxwell's unblock summary were somehow nullified, then it is clear that someone should reblock you. You can then re-appeal the indef-block from the same position you were in before agreeing to the restrictions. Rd232 (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. No one has shown evidence that there was consensus. Even saying that I agreed to the restrictions is false - I merely said I had no problem sticking to just File space for a while. Furthermore, the topic was on if admitted pedophiles had the right to edit here, and I was blocked merely for providing evidence of a user being an admitted pedophile. The user was eventually blocked because Sue Gardner's statement that it was only common sense for all WMF projects to block admitted pedophiles won out in the end. If you want to make this about if pedophiles have the right to edit and if I deserved to be blocked because I did not like that at all, then I don't understand you at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Claim: "Even saying that I agreed to the restrictions is false - I merely said I had no problem sticking to just File space for a while." Fact: Ottava's statement, based upon which he was unblocked, was "I'm fine with being restricted to just File space." This diff was already provided in the opening of this section. The cognitive dissonance here makes my head hurt - what the hell is it doing to yours? Rd232 (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The above claims by Ottava are, from my perspective, fairly outrageous misrepresentation of the facts but I don't see anything productive coming out of a discussion about it (and will not engage further in one). With respect to this sub-section, I think lawering about the restrictions is also non-productive. I think the simple conclusion that most people can reach here is that interaction limits were previously an ineffective tool at preventing the relevant problems. --Gmaxwell (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I can provide many links, emails, IRC conversations and the rest where Gmaxwell lost his ops because he used a cloak of someone else to make abusive blocks on me in IRC plus made a block on me because I insisted that Sue Gardner's statement that we do not allow admitted pedophiles to edit should apply to Commons. He was threatened with de-adminship by many people and he lacked community support. That he appears now when he mostly was banished from the community before is telling. Everyone can see that he is not active in the community because the community rejected him publicly and privately. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop attacking people as a substitute for engaging with what they say - especially when the attacks are irrelevant to the primary topic of the thread and unsupported by evidence. You're getting extra leeway because this discussion is about banning you, but you may find not all of Commons' 261 admins' patience for such behaviour is limitless. Gmaxwell dealt with you before (and the reason he blocked you is visible in your block log) and it is reasonable for him to contribute to this discussion. Rd232 (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Attacking? I don't label people stupid. I don't make personal attacks. Etc. I talk about behavior. Behavior has always been what people are supposed to talk about and revealing important information about background is essential. You are attacking me quite relentlessly and are doing exactly what you claim I shouldn't do. How do you not find that odd? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Repeatedly citing private email correspondence

Ottava persists in misrepresenting comments I made to him in a private email after I asked him to desist. This is disruptive and unethical. It appears that the only way to counter it is to quote myself (on that issue, of user:Fred the Oyster's "potassium chloride" as a way to get Ottava to stop remark) in full:

The potassium chloride thing I still don't understand; I only know potassium chloride as a salt substitute for diabetics, but he seems to think the remark qualifies as "black comedy", and in context maybe it was intended as "salt on a slug" sort of "solution", which is indeed very black, though whether one can manage to find it "comedy" is highly subjective I suppose.

Fred has a particular attitude and way of communicating which I guess I understand better than you do (perhaps because I'm British as well); I certainly don't think he "wants to spread hate", though I don't think he gets the cross-cultural issues in employing this sort of humour. (Or perhaps he just doesn't care enough about the risk of offense.)

Rd232 (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've shown 5 admin, 2 Commons users and 2 Stewards the emails in question and they agreed that you were defending Fred's action in an inappropriate manner. Your own quote verifies that you were defending Fred's inappropriate behavior. There is no way to claim there was any rightful action and a drug used in the aid of people committing suicide is not something you recommend. It was removed by an admin for that very reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

So you admit showing private correspondence to 9 other users? And from your use of "emails" plural, not just the one email we're talking about? Fascinating. Please list the names of the people (or email them to me) - at the very least, in these outrageous circumstances, I should have a right to contact them and discuss these matters with them. I won't respond further to your characterisation of my words; to a native speaker at least, the meaning of them is clear enough. PS "a drug used in the aid of people committing suicide is not something you recommend" - once again, "X?" is not a "recommendation" of X. Rd232 (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You think you have the right to intimidate them when I sought advice on how to view your words which were highly inflammatory and upsetting to me? You even posted them publicly and you somehow think what you said was appropriate? That is baffling. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I can only take your refusal to provide the names as an admission that you lied. You cannot expect me to believe that you think me capable of "intimidating" 9 people, including 5 admins and 2 stewards. Rd232 (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I can tell you that the two stewards were PeterSymonds and DerHexer. Of the admin, I talked to 99of9, Tiptoety, and Russavia who were previous participants and have commented before about behavior while being uninvolved in the dispute. I list those three because I came to them after they took the outside role and I was upset by what I saw as really incivil and inappropriate comments in email. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I've asked those users what happened. Your response makes me wonder, of course, why you've only named 3 of 5 admins. Rd232 (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I went to them after they were already involved as outsiders and did not vote. I'm not naming the other admin because they do not matter. You can go talk to the ones I list and see that yes, I complained a lot about what you said and how your on wiki actions revealed problematic actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

←I'll be honest, upon reading this and the note left on my talk page I became quite frustrated. This situation in entirety is becoming a witch hunt and one that I am going to stop participating in all together. For starters, yes, Ottava has corresponded with me privately regarding many issues stemming from this thread. I've checked my emails from him and can not find anything that resembles any form of a private email between the two of you. Instead most of our conversations have been me allowing Ottava to vent with little to no action taken on my half as a result of it. (If there is an email or a conversation that I am forgetting about where you did send me the contents of an email, please correct me Ottava). I'm not going to continue to contribute to this witch hunt further, Ottava already admitted to discussing your actions with other users; I'm simply not sure what going on about it for threads upon threads is going to accomplish. Tiptoety ^talk 06:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I must say, I'm quite unimpressed with these remarks. It may not matter to you whether Ottava actually breached my trust or lied about doing so, but it matters to me. Dealing with established users who are disruptive is always unpleasant. Your remarks about a "witchhunt", apart from raising questions about whether you're accusing quite a lot of people of acting in bad faith, make it substantially more likely that this ban discussion will fail, and we'll have to do this all over again in X months time when the leopard once again fails to change his spots. Rd232 (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

In response to this, Ottava has never shown me any private correspondence. Having a look at the diff, Ottava doesn't actually say that they have shown me anything, but they have discussed certain things with me via IRC. I am more than happy to tell you what I have discussed with Ottava. I asked OR to disengage from the AN thread. Which they did. I suggested that OR withdraw the de-adminship request. Which they did. I also suggested to OR that they disengage from particular users, yourself included. I also suggested that others do see a problem with their conduct and that they need to self-assess where any problems; real or perceived; lay and what can be done about that. Whether this means that they don't interact with particular users, then that is something that can be looked at.

I have been offline for a few days, so I have not looked at anything in any great detail, but after a quick glance, from a neutral outsiders stance, it does appear that you are both coming off a little too combative. Is there any chance that both you and OR can stop responding to one another, and disengage completely? Otherwise the community may have to look at something which puts a stop to it for once and for all. I can only echo Tiptoety's sentiments to some extent that there is a witch-hunt of sorts occurring here. I don't know the background of interactions between those involved, nor do I really care enough to look at it, but the disruption at this point in time is coming from numerous sides, and I am suggesting that this be closed off right now, otherwise the patience towards all of those involved is going to be exhausted. russavia (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

"Having a look at the diff, Ottava doesn't actually say that they have shown me anything" - well, no, not in the 2 diffs I included my user talk message; but in the very first response in this section you're commenting in, Ottava states "I've shown 5 admin, 2 Commons users and 2 Stewards the emails in question". Rd232 (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Realities

One of the issues in this discussion has been that, ironically, too many people know exactly what Ottava is like, and are willing to ban him based on direct personal experience, rather than relying on a case being made. That leaves others with question marks about what's going on, and little basis to make a decision. So a little evidence here - bear in mind it's just a sample, and similar behaviours can be found fairly easily by just wandering through Ottava's talkspace contributions.

One of the main issues is that too frequently his view of reality demonstrably differs from reality. Associated with this is an unwillingness to explain or at least admit discrepancies; when demonstrated, he changes the subject or merely disengages. Allow me to demonstrate with some recent examples:

1. Ottava claims in the section above "I've shown 5 admin, 2 Commons users and 2 Stewards the emails in question and they agreed that you were defending Fred's action in an inappropriate manner."[21] When pushed he named PeterSymonds, DerHexer, 99of9, Tiptoety, and Russavia [22]. I contacted those, and all except DerHexer (who hasn't responded yet) contradicted this: 99of9, PeterSymonds, Russavia Tiptoety.
2. Ottava claims in relation to edit restrictions proposed in July 2010 as a condition of lifting an indefinite block "Even saying that I agreed to the restrictions is false - I merely said I had no problem sticking to just File space for a while."[23] Yet what he actually said at the time was "I'm fine with being restricted to just File space." [24] five minutes before the block was lifted with the summary "Unblocked according to [the proposal]... and Ottava's acceptance " [25]. When I pointed this out [26], Ottava didn't respond.
3. A strikingly similar case from October 2010 on Meta: Ottava claims "I asked many stewards and meta admin and all say it is suspicious to say the least."[27] At m:Requests_for_comment/User:Ottava_Rima#Additional_evidence point 3: "however not one of the "many stewards" has said this on-wiki. This was checked by email inquiry to steward-l but has still has not revealed even one steward willing to confirm they made such a statement." And more: "I have IRC logs with Mard in which it was pointed out (and he accepted) that 1. DerHexer was online at the time and not an emergency..." (Ottava 02:47, 15 October 2010) - response: "Since i saw my name , i have adress that this utterly a lie , i have never told i knew that Derhexer was online + i have never told it was not an emergency" Mardetanha 10:21, 15 October 2010.
4. Ottava (17:23, 12 October 2011): "All you have done is put forth misleading statements, ideas, etc., including trying to reinforce a claim that a smooth blue bottle is some how the same as a complex logo." But in fact: "Nobody has claimed that a blue bottle is the same same as a complex logo; we've claimed that a blue bottle is the same as the uncopyrightable chassis of the Game Genie device, and the complex logo is the same as the label on that blue bottle." Prosfilaes 17:44, 12 October 2011. Naturally, Ottava's followup reply fails to acknowledge this.
5. OR claimed in a very prominent location (in the opening statement of a desysop request, of Rd232) that Rd232 had "voted" on an RFA where he had merely commented in the discussion section. OR later amended the RFA without an edit summary after Rd232 pointed it out on his talk page. OR's initial response, however, was an aggressive statement implying that Rd232 had challenged a different (though related) claim, that he had been "involved".
6. The exchange at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_24#Rd232 relating to OR's repeated failure to understand the difference between a principle (threshold of originality for copyright protection) established in general terms in statute, and a specific workable definition. No amount of clarification of the difference (see the Rd232 statements with added formatting) helps. This is made worse by the fact that the very same issue was at the core of the collapsed "unhelpful drama" part of Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_24#User:Takabeg. This began (just above the collapsed section) with OR (not unreasonably) asking for proof that the principle existed in Turkish law. Rd232 in response had said "I provided evidence in two DRs that the TOO concept exists in Turkish law." OR's responses [28] [29] were extraordinarily aggressive in the circumstances, and were followed up within 45 minutes by a new section at COM:ANU about Rd232 [30]. OR's responses also included the statement "Prove" is not factual., implying a quotation of Rd232, which was not the case, and highlighted OR's ignoring the difference between "evidence" and "proof".
7. a WMF Trustee on meta: "He made a few statements that misrepresented my comments here (similar to those noted above), and misrepresented a brief communication he had with me in private. (I would discourage others from having private discussions with Ottava, since they may change rapidly in recollection. I am limiting myself to on-wiki discussions!)" (04:31, 4 September 2011)

The other main issue, I think, is the frequency with which Ottava assumes bad faith, and acts very aggressively towards users he has disagreements with. Examples:

1. at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_22#User:Ottava_Rima (00.13 12 October 2011): "Proposed: topic ban Carl Lindberg, Carnildo and Prosfilaes from all copyright related discussions. It is clear that their attempts to apply a ruling [...] is not productive nor in the best interest for Commons to allow them to participate in such discussions. The absurdity in the argument, [...] shows that they are actively disrupting conversations." In case the bad faith accusation isn't obvious enough, previous remarks included (23:39, 11 October 2011) "...These claims are so absolutely absurd that they cannot have any rightful place in an honest discussion..." This followed from such aggressive statements as "Trying to claim an image of an individual and complex edges is somehow related to a case about a smooth blue bottle alone is disruptive and bannable. You are pushing what is outright ridiculous falsehood to try and rationalize keeping what clearly violates copyright law. There is no place for that here." [31] and "Yes, it appears that Clindberg, like you, and others, should have been removed long ago but have managed to abuse the consensus type system to push a matter that is completely against our principles. That isn't appropriate conduct." [32]

   In response to this proposal, Jmabel said (and several agreed and none disagreed, except Ottava) "Carl obviously knows more about copyright law than any other one active contributor we have. The idea that we would topic-ban such a person over someone thinking his logic was wrong in one particular extrapolation is absurd, and says far more about the person making the proposal than it does about Carl."

2. In response to this request to "relax a bit" and the observation "you're crossing a line in attacking people and calling into question their good faith.", OR says "Your attempt to claim that I am some how not mellow while not having any clue about me is an actual personal attack, and your false accusation on my talk page is furthermore such." Yet OR had made comments like "I'm baffled by this comment by Saibo and I find it 100% impossible to assume good faith." [33]

Further, let's be clear that much of this behaviour is very closely related to what got him banned from English Wikipedia. Browsing some old discussions about him here, the following is strikingly familiar:

I've had my own little conflict with Ottava Rima recently. Now, I've looked into what Ottava Rima does here on Wikipedia, and my impression is that he makes some damn solid contributions in article space, so if he's got a view about what should or shouldn't be in an article, that's not a view to disregard lightly. But... he has this terrible flaw in the way he interacts with other Wikipedians. He has absolutely no interest in de-escalating the disputes he gets into, or in assuming his opponent is anything but a crazed villain. The moment Ottava Rima takes a dispute into Wikipedia-space, he does his best to blow it up into an all-out nuclear flamewar. When confronted about his views, he is not above outright making shit up. When refuted, he just moves on to another line of attack. He is also a fan of the tactic of claiming that nothing is a personal attack except for accusing him of a personal attack. And I could form a support group for admins who OR has threatened with de-adminship because he disagreed with them about one little policy. So I shouldn't try to take a side in his dispute with Itsmejudith. I'd be a bit biased. But one day, Ottava Rima needs to learn how to coexist with other Wikipedians, because just making good contributions isn't a "get out of civility free" pass. rspεεr (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And for those who think Ottava might have learned something from the subsequent Arbcom ban... the following is from October 2010, at m:Requests_for_comment/User:Ottava_Rima#Seraphimblade:

• Ottava makes unfounded accusations against almost any editor who disagrees with him.
• Ottava asserts the same point over and over, without any attempt to back it.
• Ottava posts "responses" to other editors that do not actually respond to or acknowledge what they said at all.
• Ottava refuses to accept that anyone but him could conceivably be correct, even when presented with evidence.
• Ottava mischaracterizes and takes out of context the positions of other editors in order to demonize them.
• Ottava is either incapable of or refuses to engage in collaborative, productive discussion, and often hijacks and derails discussions that were productive before he joined them.
• Ottava is uncivil to the point that I cannot remember a time at which he posted a civil response to a person with whom he disagreed.

These issues must be addressed. At this point, Ottava has been told an uncountable number of times that this type of behavior is unacceptable, has been banned or restricted from various projects and areas for his behavior, and still refuses even to acknowledge that any of his behavior even might in fact be the root cause for these warnings and restrictions. While Ottava has indisputably made a significant number of excellent content area contributions, his participation in discussions is invariably disruptive. I see the acceptable outcomes here as only a few. The first and most ideal outcome would be that Ottava would change his behavior to conform to the requirements of a collaborative project. However, he has had countless opportunities to do so, and each time has not. If that pattern continues, the other outcomes are that Ottava is restricted from participating in discussions, or is restricted from participation at all. While these measures are extreme and I recommend them with regret, no amount of good content contribution entitles one to act disruptively by harassing, belittling, and falsely accusing other editors. [...] Seraphimblade 00:32, 15 October 2010

Rd232 (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Procedure violations

This is our policy dealing with bans: "If the user continues the behavior once the block expires, repeat as above. If the user repeatedly continues the same behavior, a ban might be justified. Before doing so, please be sure to try other options to change their behavior. When in doubt, do not block; instead, consult other administrators for further advice."

At no point does Commons policy allow arbitrary bans by popular vote but instead gives a procedure. At no point does it allow blocks without evidence, which is citing diffs. It clearly states that before there are bans, there have to be blocks. My block log has been clean for over a year and a half. There have not been issued any warnings besides one by Rd232 and he was chastised on the admin board for inappropriate sarcastic behavior. Seeing as how this discussion was heavily canvassed on WR and IRC, the user starting it was blocked for inappropriate conduct, and many of the supporters having little activity or frivolous rationales, this is 100% inappropriate in every possible way. The only time my name has even been on the admin boards as a complaint by another was closed by Beria as warranting no action. Many people, both commenters and opposers, have pointed out canvassing and an inappropriate mob mentality. Policy does not allow for such behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• "this discussion was heavily canvassed on WR and IRC" - evidence?
• "the user starting it was blocked for inappropriate conduct" - you mean Fred the Oyster. But the thread was started by Herbythyme, and the first person to specify an indefinite block was Fry1989.
• "many of the supporters having little activity or frivolous rationales" - name the ones with "little activity" - are you sure it's "many"? And do you know what "frivolous" means?
• "At no point does Commons policy allow arbitrary bans by popular vote but instead gives a procedure. At no point does it allow blocks without evidence, which is citing diffs. It clearly states that before there are bans, there have to be blocks." Once again, you're under the mistaken impression that Commons is (English) Wikipedia. Commons does not have a banning policy, and Commons:Blocking policy says nothing about not allowing blocks without evidence. Rd232 (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• "evidence?" I'm not linking to the WR thread. Most of the people here know what it is and I do not want to drive more traffic to outing, harassment, taunts, etc. which are on a level that is unbearable. There has alrea dy been sock puppets from there that outed me here. Why would I give them direct links to such a horrible thing off site? How is that logical at all? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• How interesting that of 4 points you choose to reply to only one - and even fail to give a reasonable response on that point, since you could easily email me the WR thread. Again, if you fail to provide the relevant evidence (if not to me, then to someone else who can be trusted to verify your claims), then your complaint of WR canvassing cannot be considered to have any merit. Rd232 (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• "since you could easily email me the WR thread" Um... I did. I emailed you a few of the threads. And I stand by what I said about Fred starting it - Herby walked away when I did. Fred was the one to get the ball rolling. Gmaxwell is a new one with little activity. Most of the ones with little activity have been pointed out. I'm not sure why you want it to be repeated. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"I emailed you a few of the threads." - those two threads (one from September, with the last post in October; one from mid 2010) were about something else. You have claimed "heavy" canvassing for this topic on WR, and that's what I'm asking for evidence of. Rd232 (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I sent you 5 emails in a row following the complaint about Fred posting pictures of underwear. You never responded. I just resent the one link. If you don't get it then you've most likely blocked me or put me in your spam filter. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for sending me a new link (one not previously sent) to a current discussion on WR, which points to this thread. Whether a single WR discussion (now moved to the Annex) can be called "heavy canvassing" is a matter of opinion. Incidentally I replied to every one of your emails before you referred to the contents of an email onwiki without my permission. Rd232 (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

 Comment Actually Ymblanter was the first to mention a indef ("permablock" sic), I was just the first to put a vote to my name for an indefinite block. Carry on. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

True, he was the first to mention it, albeit with remarks a bit hedged by "if" and "currently". Rd232 (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Closure

Since things have settled down, and sufficient evidence has been provided of disruptive communication alongside the !votes, I am closing this discussion. Although I have had some minor administrative involvement in organizing the thread (mainly closing spurious sub-threads), I have not voted or actively pushed any opinion. Nor do I consider myself directly involved with any of the key parties, although obviously in a community as small as this, I have had interactions at some time or another with all of them. Ottava has contacted me on my talk page during the time this issue was being discussed, in order to request civility policing against those who attacked him uncivilly. I agreed with him, removed the attacks, and issued some warnings to some parties to remain civil.

I will firstly note that I have considered the arguments in this entire thread, and have weighed them more heavily than the exact vote. This is partly because blocks should not be the result of lynch mob (un)popular votes, and partly because there is significant contamination of the voting on both sides by users who have not recently or do not normally involve themselves in such discussion, and as such I suspect that the numbers may be influenced by the widespread publicity this case has received (or canvassing). Unfortunately when discussions about "notable" users are publicized widely, some of the users who come to comment come because they are either somehow involved or prejudiced one way or the other. Some, as I've mentioned already, behaved utterly irresponsibly and rudely, and only get away with short blocks or warnings because they do not have an established pattern or history of disruption. This all makes it difficult for them to evaluate the situation neutrally, and makes a simple vote count utterly unreliable. However, for those interested in vote counts: Overall it is approximately 23 support, and approximately 13 against (although obviously Ottava's "vote" doesn't count at all). Administrator wise (this is after all, a board to seek Admin decisions) it is 11 support, 4 oppose (indef block). Though obviously some votes are nuanced (thank you... nuanced votes have often thought the issues through carefully). Both of those tallies support consensus for a block, and that is my reading of the weighted discussion too.

For a time this thread was mostly devoid of evidence, and Ottava rightly pointed out that that is problematic. For those of us that participate regularly in discussions of this nature, we need to keep reminding ourselves to provide as many diffs as possible to focus discussion and conduct fair investigations. I have only supplied a limited number of diffs in these concluding remarks, for two reasons. Firstly, the standard of evidence has gradually improved to a solid mass. Secondly, I think all of the disruptive behaviours I will list are fairly obvious in Ottava's communications on this very thread (to the neutral observer). On a reasonable request I am willing to supply further diffs in time if there is a genuine question about whether one or two of my summaries are justifiable.

Decision

Ottava is blocked.

This block is listed as indefinite, but can be lifted any time after 1 month if it is agreed in a public discussion that Ottava meets the following conditions:

• Admits responsibility for, and commits not to continue:

• excessive accusations and disproportionate calls for exclusions, blocks and de-sysops, especially against those with whom you disagree. (e.g. Herbythyme, Rd232, ...)
• repeatedly seeking people out to further arguments spawned from another context, which has caused people to legitimately feel harassed. (e.g. [34]) Instead keep the discussion in the original context.
• seeking to discredit an opponent's argument or vote using: their contributions / their history / status on other projects / cross-wiki conflicts / opinions from another context. (e.g. [35][36])
• disclosing private communications without approval or notification (e.g. claimed [37])
• claiming the support of undisclosed individuals who have not publicly commented. Allow others to speak for themselves, don't presume to speak for, reinterpret, or summarize. (e.g. [38])
• misrepresenting the statements or actions of others in order to make them appear supportive of your positions or that their comment about you is a grievous personal insult. (e.g. [39])
• using "100%" as an adjective as though it makes the statement more true (ok, so maybe it's just me that gets annoyed by this).
• generally seeking drama

If the block is lifted, reblocking can be done by any admin who considers themselves uninvolved and sees a return to these patterns of behaviour.

Rationale

I've chosen the indefinite block length because I am not content to allow Ottava to sit it out and return to the same pattern of communication. Ottava's history of blocks and reprimands here (and on other projects) reflect many of the same problems I have identified above. Thus I think it is necessary to require the acknowledgements and commitments I've listed above before an unblocking. If unblocking does occur, I expect that the community will watch you like hawks, so Ottava, in addition to re-evaluating your communication methods above, you should re-evaluate your entire attitude to other contributors.

On the other hand, if there is a willingness to admit to the disruption, I think a one month block is entirely sufficient. In fact, if you had taken Jim's advice very early on in the process, I suspect the whole show would have been unneccessary. As others have mentioned, it is a very serious matter to put a serious block on a contributor who has good faith content and opinions to offer. As such, I have not made the decision lightly, and hope that you will take the opportunity to limit this to one month. If this is not possible, let me thank you on behalf of the community for your content contributions, especially in the field of historic imagery and documentation. Let me also thank you for sharing your opinions on how Commons should best go forward, even when they were at odds with some of the community. It is unfortunate that the communication methods you used often caused disruption.

Best regards. --99of9 (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments on the closure?

•  Comment I think your closure is wise and a display of excellent judgement and balance, which adequately grasps the essence in both the supporting and opposing comments and views in this thread. As opinions have been strong I doubt everyone will agree, but that is not possible anyway. I appreciate that you also state the good things that are to be said about Ottavas contributions. Being hopelessly naive I sincerely hope Ottava can get back after the time you have indicated in the indef block and start to work better with the community users. --Slaunger (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment this is a very thoughtful and well-considered closure, well done. I would say, however, that I do not think Ottava capable of what is being asked of him. I think the only way Commons could retain his content contributions is to strictly limit him to the File namespace (which he had after all agreed to in July 2010), with some kind of provision to allow communication via a proxy if absolutely necessary (eg a nominated trusted user willing to receive Ottava's comments by email and act on them, or post on his behalf, if appropriate). I'm not sure the community would except such a restriction instead of what is being asked, but I think it's rather more realistic than expecting Ottava to radically change his behaviour. Rd232 (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Note: this note of mine to Ottava in response to an email from him was removed with the edit summary "removing clear harassment". For someone so sensitive to being accused of misbehaviour, he does lack proportion in describing the behaviour of others. I didn't go into this in my evidence, but it's another pattern others will recognise. Rd232 (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment Mostly well-thought-out closure, with two glaring exceptions - your assertion that Ottava's !vote "doesn't count at all", and that this is "a board to seek Admin decisions", rather than a board to seek Admin action in response to community decisions. Neither of these invalidates the close, in my opinion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment Thanks for the feedback. Evidently we have some philosophical difference on the purpose of the board/admins. I don't mean to imply that administrators are to act as some kind of overlords that disregard community opinions/decisions. But nor do I see administrators as automatons who wait to press buttons until the community presents a package signed, sealed and delivered. We do have a role (especially at this board) in weighing and gauging the community opinions in the context of policy, especially when the community has many divergent voices, which I view as a collaborative decision making role. --99of9 (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Policy and precedent are community decisions, and it's entirely possible for an admin to act properly on the basis of a single report here without further discussion, as long as the community's will is clear. Admins who make decisions against the community's will tend not to remain admins (simple statement of fact, no further implications should be drawn).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment Regarding Ottava's "vote", I'm either very surprised by your opinion, or you have misunderstood me. My phrase in context did not include the ! symbol. In the if-we-imagine-doing-this-all-numerically section I said "obviously Ottava's "vote" doesn't count at all". It seems obvious to me that if it was a straight vote, the subject of a proposed block would not get a vote. Personally if I were under examination, I would not even try to vote. Can you point to any other context where a blocked party got counted in the vote to block themself?? On the other hand, your use of "!vote" suggests that you simply mean his comments and opinions should be given due consideration. And if that's what you mean, then I agree entirely, and certainly considered them (I've even mentioned them, sometimes favourably, elsewhere in my closure). --99of9 (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think we mean the same thing here, and are just differing on terminology. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• If it were a straight vote that wasn't limited to administrators, I don't see why he wouldn't get a vote. I don't know of any vote that excludes interested parties merely for being interested.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Well quite. Why shouldn't an accused be one of the jury members? (Unnecessary disclaimer: that was a metaphor.) Generally, the subject of an onwiki discussion (request for rights, request for block, etc) doesn't get a "vote", because that would be silly. (Of course a a closure is not a headcount - with the exception of some request for rights like RFA - as 99of9 explained quite well.) Rd232 (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• A jury member is supposedly disinterested; no accused, but no accuser, no friends. "That would be silly" is simply not an argument; I obviously don't think it silly that if we poll all and sundry, that we don't exclude one person for having an strong opinion on one side of the subject.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• "a jury member is supposedly disinterested" - true, the metaphor is pretty poor, actually, eg a jury does vote! Well, I don't think it's worth discussing any further here, since ultimately it isn't a vote so whether a vote by the subject of a discussion would count is entirely hypothetical. Their comments count, and that's what matters. (Although, in the non-hypothetical case of RFAs, the subject's implied support for their own RFA isn't counted as a "vote", and I'm pretty sure any explicit self-support votes, if any ever happened, wouldn't be counted either.) Rd232 (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment Wise move well done. If we start to have discussions spanning more than 20 pages, then there is generally something wrong that wastes community energy. --Foroa (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment A good decision made with a good rationale. I would have been happy for the block to have been for a month if I could be convinced that it would have acted as a wake-up call for Ottava. Unfortunately it is my true belief that there is no way in hell that Ottava will change his spots. Even his talkpage post-block demonstrates that he still genuinely believes that his actions and thoughts are the right ones. I would also warn the reviewing admin (after the month is up) that Ottava is on record for saying that he will say or do anything to get a block rescinded. So please take any promises from Ottava with a pinch of salt. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment Good block. Amusing that he continues to rant on his soapbox talk page like anyone cares. Expecting a "de-admin 99of9" thread here the minute anyone unblocks him.. Any unblock needs to be preceded with a solid list of point-by-point restrictions and point-by-point conditions of each point, to prevent future repeats of wiki-lawyering and evasiveness, and to give the community something hard to use as a contract if his unblock, and a looming ban-hammer for "100%" breach of it. Yes the 100% parrot annoyed me also, but not nearly as much as "incivil", not a word, used to the point of exhaustion also. Which he simply drove us and the matter to, validating his own block. Ma®©usBritish ^[Chat] 13:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

incivil, uncivil, let's call the whole thing off...

"incivil" appears to be a rare synonym of "uncivil" - en:wikt:incivil / en:wikt:uncivil. Rd232 (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Wiktionary is not a reliable source or something. Every single real dictionary I've just checked has no idea about such a word. --Trycatch (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incivil --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC) You apparently didn't check "incivil" The Century Dictionary, then. Or the OED, which quotes it from Shakespeare.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC) @Michaeldsuarez, @Prosfilaes I do not have the subscription to these services, but "incivil" labeled "Obs." in OED1 (and the latest quotations are from XVII century) so it seems it's a legit, but horribly obsolete word. Trycatch (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Christ! I would have been more impressed if you guys were debating over Rima's unblock restrictions, than how to spell a simple word. Get your priorities in order. Ma®©usBritish [Chat] 16:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Look who's talking: [40], [41], [42]. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC) A polemic response.. how quaint. Ma®©usBritish [Chat] 17:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Hatting. Friendly discussion on a trivial issue is one thing, but it seems to be drifting from that. Rd232 (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)