Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 13

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

Discussion of Pieter's block

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Pieter is unblocked and further continuation of this discussion is unlike to resolve the issues raised. Gnangarra 23:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Per COM:AN/B, I've tried to write up a summary of the issue, due to it not having been set out clearly and fully yet.


Okay, the background. In early April, Pieter was warned and topic-banned from Scientology for stalking Cirt and other issues over on en-wiki, TI think these two thread: en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive58#Pieter_Kuiper and en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive58#Pieter_Kuiper_2 are sufficient to set out the problems there.

At about the same time, Pieter was doing similar behaviour here, attacking Cirt's Scientology-related contributions. Cirt posts about this, but causes some confusion by failing to explain many of the issues. I'm just going to paste this in from Cirt's original post. I'm going to concentrate on what came after, as there's a couple really clearly wrong actions by Pieter that happened after this post, and I don't really want to spend an hour redocumenting Cirt's rather poorly-described timeline, when things I've already researched will show the problems in sufficient detail.

“ *20:53, 22 March 2010 -- Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) first became involved in a discussion I had started at COM:AN. This focused on a user that had tagged pages for speedy deletion that had been verified as free-use via COM:OTRS confirmation. ”

Cirt somewhat shot himself in the foot by failing to explain the background to the events, which is probably why this thread got so derailed.

Now, after this discussion began, Pieter attempted to rush the deletion process, to get something deleted while Cirt was actively attempting to address his concerns. This is a file upload at the time Pieter nominated it for deletion. It states a valid copyright release claim, but Pieter speculated it might bnot apply to the images on the site. Pieter told Cirt he was giving him a chance to deal with it himself before he nominated. Cirt took this chance, and contacted the website owner, telling Pieter this. Pieter nominated it for deletion anyway: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Lisa11-big.jpg. OTRS messages confirmed that the release indeed applied, and that Pieter's speculations were invalid.

Pieter then continues to attack Cirt through speculative claims of malfeasance in use of OTRS, engaging in unfounded speculation that the OTRS team got things wrong on a large numbers of Cirt's uploads.

These failed to be shown at all problematic. [3]

Finally, we reach this sequence, which I'll repaste here from above

  1. ShakataGaiNi gives Pieter a final warning to disengage, on pain of indef block
  2. Pieter is blocked [8].
  3. He gets unblocked. I shall spare you my opinion of this.
    • Result: He immediately returns to stalking Cirt's uploads. [9]) and ShakataGaiNi's ([10])
  4. I tell him to stop this behaviour until such time as he has the final warning declared invalid. I ask him to open a thread here to get it overthrown, before he blatantly flounts the warning.
  5. Is reblocked. MGA73 suggests this restriction to him. )[14])
  6. Bastique tells him "Vindictive behavior is disruptive. You're being blocked for being disruptive, which is a valid blocking reason. It doesn't matter whether it's an admin whose contributions you're stalking or another users, it's all the same thing. If you can reconcile these facts, and promise never to act on this behavior, I'd consider asking someone to remove the block, but you don't seem to realize that what you're doing is poisonous and permitting it causes great harm to any sense of community."

I think the final relevant bit is User_talk:Pieter_Kuiper#Suggested_a_way_out_of_this. I'll quote the opening.

“ Dear Pieter!

I made a suggested way out of this sad story Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Suggested_way_to_solve_this. It is not perfect but I strongly hope you will concider it good and accept it.

As you know I have supported that you should be allowed to hunt down copyvios and I still think that you should. But as everyone should be able to see doing that during a dispute can do more damage than good. We can loose good contributers if disputes get out of hand or continue too long. I therefore thinks that the best would be that you do not hunt down copyvios while you have a dispute with a user. Let other users do that.

Since you are blocked you can not comment on AN but if you answer here I or someone else will make a notice on AN of your response. --MGA73 (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear MGA,
I appreciate your good efforts, but I will not agree to those terms. Because those terms are exactly what Cirt wants. He intimidates anyone who dares to challenge him, issuing officious warnings, reporting them to admin boards, etcetera. Then arbitrators and mediators suggest that parties disengage. That is how Cirt systematically silences any opposition. Very effective on enwp, most people will back off. He has driven away good people that were not prepared to do that. I am disappointed that he also can get his way on Commons. Who else could get away with labeling non-government documents as {{PD-USGov}}? While unknown photos from the 1800's get deleted here, commons is swallowing contemporary camels. I will not put up with that kind of double standards. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 ”

He has since been engaging in fairly wild accusations. Here's a small sample of the invective found in User_talk:Pieter_Kuiper#Frivolous_Bastique

“ The intervention by Cary Bass seems to grant a high degree of immunity to administrators like Cirt. It is Cirt's complaint about my nominations that should be rejected. Just tell him to deal with it, let DR's be decided by free debate in the community. But muzzling criticism of the uploads of admins, his characterizing my DR's as "bad behavior", his reference to the existence of other stuff, and his reprimand of MGA73 [the admininstrator who unblocked Pieter - Adam.] have a chilling effect on Commons. ”

Though I will grant he has a point in the paragraph before that: ShakataGaiN shouldn't have closed the deletion nomination of her own file, although given there had just been a recent discussion of the image specifically on the point he raised, and given it was clearly him shifting his behaviour from Cirt to her, I think her closing it is understandable.

I think that's all the evidence. Now then, shall we discuss the block? Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

How about some sort of interaction ban instead of a block? One month where Pieter Kuiper is not allowed to interact with either Cirt or ShakataGaNai, and is not allowed to comment on any uploads or edits by Cirt or ShakataGaNai. Or maybe longer than a month? Or include other editors? And a general admonishment not to focus on any individual editors to the point where it appears to be harassment? Wknight94 talk 01:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, the problem is that's been suggested, and Pieter's refused to abide by any such restrictions. Indeed, his current block was because of him violating a similar restriction, then when unblocked (without discussion), immediately violating it again. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Right, and I am looking for something stricter - a formal community ban. If he violates the ban, any uninvolved admin can block him immediately. And if one month isn't long enough, then we can go longer. Bastique says this has been going on a long time - so make a behavioral restriction that lasts a long time. I am trying to come up with something that will make everyone happy - and a one-month block isn't going to do that in the long run. Wknight94 talk 01:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd certainly support it, and, once it was in place, I don't see a need to maintain the current block. Do you have a proposed text for the ban? Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Support in principle. First I would want to see a post from Pieter expressing willingness to put this behind him. Durova (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
In principle support of having restrictions in place for an extended period, would need to see Pieter expressing a willinginess to abide by any restrictions. Gnangarra 02:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it may be worth doing even if Pieter doesn't agree to abide by them, so that he has clear guidance when the block runs out. Hopefully, by the time that happens, he'll have decided to listen.
I don't want to harp on this, but he's got a very easy unblock by MGA73, without even needing to state a valid unblock reason. He was then allowed to continue the exact same type of disruption for a quite a while before being reblocked. He's now flirting with other administrators in an attempt to get unblocked again. Why should he think he needs to agree to anything, and thus restrain his actions, when nothing so far has managed to stick? Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I haven't commented on this matter before, but I see no consensus for block removal without careful consideration and until conditions or guidelines designed to have a salutary effect are in place. Too often, a lack of clear guidance leads to no change in behavior and the eventual result is an indefinite block. That is a loss for everyone. I think Wknight94's suggestion is sound. I agree with Durova and Gnangarra that Pieter needs to be more forthcoming that has been the case so far. Otherwise, further discussion is fruitless. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this block. It is true that Pieter Kuiper is not the most friendly person on commons and that he is a bit rude at times. But, he has done and still does a great job in tagging possible copyright violations and assisting with deletion requests. It is not "disruptive" to nominate files for deletion, even if they are kept. It is however disruptive to forbid a user from doing just that. Cirt might have or have not uploaded copyright violations, but he has no right, nor has anyone else, to forbid a user to investigate his files. Therefore, I request that this block be revoked. Kameraad Pjotr 09:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree. Saying that we need consensus to remove this block makes the assumption that there was consensus to instate a block in the first place. I really don't think it was the case. People here keep repeating we need to find a way for Pieter to stop his problematic behavior, but I do not think his behavior is problematic (and I'm surely not the only one). The right thing to do would be to unblock him right now, and then see if there's really a consensus to block him; not the other way around. –Tryphon☂ 10:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden, I was going to consider some verbiage for a behavioral ban of some kind, but it's hard to say if there is consensus for a block in the first place. I see several long-time admins and users above who dislike that Pieter was blocked at all (Finnrind, Tryphon, MGA73, Kameraad Pjotr, Docu - did I miss any?). Even I am on the fence. On Wikipedia, stalking is pretty clear - someone makes a minor edit to every article you touch; someone comments - and disagrees with you - at every discussion area you visit; someone nominates every article you created for deletion and they are speedy kept, etc. That's not what Pieter did. Bastique used the word "frivolous" above, but Pieter by-and-large found legitimate problems in Cirt's old uploads and raised legitimate issues in the ones that were/will be kept. Hell, if this were en.wp, we would have shifted focus to why an extremely involved admin - a target of Pieter's alleged harassment - was the one to apply the current block!
@Those disagreeing with the block, can you agree that Pieter should at least take a break in his focus on Cirt and ShakataGaiNi? Pieter has mentioned the uploads he is concerned about, and explained why. He has made his point. I think everyone agrees that Pieter finding bad uploads is a good thing - it's how he does it that is the problem. He can get to the same destination by taking a more diplomatic road. And judging from above, he needs to find that road very soon. Wknight94 talk 12:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
@Wknight there was consensus for the block at the time of the original block, the expressing of disagreement has come since the block much of that in last few hours. Any future shift is dependent on Pieter's willingness to disengage and discuss he actions something he has yet to entertain. Gnangarra 14:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of other considerations, personal attacks certainly are blockable. Pieter has leveled numerous attacks against the motives, character, judgment, and ethics of fellow Wikimedians throughout this conflict incluing after his block, up to and including attacks against Mike Godwin and Cary Bass. Durova (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Kameraad Pjotr, I think "not the most friendly person on commons and that he is a bit rude at times" is not a good description of Pieter Kuiper's behavior. I see a pattern of going out of his way to make pointy edits and using Commons processes to retaliate against editors with whom he disagrees (as he has done here). It is salutary behavior to nominate files for deletion in accordance with guidelines; it is civility and common sense to not use deletion requests as a weapon in a dispute or to retaliate against others. This is disruptive and needs to stop, in my opinion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
@Wknight If you mean "should he be less rude", I say yes. But I think the only case when we can ask Pieter to stop searching Cirt's uploads, is when somebody else (preferably Cirt) does it. As long as there remains doubt, I see no reason why we should prevent anybody from looking into his (or other) uploads.
@Wsiegmund cs. I see a different pattern. There is no reason whatsoever to prevent someone from raising doubts about any file. If they are grounded, the file will get deleted, if they aren't, nothing has happened. I see a pattern of users taking DR's personally and Pieter Kuiper-bashing. Kameraad Pjotr 15:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
In September, Pieter Kuiper nominated Mbz1's image for deletion. At the time, Pieter Kuiper was in a dispute with Mbz1. The image was retained. I see a clear pattern here. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I really do not feel like writing any more here since it seems that it brings us nowhere. But my name is mention several times in this discussion so here we go:
Cirt has uploaded a few bad files, Pieter finds them, we block Pieter. That is fundamentally wrong.
But I also agree that if Pieter makes his nominations and comments the wrong way then it can do a lot of harm. We have lost good people on Dawiki and Commons because of conflicts that was not solved in a good way. So I know that it is important to try to solve disputes.
So far 8 bad files have been deleted and one has been fixed. If we were sure that there was no bad files left in the uploads Cirt made there was no reason to tell Pieter to stay away. If there is no bad files there is nothing he can nominate or comment. So the deal is what is most important? Fixing the bad files or keeping Cirt happy? And why is it not possible to do both?
I would like to point out that Pieter is not the only one that does not say “Yeah” to the suggested compromise. I have not seen Cirt saying “Yes” to check the uploads for bad files. I hope that if Cirt would agree to check the uploads then it would also be possible to make Pieter agree to give Cirt some time alone. That should solve the problem without blocking anyone.
I feel that warning Pieter to stay away without doing anything to fix the bad files is not the right thing to do. Therefore the first warning was wrong and when the warning is wrong then it is also wrong to block Pieter with reference to that warning. The block was removed as wrong. Soon after a new and much longer block was made still with reference to the warning. I think that there was no concensus for a warning or the block and the block was way too long. Therefore I unblocked. Shortly after he was blocked again by an admin he had a dispute with. Not the best thing to do in a dispute where staying away from users you have a dispute with it the main issue!
It seems we have no clear concensus what to do about users (and admins?) that tags or comments bad files from users they have a dispute with. I therefore think that the block of Pieter is too long. --MGA73 (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I've seen no evidence of this high success count you claim. I have, however, documented several cases of nominations in clear bad faith, where he needed to invent conspiracy theories related to OTRS in order to challenge them. Please give your list. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Read COM:DR and you will find loads of valid deletion requests and comments on requests by Pieter Kuiper. I'm not going to give you a list, as I have a better way of spending my time. Kameraad Pjotr 19:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The claim is that his harassing deletion requests of Cirt's material were valid. I documented, above, several clearly invalid cases. I've also NOT seen MGA's high number of successful DRs of Cirt's materials mentioned anywhere else in this thread. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Out of the 6 DRs Cirt initially complained about, 4 were closed as deleted, one was kept because permission was obtained, and one was kept because the files were being used. In all 6 cases, the concerns were legitimate. As for challenging OTRS, I have to say that seeing a file with no author mentioned but an OTRS tag stamped on it, I also would have doubts. Inquiring about the copyright status of such files seems reasonable, especially for someone like Pieter who has always worked a lot on copyright related questions on Commons (it's not like he all of a sudden took interest in this area just to attack someone). We're talking about a handful of DRs, and one OTRS inquiry here, how is it such a big deal? We as admins can handle it, and there is no risk it leads to unfair deletions as the DRs are reviewed by several users and Pieter has no access to the delete button. So why was a block necessary? –Tryphon☂ 21:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
And one of those deletions was an irregular early closure. Two administrators have been discussing the problems about that closure with the acting administrator. There has been no demonstration that Cirt's old uploads are better or worse than any other administrator's: this has been a fishing expedition, with creative interpretations of policy being argued against his work. Durova (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Looking at initial deletion request Pieter had to open as Cirt didn't do it himself, it seems to be that the one person that had to withdraw most of her comments wasn't Pieter and the person to agree with her was Cirt. Oddly Cirt didn't withdraw his comment nor, AFAIK, presented any excuses for his conduct. All other participants were able to discuss the initial deletion request fairly reasonably. -- User:Docu at 21:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
That argumentation is absurd. Pieter nominated the category for deletion on "out of scope" grounds without attempting to discuss it with Cirt. Cirt wrote an article with 40 sources to demonstrate that it was within scope (and had made international news and been quoted on the floor of the Australian senate). Both Pieter and Docu ought to have withdrawn all objections; instead Pieter pursued the matter at a sister site until he got banned for disruption there. Cirt is the WMF's prolific contributor of featured content about Scientology--not just at en:wiki but also en:wikinews and elsewhere. Please pay Cirt the compliment of supposing he is reasonable and competent. Durova (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
When did I ever write it was out-of-scope? -- User:Docu at 22:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Scope was the basis upon which it was challenged. Docu appears to be arguing that Cirt ought to have self-nominated material for deletion that deserved to be kept. The only point that hasn't been argued is whether Cirt stopped beating his wife yet. Durova (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I think even a 1 out of 6 success (valid deletion) ratio suggests that there is merit in reviewing contributions. I think the ratio was higher than that wasn't it? ++Lar: t/c 00:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I didn't write it was in-scope either. Given Cirt's conduct with Aylaross prior to the deletion request nor his conduct in the deletion debate suggest that his (or your) talk page would have been the better place to discuss this. Generally, Commons discusses scope either at COM:VP or COM:DR. -- User:Docu at 14:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict sorry) resp to ec comment -- dont play with numbers 17 files were kept in the initial scientology DR that maks it 1 out of 23 not so good...Gnangarra 00:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure about those numbers? Others seem to have significantly different ratios. I'm sorry, if we have problems, we should be correcting them. ++Lar: t/c 11:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Everyone, please dial the rhetoric down. ++Lar: t/c 00:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


  • This discussion has reached the absurb point that it can longer function to do anything more that create further drama... well its been an interesting perfomance so far but I going to have smoke and beer at the bar across the road and wait for the show to spill out onto footpath. Gnangarra 00:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


Comment: Poor block. Suggest unblocking Pieter as a matter of urgency. Reviewing the relevant DRs Pieter made, we have:

What kind of place is this where admins upload copyright violations, Pieter points it out, the files are deleted, and Pieter is taken to an admin board and blocked? Why are we talking about Pieter at all?

As for Durova's assertion that "Cirt is the WMF's prolific contributor of featured content about Scientology", everyone taking that as a good-faith characterisation of Cirt's history in this topic area should know that matters are acutally a bit more complex. In her earlier incarnation as Smee[lgova], Cirt acquired lengthy block logs on Wikipedia for edit-warring. Smee stopped editing Wikipedia when the first Scientology arbcom case, where she was listed as a party, was initiated, and came back with a new identity three months later, when that arbitration case ended. Durova then mentored Cirt. And even so, Cirt still engages in occasional policy violations in Wikipedia like this recent edit, again related to the use of her anti-Scientology videos.

While I have voiced many similar concerns about Cirt's editing in the past, most notably in WP:ARBSCI, I've also freely acknowledged that Cirt does some great work and appears on the whole to be a net benefit. Presenting material on an extremist religion like Scientology on WMF projects is a perfectly valid concern, if done within policy. What is not okay is to violate policy and then use methods that seem like they might have been taken out of Scientology's own "Fair Game" rulebook to go after editors like Pieter who raise bona fide concerns. Some editors above have used the recent two-week topic ban against Pieter on Wikipedia as leverage against him here. For reference, the two AE threads leading to that two-week topic ban at Wikipedia are here. It shows exactly the same tactic that is being used here: deflect attention from the message and shoot the messenger, all done with a lot of smoke and mirrors, where Cirt is portrayed as a "victim" of "harassment". It is a recurrent strategy, I've seen it used against other editors before, and it does not feel good at all. --Jayen466 12:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that counterpoint. You have captured some of my unease about this quite well. I am not going to be nominating Pieter for the Miss Congeniality award any time soon, but I do not see this as a one sided matter at all. Killiondude's suggestion (below) may be the best we can hope for in this case but I do not want to see people taken to task for raising copyright or other image concerns. On the other hand I also do not want to see raising copyright or other image concerns used as a harassing tactic. What is important is to solve the image problems. And stay mellow while doing it. Less rhetoric would help. ++Lar: t/c 16:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Question If checking for bad edits is harassment and users doing that should be blocked. Then just take a look at the massive investigation Adam Cuerden has made above regarding Pieters edits. So my question is how long do you all suggest that we block Pieter and Adam Cuerden?
I ofcourse prefer that we block as little as possible. --MGA73 (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
@MGA73, IMO that is exactly the kind of rhetorics that isn't helpful here... (feel free to remove my comment if you remove/reword yours) Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree. But since nothing else seems to work I thought that some twistet humor might help others realize that sometimes judgement depends on the eyes that look. Some think Pieters work is harrasment - others think it is good work looking for bad files. --MGA73 (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
You mention harassment. Here is Cirt deleting 5 speedy templates placed by User:Túrelio and User:Aylaross, without opening a DR, as she was required to do:
Next, Cirt threatens Aylaross on their talk page:
Cirt posts to another user's talk page about Aylaross's "disruptive behaviour":
Cirt then posts about Aylaross at the AN thread initiated by the other user, focusing on the fact that Aylaross blanked all her warnings from his talk page:
Note that Cirt makes no mention of the fact that when deleting the speedy templates, she should have replaced them with a DR template and listed the files at DR herself for community discussion, and that she failed to do so. Cirt's post is all about Aylaross behaving "inappropriately" and ignoring her "warnings". This is the smoke and mirrors -- she's pointing the finger, using admin-speak, and diverting attention from her own inappropriate actions.
Now look how this thread here started: "Pieter Kuiper's behavior. Pieter Kuiper (talk · contributions) is exhibiting a behavior pattern of focusing on my contributions to this project." Can we look at Cirt's behaviour pattern, for a change? Because it is the same pattern as with Aylaross. Cirt's contributions are not to be scrutinised; her whole demeanour in responding to such scrutiny is that of an admin prosecuting a policy violation. The next two sentences have more admin-speak: Pieter too was "warned", we learn, and has shown "a pattern of prior inappropriate behavior on this project". Smoke and mirrors. Cirt, or Smee, uploaded copyright violations, with misleading license tags, and Pieter spotted them. Cirt is not talking about this, or the 9 red links that Pieter's deletion requests have by now resulted in. She is talking about Pieter, and she is using the right buzzwords: "warning", "inappropriate", "project", "disruptive". Her usual supporters turn up, use the same words some more, and half the admins are already on autopilot and in block mode, like Pavlovian dogs salivating at the sound of the bell.
It's time a few more admins around here woke up.
  • Cirt deleted speedy templates, without opening DRs herself, as she was required to do, according to the instructions: "If you disagree with its speedy deletion, change this tag to a regular deletion request using {{delete}} and list it on Commons:Deletion requests/Current requests so it can be discussed."
  • Cirt attacked and threatened the editors who did open DRs on her uploads, and asked for them to be sanctioned, on multiple projects.
  • Cirt used {{PD-USGov}} inappropriately -- probably an honest mistake -- and tried to avoid community scrutiny of her uploads.
  • The same editors supported her in each noticeboard discussion, both here and in WP.
  • Of the six DRs Cirt listed in her original complaint, half a mile above, with bold numbering and the mock-exasperated demeanour of a sorely tried person unjustly accused by a hooligan, 4 have now been deleted by the closing admin. So have 5 other files that Pieter nominated.
Can we look at that for a change? Can we look at the damage Cirt is doing to this project by uploading material with misleading licenses, and alienating valued contributors with her manipulative behaviour on admin boards, which appears designed to prevent and discourage outside scrutiny of her uploads?
And can we then unblock Pieter? And can someone tell me why exactly it is harmful to the project if someone like Pieter, who is evidently clueful at judging DRs, looks through Cirt's uploads, and presents those he deems problematic at DR for community discussion? --Jayen466 22:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
First of all, the claimed out-of-scope tag is, as far as I can tell, clearly dead wrong. We serve Wikiversity and Wikisource, both of which could well have uses for such files. I don't see any reason why we should have a DR for things clearly in scope. You're grasping at straws. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Clearly, several editors disagreed about that. As it happened, Cirt then wrote an article in Wikipedia that made use of the files, as well as a Wikiversity resource. Of the 6 files mentioned in Cirt's original complaint that initiated this thread, 4 were found to have problems, and were deleted; Pieter nominated 5 others that met the same fate. So what is wrong with these DRs? They were productive, rather than disruptive. You blocked Pieter twice for doing this work, once indef (!), wheelwarring with another admin who had undone your first block. You should have left it alone once your first block was overruled. --Jayen466 00:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
That's not the objection I made. You claimed Cirt was wrong about speedy deletion suggestions by User:Túrelio and User:Aylaross. None of the files you linked to that were nominated by them have been deleted, and I pointed out that, in my opinion, there is no basis for the deletion claims. Indeed, speedy delete was clearly being abused to nominate those files, since it's only meant for very obvious cases. You ignored all that, and restated something completely different that others have already talked through a dozen times, as if that made your original claim justified.
Gee. When challenged, Cirt made articles which showed that there was encyclopedic merit to the files. How evil! These attacks on Cirt are getting more and more irrational, and I think it's time to close this thread. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
You are aware that User:Túrelio, who is a Commons admin like yourself, considered Aaron Saxton's "message to John Travolta" to be "surely out of scope" as well, aren't you? Yet according to you, there was still nothing for the community to discuss, because your opinion overrides that of any other admin, and the community doesn't even factor in your thinking. The fact that an admin had endorsed the out of scope claim on these files makes Cirt's simple deletion of the speedy template even more troubling, and she certainly should not have threatened the editor who (re-)placed it, after she removed it without opening the matter to wider discussion in a DR. You don't seem to like the idea of the community having an input, preferring to make decisions on everybody else's behalf, and you seem to have a remarkably low opinion of other admins' judgment, including all those who have expressed disagreement with your block and your wheelwarring above. --Jayen466 02:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Whew, I spent some time reading this thread and it is really scary. I have had very little contact with most users involved, and the only one I might be biased against is Pieter, after feeling targeted by him after blocking him on Swedish Wikipedia. Still I must say that the way he has been treated here is horrendous. He is rarely smooth in his communication and he can be a real pain in the butt, but that is to a great extent because he is often right (as many have shown). He has mentioned some flaws in my uploads as well, and I have not allways liked it, but would never dream of having him blocked for it. Admins working hard to block users who point out problems with their uploads really smells. The argument is that he has been harassing by doing the right thing to the wrong people. In my eyes it seems like he is the one being harassed. One of the admins whose obviously doubtful uploads were questioned by Pieter was the last one to block him. I don't like this at all. /Dcastor (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Every hour Pieter remains blocked, Commons remains a corrupt place. --Jayen466 10:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Vanishing points

  • This discussion has reached the point of dimishing returns and circular arguements because we have two distinct groups and we should all just walk away, whether Pieter is unblocked or not is no longer relevent. At some point in the future someone will see this discussion as an affermation of what is acceptable behaviour for an editor on Commons. Where we should be heading now is towards the creation of a dispute resolution process including ARBCOM for Commons because we can no longer rely on the community to walk down the same street, see both sides of the road and decide if we are going in the wrong direction. Gnangarra 00:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I hope it hasn't come to that but I fear you may be right. ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I was aware of the events as they unfolded initially, but I haven't paid too much attention to this as the thousands of kilobytes spent going over the situation didn't seem worth my time to read. Both Petier and Cirt did some things that were wrong. If they can just walk away from each other and play nicely with others, that would satisfy me, at least. Killiondude (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that Pieter finds it irrelevant that he is still dubiously blocked for a rather long term. /Dcastor (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Pieter's help proves invaluable in cases like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sagrado Corazon.jpg. We can simply not afford to lose him as a contributor to Wikimedia Commons. Teofilo (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
    • No users contributions is so valuable that they can harass other users without sanctions. That said, I'm still not convinced Pieters behauviour amounts to harassement. Per Killiondude, time the involved parties agreed to stay away from each other. That's the simplest (and perhaps only) solution to this. Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
      • And who is going to ask them? Perhaps someone relatively uninvolved would be best. Kameraad Pjotr 19:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
        • haven't you been following the discussion Pieter has been asked on many occassions to disengage he's chosen not to, Cirt has been trying to disengage thats why it came here in the first place. Gnangarra 07:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
          • Perhaps because Pieter is right? Everybody keeps saying that harassment is a blockable offence (which it is), but nobody seems to realise that Copyright violations. Repeated uploading of inappropriately licensed media is grounds for blocking an account. Clear explanations and warnings about Commons policy should be engaged in before and after blocking a user for license problems. is also a blockable offence. The only reason why Pieter is blocked is because he was the only one willing to go through all those uploads to check whether they are copyright violations. He didn't even delete them, but merely opened a deletion request to discuss them. As I already said, there is no reason whatsoever why uploads made by an admin should be protected from public scrutiny. I therefore strongly recommend the unblocking of Pieter Kuiper. Kameraad Pjotr 08:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
            • The first admin to comment in this thread, User:Dschwen, said, I would suggest waiting for the outcome of the DRs. If those files get deleted, then what you are asking basically is to be allowed to fly under the radar and let copyright violations remain on the site. If one DR for a person gets posted it is only normal to take a closer look on other contributions by the same user. --Dschwen (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC) (Look at what Cirt's reply was.)
            • We have seen the outcome of these DRs; it is in the redlinks above. So, does Cirt have enough friends in the Foundation Office to be allowed to fly under the radar here and harass any users that cross her until they go away or are banned (in which case she should disclose her special status on her user page, along with a health warning)? Or will we allow Pieter to look through her stuff, just like any other user's? What sort of community and what sort of transparency do you want in this place?
            • What is the decent thing to do here? Pieter has done nothing wrong, except look at the "wrong user's" contributions. How long is this farce going to be allowed to continue? A few more DRs aren't the end of the world, you know. --Jayen466 10:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
            • ShakataGaNai, given the outcome of this deletion request by Pieter of your files, why don't you do the decent thing and lift the block you placed on Pieter yourself? Enough is enough. --Jayen466 10:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
            • Please note that Pieter filed this deletion request at 17:31, on 7 April 2010. ShakataGaNai blocked Pieter 9 minutes later, for a month, at 17:40 on 7 April 2010. ShakataGaNai's files were deleted two days later as "obvious" copyvios. What kind of place is this where admins get to block people who nominate their copyvios for deletion? We should be talking about sanctions against these admins, not about keeping Pieter in block limbo. --Jayen466 15:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Does Commons care about copyright vios, or does this community exist solely so that the admins will not be embarrassed? User should be unblocked, and forbidden from interacting with Cirt, as proposed in the section above. In the meantime, someone should look into the older uploads of User:Smee, because it seems they were uploaded with a cavalier attitude toward copyright. Cool Hand Luke (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, I agree with Nillerdk below. I don't think there has been harassment, but I urge Peter to be temperate in this matter. Cool Hand Luke (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree that the block of Pieter is unfair. The blocking administrator did not have a sound reason to do perform the block. Pieter should be unblocked, but not forbidden interaction with anyone. He should - as any other user - not harass anyone, but I fail to see that he has been harassing anyone. What he did - searching for and pointing out copyvios - was not harassment. Who is going to unblock him? Nillerdk (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Nillerdk. And:
  1. Admins should be categorically forbidden, on pain of being taken to this board, with a view to COM:DESYSOP#De-adminship process as a result of abuse of power, from blocking users who have made DRs for files they uploaded.
  2. Admins should also be forbidden, with the same sanctions, from reporting users for "disruption" here when these users make DRs of material they have uploaded. No such complaint should be entertained on this board until the DRs have been discussed and closed as Keep or Delete. If someone nominates 10 files by an admin, and they are all closed as speedy keep, then it may indeed be appropriate to speak of disruption or harassment, but to judge this, the DRs need to run their course first. If the results of the DRs linked by the original poster had been available at the time this thread started, it would not even have gotten off the ground. --Jayen466 16:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Let us be clear that there has only been one victim of harassment here, across multiple projects: Pieter. If anyone should receive interaction bans, it is Cirt, Adam Cuerden and ShakataGaNai. --Jayen466 16:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
In last September I voted to keep a file that kuiper nominated to be deleted. After that kuiper spent few hours (I mean it literally) looking over hundredss of images I uploaded to Commons during few years. He nominated 4 images to be deleted. Only one actually was. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps he thought that your comment displayed a deficient understanding of copyright. At any rate, what is the problem? One copyvio less on Commons, three good files kept after community review. --Jayen466 16:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Pieter Kuiper expanded that conflict with mbz1 in December with a disruptive nomination of a Carlos Latuff cartoon for featured picture. It isn't out of the question either that Carlos Latuff might merit a featured picture, but Pieter handled that with none of the editorial tact or discretion needed for Latuff's take on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Pieter's post immediately prior to the nomination makes it clear that he was personalizing a dispute,[23] and was blocked for it.[24] One month before the Commons block in December Pieter was blocked for disruptive behavior at the Swedish Wikipedia, where he has a lengthy block log.[25] Pieter Kuiper can be a fine contributor when he wants to be; he also has a history of disruptive behavior on hot button subjects. Perhaps someone who doesn't need Google Translate to follow the history behind his block log in Swedish can tell whether this really extends back to 2007: what happened with both the Israeli-Palestinian episode and with the Scientology episode was that he made unsubstantiated accusations of favoritism and politicking on the part of the people he was in conflict with, and really didn't acknowledge any problems with his own behavior. If he expressed a willingness to modify his conduct I'd unblock him myself. Durova (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Would you like to me to go through Cirt's old blocklogs and BLP violations extending back to 2007? Given that both the Foundation volunteer coordinator and the Foundation lawyer weighed in for Cirt ("But even if there is a cognizable copyright claim, the better remedy in my view is to let the injured copyright holder invoke DMCA takedown remedies (with which of course the WMF would comply)."), not to mention your good self, favouritism certainly seems a plausible interpretation. Mike isn't usually very active around here. --Jayen466 18:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Tu quoque is not a helpful line of reasoning. It ought to be possible for anyone to set the past behind them, and we can all hope that three years from now that Pieter's reform will be as impressive as Cirt's has been. Now if you would like to really see Pieter unblocked (I'm willing to at least reduce that block), please encourage him to compromise. Jayen, I would much rather see both you and Cirt contributing featured content than reopening old wounds about a conflict you've both been in arbitration about. Let's resolve this amicably in the wiki spirit. Durova (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I am really impressed with Cirt's "reform" and "wiki spirit", as evinced in this thread. You may convince yourself, Durova, that your role in this is bona fide and all for the good, but you don't convince me. You want Pieter to remain blocked here for something he did last year, or in 2007, or in Swedish Wikipedia? Why unblock anyone ever? Surely everyone has some flaw somewhere in their past, eh? You have fouled up big time in the past as well, haven't you? Shall I bring that up, like you are doing with Pieter, to disqualify your judgment? We can discuss all sorts of things. The one thing you don't seem to want to discuss is that Pieter was blocked here for nominating admins' copyvios.
And don't worry, I work fine with Cirt in WP. I respect her content work immensely. But this way of Cirt's of going after other users, just like she did with Mattisse, with PelleSmith, with Pieter, has to stop, and I would really appreciate it if you could stop providing her with succour in these situations, doing what you can to tar her opponents with the black brush. --Jayen466 19:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec, a little pointless in light of the conflicting edit) It seems for some reason to have angered Jayen that I have offered to unblock and/or reduce the block on Pieter. The offer is serious: I ask that Pieter express a willingness to disengage from this conflict. Would be obliged if anyone else would like to communicate this to Pieter and broker an amicable compromise. Durova (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Of all the parties involved here, Pieter is the one that has been wronged most. He has received no apology. Yet you expect him to make gestures, and to give Cirt special consideration in his work here. This is demeaning, and I will not ask him to do such a thing. He has done nothing wrong here; other people have wronged him, and show no sign of contrition or even recognition. A "sorry" to Pieter, and a recognition that his DRs were justified, and served the project, might help a lot to restore the wiki spirit. Otherwise, I don't think Pieter is the kind of man to be dumped on and then apologise for it. --Jayen466 19:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked Pieter Kuiper

I have unblocked Pieter Kuiper, as there was nor consensus nor reason for his block. (Let the flaming begin.) Kameraad Pjotr 19:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Kameraad Pjotr (I added a heading). I hope that Peter rejoins the discussion in moderation. Similarly, I hope that Cirt, Adam Cuerden, and ShakataGaNai can approach this issue more temperately. Cool Hand Luke (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. --Jayen466 19:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Now that Pieter is unblocked I asked him to be careful. There is no need to start this all over again. Lets hope it ends here. --MGA73 (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

A category

A category corresponding to an existing article and category in en:wiki Article of course exists here as well. Decius removed it for some reason and i told him User_talk:Decius#Category but he removed it again claiming "revisionism".... diff, diff, diff Megistias (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

First, just two general points:
list of interwikis
[[en:Northern Epirus]]
[[ar:إبيروس الشمالية]]
[[bg:Северен Епир]]
[[de:Nordepirus]]
[[el:Βόρεια Ήπειρος]]
[[es:Epiro Septentrional]]
[[fa:اپیروس شمالی]]
[[fr:Épire du Nord]]
[[it:Epiro settentrionale]]
[[la:Epirus Septentrionalis]]
[[ru:Северный Эпир]]
[[sq:Epiri verior]]
Specifically about this category: The scope of the category isn't too clear and this can lead to confusion. You might want to discuss this on Category talk:Northern_Epirus. If the category is about a specific historical period, I wouldn't necessarily expect it to have general locality categories as subcategories. If it's a category for a geographic region, it might be sufficient to redirect it to one that covers the same area. -- User:Docu at 11:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC), edited 11:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

TeeExperte (talk · contribs)

TeeExperte has been cross-wiki spamming, uploading promotional (and likely copyrighted) images to Commons and creating adverts with them on en.wikipedia. Requesting block per promotional username/spam-only account. Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 17:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If the images are their own, all they would need to do is to send a permission to OTRS. You could argue that the images are not in-scope, but this is independent of whether you deleted an article about them at Wikipedia. -- User:Docu at 18:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I asked at COM:OTRS/N since there is already an OTRS number at de.wp for something. Wknight94 talk 18:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Alright, thanks very much. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Permission

I work at a research institute and want to upload some data simulation of the volcano emission from Iceland. Obviously I need to provide permission to release the picture into public domain, but how? A email from the institute to somebody? Finn Bjørklid (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, an email (like this) from the copyright holder to OTRS. If the copyright holder is you, and the files you want to upload are not publicly available on the net (or available with a free license clearly indicated on the website), this is not necessary, you can just upload the files here directly. –Tryphon☂ 10:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I will upload the pictures when they are ready and get the scientist who made them to email "permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org" with a statement of free use, and I guess that would solve things. Finn Bjørklid (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

German speaking help

Hi Admins, Giorgio writing. Categorizing pictures remained out on 6 September 2009, I have found a series of portraits of a girl, 53 pictures, taken by the user Ralf Roletschek. I'm really puzzled about their correct category and I would like to ask him, that is an expert uploader, if he can add the category himself or, at least, if he can suggest me the right one. Bu he doesn't speak english and, mostly, I don't speak german. Unfortunately I have to add. So I write to you, whoever is german-speaking, to ask the favor of explaining him the issue. This is the first photo: [[26]] and here the "gallery": [[27]]. Thank you very much, mates. Servo vostro--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

These portrait shots of a non-notable model just serve as possible originals of Manga drawings. This is perhaps some source material for this wikiversity class or some other Wikimedia project. According to the German comments on these images, the photographer has uploaded a large bunch of images such that the Manga drawers can select a few usable originals and afterwards the unused shots can be deleted. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Tomascastelazo improper behaviour

Tomascastelazo has a long history of improper behaviour and ad hominem attacks in Commons. For that reason, he was blocked a couple of times. In the last days his attitudes in the FPC forum gradually evolved from mere vulgarity to violent personal attacks, as a response to the evaluations made by various users to his nominations:Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de los remedios 1.jpg, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Woman beggar.jpg and Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pachycereus pringlei sonora.jpg, among others. In my opinion, Commons cannot tolerate this kind of insults and the FPC forum is being severely harassed by the behaviour of Tomascastelazo. I suggest a permanent block. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous proposal. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I do not see vulgarity and I would not call these attacks violent. It seems like an emotional discussion style to me. Perm ban would be killing flies with bazookas here. Plus as you seem to be rather personally involved it does not strike me as a good idea that you are the one to escalate it to this forum. --Dschwen (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC) P.S.:and I mean escalate in the bugreport sense as in increasing the severity level (which calling for a permanent ban clearly is). --Dschwen (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I am with Dschwen on that. Please let it go. Thank you. BTW was Tomascastelazo informed about the post?--Mbz1 (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Am I overreacting? Maybe, but the blocking time is not the main issue here. The agressive and vulgar attitude is. I wonder if any of you would accept the following comment: Alvesgaspar, you should apply your own advice to your own pictures. Neither your arrogant attitude nor your very evident defficient photographic knowledge deserve comment anymore. Make no mistake, in my opinion, you are neither a good photographer nor a good critic, but just a fool who thinks he is both. Too bad that the only thing that you have learned around here are the lessons from our old friend, remember him? You used to be his lackey and sidekick and I suspect continue his bidding. He of course fell out of grace and is no longer around (the bold is mine). As for the alleged personal involvement, I tried to ignore the indirect attacks (there are several) and continued to assess his pictures in an honest and civil way, like I always did, as if nothing had happened. But I do not accept this last personal insult and honestly think that this kind of discourse (and those who use it) should be banned from Commons' foruns. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
How about this by yourself? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
This is an honest and correct assessment where two issues were raised: the poor image quality (and its likely reason) and the possible staging of the scene (with or without the knowledge of the photographer). Notice that none of these questions was answered, as if they didn't deserve to be. That was insultuous too. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Tomascastelazo was very wise not to react to your insinuations and your insulting language. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Is it so difficult to understand that those were not insinuations but questions? And where is the insulting language? As for the wise response of Tomascatelazo... Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
LOL!!!! Alvesgaspar, do you REALLY believe people are stupid? This IS a question. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Dear friends: I love the Wikipedia idea, and ideal. In that spirit I participate uploading photographs that are very relevant to the project. I am also an experienced photographer and I have contributed to the discipline in many ways, in many places and for many years. These few words are enough for that right now. Most of my opinions, either for support or oppose, most of the time, are based on photographic criteria as I know it, coming from years of experience. I have, at times, taken a little literary license on some comments, and I am responsible for that. Now, as for Alvesgaspar, all we have to do is to take a look at his comments, and any unbiased observer will see the hypocrisy of his stand and his request. The reason I take the time to reply to some of his comments is because, we have to admit, he somehow has a leadership position in the forum, which can be a good thing, or a bad one, depending on the responsibility that he exercises in that role. I firmly believe, and I have stated it very clearly, that there are practices that discourage participation, and I have taken it upon myself to challenge those practices, and Alvesgaspar has in my opinion, engaged on those practices. Please review my latest reentry to FPC, analyze it chronologically and semantically and judge for yourselves. I know that reason will prevail. Now, as far as his request for me being blocked: that is a violent act. Specially considering his past association with someone who used that as a weapon against me and who in the end, turned out to be a crook. Same story, different actor. I shall no longer reply to any of his comments or opposes, mainly because I really don´t want to waste my time on what I see is a lost cause in the particular case of Alvesgaspar. I will continue to participate in the forum whenever I can, uploading, evaluating, etc., in the belief that this is afterall a worthwhile effort that transcends any individual involved. To the powers-that-be that decide on blocks I say this: even a one second block against me consider it permanent. Do what is right. Regards --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • In my humble view, Alvesgaspar's general tone and behaviour is provocative and patronizing. Interventions of this sort are unhelpful - it is therefore greatly unjust to demonize those who call him out on his often baseless and poorly considered remarks. This is, of course, IMHO. --Lawboy25 (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I would simply ask that you both stay away from one another's FP nominations. It seems to me that neither of you are being completely objective in your evaluations of one another's work. Per DSchwen no blocks are required. --99of9 (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but read again, this has gone well beyond the evaluation of pictures. I will ignore most of the unbelievable text above and concentrate on the most serious issue: I was explicitly accused of having being associated with a crook, of acting as his lackey and of continuing his actions. Now, Tomascastelazo will have to identify the person he is referring to and prove all accusations. It will be intolerable to me (and to the other person involved, I imagine) if this issue is not clarified or somehow blanked. I've been contributing to the project for about four years, with some obvious beneficts for both parts. I have also learned a lot with the many creative and inteligent people I met and even made some friends here. But will leave without hesitation if and when I realize that this kind of action is to go unpunished. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
      • The way I see it public rudeness reflects much more strongly on the speaker than on the subject. Thus it has its own way of punishing itself. I understand if you're more sensitive about this, but it does appear that there were some non-objective jabs both ways, so I still suggest both parties either apologizing or steering clear of one another. --99of9 (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

IMO any block, never mind a permanent one, is grossly disproportionate at this point. The edit that apparently triggered this thread isn't really appropriate, but neither is reacting to it by calling for a block. All that's really needed here is a retraction of the personal part of that edit, a retraction of the block demand and apologies by both parties (for these and previous clashes). I'd also urge all editors involved in this to be more civil towards each other in future. Specifically with respect to FPC, if you oppose the other's images do politely, and remain mellow when you respond to it. :)--Nilfanion (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I was called arrogant, a fool, a hypocrite and of being associated with, and being a lackey, of a crook. I was also accused of being neither a good photographer nor a good critic, and to discourage participation through my practices. On the other hand, I never commented on Tomascastelazo’s character or photographic abilities. Only assessed some of his pictures and called his attention to the improper behavior. I may retract the request for a permanent block if people think it is really over the top. But what do I have to apologize for? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, escalating this straight to a request for a permanent block was inappropriate (in the opinion of myself and the other uninvolved editors here), there are many, many steps in dispute resolution you should have followed before bringing it to this board. Ideally, you should have discussed the situation (with respect to that edit in particular) with Tomacastelazo before bringing it here - the apology I suggested refers to your approach to the situation. Given the nature of the interaction between you, I suspect Tomacastelazo could provide examples of your edits that he feels are inappropriate (even if you don't consider them to be), but that isn't what I was referring to.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I am a user who perceives both Alves and Tomas as friends and who is saddened to see the evolvement of this escalating conflict. Stubborn, mature men not getting along, sigh . OK, here goes, it takes two to make conflict, and noone is completely innocent in this. On reviewing the comments I find that
    1. By and large Alves has commented critically on the photography and not the person in initial review comments
    2. Tomas has responded by becoming personal, ridiculing and insulting Alves, and this has sometimes triggered a somewhat personal response
    3. I perceive the crook, fool, lackey comment by Tomas as a clear personal attack, which is also personally insulting. I do understand if Alves is appaled by that statement, and I do not find it acceptable, even given the history of abrasion between the two users.
    4. I agree with Nilfanion that Alves coming to COM:AN asking for a permanent block straight as the next step without trying any kind of dispute resolution first is the wrong way to do it.
    5. I do not see Alves as having a particular leader position at FPC, which should be targeted
    6. I salute Tomas effort to stir up convention and discuss what is good and bad photography at FPC. I personally agree with some of his views. It is refreshing, but when they evolve into personal attacks as here, they also poison the atmosphere. Using noise as a parameter for evaluating photos and as a cause of rejection should be accepted by Tomas as an opinion, even if he does not agree. it is OK to challenge the opinion, even strongly, and argue why you think it is wrong, but it is insulting to LOL at peoples view on this.
  • I would suggest the following
    • Tomas redacts the personal attack in the fool, crook, lackey edit
    • Alves redacts requests for sanctions on Tomas based on the events discussed here
    • Alves and Tomas refrains from making personal comments and should stay mellow at FPC reviews, if not short term blocks, 24h, should be issued at one or both parties to cool down.
  • --Slaunger (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you Slaunger for your constructive comment. I apologize to the users participating in COM:AN for having taken the issue here, as I now realize this was an overreaction. I also redact my proposal for a sanction, though I still find incomprehensible that a respected user is called a 'crook' and no action is taken against the one insulting him. From now on I will not assess or in any way comment Tomascastelazo's work though I still reserve the right to react when his behaviour on FPC and QI is not appropriate. On the other hand I expect from him to restrain from commenting on my pictures, my character, my intelectual capacity, my photographic habilities or my personal associations in Commons. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Slaunger... agreed.. comment redacted, apoligies to users, let´s move on. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Domaleixo

User Domaleixo is trying, once again, to impose his point of view about an image. In this case, it is File:Brasao de Belo Horizonte.png, which Mural crown he does not agree with. It has already been shown at WP:PT that this is the correct blazon, according to the city site. Domaleixo has already been blocked at WP:PT for disruptive behaviour and cannot accept others' opinion about it. Tonyjeff (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello,
It's on my watch list, if it gets re-uploaded again, I will warn him and if he does it again, he'll be probably blocked. Kameraad Pjotr 18:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

User:Roux

 Comment The following thread has been copied from the general noticeboard. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly marked a proposal in active development (Commons:Sexual content) as "Rejected" before it has even been finished. This user has twice [28] [29] put comments on the proposal talk page that do nothing in furthering discussion and I at first removed as vandalism due to the subject line "WTF" (typically meaning What The Fuck). This user also threatened me on my talk page [30] and has threatened Privatemusings repeatedly with topic ban.

This user has been indefinitely blocked on enwiki (w:User:Roux) (block log) after numerous temporary blocks for "extreme uncivility", disruptive behavior, edit warring, and more and I would suggest that this user be blocked here and his/her comments removed. Thank you. - Stillwaterising (talk) 10:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

wtf, my comment vanished. Short version: Postlethwaite lied, my indef was requested, and I will forward the relevant email to any commons admin. The proposal was rejected, commons is not censored, and lie again about my posts and you will be in hot water. 174.119.69.32 10:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I would also like 174.119.69.32 and Roux to be cross-checked for sock-puppetry. ✓ Done Indeed, if Commons is not censored then this user should not be pushing to block my work on developing an important proposal. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry? My computer logged me out and I didn't notice, you twit. It should be tolerably obvious that I made no attempt to hide anything about my identity. Good lord. Roux (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It should be made clear hear that user:Stillwaterising is edit warring at Commons:Sexual content to remove the {{Rejected}} template, despite consensus on the talk page being that it belongs there. I don't endorse Roux's threatening language, but everyone who has commented (other than Stillwaterising) agrees with his actions in marking the proposal rejected. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

One day's worth of discussion does not constitute a consensus. The proposal is under-development and has not been put forth for general approval. It is inconsistent with policy and tradition to attempt to kill a proposal while it is still unfinished simply because it goes against a few user's wishes. There's obviously quite a lot of work to do and Wikimedia's legal team has not yet been contacted and asked to comment. - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
The proposal is not, in fact, under development. Barring minor cosmetic changes, it is the exact same tiresomely prudish nonsense that was proposed--and unanimously rejected last time. Roux (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I view discussing the changes in the proposal as a distraction from the main issue, which is misbehavior on the part of User:Roux. However, I would like to point out this diff analysis between the old and new proposals. - Stillwaterising (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
But your editwarring--against three? four? people--that's perfectly okay, yes? How sad you are.Roux (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

 Comment - Roux has been dropping insults, attacks, and profanities faster than I can keep up with them! Please look at his talk page for starters, or this diff. I'm requesting an immediate block of this user without delay. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done I see not sufficient misbehaviour for anything. Besides, Stillwaterising was editwarring, as per Thryduulf. Kameraad Pjotr 13:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Kameraad Pjotr's decision and would like reconsideration from a different admin. I fail to see how the following comment could not be taken as an attack:

"This has got to be a fucking joke. Or you are monumentally stupid. It's one of the two. Go get a hobby or something. Roux (talk)" (from Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Roux)

I also disagree that I was edit-warring, obviously the responding admin didn't even look into it, and even if I was it does not ever justify personal attacks. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The checkuser request was a pure baseless provocation and his enraged comment a direct result of your baiting. I strongly suggest you drop this. Secondly Pjotr has the comunity's trust, demonstrated when he was elected admin. His age is of no further importance. --Dschwen (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments like "you are monumentally stupid" are block on-site offense on the enwiki. I did the check-user request because only because Roux is blocked user on enwiki and is obviously not acting in good faith, and after a sufficient time did not resign the comments. Nothing I could do would justify being attacked. I fail to see why I'm being treated like a trouble-maker when Roux has an extensive record of such uncivility. I take offense at the suggestion to "drop it". - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
This is not enwp; "drop it" is good advice. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: I second Kameraad Pjotr's conclusion. I've warned Roux regarding the incivilities and I warn you, Stillwaterising, not to escalate this issue any further. As Pieter has already noted: This is not en-wp and we do not care here about blocking histories at en-wp. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to review and comment (at my talk) by Stillwatersrising (SWR for short). OK here goes

  • Please don't copy threads from one notice board to another. Move them if you must, or if you think the thread was started in the wrong place, leave a pointer from one place to the other, so that discussion remains together
  • This is not en:wp. Standards of behavior are different here, we are more tolerant. Still, I see unacceptable commentary from multiple parties here.
  • Roux needs to dial down the invective. It was good that he was warned about that. Accusing people of lying is not helpful. calling people "monumentally stupid" is not helpful. If Roux does not discontinue that he may find his editing privs suspended for a time.
  • The proposal itself WAS rejected. But now, time has went by, and circumstances are changed and it's reasonable to take another look. As long as we don't hide that it was rejected, interfering with that is not goodness. Disparaging comments about peoples morals and or prudishness level etc are not at all helpful and should be avoided.
  • SWR needs to dial down the moral outrage at how things are done here. Even at en:wp it's not exactly as SWR claims. Edit warring, removing comments, lashing back... none of that is goodness. If SWR does not discontinue that he may find his editing privs suspended for a time.
  • All parties are admonished to review COM:MELLOW and mellow out. Seriously.

Sorry for tacking this on the end after this was closed (I endorse the close, by the way). ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't an accusation of lying, it is simple fact. SWR has repeatedly removed comments he doesn't like, calling them vandalism. That is a lie. But, y'know, facts. Who needs 'em? Roux (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Lar on all points and would like to thank him for taking the time to comment. No malice was intended with the Checkuser and I guess I could have asked Roux if the comments were his instead of starting an inquiry. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
That is fantastically disingenuous. You disagree with what I say, so you have been trying to smear me--dishonestly labelin my edits (and, one notes, Timtrent's) as vandalism, pretending that a checkuser was required when it was blindingly obvious I had just been logged out, and bringing up my block log on enwp (yet again, something you know less than bloody nothing about). Indeed, your attempt to discredit an admin because s/he is 18 is just more of the same: can't get your way, so try to smear your opponents. Nice try, but no, I don't buy it for a second. Also your lies about not editwarring? I invite anyone to look here, where the ... factual inaccuracy of SWR's comments is proven: multiple reverts against three different editors. But no, that's not editwarring apparently? Sheesh. Roux (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
It's worth noting that SWR's baiting has continued, despite clear and unambiguous instructions to refrain from posting on my talkpage. Roux (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
You are smart enough not to bite, aren't you? So, why care about it? SWR will stop pissing on commons once (s)he/it is ignored. Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Because as I have said elsewhere, our reputation is the only thing we, as pseudoanonymous contributors, have. When someone starts lying about vandalism (he did it to Timtrent too), making spurious CU requests, and the like, reputations are effectively smeared. He then stepped up the baiting and harassment by continuing to post on my talkpage after being told not to. He was indeed blocked for it, but then unblocked after claiming he posted 'by mistake.' This would be believable if a) he had not posted twice, with an edit summary of 'adding template to inform user'. How exactly does one post by mistake when one knows one is posting? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Roux (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have told both users that they need to refrain from further comments or interaction with each other until further notice, and to leave matters to others. Enough other people are aware of issues and concerns that they do not need to interact directly since they don't seem to be able to get along. ++Lar: t/c 14:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And yet SWR did. And was blocked. And swiftly unblocked after claiming it was a mistake. See here's how you're treating this situation. Two kids on a playground, we'll call them S and R. S punches R in the arm, and R gets pissed off about it. And R is told to leave S alone. There is a problem with this. I am, in fact, not much interacting with SWR except in reaction to what he does to me. And apparently blocking isn't even enough to stop him. FFS, this is such nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roux (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

User:Bporter28

Resolved

Bporter28 (talk · contribs) has continually uploaded obviously copyvio images, mostly photographs of Las Vegas casinos and restaurants taken from elsewhere on the web, tagged as free images, and has not responded to any user talk space messages despite warning. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for three days. If upon expiration of the block, Bporter28 continues to upload copyright violations the block will be extended to indef. Tiptoety talk 21:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Hwon074 uploading copyvio

Hwon074 (talk · contribs)

This user is a single-purpose account on en-wiki who's not interested in anything other than changing the lede image on en:Leehom Wang. Today he uploaded File:Leehom.jpg, which appears to be copyvio, and when I tagged it he turned around and uploaded two more copies of it under new names, File:Leehom at Singapore Brands Promotion.jpg and File:Leehom in Singapore at Brands Promotion April 2010.jpg. He has never used a talkpage and appears to be uninterested in contributing constructively, he's just gaming the system. rjanag (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 03:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the duplicates. Let us know if it continues. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
He's finally opened up to discussion over on en-wiki, so the issue might be moot now. Thanks for the help, rjanag (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 14:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, now he's back at it: File:Leehom Wang at a promotional event 2010.jpg, exact copy of File:Leehom at a promotional event 2010.jpg. rjanag (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 02:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the image has been dealt with, but I've blocked him for a week. It would've been indef, but I don't think he's had a clear, unambiguous warning, so some leniency is necessary. However, he also engaged in sneaky copyvio using Flickr, so a little caution is also called for. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Junius

The user was recently blocked on Wiki-pt for insulting some user. And he's filtered for persistenting abuse of the public space, after being notified several times to stop. Now he's bringing his grievances to Common,s calling the buroucrats from Wiki-pt "burrocratas" (stupid buroucrats). See his conversation with this user.

Olá MC, agradeço pelo apoio em meu favor. Tudo o que disse eu ratifico. Esses administradores e burrocratas formam de fato uma quadrilha e combinam tudo via chat Bloqueios, eleições e demais sanções. Agora eles tentam desqualificar minhas declarações dizendo que são inverossímeis, inclusive li que o Darwin me chama de mentiroso, mas o mentiroso é mesmo ele. Trata-se de um hipócrita e tumultuador. Desde que voltou só criou confusões e mais guerras de edições e pedidos de bloqueio. Uma dia a tchurma perceberá quem é esse sujeito, inclusive trata-se do autor, como IP, daquela historinha de porco no Esculhambares cujo protagonista é o Frederico. Ele mesmo me contou. Participei de muitas conversas em que vi essas combinações via chat. Inclusive na vez em que você foi bloqueado pelo Burnmensteir, havia uma espécie de discussão no próprio chat em que eles escolheram esse administrador para bloqueá-lo porque seria menos visado. O Ruy não queria ser sempre ele a fazê-lo. Eu não saberia nada disso se não estivesse lá e presenciasse tudo. Agora eles agem mais espertamente. Se escondem em salas privadas do próprio MSN nas quais discutem tudo. Christian, Castelo, Ruy, Darwin, todos eles e outros mais. Infelizmente a realidade é essa. Quanto a esse usuário que disse na sua discussão que teria falado com o meu espírito a respeito de um café na Rio Branco, isso é mentira. Não conheço esse usuário. Estou aproveitando bem o meu tempo de exílio. Até no cadafalso dá para se admirar uma bela paisagem. Aequiparat factum nobile velle bonum. Abraços, Junius 15:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

201.95.219.71 02:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

suspicion of impersonating

Erjkcbfdsicbu (talk · contribs) who opened an account on April 21, 2010 only to upload a copy of our Larry Sanger-image, to put it on his userpage and to add a caption "Ik" (dutch for I), thereby suggesting that he is Larry Sanger. I suggest blocking him as imposter. In addition, I've asked Mr. Sanger on his :en-userpage for comment. --Túrelio (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

188.75.128.2 (again)

Again, would someone please block Fredy.00's/Le chatea's/Zemanolog's/and so on's IP address 188.75.128.2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) .

Apart from the ban evasion itself, the user is continuing to edit disruptively (removing notifications of deletion discussions from files before the discussions have been closed) and aggressively towards other contributors (only including examples since my previous notice):

Sorry to have to repeat myself, but my previous notice seems to have been ignored for some reason. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of any previous ones - sorry :). Blocked, 1 week but let me know if you think any longer is appropriate, thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 16:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The contribution to Commons:Deletion requests/File:HLHimmler.jpg uncovers UstinadlabemELBE (talk · contribs), and AfghanFan2010 (talk · contribs) is another one found with a check (different IP). --Martin H. (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparent harrasment by user:Saibo

I just got this notice on my user page [31], perhaps as a pay back for opposing his POV on deletion of porn images. The file has the permission from the creator of the image. And I notified the image's creator here [32], gave him a link to the uploaded image on Commons, and he acknowledged my notification of the upload. That should be quite enough. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Two of my images have been nominated as well. This is the same as what Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) has been blocked for several times. Wknight94 talk 15:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

suppot::That's not a helpful constraint in my opinion, especially since it seems to be used rather unilaterally (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hellendoorn NH Rol 362.JPG, less than one hour after I told you about heat and kitchens. I am thankful that you reviewed my uploads, but you aren't exactly the person to whine about reviews. Erik Warmelink (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No comment, but thank you for the notice of mentioning me here. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't nominate images just as payback, OK? It's really not a good idea. You need to, in general, improve your approach. Right now it's lacking. ++Lar: t/c 04:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Malcolm Schosha: For the record there is nothing wrong with that permission, the originator gave you a CC license that is adequate for our needs. ++Lar: t/c 04:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Lasvegaslover

User:Lasvegaslover seems to have uploaded a lot of images which look like they're professionally made. They don't seem to be the sort of things that a typical Wikipedia editor would create. Am I seeing things wrong? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking around and I have found a Flickr account which has the same username as the Commons account. Could be the Flickr user but also the possibility another person using the same name. Bidgee (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Images uploaded by Lasvegaslover are not matching the Flickr account (some images are indeed from the account, different cameras and have found one copyvio. I have messaged the Flickr user but I am doubting the Commons user being the flickr uploader. Bidgee (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
They have confirmed via Flickr mail that it is them. Bidgee (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales

I just came back from a few days away and find that Jimbo has gone on somewhat of a rampage, deleting many many images that apparently violate his new policy which he is pushing on us. If this were anyone else, he would have been deadmined and banned within minutes. I would like to know whether there is anything we can do to stop Jimbo being able to use admin powers on Commons, as he clearly has no respect for community consensus and policy on what makes images in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

If you read the talk page (or the notice in the first paragraph) of that old Meta proposal you'll see that this is pretty much resolved. Jimbo is not able to use admin powers at Commons anymore. Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Hadn't quite got to that bit yet. Good to know, thanks. Consider this unhappiness withdrawn. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversial "restoration of rights" request

A user who had his sysop rights removed after resigning under a cloud under controversial circumstances, is requesting to have his admin rights restored, without going through the RFA process. Please see Commons:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Restoration_of_rights. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Max Rebo Band

Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 13
This user has been posting a lot of porn/images that can be closed to considered porn. In addition, his userhame is part of the Star Wars francise (Max Rebo Band) and could be considered promotional --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, he's uploaded nothing in the last three weeks, and the last undeleted image in his log is from three months ago. As for promotional username, I find you guilty of Grasping at Straws in the 1st degree. Wknight94 talk 20:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
This user participates in name calling and personal attacks. See various cases at http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2010/05/13&oldid=39217673 --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
This user also violates COM:NOT by almost exclusively transferring nude images from free sources (like Flickr) with little interest in Common's educational mission. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
You may be surprised or disgusted to know that sex education is a part of the curriculum in many schools. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but I doubt that they use images as erotic or disturbing as those on MRB uploaded. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 23:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe sex education could have saved you from being disturbed by File:Leaning on Barn Doors.png. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • As others have said, I have not uploaded anything recently. In total I have about 600 images in the past 18 months, of which 99% were valid, used in WP articles and widely accepted as fitting within Commons scope until this week. Tyw7 is, as mentioned, grasping at straws as he tries to change reality "one edit at a time". Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 23:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Have you read the news at Commons:News_regarding_the_sexual_content_purge. There is a list of famous news sites that point out that Commons have a growing issue on porn. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 01:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Well...., mostly just FOX News actually. The others are just reporting on the gigantic conflict resulting from the porn purge. TheDJ (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Propose the use of Template:Restricted_use just as it is done at en wiki --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 02:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Is this really the place to discuss restricted usage? And how would it work anyway, we don't really do much in the way of putting images on pages. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Pages not allowed on userspaces especially in large numbers... --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 02:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

To Mattbuck. In English Wikipedia the list is used to prevent vandalism. Only images which are heavily used for vandalism are on the list. I don't think Commons has much of a problem with that kind of vandalism. It's not used to prevent a user from displaying images on his userpage he himself uploaded. Garion96 (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not see a problem with User:Max Rebo Band as it is common practice to present uploaded images on the user page. And the user page is not designed to shock any casual visitors as all images are hidden in fold-outs with the exception of three selected images, none of them offending or pornographic. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Nudity and pornography aren't same.
Max's images are artistic. They shouldn't be considered as pornographic. Tanvir 18:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Max's contributions are not a problem. At least one of his images is likely to be deleted as out of scope because it doesn't serve a clear educational purpose, but that one doesn't contain any nudity at all. "Pornographic content" in Max's tame images is not an issue, nor is his user page - we have plenty of "hardcore" sexual images that are considerably more likely to offend. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I just wonder, why do people keep looking to his page if they don't like it's contents? Just don't access it, people. You're making a tempest in a teapot.Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No actual issues to deal with - just more of Jimbo's recent actions causing our actual policies to be misunderstood. Adam Cuerden (talk)

Toubabmaster (talk · contribs)

Just noticed that this user tried to revoke licenses in own images by clearing image descriptions. I reverted this changes. I think will be good idea to keep an eye on this user. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Contact with Koroesu (contributor)

Hi,

I would like to get in touch with "Koroesu" about the picture related to Bakunin <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bakunin_1840s.jpg?uselang=fr> as I wish to know the source.

Thank you

Ronald Creagh

<ronald.creagh@wanadoo.fr> (user "rcreagh")

User talk:Koroesu.--Ankara (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
...and the claim of "Travail personnel" ("own work") on the image is ridiculous. - Jmabel ! talk 00:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Probably using {{Own}} because he scanned it...? I guess knowing the source is interesting enough to be sure it's PD (or not.) Esby (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:AssHairSmoker

Inappropriate username. --Sandahl (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Duly blocked and copyvio deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Troll-Alarm 4

see http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&diff=39362995&oldid=39361572

Bizarrely you appear to be reporting your own behaviour as trolling...? Maybe you could be a little clearer --Herby talk thyme 11:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
This is Mutter Erde, I've blocked him for 24 hours. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah - his is a dynamic IP for info so anything more that 24 hours is probably not worthwhile. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Right, thanks. This might be a good time to remind admins of the wording of Commons:Blocking policy#Use: "User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block may and should also be blocked." (Emphasis mine.) Frankly, I feel that the enforcement of that policy has been somewhat lacking lately.
I don't want to give undue attention to vandals, but as we're already discussing the matter, I also feel that, in the absence of an equivalent of en:Wikipedia:Banning policy despite the fact that we still apply the concept of banning, a clarification of whether or not en:Wikipedia:Banning policy#Edits by and on behalf of banned users applies here is in order. Edits like this, effectively assisting a banned users in continuing the personal attacks for which they were originally blocked really make me wonder. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Please block 78.55.118.41 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . —LX (talk, contribs) 15:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Admins, please react to this. Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done for 24 hours. As Mutter Erde's IP address changes every day, longer blocking periods do not help. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sndpsingh23

Sndpsingh23 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is a pretty obvious sockpuppet used to evade the recent block of Shrikrishna 3 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and continue replacing existing files with copyvios. Please block and remove the copyvio uploaded on top of File:Ajay-Devgan-LondonDreams01.jpg. Thanks! —LX (talk, contribs) 16:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Block ✓ Done and looks like the file is reverted. No other obvious socks for now. Thanks for the info. --Herby talk thyme 16:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Reverted yes, but the copyvio is still there; would be better deleting it. –Tryphon☂ 16:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Right. We shouldn't have full-resolution copyright violations lying around in the file histories, so please delete the revision as well. I also found en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sndpsingh23/Archive (also compare en:Special:Contributions/Sndpsingh23, en:Special:Contributions/Shrikrishna 3 and en:Special:Contributions/Sandysandy2010), so this might be something to keep an eye out for. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Point taken - deleted and the other one blocked. Will go poke about a bit :) --Herby talk thyme 16:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Stillwaterising

Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 13
As admins have no interest in dealing with a campaign of harassment and attacks, preferring instead to heap scorn upon the victim of those attacks, I am closing this request. I will, naturally, bear in mind what has been clearly shown, by deafening silence, to be acceptable behaviour on the project and shall govern myself accordingly. Roux (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Has gone from relatively low-level baiting to asking me "Why would you expect American's to want to host your child porn collection?", later claiming it as a 'rhetorical question'. This has got to stop. Now. Roux (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 13
:I have blocked Roux for 1 day after this edit summary comment which is totally uncalled for and has no place on Wikimedia Commons. Bidgee (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
That is outrageous. It was SWR who was way over the line. Quite vicious, I would say. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
SWR has also been blocked for a day. I suggest both SWR of them take a day's break and stop flaming and bating each Roux other. Bidgee (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
But Roux only characterized SWR's viciously personal attack, referring to a standard example of a false question. Giving equal blocks is not evenhanded. Roux should be unblocked. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I've undone my block (hope I've fixed the IP block), I misread the edit summary comment which meant that I misunderstood its meaning and a deeply apologise to Roux. Bidgee (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

 Comment Roux edit summary is an idiomatic example of impossible to answer question. See en:When did you stop beating your wife? or 11 other places it is used in wikipedia articles for the same purpose. --Jarekt (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Back on topic, I would like Stillwaterising topicbanned from the entire subject of Sexual content, as he has proven himself unable to actually contribute nondisruptively. From fundamentally dishonest claims of vandalism (reverting perfectly cromulent edits by both me and Timtrent, labeling them as vandalism), to even more dishonest sockpuppetry accusations (demanding a CU when I edited logged out by mistake, with absolutely no attempt to hide my identity), to editwarring against multiple editors, and then finally this insane child pornography (somethhing, as someone with a young niece and nephew, that sickens me) jab, he has no interest in contributing, and is merely interested in smearing and baiting his opponents. I would not be opposed to such a topicban being revisited in, say, six months to see if he has learned how to behave. And, before you even go there, let's not tiresomely turn this into "How hypocritical Roux is," ok? There is a world of difference between smearing someone, and being pissed off at being smeared. Roux (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

So all that behaviour is okay and allowed, then? The deafening silence certainly indicates so. Good to know that I can randomly accuse people of repellent behaviour with no consequences too. Roux (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I would just like to add my support for a topic ban for SWR in the area of "sexual content". As he appears to be determined to assert conservative contemporary US legal/cultural mores on this global project and dismissing as irrelevant any suggestion that such values are not universal, I think we can get away with using that standard as the basis determining the extent of the topic ban. While Privatemusings similarly seems not to understand much of the opposition to the multitude of proposals in this area, he is behaving in a far more civil manner. It is true that Roux's conduct has not been exemplary, but it has not crossed the line and appears to have been driven principally by frustration and baiting. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I think a topic ban is premature, but SWR has to up his game, or one will be forthcoming sooner or later. We don't ban people over their views on matters as long as they are expressed in a civil and collegial manner. I'm not sure that the baiting here has been one sided. ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
It has in fact been entirely one-sided, but thanks for trying to smear me. Again. Roux (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Not in my view it hasn't been. And it's not a smear to say that I come to that conclusion. You are out of line in your responses, and hence, part of the problem. ++Lar: t/c 12:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Way to miss the point there, lar. Unsurprising, but there it is. Someone is conducting a deliberate campaign to smear me, but I'm part of the problem because I got pissed off about it? Terribly sorry that we can't all be perfect Zen masters like you, but welcome to how the real world works. Roux (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Engaging with you just never works out well because you are so unremettingly abrasive back. This is why you are part of the problem in this matter. ++Lar: t/c 14:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, could you please show me what part of this smear campaign is 'engagement'? I've got time. I got pissed off because (gasp) someone was deliberately doing--oh wait, he still is, with only the mildest of finger wags from you--everything he could to smear me and drive me away. Lying about vandalism, requesting checkuser, accusing me of having child porn for fuck's sake, claiming I was canvassing... he's the one chilling the environment here. Roux (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
No, Lar is absolutely right; you need to mind your language and lose the attitude. When asking for another user to be blocked in the interest of maintaining a collegial working environment, don't swear at the people you're asking for assistance. It's not going to work in your favour. In fact, don't be surprised if it lands you in bigger trouble, notwithstanding the legitimacy of your underlying grievances. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't think you understand. Being pissed off at being attacked is nowhere even close to lying about vandalising, requesting spurious CUs, making accusations of owning child pornography, and further accusations of canvassing. They are just not equal in anything that resembles the real world. But this is the failing of WMF projects in general: as long as you pretend to be polite, you can get away with murder. But woe betide the victim of deliberate and continued fucking harassment! They must be perfect and not get annoyed lest they be blocked for... being pissed off at being harassed. I am flabbergasted that there is only one person who has contributed to this discussion who actually comprehends this. Here's a simple analogy: I punch you, and you "What the fuck did you do that for?" One of us is in the wrong there, and the other is not. One should be punished for it, and one should not. I leave it as an exercise for you to figure out who's who in this situation. It should prove educational. Roux (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I think there are a couple of fundamental misunderstandings here. Firstly, you're asking for punishment. However, Commons administrators have no authority to punish users. Blocks are exclusively a protective measure. A user may be blocked if there is reason to believe that they will continue to disrupt the project – e.g. by uploading copyright violations, making defamatory attacks or being generally uncivilised. The length of the block is based solely on the expected time needed for the behaviour to change, so weighing the severity of misdeeds against each other is not a relevant exercise. Secondly, being the victim of incivility, no matter how severe, never justifies incivility on one's own behalf. To follow your analogy, if I swear at the police officers coming to arrest you for beating me up, I'm likely to get myself arrested on a public order offence. It is possible for both sides in a conflict to be wrong, it is possible for both parties to be blocked, and I'm afraid I can easily see this going down that road if you keep up the sarcasm and the swearing. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
And condescension serves you well, does it? I swear because that's how I use language. Deal with it. As for the rest of your tosh... Yeah, you still don't understand the actual problem here. Roux (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see what was condescending about what I said. It certainly wasn't intended that way. And I believe I do see the problems here. I also believe there is more than one problem, and that your swearing is one of them. Incivility is not acceptable here, and others do not have to deal with it – at least not in the sense that I think you intend. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think either of you has been entirely civil, but I think you (Roux) have risen to the bait on occasion. I happen to think Stillwaterising has been entirely wrong about the substance of the matter but, as far as I know, advocating bad ideas is not a basis for a topic ban. Roux, as far as I can tell, the consensus has been pretty strong against him, and people (myself possibly included) may well be giving his ideas more attention than they deserve. - Jmabel ! talk 16:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

At what point did I say that advocating bad ideas was the basis for this suggested topicban? Do re-read the proposal. Roux (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Further: so fucking what if I have risen to the bait? That is not the problem here. The problem is the baiting, not being pissed off about it. WMF projects need to stop this insane 'blame the victim' nonsense, and focus on the people causing the problem. Roux (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • And Stillwaterising continues the smear campaign by accusing me of canvassing. If you won't see fit to make the logical step of topicbanning him, I request that you permanently and unequivocally ban him from commenting to, on, or about me in any venue on Commons until the heat death of the universe. Roux (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Now, that latter proposal makes a lot more sense. Would you be willing to have it be reciprocal? That you are both welcome to continue to work on the topic, but are to completely refrain from ad hominem remarks on one another (leaving some one venue, probably this noticeboard, where you could complain if you think the other is violating the ban)? I'd support that, and wouldn't mind having the community agree to enforce it. - Jmabel ! talk 20:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I think it has come to that, yes. ++Lar: t/c 12:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
      • No I would not be willing to have it be reciprocal. Again: blaming the victim is a bad move. He's the one who has been deliberately smearing and baiting me, not the other way around. Roux (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
        • I don't think the view that you are entirely blameless is universally held. ++Lar: t/c 14:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
          • I don't particularly give a flying whosit what you think, to be honest. Maybe you could show me where I accused swr of vandalising, requested a CU because he'd logged out, accused him of having child porn, and accused him of canvassing? What's that, you can't? I'm shocked, shocked and appalled that I've never done any of those things. Clearly being pissed off about being the recipient of such attentions is just as bad as doing them. Let me be crystal clear: I will not under any circumstances agree to a mutual interaction ban. I will not be punished for being pissed off at being abused by another user. Period. Roux (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
            • Hm, I tend to agree with Roux here. It seems to me that striving for Solomonic justice is blurring the line between victim and offender a bit too much. Just because Roux is not ice-cold and "clever" about this whole thing and instead is showing his emotions, his resulting outbursts do in my opinion not weigh nearly as much as the actions SWR has taken. Just my two cents. --Dschwen (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

↵ I'm sure this isn't what you meant, but your phrasing implies that the only reason Roux got pissed off is because he indeed owns child porn, as someone who hasn't got any would be perfectly calm when subjected to such accusations. –Tryphon☂ 22:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Nod. That's one interpretation and it would certainly tend to upset some folk. Another is that neither have any but Wknight94 can stay calm when unjustly accused while Roux cannot. I suspect that's what Wknight94 meant. ++Lar: t/c 22:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant, thank you. Wknight94 talk 01:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Roux: Lashing out at everyone isn't going to make you any friends or help resolve the situation. We want a calm and collegial editing environment. Please try to be a bit calmer. ++Lar: t/c 22:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'd be less pissed off if someone would actually do something about SWR's harassment and smears. Roux (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty clear nothing is going to happen. Someone archiving this would be the best result for everyone now. Wknight94 talk 01:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

new incident

It is worth noting that SWR's behaviour has now increased to mass-requesting that any admins who are against Jimbo's dictation of policy resign.[33][34][35][36][37][38][39]. This appears to be yet another attempt to chill the environment by stifling dissent, along the lines of his previous behaviour (which included accusing an uploader of uploading child porn, accusing me of having child porn, and on and on and on). Roux (talk) 06:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, to be honest I'm pretty tired of it. I only saw a couple of his desysop messages and I cringed both times. Now that I see he sent more of those out, it's a bit unsettling. Killiondude (talk) 06:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Note that this triggered this warning from Lar; most if not all of the desysop requests came after Lar's warning. Roux (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I see "only" three such requests made after Lar's warning. Nevertheless, it's inappropriate behavior bordering on harassment, trolling, and general ruckus making. Exactly the opposite of staying calm, and highly counter-productive right now. I will not put up with such trouble-making and intimidating behavior. Particularly this edit comment of his is disconcerting and reeks of trying to silence dissenters. I have left the user a stern warning about this, and if he continues despite this, an extended block (say, a week) is in order. Note that he also has been told by Jimbo himself that this is not the way to go about this.[40][41] Lupo 07:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Lupo about the inappropriateness of this behavior. I think if we get recurrences of this, or similarly disruptive, behavior, the appropriate block length is "indefinite", as in, until this user agrees, on pain of permanent removal, to knock it off. We have spent a lot of effort trying to work with this user, to little or no avail. My patience is about exhausted. I suspect that's true of a few other folks patience as well. ++Lar: t/c 10:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Roux writes above that "SWR's behaviour has now increased to mass-requesting that any admins who are against Jimbo's dictation of policy resign." Actually, he is going rather further than that, in that he has requested my resignation; if I understand correctly (from the exchange on User talk:Jimbo Wales) his objection to my conduct is that before Jimbo weighed in I said that I saw no inherent problem with User:Stan Spanker's images. For the record, I'm open to a range of possible policies, as long as they are reasonably well defined, but prior to Jimbo's remarks, there was no indication of any community or Board intent to modify what it still as of this writin says at Commons:Scope: "a lawfully-hosted file, which falls within Commons' definitions of scope, will not be deleted solely on the grounds that it may not be 'child-friendly' or that it may cause offense to you or others, for moral, personal, religious, social, or other reasons." Now, it looks quite probable that will be changed, and/or the scope will be changed, and if so, so be it, but unless I have misunderstood, SWR thinks I should resign because as an admin I chose to base my opinion on what is within scope on then-current policy, rather than anticipate a future (and, as of this writing, somewhat amorphous) policy. I make no claim to clairvoyance, and would hope it is not a requirement for adminship. - Jmabel ! talk 08:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to go on record as endorsing this view as well. Clairvoyance certainly is not a requirement. Nor is personal agreement with policy. Merely agreement to abide by consensus and either enforce, or at least refrain from actively going against, policy. (we are all volunteers and no one can require us to make a particular enforcement action, other admins can do it) ++Lar: t/c 10:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Hear, here! And besides, if I had clairvoyance I'd put it to better use than trying to predict what'll happen on Commons. Y'know, something useful like the lottery... Tabercil (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to ask that this discussion be closed immediately. I was not informed of this discussion until a few hours ago and this is very much against wiki tradition to be discussing somebody at AN/U behind his/her back. - Stillwaterising (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't try to wikilawyer. Just accept that we don't accept your going 'round asking people to resign adminship. It poisons the atmosphere, and we don't want that. Generally not, and especially not now. Period. Lupo 10:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
In my defense against the kangaroo court, the admins who I politely asked to resign (instead of doing anything "trollish" like dragging them all to AN/U) all voted to keep Stan Spanker's images including the (alleged) kinderporn image. I did not select them based on expressed viewpoints or personal disagreements, rather their lack of regard for established policy and guidelines. I was well within my right to do so. - Stillwaterising (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
We do not accept your going 'round asking people to resign adminship over opinions they express or expressed. Especially not over opinions they expressed (note the past tense?). That's it. Lupo 10:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Disagreeing with you is certainly not a reason for resigning. Even if it was, I never came anywhere close to that DR and have so far not even seen the "infamous" image. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure how to make it clearer than this: SWR, you need to stop this disruptive behavior. We're not asking you any more, we're telling you. Stop casting aspersions on others. Or you will find your editing privs suspended. ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Said "kinderporn" image was well within the range that the FBI won't touch without solid evidence of the woman's age. On the DR, you seemed to be the only person convinced she was underage, and there was certainly no hard evidence of it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
It has been over two weeks and there has been no new incidents. Please review my comments for May 7th and close this "new incident" discussion. Thank you, Stillwaterising (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
May 7 to May 16 is not "over two weeks". However I agree that no one has reported additional incidents here in over A week and a close of this subsection might be in order. That does not mean that your comments are not still cause for concern, because they are. You are not alone in the need to comment within our norms, many of those you are "opposed" to do as well, but we are in this section talking about you... so... I've seen improvement but you still have a ways to go. ++Lar: t/c 11:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed Lar, I miscounted the days, however it has now been almost 12 days. I had asked several admins to resign, and this was discussed here and other places. If this had been one or two admins, with proper reasons and explanations, it may have been appropiate. However, doing so en masse without detailed reasons (like diffs) I admit was improper. The tension had built up over the last month between myself and a two editors (non-admins) who were disruptive and I took Jimbo's suggestion too far. I do think there needs to be some kind of commision, like ArbCom to handle this issue, because I do believe the administrators at Commons have been practicing cronyism (eg COM:ADMINISTRATOR#Kameraad_Pjotr), and there's nothing a editor like myself, without connections or support, can do to stop it. - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Stillwaterising, you have insulted me. I'm sick of your allegations. Please prove them, or stop it. Kameraad Pjotr 20:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
SWR, I think that what we all need to do here is just move on. Many of us did things that weren't right, it happens in the heat of the moment. Let's all drop this for now. If SWR's behaviour is an issue again, we can discuss this anew, but as we are giving Kameraad somewhat of a clean slate I propose we do the same to SWR. Let's just close this topic, move on and stop this needless bickering. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thread archived; Stillwaterising asked to take this as a warning. Any further incidents should be handled with a block of an appropriate length, but I don't think that it would really be helpful to block two weeks after the fact, for actions taken in the middle of a complete community breakdown. The behaviour certainly was disruptive and inappropriate, but this long after the fact, it's a bit hard to justify taking action now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Esby

Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 13
What he is doing with Commons as web space provider? Or I see it wrong? --Perhelion (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The Japan music festival pictures you mean? I don't see any problem with those. Wknight94 talk 17:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The photographs are perfectly under Commons Scope: Cover of a public event in France. Some can be used on the Wikipedia(s), some can be used by external sites, since Commons also serves as a free image repositery. Besides the photographs were producted with the help of the french chapter to obtain a press accreditation. Esby (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Just nominate the derivative works for deletion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Aside from the questionable copyright status, please do not construct such non-standard File descriptions with rather gimmicky language selectors and custom templates for single events. --Dschwen (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The file description pages are indeed non-standard.
Esby, for future mass uploads with an automated tool, please make a request at COM:BRFA. -- User:Docu at 19:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Let me be bold.
The copyright status:
  • This mainly concerns 8 images (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8, assuming there is no much originality in mass producted Maneki-neko ) of the sets (about 230 images) I forgot to remove prior uploading. I'll gladely delete them myself supposing there is agreement to do so.
The automated tool part:
  • The upload were performed with Commonist. Are you suggesting that any user must request a bot status for future upload with commonist?
  • Now a few wrong descriptions were indeed updated with the mw tool, with a throttle sets to 5s. Maybe I should just request a bot account so everyone here is pleased for the future.
the non-standard template and the gimmickly language selector:
  • Considering there is no explicite policy forbidding that, considering that the template can be accessed and edited more or less easily, considering how fastily the bot request are accepted when you make a typo in a description concerning 200 images of the same batch, I am sorry, but I prefer updating a template than spamming the RC with fixes when I can do it...
  • The 'gimmickly' part of the lanaguage selector might be fixed in the future; a new version of the javascript handling it might be coming here soon, more information at the 'gimmickly' template talk page here.
Esby (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The derivative works are still there, but see COM:DW#I know that I can't upload photos of copyrighted art (like paintings and statues), but what about toys? Toys are not art!. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The DW are gone, as I said, those should not have been part of the uploaded sets. If you have problems with the few Maneki-neko pictures left, please open a DR. Esby (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The upload seems to combine two templates that both have the function of {{Information}}. This make re-using the images more complicated. As you don't use Commonist in the standard way, please make a bot request prior to future mass-uploads. -- User:Docu at 16:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't understand you. Could you clarify what you want to say, I just don't follow you here. Esby (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I fixed my spelling. In short: you used an automated tool that, per policy, needs to be approved prior to use. It wouldn't be an issue, if you had used Commonist in the standard way. -- User:Docu at 17:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
(indent restart)Sorry, but what kind of bullshit are you saying here: I don't want to offense you, but let met explain:
  • I used a tool to perform uploads en masse. This is allowed. I am sorry but The way I used Commonist is pretty much the standard way.
  • The descriptions of the files I uploaded are using a custom template {{Festival Japan Matsuri 2010}} which allow to centralize and to display additionnal information about the event inside of the information template.
  • this custom template is using the mld template for localization, there is nothing wrong with it, except maybe on your client side, since you are probably using the meta version of the script. More information can be reched at the {{Mld}} talk page.
  • There are two extra-templates after the description, one that informs that the french chapter was involved, which is pretty normal, performs categorization, which indeed might be debatable according to some people, still there is no official policy about it, there is also no explanation about the 'for and againt' of this . The other template is {{Personality rights}}, nothing wrong here.
The fact that the templates are standard or not, accepted, debated, discussed, or what ever you might claim has nothing to do with the usage of commonist as an uploading tool. It has nothing to do with the bot flag too.
The argumentation that states 'making reusage harder' is pure non-sense: re-usage on wikipedia is done with linking with the image name. the description is not usually re-used. External re-use have no legal obligation to re-use the description, they also usually don't use the template syntax, but the html being rendered from it.
About the non-standard description, one would wonder why files like File:Rembrandt 166.jpg are allowed to have a non-standard description, which does not have the usual field one would await for standardization.
I think that's all for now.
Esby (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The policy is linked in my initial comment above. Anyways, I don't think this is the place to discuss the inconveniences and advantages of yet another custom template. -- User:Docu at 17:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The policy is about bots. Using Commonist has never required a bot flag.
This is not yet another 'custom template'. It is not intented to make concurrency with {{Description}} since this one is present and used.
Esby (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say it needed a bot flag. I think it should have been reviewed collaboratively in advance. Anyways, if it was paid for by Wikimedia, I suppose your upload is ok anyways. Sorry if you feel that I bothered you. -- User:Docu at 06:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhelion, what kind of user problem is that? What about sharing your concerns with the user first? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I second Jastrow. This is extremely rude, Perhelion. Jean-Fred (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok I'm sorry I'll amend me. It's not a really a user problem than more a policy problem. I wouldn't attack Esby so im wrong here. --Perhelion (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

@Perhelion: Could you clarify your main page, there is a link to user:Rocket000 profile on it, without much context given, this could be interpretated as you being rocket000. Thanks in advance. Esby (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Esby (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't see any further issues here: Esby accidentally uploaded a few derivative works in the process of a batch upload of useful images. They've been dealt with. Wrong forum, really: User talk:Esby would have been better, but that's been apologised for, so let's all move on. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we already have moved on; the last comment was four days ago ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User:PANONIAN

User:PANONIAN change my comment in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Soviet caucasus1922.png her. more then thet he is spliting my comments in tha same disscation. Pleas ask him stop doing it. I active mostly in commons and the Hebrew Wikipedia. I never made edit wars and never seen such behavior of this user. He upload map thet containg term thet never exsist he post this map in alot of wikipedias as I said in this commant with anonymous IP. this is the real reason of deleting of this map. Anyway if he have any problem with my comment he can report me. Geagea (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment that I deleted was a clear example of trolling and personal harassment: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3ASoviet_caucasus1922.png&action=historysubmit&diff=38370579&oldid=38349182 - please somebody tell to this user that page of that deletion proposal is not a place for his personal "crusade" against me. PANONIAN (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I asked Geagea not to attack other editors. S/he needs to confine his/her comments to the substance of the discussion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have the strong suspicion that the user PANONIAN is edit-warring against me on the Atlas of Serbia using those proxies:

The reason why I suspect the User PANONIAN are three:

  • 1) they are some maps included by me in the Atlas of Serbia or map comments edites by me 3 years ago (I mean most of those changes concerning the Romanian/Vlach population in Serbia) who have been changed on 11 February 2010 by PANONIAN (I meam most of the edits made here concerning the Romanians/Vlachs of Serbia). After I reverted PANONIAN's edits on my comments, PANONIAN's edits have been restored promptly by this ip-user who stared an edit war against me on the Atlas of Serbia. I noticed PANOANIAN's edits on 25 April 2010 and reverted them see here. Promptly, only 13 hours and 32 minutes, the "unknown" ip-user 194.106.188.92 reverted my edits and accused my of POV-pushing. The edit war started now and the rest can be easily seen here. Just shortly before, he ended his dispute with Geagea.
  • 2) I believe that PANONIAN's reason to carry out his edit-warring by proxis because only 2 weeks earlier, on 10 March 2010 he was blocked for the second time on this year due to edit wars. I think that he is trying to avoid the third block using proxies. This time, he isn't just edit warring, but he is also insulting me (see point 3).
  • 3) In en:wiki, in the past PANONIAN had similar disputes concerning the identity of the Vlachs/Romanians of Central Serbia (see here and here); I also recognize the same arguments used then and now. The way he argumented there are similar to those from this talk. He use often to insult obsessively user with an opposite opinion by calling him a "Romanian nationalists". During this talk he insulted me, by calling me a "nationalist" for many times (starting with 1 May 2010), though I told him 2 May 2010 to stop with such accusations (I wrote: "And stop wrinting here things like "your great national cause", such outbreaks just make our conversation unfriendly."). But he didn't stop and continued to call me and my opinions "nationalistic" for further 15 times or more. The term "nationalist" isn't obligatory insulting, but when you are asked by the adressed person not to call her in such a way, I think that any further disregard of this demand is doubtless made with the intention to insult me. However, another attempt of him to insult me was here when he suddenly wrote "[...]I do not know how large (or small) your IQ is,[...]" -> this is an alternative way to say "Probably you are dumb".

And last but not least, his comments when he reverts my edits are nothing but lies. He writes "back to compromise version", but there is no compromise there. He is just reverting my edits and noting more.--Olahus (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The edit-was continued today ... isn't there any administrator to block this page for unregistered users???--Olahus (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I'm trying to take this seriously. I started reading the discussion page of Atlas of Serbia, and after 1/3 I stopped. Postings got longer with each reply, arguments were just repeated over and over again. Both parties seem to have some valid points though. I don't quite get what makes Serbia such an annoying topic. Discussions about that country heat up in seconds and everyone accusses everyone else of being a nationalist. As for Vlachs vs. Romani, what is the big f***ing deal? Is it so hard to find a middle ground? State both terms and mention there apparently is some controversy. Please reset that discussion and find a term that both of you like. (btw. plainly reverting with the comment vandalism is not helpful either). --Dschwen (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Se šounkou a margarínem

Please block this user for extensive vandalism on File:RomaCastelSantAngelo-2.jpg and delete all those porno pictures. Thank you --Justass (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done Lupo 11:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Ottava Rima

This kind of personal attack destroys commons: 1 2 3 [42]. There is no justification to call people with other views for vandals and threaten them with blocks.--Ankara (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I would advice to ignore the troll. If you bite, you give Ottava Rima attention and more credence than is needed. Just see it as a rather sickening example of continued anilingus and move on. Erik Warmelink (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • This edit, by Erik Warmelink, is a vulgar and mindless personal attack, and that certainly does warrant a block. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    Hi, Malcolm. There already is a section dedicated to my behaviour. Sure, block me for my lack of command of the (US variant of) English. The edit above is an attack (on someone who seems to be here only to attack others), I can understand why you consider it a vulgar attack, I can even see why you consider it a personal attack (though I attack the behaviour of a pseudonym, not the person behind the pseudonym), but it isn't mindless. And you are smart enough to know the attack wasn't mindless. Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I re-read your edit, and stand by my my original statement that your edit "is a vulgar and mindless personal attack" directed against Ottava. You called him a "troll" which is an incorrect characterization of his contributions to Commons. Please refer to the Wikipedia article Don't call editors trolls. Also, you "anilingus" comment is extremely vulgar and unacceptable. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I did not call Ottava Rima a troll, I called the contributions trolls (wikt:troll#Etymology 2, I consider "A person who posts …" a neologism, note that I urged not to bite). If "anilingus" doesn't have both meanings of "kont kussen" (kiss the buttocks; literally, but far more often as "je kunt me de kont kussen"), I shouldn't have used it, but considering the discussion, the double meaning did fit. This isn't en-US.wiki despite recent attempts. Erik Warmelink (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I think I have made the problems with your original edit [43] sufficiently clear. Anyone who chooses only needs to read that to understand my point. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ottava Rima has had a quite disruptive behaviour on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and user talk pages (at least). After having tried several times to make him amend his behaviour, I have put a formal warning on his talk page, asking him to stop

  • Pushing deliberate misinterpretations of the policies in order to support your opinions;
  • Accusing other contributors of bad faith and of misreading the policies when it is exactly what you do;
  • Aggressing and harassing other contributors, issuing abusive ad hominem arguments;
  • Accusing admins of policy violations when they remind you the rules of the project.

These are more or less part of the grounds on which Ottava Rima has been banned for one year from the English Wikipedia. If his behaviour does not improve I will request here for him to be blocked here as well for being highly disruptive to the "collegial atmostphere" of the project (and for harassing other users, if necessary). --Eusebius (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


  • NB: Eusebius, it does not seem appropriate for you to be issuing a "formal warning" to a user who is opposed to your personal editing goals. It does not seem appropriate for you, as an involved administrator, to make threats of sanctions against a user when it is clear that you would benefit personally from his being silenced. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I have no problem with Eusebius issuing this warning. First of all, I wouldn't say that he was involved in a conflict with Ottava Rima to the point of being biased. And even if he was, this is just a warning, announced on a public noticeboard, so that any admin who considers Eusebius overstepped a line can amend it; this hasn't happened so far, so it seems Eusebius' impression is shared by most. Also note that he specifically said he wouldn't issue a block himself: I will request here for him to be blocked, which clearly shows he doesn't want to act unilaterally. Everything was done by the books. –Tryphon☂ 11:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 Support some sort of reprimand and temporary ban. I am getting very very tired of this guy - he keeps threatening to try and de-admin me for alleged policy violations (no such violation occurred, and several people told him so, but he doesn't seem to be willing to drop it). I'm all for being tolerant and stuff, but we do want people who listen - he has been told time and time again that Commons is not here to editorialise on other projects, and that SCOPE states that if an image is in use on an article page it is in use and so in scope. Many many times, yet he keeps insisting that it is only in scope if there are no other images on the page, or various other reasons why an image which has been in use for years should be kept deleted because it happens to show some sort of nudity. For instance, see COM:UDEL (plus archive 1), or my talk page. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
You have made multiple policy violations, such as closing a undeletion request that you both commented in and voted in, then claimed that we were "not a democracy", negated most of the statements, then closed with a comment that was 100% opposite of policy. 2 of the three images were admittedly "not being used on a page" and you said that they could "potentially be used" so that was a keep. Policy is clear: "and an image does not magically become useful by arguing that “it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on X”, where X happens to be the subject of the file." You have no grounds to support this as you are conflicted and you are completely wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that these administrators and users see nothing wrong with involved administrators issuing warnings and blocks. I note, also, that many WP administrators see nothing wrong with the porn on this website, while at the same time promoting the use of Wikipedia by schools and libraries (including children's rooms). Discouraging, but così è la vita. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Malcom: Please leave your puristanism at the entrance of Commons. Ottavia attitude is enough to issue such a warning. I also banned him from IRC saturday for trolling and threatening people and I feel it was the right thing to do. Esby (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Esby's ban was overturned as being inappropriate and abusive. Esby's ban is motivated by personal political feelings and not policy, which is the definition of abuse. Why Esby would mention that he banned me and yet ignored that it was overturned for being highly inappropriate is anyone's guess. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Some people trust admins - some don't. Applies the same as far as users are concerned. I'd like to think I have never allowed my personal judgements to affect my admin actions - given I'm human I may be wrong and I'm sure someone will come along and point it out to me. With around 30k admin actions it would be quite remarkable if I had not made a mistake in that time - I know others are perfect but I am not. --Herby talk thyme 12:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

@Herbythyme: Every human has biases. I do not see why I should trust Commons administrators more than I trust Supreme Court justices, who also clearly make decisions influenced by their biases. I do not consider that bad, but rather as an unavoidable aspect of human nature. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough - I find (& have found) your approach on Commons unhelpful. I guess we are both stuck with the situation. There is enough to deal with in normal times on Commons without this sort of thing and at present there is plenty to actually do here. --Herby talk thyme 13:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If you think that my contributions to Commons are harmful, why do you not block me? I can leave without any regrets because I feel secure that my contributions have been good, my arguments rational, and have acted without any expectation of applause. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If they were harmful I would block you - that is not what I said. Gone to do real work. --Herby talk thyme 13:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
In this context, the way you used "unhelpful" seems to mean the same as harmful. So why not block me? It would make many treasured editors happy, and it make no helpful users sad. (Strange, though, that I should take flack, while none of you had a single word of complaint about this vulgar and insulting edit by Erik Warmelink [44]. Così è la vita.) - Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll chime in. I have blocked Erik twice now, once for edit warring and once for unhelpful edits, and I am not unwilling to do so again to cut back on disruption. So I think I have some standing to say that your raising Erik as an issue to deflect discussion about yourself is... well, it's unhelpful. Which is exactly what Herby is referring to. Your edits are not helpful. Are they blockable in and of themselves? Is the drama from blocking you worth it? Dunno. But unhelpful? Certainly. There's a lot of that going around. ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
No need to do me any favors, Lar. If you think it will do you some good to send me into wiki-commons exile, I will have no regrets about leaving Commons and, in fact, I never expected anything different. I think my edits here are helpful, and certainly rational, and your threats are of no concern to me. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

@Esby: Puritanism? Why do you want to demean the ethical concerns of other users with a negative use of framing. And, for that matter, without bothering to construct a rational argument? I do not have much patience with such name calling. Please do not tell me what to do, and particularly please do not tell me that ethical concerns about porn may not be stated on Commons. Do you understand? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop trolling? Thanks in advance. Esby (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you should take your own advice. You started out by name calling, and have now gone on to calling me a troll. Please review WP:TROLL. - Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. This case has nothing to do with the presence of sex-related content on Commons and whether we like it or not. Anyone has the right to have an opinion and to express it (not here, please). The issue here is the way it has been done. So please avoid digressions.
  2. I believe my various messages and my final warning to Ottava Rima have been made without passion and without getting personal. I have been doing my job as an admin by closing a few del/udel requests, by asking a user to behave properly and by warning him when he failed to do so. I'll continue doing my job by checking that the warning has been understood. However, I have failed to notify this discussion to him, so I'll do it at once. --Eusebius (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing exceptional to say that an administrator who is involved in a disagreement with a user should not be the administrator threatening sanctions to that same user. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
What exactly are you looking for? Do you want Eusebius to retract his warning? Do you want someone else to warn Ottava Rima? Several people here have endorsed this warning, and no one besides you seems to have a problem with how it was handled. So it seems to me that you're trying to draw focus on a small procedural detail (with no suggestion on how to fix it) when the real issue is the disruptive behavior of one user. So again, what course of action do you suggest? –Tryphon☂ 14:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Eusebius's warning was already removed by me per him making repeated personal attacks over my ability to read. The WMF already knows my background as an academic in English Literature, so such statements are inappropriate at best. And Tryphon, there are only four people in here that seem to be in any opposition to me and at least three made it clear that they are conflicted and biased based on disputes that result from their own political interpretation and statements that have been proven to contradict our policy with clear comparisons between their words and the text of the policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Before we go any further - would you consider me "conflicted" in this case? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • There was no link to this page, which is highly inappropriate. There is also many personal attacks by many people in this thread, such as Eusebius, who claims I am unable to read yet I am a professional academic in English literature whereas he is not a native English speaker. He is also involved and this is clear retaliation for pointing out that his statements are not grounded in a legitimate reading of the policy, which uses very clear language. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Then I conclude that Rima is unwilling to read. His interpetions of policy are absurd, his claims in DR's are best ignored to avoid endless "discussion". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Personal attacks do not verify your statement. I have already provided through clear copy and paste with analysis how my reading of policy is verified in multiple clauses in multiple sections and that there is no way to interpret in a different manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not see that as a personal attack. You interpret policy in what is, as Pieter says, an absurd way. You are able to read, obviously, as you're reading this, and the policy is perfectly clear, as are the arguments people have presented against your position. Thus the obvious conclusion is that you are unwilling to read it. There is only one relevant section Ottava, and that is "use on another wikimedia project", which you consistently ignore. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Now blocked

I have now blocked this user. He has been very selective in removing material from his user talk page. Discussions were still taking place here and so the removal of the warning (and nothing else) cannot be called "archiving" to my mind. Warning both Eusebius and myself not to restore the warning is plain wrong. I have only blocked him for a day in order to get further input. I have been forced to re-block protecting his talk page as he persists in selectively removing postings. I have left his unblock request on there.

You blocked him for deleting from his own talk page? That seems....unusual - Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Not specifically that. I blocked him for removing warnings while discussion was taking place and warning those who reverted him that they were the vandals. That is disruptive (as his behaviour seems to have been). I place a very short block to allow sensible discussion. I have not been involved with this user so I need to read around some as I imagine others do. --Herby talk thyme 15:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
"Not specifically that"? To me it seems like "that", and - specifically or not - it looks like a duck. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have not been involved in this with him up until now however I consider his behaviour disruptive in a number of areas. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think his intimidating/harassing is repeated even after being warned and apologizing. I see no possibilities to reform this user's attitude. So a long-term ban is needed. – Kwj2772 (msg) 15:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Looking around I am inclined to see it the same as you Kwj. However I have not really been involved with this user. I do see disruption, sniping and the likes. I will not object to my block being lifted if there is consensus nor will I object to it being extended - my block was only intended to put a stop to the current behaviour. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, he's behaving in a manner consistent with his past record, and I doubt that a short term ban would change that. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The removing of the discussion that Herby restored was at the very least unpolite and disruptive. This user seems to be making a habit out of baiting administrators and users and seeing how far he can push peoples buttons, by wikilawyring and other tactics. I have no tears for this user. He is continuously playing a game of how to waste the time of as many Commons users as he can, it seems. There are better things to do than us having to adhere to the whims of this user. TheDJ (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
It is also rather annoying that user immediately turns to IRC to petition his case with me. TheDJ (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Octava is a valuable contribute who many other editors dislike because they loose arguments with him, causing them trouble. But life is trouble [45], and so are many good editors. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

We went over this with Mutter Erde, and decided that if someone was disruptive, it was too bad if he otherwise did good work, the rest of the community works better when he's not being disruptive. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
And Juiced Lemon before that. I find these really difficult - vandals is vandals is vandals - they are easy. Real contributors I really dislike blocking. However - this is a collaborative project - if folk cannot/will not work collaboratively then, regretfully, we need to deal with it. --Herby talk thyme 15:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
So what do we do? I don't like it that he is blocked, but SOMETHING needs to be done. TheDJ (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I  Support a block, but not too long (I'd say one month), first because it would be a first block here on Commons (in first approximation), second because it might be the case that Ottava Rima's current behaviour is biased by his strong reaction to the sex-related content issues. So I'm willing to believe that this can change over time. However, right now it seems necessary to "protect" the community from his aggressive and disruptive behaviour. I think he shouldn't be blocked for removing the warning from his talk page (this does not seem to be covered by the blocking policy) but with a rationale such as "showing an aggressive and disruptive behaviour, pushing deliberate misinterpretations of the policies, failing to take warnings into accounts, accusing other users of bad faith and violations". "Harrassment" and "disrupting the collegial atmosphere" of the projects are actually covered by the blocking policy. --Eusebius (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am well aware that Commons is not, in many respects, run as I think is best. Blocking good editors for being "disruptive" (which in my view is a meaningless term as it is used on this site, and a vicious instrument in the hands of many) is one of the ways I think it not run for the best.
Anything wrong with my saying what I think is best? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Because you consider that user:Ottava Rima is a good editor at Commons? Less than 50 images uploaded, 400 contribs, with 300 after the 6th may 2010... ? Esby (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Only 50 images uploaded?!! Shit! Okay, lets block him. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I believe he has alot more that were copied over from en where he uploaded them a couple years ago. Not sure how many but he has more then 50 on the project as far as I know. Jamesofur (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Wait, he's barely contributed before this past week? Then who the hell am i thinking of who was disruptive with this sort of thing last time? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


Forward

I think we should unblock Ottava so that he can participate in the discussion. The unblock should be conditional on the fact that he won't go straight back to attacking Eusebius regarding the warnings. Clearly there is some support for a ban. Let's discuss that. TheDJ (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

While I agree in a sense I think some breathing space is still appropriate for now. --Herby talk thyme 17:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd also make it conditional on not misrepresenting policy. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I would just add that the email I had (posted on the user's tall page for completeness) does indicate that he feels he is in dispute with me from a previous matter. I had not considered it but I guess it is likely he is seems to like such dispute (the effect is the same as wiki stalking in practice if not in intent). --Herby talk thyme 17:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Additionally it now appears that he has requested oversighting of my posting of his email. I find this quite hard to deal with as he is accusing me of things by mail that I cannot respond to in a public way which would be my preference. Under the circumstances I will not respond to the most recent email although I appear to be violating many policies at present. I'll leave others to deal with this but I do consider this harassment as I am unable to respond to the community. --Herby talk thyme 17:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If you do not feel comfortable discussing this issue via private e-mail, why did you not just tell him that, instead of making it public? Of course its too late now.
What I do not understood is why Ottava puts up with the chronically shitty treatment he gets on these wikis. This whole place frequently seems mad. So serious about enforcing rules that are rules no place but wiki-land. So serious about preventing "disruption" in a wiki that is already in chaos. More than anything Commons seems a ship of fools. Feh. - Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
He is free to leave. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Per Mattbuck however as we do not run Commons in the way Schosha considers appropriate may be he is free to leave us in peace too. I now consider him to be harassing me too (& not for the first time). --Herby talk thyme 21:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Herby wrote (concerning me): I now consider him to be harassing me too. Herby, I do not recall saying anything intended to "harass" you. Could you clarify? Certainly we disagree. But, if you think that is grounds to send me into wiki-commons exile, you should not hesitate. I will not regret it. I have acted as I think right, and you should do the same. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I find your approach completely lacking in the spirit of collaboration/co-operation that I have relished about Commons over quite a long period. Examination of actions is fine - I feel you go beyond that (as does the user who is the subject of this thread). You are welcome to your views - I am welcome to mine - I would prefer not to interact with you - that is the effect you have had on me. --Herby talk thyme 07:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Look, Herby, you accused me of harassing you, but when I asked you to specify with some examples of harassment all I got in reply is a vague answer ending with a statement that you would rather not interact with me. That clarifies nothing. What I am saying is that if your edit (above) contains an answer to my request for specifics I do not see it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
See, the thing is, in some ways it comes down to your word against Herby's. When that sort of thing happens, the community often gives credence to those people that have shown respect FOR the community, and who have worked hard to gain trust, and who have avoided being abrasive. (in short, nice people...) You may not agree that's how it ought to be but I think that's often how it is. Herby's earned my trust and respect and support. I suspect I speak for many when I say that. You've earned, with me, a reputation as abrasive, argumentative, and not collegial. So, I believe Herby when he says you were harassing him, and not you when you say you weren't. You constantly say "I'm leaving, and I don't care if you block me on the way out" or words to that effect. I don't believe you there either. If you're really so disgusted... leave. After all, we're not worthy. Or better, change your ways. When you want to be, you're a great contributor. ++Lar: t/c 13:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
There seems to some sort of strange communication problem here. Herby said I had harassed him, which I do not recall doing, so I asked for a clarification. Although it is clear that we disagree about Ottava, I have no wish to rough up Herby. Even my limited experience with him has shown that his approach is non-combative, and if I have actually harassed him I am quite willing to apologize. I know I can be abrasive and, if it is shown to me that I have overstepped reasonable bounds in a disagreement, I am always willing to apologize for the rough handling, and I am willing to do that even if I think I am otherwise in the right. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Comments like the above give me some faint glimmering of hope that we might be able to work with you, Malcolm. But then you go and say things like "The conversation, with the clowns (aka administrators) on this thread, was amusing," and I despair again. How was that a helpful comment? People have just patiently explained why Ottava is a net negative and that was your response? I'm not seeing a way forward unless you do more like the above and less like what I clipped from. ++Lar: t/c 15:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Lar, I was trying to find out if someone here is awake. Apparently not. In my view the only administrator who has shown any signs of normal human decency in all this discussion is Adam Cuerden, who at least made it possible for Ottava to state a defense himself. Not that anyone listened. As I watched this discussion progress, the word "clowns" unavoidably came to mind. Sorry about the negative report, but that is how I see it, and I regret having to say it. As for your "seeing a way forward" working with me, I doubt it. The situation seems hopeless, and I understand the likely outcome in regard to my continued presence on Commons. Fatal but not serious, seems a good descriptive term for this. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
At least for me that hope died with It never ceases to amaze me what a bunch of mean spirited dicks and ignorant assholes WP and Commons administrators can be. :-( --Dschwen (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if the negative report hurt your feelings, but that statement sums my understanding of this discussion. Would you have liked what I said any better if I had just said "It never ceases to amaze me how mean spirited ignorant, WP and Commons administrators can be"? "Dicks" and "assholes" or not, "mean spirited" and "ignorant" certainly applies. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
So - we are "ignorant" and you are... You see - I am just not as rude as you (though I certainly have faults). --Herby talk thyme 16:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
This is getting nowhere, just binding time that could be used in a more productive way. Block? --Dschwen (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 Support block. Wknight94 talk 18:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 Support block, assuming you are talking about me. It is of no concern to me, and if you think you will benefit from sending me into wiki-commons exile, I can live with that. Refer to the quote at the top of my WP talk page[46]. - Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
This is about the only part of today that does not give me pleasure. I refuse to make this personal. And neither did your rude language hurt my feelings. You are simply making the working atmosphere less pleasant and distract from productive work. 1 week to get some distance and perspective. --Dschwen (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 Oppose block, for now, if we're talking about Malcolm Schosha. We should conclude about Ottava Rima and ignore him, unless other users are complaining (about something else than this conversation), in which case we'll open a new section. --Eusebius (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 Oppose for pretty much the same reasons as Eusebius. Let's close this and move on. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 Oppose I think. He is rude and abrasive however he has from time to time apologised. We do have worse around. Per Mattbuck & Eusebius --Herby talk thyme 09:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 Comment You should probably make a separate heading on this page to discuss the behaviour/block of MS - this thread about Ottava is complicated enough as it is... Finn Rindahl (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I also like how Ottava Rima's "opponents" are all "intellectual midgets". Amazing all this childish name calling from someone who does "not have much patience for such name calling." Apparently the patience only goes in one direction. Wknight94 talk 15:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
He is rude and unpleasant. Frankly it is only that I feel conflicted with this user that I haven't done something about it. I doubt the words would be tolerated from many others. I keep hoping that if we all ignore him he will go away basically (though I appear to be wrong in that). From one of the local friendly dick heads. --Herby talk thyme 15:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I invested some time in trying to get a rational explanation from someone, but that was not forthcoming. Now you call me "childish", when I tell you that your attitude is mean spirited and ignorant. Call me childish if you want, but it is mostly the administrators who are the children here. This is known. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Except that lots of explanation has been given. You just don't accept the validity of it, apparently. OK, that's fine, but nevertheless it has. Most other folk do. That might tell you something... ++Lar: t/c 17:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
No, just the usual WP and Commons catch phrases. Citing catch phrases is no the same as an explanations. But that's ok, and I expect nothing more. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to interrupt but, since this has wandered far afield, maybe a new section is warranted. Wknight94 talk 14:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't think a new section is needed. It is interwoven with the rest of the thread, an is probably close to concluded. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Mattbuck: "conditional on not misrepresenting policy" - Ottava will ruleslawyer that to death. Herby: "accusing me of things by mail that I cannot respond to in a public way"... yup, that's a standard tactic too. Keep shifting the playing field until everyone is confused. Claim special privs and deny them to others. Attack the messenger not the message. I think a month of no Ottava might be good for the project. Harassing Herby is totally unacceptable. He's one of the sanest and soundest people here. ++Lar: t/c 18:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
True, he would. I agree, ban him for a month, no one should be mean to Herby. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
One month seems appropriate, although I have little hope of seeing any change of behavior after that period of time. –Tryphon☂ 18:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I've returned from a period off line and found two further emails which I consider again harassment. I am accused of misuse of rights however I cannot state the accusations nor respond to them to the community I serve. I place this with some sadness as my block was merely intended to give breathing space not to cause further issues and disruption. I am told that I am to give access to the user talk page again to allow the user to express their views however when they had that access they - in my opinion - were editing against the way we work on Commons. I understand that they consider that they run Wikiversity however I'm not sure that that can or should influence me or the community here. I am happy to justify my use of my rights to the community at any time. However it does seem to me that this user seeks to engage with admins here is a disruptive way. --Herby talk thyme 20:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Reflecting here. Admin actions (use of any rights) should always be open to scrutiny by the community. I have always believed that & will continue to do so. However there are times when such scrutiny becomes harassment in my view. I am certainly not perfect however I found the continual questioning of Eusebius was something beyond simple questioning. Commons has some great admins and Eusebius is - to me - one of them. I have never seen an RfCU pass with as many votes as his did suggesting I am not the only one holding him in some respect.

I do consider Ottava Rima has not been editing in a co-operative manner. Commons seems to have acquired a few users who delight in wiki lawyering style debates (I dread the day we have "commons lawyering"). I think the community should look at this carefully and in a timely way. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is pretty clear above so I have extended Ottava Rima's block to one month. I have also turned off e-mail to go along with the disabled talk page. Commons needs a break. Wknight94 talk 11:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Five editors, with the exception of one, support inclusionism here. There are, as I quickly counted, six in support of a one month block. Don't you think it would have been better to hear some of the other editors' opinions? Blurpeace 15:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
If people by now haven't looked at it, they're not going to. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
It's been about 24 hours all together (starting from Eusebius's 1-month block proposal). I've seen at least 3 days or more given for long-term block discussions. Blurpeace 15:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Since we're voting now about his block, I'll chime in and say that I could see a shorter block of a few days, but I do not support a month block. A few days would have stopped the disruption, let everyone including Ottava calm down, and hopefully everyone would have been able to get back to discussing things calmly. Killiondude (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
@Blurpeace, what's "inclusionism"? How is it related to this discussion? What is your opinion on the block itself? @Killiondude, this isn't really about Ottava calming down. It's about the project needing a break from the chaos. Wknight94 talk 16:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
See the meta page (i.e., "We aren't censored!"). Birds of a feather flock together? I agree with Killiondude, in that the block was too long. It would have served the same effect with less time. Blurpeace 16:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(indent reset) I'm not against a shorter block if other contributors think it is better, I'm just afraid it won't change much. Plus, I hope nobody is making assumptions about my position on the inclusion of sex-related content, because I don't think I have expressed it anywhere and I'm not willing to. As it has been said, the warning and (temp) block of Ottava has primarily nothing to do with content, it is about the four points written in the warning message. --Eusebius (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocking seldom helps, longer blocks never have helped as far as I know. Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Then let's indef and move on. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Word! --Dschwen (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I considered it, and would support it. Wknight94 talk 20:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Mattbuck wrote: "Then let's indef and move on".
Err.."Off with his head!", you mean? [47]. Mattbuck, I hope that was supposed to be a funny comment. It was supposed to be funny.....right? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes and no. If temporary blocking doesn't help (and judging by the current IRC chat where Ottava is arguing that every single photo anyone has ever taken of trains, planes and automobiles is a copyvio, it isn't working yet) and we are agreed that Ottava is a disruption we'd rather do without, the only solution is indefinite block. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Really? It never ceases to amaze me what a bunch of mean spirited dicks and ignorant assholes WP and Commons administrators can be. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Count me in. If Rima is arguing on IRC as Mattbuck says (and I have no reason to doubt), he does not need to return. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I would provide chatlogs, but iirc posting them in public is against channel rules. As for being a dick, I'm respectful to those who are respectful of others. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on days of discussion in IRC with this user and his response to my rather stern admonishment regarding his behaviour and the following continual apparent intellectual dishonesty in the wikimedia public meeting about the recent commons happenings (claiming that Com:Scope forbids commons from including images which aren't in use in articles), I have little hope for lasting remediation. Ottava appears to believe that he knows better than all of us and that continuing to push his agenda through any means available including playing fast and loose with the clear language of the policy is acceptable. Even if the former is true the latter is not and bad behaviour is unlikely to improve if it's not even admitted. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Gmaxwell, even assuming that is a correct evaluation of the problem, I do not see why it is that big a problem. Even if Ottava does disagree with some administrators, so what? Are you saying that Commons can not live with dissenting views, and will not tolerated dissenting views? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we are terrible intolerant people, we oppress people with dissenting views. We are worse than the government of Myanmar, pardon, Burma. Come on Malcom, do you expect a serious answer to a question like that? It is not a question of tolerance if someone wants to undermine the goals of the community. --Dschwen (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Are you a mind reader? What makes you think you know Ottava's intentions, much less that Ottava intends to "undermine the goals of the community"? You are assuming bad faith to the tenth power. Don't do that.
It appears to me that there should be more than one way to understand what the goals of Commons actually are. Moreover, the idea that a user (without even administrative authority) could do anything to undermine Commons, is laughable. Don't make silly arguments. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Ottava has exhausted every possible remaining reserve of good faith. Assuming good faith does not require us to pretend not to notice ridiculous behavior. It is little surprise to anyone who participated in Ottava's en.wikipedia ArbCom proceedings that he has continued to do the exact same thing here on Commons. Now, I will admit it's obvious (to me) that Ottava wants what he feels is best for the project. But he simply cannot work with a community to achieve those goals. No amount of cajoling, begging, pleading, or arguing has ever convinced Ottava how to interact constructively with people with whom he disagrees. Whether the disruption is willful or not is irrelevant, although it's almost impossible to see how, at this point, he couldn't be aware of it. For the health of the project and the people with whom Ottava disagrees (who are legion), he simply cannot be allowed to continue his methods of 'collaboration'. Powers (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
LtPowers, all you have said is that you can not get him to agree with you. So what? I know that nothing I have said, or could say, will make a particle of difference because the intellectual midgets who oppose him can't construct a rational argument, and its easier for you to call him disruptive than it is for you to figure out how to think. Tutto è inutile! This whole discussion has been hopeless. The usual Commons administrative SNAFU. More than anything I have to give Ottava a lot of credit for not giving up hope that he can explain something to such fools. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not about the fact that he does disagree, it's about how he disagrees, and the fact that he simply does not listen and creates his own fallacious interpretations of perfectly clear policies to back up his own viewpoint. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
You're not paying attention to what I wrote, Malcolm; you're just reading what you want to read. I never said one word about being unable to get Ottava to agree with me. The problem, as Mattbuck said, is not disagreement but rather how Ottava reacts to disagreement. Normal, mature wiki editors react by making logical arguments, striving for compromise, obtaining outside help, or, in the case all of that fails, walking away. Ottava doesn't do that; he makes illogical arguments, sets up straw men so he can knock them down, relentlessly studies his opponents for any perceived slip-ups in their comments, slings accusations of coordinated attacks aimed at him, and refuses to acknowledge the barest possibility that he might be wrong and that others might be right. The documentation at his ArbCom hearing was exhaustive (quite literally so for anyone who tried to read it all). And as Gmaxwell points out, countless editors on multiple wikis have come to the same conclusion quite independently of each other. The ArbCom hearing was full of different people who'd encountered Ottava's anti-collaborative behavior on some topic or another, and found with varying degrees of surprise that their conflicts were by no means unique, but rather just another datum in a long history of Ottava being Ottava. If you think this is just "I don't like Ottava because he disagrees with me," you clearly have no understanding of the scope involved here. Powers (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Au contraire, it is you who have not understood what I said. My point is, even if every negative thing you have said about Ottava were true, that is (in my view) not a reason to block him for even one minute. He is not a vandal, he apparently intends to make positive contributions to Commons, and has the capacity of doing that. He made a lot of good contributions to WP, and arbcom blocking him was an irrational mistake. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
You're wrong there. Being unable to work within the community is a perfectly acceptable reason to block him. I'm sure he did make a lot of good contribs to WP, but this is Commons, where in the view of myself, and many others apparently, he's more trouble than he's worth. We could ALL have been out improving stuff, but instead we're here arguing over him. That's bad. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The conversation, with the clowns (aka administrators) on this thread, was amusing, so it has not been a complete wast of time. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


I believe that long block might not be a solution in this case. The used has a year long ban on English Wikipedia, and now he is in troubles here on Commons. On the other hand the user is not a vandal, and is fully capable of making very positive contributions. Maybe the community could consider giving this user a mentor. A block is the last resort, and could be reimposed at any time, if other options do not work. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no problems with disagreement or dissent, — I disagree with many people on commons, and I'm thankful that they've tolerated my blather. I believe that a key distinguishing factor is that none of us are going around repetitively telling people that the plain language of the policy says something other than what it clearly says and continuing even after being corrected by everyone and his brother. Instead we say it "ought" to say something else, or we'll have disagreements about more subjective things. We don't continue to push a single one true answer until everyone has lost patience, we seek criticism for our ideas and compromise over the details.

What strikes me as most compelling here is that many people have reached the same conclusions about the user's behaviour without coordination. I independently cautioned Ottava about his behaviour when I saw him IRC with no knowledge that others were also warning him elsewhere. I don't claim to know his motivation, — he seems very honestly motivated to me, but also uncooperative, self-important, and loose with the truth, but I can see the _behaviour_ and other people see it too. I was also unaware of the enwp block before this discussion, but it seems perfectly in line with what I've seen here and is further evidence that a resolution is unlikely.

Regarding mentoring, it would only be viable if the user wished to improve. Quoting out of context from a private conversation, "I have very refined taste". It's nearly impossible to mentor someone who honestly believes that it is you (and the rest of the world) that needs the mentoring, and thats the impression that he's given me. Finally, Ottava has strongly held the position that commons should only contain works actively in use in other projects. If he wishes to contribute to that subset of our stated mission I believe he could do so with almost equal effectiveness by working directly on those projects (or at least whichever ones haven't already banned him). --Gmaxwell (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I spent a half hour on IRC with Ottava trying to find evidence for the validity of the claim that other people support his position, but I only received highly stylized examples. For example the claim that when anyone says 'commons is restricted to educational works' that they are supporting his position that commons is restricted to works which are in use in another project. After that I spent a half hour trying to get Ottava to suggest a minimal change to Commons:Scope which would eliminate his claim that it _requires_ works to be in-use but all I could get was an example of how to remove the educational requirement entirely and permit all freely licensed works. I feel like I gave him every opportunity to participate as a full member of the community and I believe that he gave me every reason to believe that the disagreement was not simply a good faith misunderstanding of the policy. --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ottava's comments

I've added this as a transclusion from his talk page. It's only right he has the right to defend himself. If things start going wonky, check the noinclude tags on his talk page. - Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Purge the page to check for new comments

Good luck

I did not see your generous response towards Ironholds, who was not banned. I am truly sorry to see that you have been banned, and I would like to be able to wish that you should be soon welcomed back by the community. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 08:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note on discussions here

You are not welcome here if you wish to justify the abuse of this project. The abuse cannot be refuted, and if you are here to spread misstruth, then do it elsewhere. There are facts that cannot be denied.

1. A.Savin blocked me inappropriately. A. He was clearly involved in canvassing another project to defend Russavia and blocked me. B. He closed a discussion after a very tiny portion of time. C. He claimed a block log that is, for the most part, clean. D. His claim of a single purpose account or harassment are incredibly factually wrong and highly inappropriate.

2. The discussion on AN was started by Mattbuck and show that I and others point out that he inappropriately closed a deletion discussion that he was involved in. A. He took offense that it was pointed out he misstated our policy. B. He was caught canvassing for support on IRC and booted me when I pointed out that he is not supposed to do that. C. All in the discussion who came in quickly were all members of the IRC channel. D. One individual was caught consistently lying about my ability to edit AN in defense of myself, which multiple people pointed out.

3. Mattbuck inappropriately closed a deletion discussion he was a participant in and closely connected to. A. He has, according to many at en.wiki, trolled Jimbo Wales regarding the movie being deleted. B. He made false claims about policy and consensus, and this was pointed out by others. C. It was an image that Russavia commissioned and, according to third party reliable sources such as this piece, has no purpose here except to harass.

4. It all goes back to Russavia, who the vast majority of the community has said has violated our policies and our trust in his war on Jimbo Wales and his use of sexualized images to harass users on another project. It is clear that the use of the block button or the threat of it is to intimidate opposition. This cannot be refuted.

So lets be honest - Commons has a major problem. The vast majority has attributed that to Russavia and his actions, and reliable sources have made it clear that he has been abusive and brought the project into disrepute. Why should anyone be willing to contribute while we have a system where our governance is not only actively encouraging his policy violations and harassment, but admin are willing to abuse their tools (deletion closings and block buttons) to silence those who stand up against it?

How can anyone be happy with this situation? How can anything but outrage and anger be an appropriate response to such atrocious behavior? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

An apology

I did think it unlikely that you would be socking, and was rather relieved to find you weren't. I always try to be fair, even when a multi-socker is involved, and the way I had read the wording used by Mesilliac led me to the possibility that he was you rather than Rinpoche. I would like to thank you for your courteous emails, and hope that my little reword on Lucy Gray is an improvement. I'm not a great content creator, not finding subjects that I know about that aren't already covered (and which are notable...), but I do like wording to be clear. Peridon (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I was one of the ones that busted Rinpoche where ever he went. In return, he stalked and harassed me on and off wiki (and even used Wikipediocracy to bash me). By the way, your comma placement really helps the sentence a lot. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

How does one actually get unbanned?

Hello. Check your email—you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

--Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

For what it is worth I still have the two additional email in my box that Rima seems to have forgotten sending. All together I had three from him under his user name and 1 under what I imagine is his real name. --Herby talk thyme 15:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record regarding the IRC block that Ottava mentions above: Freenode policy discourages posting logs, but I'd be glad to share the logs with anyone who has any concern regarding my conduct. I had genuinely hoped that we would be able to resolve Ottava's misconstruing of the policy as a simple misunderstanding which could be corrected with some simple additional explanatory text. I believe I treated him with courtesy and respect as did the other participants. After spending something like an hour in continual discussion it became apparent to me that Ottava was continuing the same disruptive activities on IRC which resulted in his block on commons. I gladly stand by my actions, though I do regret that they further upset Ottava. Several of the parties present thanked me, and I don't believe any complained. In addition to pre-clearing the IRC block with the other active parties I also offered to voluntarily reverse the action if anyone in the channel wanted (and removed it a on my own initiative once it was no longer needed). --Gmaxwell (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Summary of opinions about the current block of Ottava Rima

I open this section to summarize the opinions about whether Ottava Rima should be blocked, and for how long. Each user can use one itemized line: Either  Oppose,  Support or  Neutral, and in case of support, the length of the block. NO FURTHER DISCUSSION HERE, NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS! Those will be removed. Discussions have been taking place in the sub-sections above, this one is not the place where you are going to argue or convince anyone. I take the liberty to append a few opinions expressed already, feel free to modify/re-sign/remove your own line (and please forgive me if I haven't understood your opinion properly). After May 17th 12 noon UTC, an admin will either confirm or lift the block in a way consistent with this summary and whith the points raised in the discussion. --Eusebius (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment on summary

Is it just me, or are others disconcerted that the above section suggests dishing out a block on the basis of a poll? Commons works on consensus, not the whim of the majority. Polls can help clarify if there is consensus but they cannot replace it, and I'm really unhappy to see one used in this manner in particular. I'd interpret the poll as guidance (and possibly a summary of the discussion), not as a binding vote.

That is not to say Ottava's conduct should be ignored, but...--Nilfanion (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It was actually intended as a digest of everyone's opinion in this discussion (which is now practically unreadable, partly due to lengthy digressions) and a guidance, and not as a binding vote. Maybe you can suggest a better phrasing for the introduction paragraph? --Eusebius (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, if we must block somebody as combative, I feel like we should be able to expose something like that. Not as pretty as the en.WP ArbCom decision, though. --Eusebius (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Well if you get rid of the obvious "poll" connotations and just reformulate it as a summary that will do really. Calling it a final poll and giving a closure time are the two biggest problems really. For what its worth, I agree this discussion is hard to follow and a simple summary does help readability, its just if we do block Ottava for a lengthy period it should be on basis of the entire discussion not vote-counting.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I will rephrase out the "polls", but not having a deadline has been pointed as a problem... And has proven one, in my opinion. --Eusebius (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Eusebius, I would like to ask you to provide in one place (in the pool or here) all the differences from the user own contributions on Commons only to support a request for a long block. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Breakout comments on the summaries above

Durova, what would you expect us to accomplish with a warning? Ottava appears to have an absolute and unwavering faith in the correctness of his actions— including his misleading characterization of commons policy. I'd absolutely support a warning if Ottava's response were characteristic of someone who admitted fault or even if he professed a desire to fully disengage from the issue but we haven't seen that. (An in fact, a little bit after I left my summary comment above Ottava launched a long missive complaining about _my_ behavior copying everyone short of the pope (Though I'm apparently I'm lucky there— he assures me that he has in fact met the man), including the media in an apparent wildly misguided attempt to get me "fired" from the WMF.). It's also worth noting that the fact that he is, apparently, the world's foremost expert on poetry (and literature of all forms) isn't especially helpful on commons. Other projects may have faced a hard decision weighing his contributions against his behavior, but that doesn't appear to be much of an issue here. --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Durova: Ottava Rima DID receive a warning. He denied the "validity" of the warning, removed it from his talk page and began attacking me and Herby (who restored the warning on his talk page), both on-wiki, on IRC and by e-mail, using the very same behaviour he had been warned against. Warning: tried it, didn't work. Next step: block. --Eusebius (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Somebody having strong beliefs which disagree with yours is a blockable offense? Please let me know what the politically correct party line is so that I can be sure to properly genuflect to it. Dtobias (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
That is not at all what Eusebius said, and I think you know it. Please try to participate in a constructive way. It's not about OR's beliefs, it is about how he puts them forward. Read what Gmaxwell said again. ++Lar: t/c 21:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Please excuse the tardiness of this reply. As my user talk page announces, my wiki time is limited these days. Ottava Rima is a very unusual editor. He's an administrator on one WMF project, sitebanned at another, yet despite the ban he has contributed (and continues to contribute) one of the most impressive bodies of quality content that site has ever seen. What works best with Ottava is something Commons prides itself in and has gotten away from recently: mellowness. Talk to the fellow. He is, simultaneously, one of the most trollable people I've ever encountered on the Internet and one of the most willing to genuinely let bygones be bygones. Just get real with him. You don't have to make special exceptions to policy. Just communicate with a baseline of fellow-human respect where you're coming from. You might really be surprised how far that goes. Durova (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the mellowness of which you speak? Looking at this page now, I see all sorts of proposed bans that make me think of the intolerant cliqueism that has long been rampant on en-wp, where blocks and bans are used to shut up anybody who the dominant administrators don't want to hear. Dtobias (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Every now and then a real world event prompts a week or two of chaos at one of the wikis. En:wiki almost always feels the brunt of that because it's the most widely known of the WMF projects. Maybe it's a sign of Commons's growth that this site is the focus this time. It's disorienting, and a lot of people who care about the project get caught up and don't handle the moment well. Having had little time to edit during the current maelstrom, I can't really be expected to answer for conversations in which I took no part. It is useful, though, to step back and view this as a routine part of wiki dynamics. Give things another week to settle down and see whether there's still a problem. Durova (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Durova, from what you say you seem to be able to deal with Ottava Rima in a mellow fashion, when most of us obviously can't, or with great difficulties. Would you agree to propose yourself as a kind of mentor/tutor to him at the end of his block, to try to make him contribute peacefully and according to the terms of his warning (that is, mostly, without being too aggressive, without attacking/accusing/threatening people, without pushing distorted interpretations of the policies)? --Eusebius (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Due to reduced availability I can't promise that in a formal way. But if there's any problem I'd be glad to smooth it over to the best of my ability. Right now, really, a lot of it is probably how the heat got turned up after Fox News ran that story. Things got intense for a little while. That cycle is probably nearing its natural calm-down stage. Best regards, Durova (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Move to close

Can we close this off and get on with our lives please? -mattbuck (Talk) 01:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that:
  • Ottava Rima has been blocked since 7 days for now.
  • there is majority that wants to maintain the block.
  • there are contributors who also opposed to an indefinite block.
  • there are contributors who oppose the blocking and think the situation can be solved / restored.
  • there are contributors who oppose but never really contributed to commons (<50 contribts).
I'll do the following proposal: maintain the block for 7-10 days then unblock him. Now, considering the situation, any new attempt from him to distort policies or to threaten other users in any kind of way will lead to a new block.
Esby (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
It sounds reasonable wrt the opinion expressed. Also, if Durova or somebody else was willing to act as a kind of mentor/tutor as I suggested, in order to smoothen communication with Ottava Rima, it would be great. --Eusebius (talk) 08:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
That's not what mentors are for. Instead, you should all simply communicate better and show some respect.
We're trying to find a way of communicating with this user in a peaceful manner, I don't really see what you can criticize here. Showing up just in order to tell us that we've lacked respect (where, for God's sake, where??) while being insulted, attacked, harrassed and threatened doesn't really help. Ottava Rima has triggered conflicts with about any admin having tried to tell him that his statements or behaviour was wrong. --Eusebius (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
@Esby: This is not a poll (21:13). No definite consensus has formed, but the entries above AFTER many arguments were given, i.e. from users that are not regulars on this page and perhaps took the time to check the facts and think things over, are mostly against a block. Therefore, the block should simply be lifted, and everyone should examine their own behaviour in this. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I know this is not a poll, that's why I did a 'proposal'. I also talken of some people without giving the exact numbers about it, so to summerize clearly, so people can't accuse me of twisting the numbers or lying:
  • For block : 24.
  • Opposed to indef but supporting a short block possibly: 4 - (Adam Cuerden/ Diego Grez/ CMJB)
  • Against block: 8 - (Ottava Rima / Malcom Schosha / Erik Warmelink / Mbz1 / Dtobias / Durova / 99gf9 / Mrathel)
  • Against block with less than 50 contribs - (Mrathel (13 contribs) / Geoff_Plourde (33 contribs))
  • Against block with a 'retired user' on his profile: 1 - (Guido_den_Broeder)
You seem to think that people coming here randomly Or maybe not so randomly? Canvassing? noooo, let's assume good faith... have to be 'valuated' more than regulars. Fine, but this just ignores the regulars and do not make either consensus, unless you have something better to suggest? For instance I suggested a proposal, which can be discussed and is not definite by definition.
Esby (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Having almost 2/3 of expressed opinions in favor of a block is not a consensus in favor of a block, but it is a consensus in favor of a block lift? It is a fact that this user has been utterly disruptive to the work of many people and that several users have complained of being harrassed by him. This is in the scope of the Commons blocking policy, and several of the latest oppositions just said that admins shouldn't block people because it is bad, or that they are simply "not happy with this". As you say yourself, it is not a poll, it is the summary of the opinions in a long and complex discussion and the latest contribs came from people who did not participate to it. --Eusebius (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Obviously quite a few people don't agree that that is a fact. I may be retired, and not willing to throw myself in the thick of this battle, but as a publisher I do know my copyright stuff and I have many years of experience in writing and interpreting policies. Ottava Rima is right on all points, and I find him admirably patient in the face of so much ignorance and bullying. And yes, absence of consensus to block means unblock. A consensus to unblock is not required. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
1) Insults and harrassment are factual, 2) It has nothing to do with copyright, 3) Repeating that Ottava's interpretation of the scope policy is right won't make it become right, 4) there is no need for community consensus to block someone when the terms of the blocking policy have been met. --Eusebius (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I have had absolutely no offsite contact with Ottava Rima regarding this incident. And in the interests of building consensus I don't really strongly object to letting the current 1 week block run its course. Durova (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
[Unindent] It's actually a one-month block. However, by my count, only 7 people suggested indef, whereas 14 voted against it. I see no consensus for extending the block. There is some weak consensus for a few days to a month. I suspect that the best solution is effectively what Esby said: let the block run out the three weeks it has left, at which point it will automatically lift. It's longer than I'd like, but I can't see how further discussion is going to reach any real consensus about the exact length within that range. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Serves me right for not double checking; time to brew caffeine. One month does seem on the long side. Not worth risking a wheel war, and will recuse from using the tools anyway due to content collaboration at a sister site. It's doubtful any consensus will form here. Durova (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I am withdrawing the proposal, since Ottava Rima has nothing to do better than attacking me here. I am out of this discussion. Have fun. Esby (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done I have implemented Esby's proposal, and shortened the block. It expires on May 28th, for a total current block length of 16 days. --Eusebius (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am against that, this was before Ottava decided to accuse me:
  • of saying that he(=ottava rima) canvassed while I actually never said that.
  • of canvassing while showing no proof of it.
  • of insulting other people while still not showing any proof of it.
Either Ottava Rima decide to amend, accept his ban and makes excuses, removes his accusation, either I'll ask another uninvolved admin to sanction his groundless accusation and possibly extends the block duration.
Esby (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
*sigh* He's rather good at shooting himself in the foot, isn't he? I'll see if I can do anything. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I cannot do anything. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no consensus for an indef. it seems, but the reduced block will do just fine. Either OR comes back - having learned from this and contributing constructively towards Commons - the likelihood of that happening is just as big in nine days as it would have been in 19. Or OR comes back and resumes the behaviour that has caused this discussion; in nine days users will still have this discussion fresh in mind and there *will* be consensus for a longterm/indef block. I'm hoping for alternative one :) Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Ottava Rima already knows how to contribute constructively, and has consistently done so. The same goes for various other users that you have recently blocked. What needs to change is the attitude of those users that pile up opposing views without the slightest incling of what they're talking about, don't know what consensus is or how to produce logical arguments, and wish to ban from their untrained mind anyone or anything they don't understand. Restrict and train them, or Commons ends. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd like the foundation to take actions against Ottava Rima, since he claims they got the logs. All he is doing is unsourced allegations, mixing accusations against me and my honor. The only thing that is true is that he got banned by me (and kicked by another user) from the irc channel near the 7th may, the ban was lifted a few hours later by Cary. The reasons for the ban were quite simple: disturbance of the channel, open threats performed against other people because he did not agree with them. I also don't see what the talk warring comes doing here since I never edited this page. It's just another lie agregated to the previous ones... I may also have called him an idiot recently, when he pretented and agreed that we should delete historical works of known persons such as farsari, because 20 pictures are enough to present the work of this author and we got more than 20 pictures in the corresponding category... I am sorry, but when I see an idiot, I don't lie.
An interpretation of policy stays an interpretation of policy. That does not create consensus, which was lacking here all this time. Jimbo is Jimbo, you chose to be his fellow dog in this story, that's fine, everyone is free to adopt every position they want, now I ain't even sure he actually appreciated that, now you being Jimbo's prophet does not allow you to threaten or intimidate people, and just to be sure, I'd like to remind this has strictly nothing to do with porn, this was just on the way it was handled. The meta petitions and various events proved that there was no consensus on the community to perform such action. All your actions and patterns so far have been against Commons aim as a free media repositery not necessarily used by the Wikipedia and the other wikimedia project. If You fail to understand that point here, if you cannot respect another person point of view without distorting it, without treatening this person, without invoking some conspiration theory, then You simply can't contribute to Commons and you won't be welcomed. If the foundation does nothing, I'll request an indef blocks on Commons on Ottava Rima. Esby (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The Foundation has no interest whatsoever in whether Ottava is blocked or not blocked on Commons. Any action I took on IRC was done after extracting a promise that he would not disrupt the channel; and was done in my role as channel operator (which extends to a time long before I worked for Wikimedia). I feel that Ottava has a lot to contribute, however, I also feel that anyone who disrupts the project, and cannot follow basic protocols of interaction with other contributors should not be allowed to contribute. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 15:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_13&oldid=264579084"