Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 35

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Closure of Ecemaml discussion

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as I've reverted my closure of the Ecemaml discussion thread above. Again, I ask everyone to respect Ecemaml's privacy. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the Ecemaml incident should give the community some food for thought. One is that the community needs and expects the adminitrator´s body to act in accordance to universal values of honesty, transparency, competency and impartiality in order to maintain a general trust in the project. Administrator´s actions have the capacity to either retain or expel talent in the project. In an ideal world the task of safeguarding the integrity of the project rests on the administrators. Theirs is a worthwhile voluntary contribution, but so is that of legitimate users. Not all users come from good intentions, nor can we say that all administrators act with good intentions either. However, as a user, I have often felt wrongly treated by some administrators and I experienced a lot of frustration due to the lack of appropriate venues to mediate differences and a personal feeling that administrators close ranks and ignore core issues.

Closing this discussion is fine on one level, but I think it should be followed by at least the awarness of the need to address a deeper issue which has to do with creating an environment where dialogue, even if heated, happens without fear of being blocked or labeled as a disruptive element and where all are held accountable for their actions.

Granted, not everyone starts off with the right foot, but there is always an opportunity to clean the slate and start anew. There is always the opportunity to apologize and make new commitments. I myself am guilty of improper behaviour at times, expressed in my rudeness while treating some very valuable contributors (they know who they are), and I have apologized to them. This opportunity always exists and should be taken if the desire for contribution is larger than our ego.

As in any social organism, trust in its leadership is a key and core element that gives cohesiveness to the group, thus promoting its survival. That is why administrators must hold themselves to a very high standard of conduct, even above the conduct expected of the general population. A special trust is placed on them and they have the responsibility to maintain that trust, and a very important part of that is that their actions must always be on the side of integrity and impartiality.

I hope that this unfortunate incident leaves powerful lessons to the community in general.

--Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I have been watching this all morning and have something to add. First, Ecemaml says "I don't have to tolerate this witch hunt and this harassment by...". I'm sorry, but as an admin you have to tolerate any scrutiny that is raised in your actions, as long as they have basis, and from the evidence provided there does indeed appear to be basis. Second, the discussion was closed by AFBorchert claiming Ecemaml has resigned. If that is true, why does he still have these powers? Fry1989 ^eh? 18:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

With a bit less bad-faith you might be able to discern "resigned" (an act of the admin/user) from "tools-removed" (act of a steward). Just 1 further click[1] will show what the acting steward said "On hold for 24 hours per normal practice". --Túrelio (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

My level of faith is none of your concern, but considering this admin-now user held bad faith towards me in a dispute right from the beginning and wouldn't change his mind no matter how logical and true any explanation I gave, I have every right not to trust him. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Túrelio, you could have distinguished between "resign" and "tools removed" without the bad-faith inference. Fry1989´s comments are neutral and raise a valid point about administrator´s accountability, so why qualify his concerns a priori as bad faith? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope that this unfortunate incident leaves powerful lessons to the community in general. - unless any conclusions are made concrete and written down somewhere, there's unlikely to be much of a lasting impact. Rd232 (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, a code of ethics for administrators is a good start, and the creation of an Ombudsman to mediate discussions that preemts the favorite administration tool that is used unchecked: the block. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Tomascastelazo, your campaign against Ecemaml is showing us that you're the person whom need the interaction ban. I suggest you move on. Bidgee (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, it seems like Ecemaml has resigned from his resignation, so it keeps the door ajar. False closure. Sorry, I don't edit in enWiki quite often, hope it does not invalidate my opinion.--81.36.183.124 01:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Definite resignation

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Again: There is no need to pursue this any further. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've thought it twice. Let's finish the wikidrama. --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 08:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I note "discussion=" has [[:es:Usuario_discusión:Ecemaml]], so the request is unrelated to commons discussions. Penyulap ☏ 09:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably due to this. Anyway, thanks all. J Kadavoor J e e 12:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing to prevent Ecemaml taking up the tools and resuming similar behaviour at a later date if there is no de-sysop discussion. It is standard practice to ask for removal of tools and then ask for them to be returned. No discussion is required. I also note that Ecemaml has already laid the groundwork for such a return, stating that he would "take a break" from adminship for a while. That diff is now hidden from the community, but quite visible to a steward. The comment was removed by Ecemaml almost immediately, which hampers discussion of the comment, as does the valid and proper hiding of the rest of the page at that time.

Procedurally, this is not a 'Definite resignation' but rather a simple wikibreak. Penyulap ☏ 20:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Could there be any less transparency in this? Fry1989 ^eh? 20:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Well it does lack subtlety, much as the vain attempts to stifle the inevitable community discussions. It simply identifies the supporters of serious problems, which begs the follow-up question 'why', which naturally focuses on the supporters. Much the same fashion this entire episode came to my attention, it was repeatedly brought to my talkpage, where I'm obligated to give it my attention, as if I'm not busy enough with RL and 1000 other things.

Such a string of attempted closures on multiple discussions all on the same topic in such a short time-frame I have not seen before. I think that attracts attention, rather than the usual leaving it run out of steam and the archive bot gets it.

I keep thinking of that movie with Tom Cruise called, what was it, oh ! "minority report" and the filthy apartment and ex-convict he goes to, to get his eyes transplanted. He's looking at the putrid apartment and the con says 'don't worry, with the special mix of antibiotics I cook up, I could sew a dead cat into you and you'd never get an infection.' Reminds me of that scene, except for the antibiotics part. Myself, I like to tie up discussions after I've helped everyone to reach a compromise. I find that works so much better. People seem to like that. Penyulap ☏ 20:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

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

AJA29091998

Can an admin on this board check the activity from AJA29091998 (talk · contribs)

They are uploading several wresling related images, claiming them to be their own work, but which are obvious copyvios. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Files have been deleted, and user has been warned. INeverCry 18:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

user:Mouh2jijel

Hello,

I would like to report a new -aggressive- user, Mouh2jijel, who is randomely reverting my edits (sometimes without even knowing what it is about, like here, here, here, here and here) and marking my own made files as copyright infringements (like here).

For information, I made several Beck and Transports schemes as well as historical and ethno-linguistic maps (you can see them on my user page) that I only uploaded on Commons (here is a screenshot of my computer's folder containing my drafts), so, if you find a similar file on the net I can prove that I was the first one to upload it and that the file on other websites is actually a copyright infringement regarding the licensing of my file.

Please do something to make Mouh2jijel ceasing that non-constructive behavior.

Regards,

--Omar-toons (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

User warned -FASTILY 18:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much --Omar-toons (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Bossange

discussion

User is edit warring on File:Bandeira do Espírito Santo.svg, and will not stop reverting the colours. He was warned not to edit war, and the colours he wants exists as an alternative file Bandeira do Espírito Santo (light blue).svg. Please revert and protect both files. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at the colours in source. J Kadavoor J e e 17:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The colours on the image weer set according to the State's identity guide, and the alternative colours were uploaded separately. There are two images, this is edit warring and vandalism. It should be discussed on the talk page. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The colours should mach with the source mentioned in file description. If you have a different source, please mention it. The link http://www.secom.es.gov.br/edital/manualmarca.pdf seems broken. Your work looks like as in http://www.girafamania.com.br/listaestados/br-es.htm . J Kadavoor J e e 05:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Fry1989, could you please explain what per talk refers to in your upload comment from 14 December 2012? I notice that no talk page has been created yet for that file. I've therefore protected that file for a week and expect that this is discussed on the corresponding talk page first. Changes can be done afterwards if there is consensus for it. Otherwise, alternative versions should be uploaded under a new filename. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It was discussed on Zscout370's talk page, not the file's talk page. I uploaded different colours from the original file based on a source I had. Perhelion, in his normal interfering fashion, reverted me and it became a dispute. Zscout found a PDF of the State's identity guide, and imposed those colours, which were different from the ones I had used. He then uploaded the original colours as a separate file. The colours have already been dealt with back in december 2012, it should be returned to how it has been since then. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually it was discussed on my talk page. Admin Rd232 asked me to look into the flag because there was a discrepancy. I did my research, told him what I came up with, and applied it. Perhelion trolled me and reverted for no good reason, he does it all the time. It became a dispute because I had sources and Perhelion didn't, he was just reverting because he doesn't like when I change files. In that time, Zscout370 found the PDF identity guide, and then applied the colours based on the PDF. They were slightly different from the ones I used, but alot closer to mine then the original ones. Zscout370 then uploaded the original colours as a separate file, which I linked above. The dispute was considered over until now, where this new user thinks that just because he's "from there", he knows better than anyone else. He is edit warring, he should be forced to discuss it, and the file should go back to how it was before this new user came along, until he gains a consensus. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussions should take place on the associated talk page or at least moved to it. As this particular file started with a light blue it appears best to keep it that way unless there is consensus (on the talk page!) to update it. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

+1 It is very terrible to discuss with Fry1989, so I avoid it wherever I can. "The law is the law" He thinks he is the law. In my clash with him, he is always ignoring references! *haha* Sky blue = dark blue *HAHA* The PDF showed just a Coat of arms logo, the colors were just assumed by without direct relation. -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 15:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm not the one who thinks that knows better than everyone else. A bit more humbleness is appreciated. Thanks to everyone's comprehension. --Bossange

Perhelion, piss off. You don't have a clue what I think, it's adorable that you pretend you do. I had a source at the time that the colours were different, you did not, but you reverted me anyways for no reason. I asked you for a counter source on my talk page and the only thing you could come up with, Zscout370 said was unreliable. You had nothing to add, you were just reverting to troll around. Zscout370, Rd232 and I all agreed the colours were different back in decembre, that was a consensus and it has stood ever since. Until Bossange comes along, saying that because he's from there he knows better. I've dealt with that attitude all the time, "I'm from here, I know more than any outsider possibly could!". It's not a productive attitude. The file had a consensus and became an established edit for 5 months, it is now Bossange's job to gain consensus for the image to go back to how it originally was, considering his preference is available as an alternative file. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Fry1989, I do not talk with trolls. You inexorable demonstrate only a morbid ego-show. The only one for your consensus was you and Zscout370 (as several times). -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 11:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Am I the only one to find it strange that Fry have problem with some user? I think the problem are probably Fry, it doesn't accept any criticism, will not tolerate the opinions of others and thinks he is the only one to be right. It accepts no rational proof and blithely ignores rule of heraldry that treats them as logos (he wants it to be absolutely identical, which has nothing heraldry). I think he should temper his enthusiasm and try to listen to the advice and comments, some people are competent in their fields, and it is not the only one to have a different opinion, however it is still quite aggressive in his contention that tends to undermine the debate. Mathieu C. (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, reading this discussion (and paying little attention otherwise), I would be hesitant to cooperate with, or rely on, someone who raises an issue on AN/U and then tells a contributor to 'piss off' in the middle of it. I'm happy to give the benefit of the doubt, and mark it down to being a bad week for Fry1989, but this is hardly the right sort of behaviour to convince the Administrator community that action needs to be taken in your favour. --Fæ (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I told Perhelion to piss off, because all he ever does is revert me for no reason on various images, and personally attack me. In fact, he's already on notice for personal attacks and changing edits of other users. He has a long history of attacking me just because I edit images. He started a discussion on my talk page saying "you're always cropping or editing or changing something!" demanding an explanation, and when I tried to give one, he didn't accept it. He just doesn't like me doing things here. He even said I'm "easy to bully", which shows his state of mind towards he. He is not helpful, he is a troll. The fact regarding this image is that I was specifically asked by an Admin to look into the image. I had a source back in december, I followed through on the source, and Perhelion reverted me just because I didn't happen post the source in my edit summary. He pulls that stunt all the time. He also could not provide a reliable counter source, as noted by Zscout370, which is why Zscout overrode hime and imposed colours based on the CorpID guide. So the file has remained ever since. Considering the two differing sets of colours exist as two separate images, any decision on which one is the primary/correct one should be discussed on the image talk page. It's incredibly simple. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I was on vacation when the reverting was going back and forth, so I didn't get to it until now. Anyways, Fry comes to my talk page a lot when it comes to disputes about what colors of a symbol or design of a symbol, mostly because it is a specialty I have with this subject area. With this specific issue, it was discussed on a talk page of Fry and not on the file (which is something, in the future, must never be done regardless of the issue and who started what). What I found was http://secult.es.gov.br/_midias/pdf/manual_de_aplicacao_da_logo-7431-511e229826715.pdf (same document, different URL) which is a visual identity manual of the State of Espírito Santo. So while I have no official source any which way over if it is dark blue or light blue, the colors provided to me by this manual are different from what was presented on the website pointed out by Bossange and it is the most official thing I got. As for why the flag went dark blue on our main file, it just said Perk Talk and that, again, must not happen. The darker colors should be in a new file and I will make a change to that effect as soon as I am able to. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I just saw that the image was changed again...

Just saying: the government official website, which magically just disappeared from source (too unreliable, I know), gives the flag a light pink tone, and, forgive my blindness, but the flag is nowhere to be seen on that beautiful pdf, unless you assume that the logo colours explanation on page 29 are also the flag colours (lolwut?!).

Anyways, I don't want to get in more trouble here... If you experts are playing on Wikipedia flags everyday, you must be right, huh? Me, the Brazilian guy who originally uploaded the flag, the government website and 3.5 million inhabitants are wrong, because saying that an "outsider" is wrong is xenophobic. --Bossange (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

See? This is exactly the attitude I was talking about; "I'm from here, I know more than any outsider possibly could". It's ignorant, arrogant, and even caries a racist undertone. I've faced it from various users from all sorts of countries who think you have to be a native to know all the facts, and if you're not from there you're somehow less informed (or less capable of informing yourself) about a local issue. It's not productive and it doesn't belong here. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you are more arrogant than me, but that's not my point, what I do want to know is why the official government website was removed from the image's source in lieu of a pdf with information about the Government logo. --Bossange (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There are absolutely people who are extremely knowledgeable about their region and it's matters, but there's just as many who don't care and are complete morons when it comes to such things. To lump them all together and say "I'm from here, I must know everything there is to know, and certainly more than anybody from somewhere else could ever know" is essentially what you are doing, and it's foolish to say such things. You don't have to be from a place to know about it and it's issues, and just because you're from there doesn't automatically make you right about everything. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Awaiting answer. --Bossange (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If you use the government website, as you want, there are images of the coat of arms and of the flag. Both images uses completely different shades, so will people use the flag or people use the arms? I seen so many colors and shades used on those pages that, it would be a never ending fight until something concrete was found. Thus, the logo sheet (which does use the coat of arms, but surprisingly, uses different shades than the logo sheet). Other logos from the state use the flag colors, but not the very light colors as you said. Look, I understand where you are coming from and seeing the flag plenty of times can give an idea of what it is supposed to look like. However, when people cannot agree on anything with symbols, I have to step in and pretty much put my foot down to either work on a compromise or create a solution. In this case, the light blue and pink are the colors chosen, but the colors are specified by the state government. That is what is going to be used until we find something more concrete than this manual (that actually defines shades by a number we can cite, not just some random guessing). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, when it comes to actual flags from the state, this and this this and even [2] this one] shows a flag with a dark blue top and a dark pink bottom (especially on the Cravatte (ribbon) used on the flag). So, while I see and understand your point of being a resident has a better vantage point than an outsider would, it is a flawed point. What if the flags you saw were faded due to the weather? Made incorrectly to government regulations? These are the points I am trying to make. If you want to help to get this right, I will gladly work with you Bossange. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, the weather must be so bad at the government website! I see you and Fry are two persons who won't take another one's opinions (and facts [3] [4][5]). Nevermind, no need to answer this -- after getting called a moron, racist, ignorant and arrogant when trying to help with something I'm familiar with, having sources, I think I might be better off Wikipedia. --Bossange (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

My goal is not to chase you off. My goal is not to call you a racist. I never said those things about you or anything of that sort. The problem we have is while you present information, we have information to from the same people and there is no clarity between the two. I did see the military parade photo last night after I posted and what it shows is a light pink on bottom and a darker blue on top. That goes to my point is there is no clarity, even from the government itself. Our best suggestion is to email the government themselves and ask what colors they use on their flag when it is manufactured for flying. That would be our best bet to get some clear answer. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Info Why Zscout370 has removed the official reference under site protection?[6] And also another expert publication with accurate design description? Which miraculously coincides with the official publication!?[7] -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 08:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Link number 6 was removed due to lack of verification (I located the decree and that decree and the website doesn't even match in any way shape or form) and as for link 5, I will re-add the link. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 08:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Bossange, I did not call you a racist, and I did not call you a moron. I said that there are just as many moronic people who don't care about their local affairs as there are people who do, and you are lumping them all together as if being from somewhere automatically makes you right when it comes to that area's matters. I also said that the way you are saying it is a outlook with racist undertones, and that it is an outlook I have had to deal with from various users from various countries. I'm a humanist, I like to believe that you can be from anywhere and still be capable of educating yourself about another place's affairs. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

КатеринаМишнёва

All pages created by user КатеринаМишнёва need to delete, because all this images are copyrighted and not published under a free license. Йо Асакура (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Done The files have been deleted, and I've warned the user. INeverCry 18:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, i warned user in our home-wiki and she promised stopped uploading copyrighted files. Йо Асакура (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

User:BarkingFish

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

If anyone wants a CU done on BarkingFish, COM:RFCU is that way. Keeping this open is currently pointless, since the other "socks" have since been blocked. Bidgee (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

BarkingFish has been indef blocked on the English-language Wikipedia. As I understand the circumstances, they inadvertently revealed that they were using more multiple accounts on IRC channels and confessed to using multiple accounts on Wikipedia. This was confirmed by a checkuser on the English-language Wikipedia. BarkingFish has subsequently made claims that they are a sockpuppeteer and long-term vandal of Wikipedia. It might be wise to have a checkuser (other than Russavia) take a look at those accounts here. I would recommend a review of uploads from all accounts found. I note that Russavia has already deleted File:Nabel mit nabelbruch.jpg one recent upload from BarkingFish. Perhaps there are others? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There are no recent uploads, and I don't see that BarkingFish has done anything here to warrant banning. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Who said anything about banning? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

What's done is done. The photo russavia deleted was a joke I uploaded, and unfortunately implicated one of my friends in. It turned out to be a copyvio, which I should have been warned for. Other than that, I have committed no evil at commons - however, I know I'm probably not going to be trusted, and I assume I'm going to get this witch-hunt everywhere now I've admitted being an evil mother[******] on enwp, so do what you have to do. Frankly, I don't give a damn anymore. BarkingFish (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you will understand that when you admit that one file was a copyright violation that you uploaded as "a joke", reasonable people may wonder if they should trust your word that it is the only instance. I don't think anyone is conducting a "witch-hunt" - you claim that you are a long-term vandal and prolific sockpuppeteer on the English-language Wikipedia, so surely you can see why people might question your activities here? If it makes you feel better, my suggestion for a checkuser will probably be ignored. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - So if I reveal here exactly what's been done, you can decide yourself. Humblesnore (most recent sock) has 4 edits here, all to do with an AFD which I/he nominated. My other main sock, Cat in the Hat, has one edit, and that was to blank my/his talk page. Nothing evil whatsoever. No vandalism, no evil deeds, no demonic bull[****]. As for my main account, this one, I have 699 kept edits, 43 uploads and I have no idea how many edits were deleted. There has been no damage caused by this or my other socks here. I am happy for any administrator to block both Humblesnore and Cat in the Hat, and I will make no further accounts here. I was serious about what I did on enwp, do you think I'd not be serious in other places I'd contributed? BarkingFish (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

BarkingFish has said they are happy to have the accounts User:Humblesnore and User:Cat in the Hat blocked. Although they don't mention it, I assume the same goes for User:Tmalmjursson. Anyone care to do that? I think it is only sensible to run a checkuser on these accounts to determine if there are other socks. I note that the BarkingFish account was granted ipblock-exempt status in January. Under the circumstances, it might be wise to question if this is a legitimate need. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I've removed IP Block Exempt. And blocked the sockpuppets. I'm not sure yet if there's reason to block the main account, that could probably use some further discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

If you care to check within en.wiki, you will find that Tmalmjursson was renamed to Iceflow by enwp's crats, who subsequently renamed Iceflow to BarkingFish. I actually thought I'd filed for rename of Tmalmjursson to Iceflow to BarkingFish here too, it appears I didn't. Still, as you say Cirt, you feel it requires further discussion - while I'm unblocked, if you care to let me know where and when you intend to start this, I'm happy to discuss with you and the commons community as a whole. BarkingFish (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, CU is not necessary, if you refer to My SPI at en.wp you will already find a CU has confirmed Humblesnore and Cat In the Hat, and Tmalmjursson listed as stale, because I don't think the CU realized it was a rename. BarkingFish (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what some other admins think about all this. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but it is my belief that checkusers on one project do not have access to data from another project. No offence, BarkingFish, but under the circumstances it is only sensible to run a checkuser here to determine if there are other accounts involved. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't see what the big deal is, there is significant support for socking, they can vote themselves an adminship and if ever caught just suddenly remember they live in a student accommodation apartment block and everyone has a right to vote. I thought we settled this recently as far as anu goes. Penyulap ☏ 01:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap, I appreciate that you're trying to be light hearted and amusing, but this is quite serious, and I'd rather you don't turn this into an episode of the Penyulap Game, thanks. I'd like to see this thread kept on track, if you don't mind. :) BarkingFish (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem, politely asked, so you'll hear no more from me. (except this comment to tell you so, but after that, ZIP.) Penyulap ☏ 01:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

@Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs), to request Checkuser the process is at Commons:Requests for checkuser, that'd be the place to file a request relating to BarkingFish (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not requesting that BarkingFish be checkusered, I'm suggesting that it is the obvious and sensible step under the circumstances. Any admin or checkuser is free to act on that suggestion, but I see no need for me to jump through hoops if others wish to ignore it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

So as usual you aren't willing to go to the effort to sort out what you believe is wrong. I see no point at all to this thread, it's merely slander. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No, Matt, it's not slander, just common sense precautions based on what BarkingFish himself has stated. Anyone is welcome to act on my suggestion. I would be happy to do it if I didn't have every reason to believe that someone like you or Russavia would deny the request simply because it I filed it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh for the sake of fuck. Can we please just tidy this shit up and get done with it? I consent to a local checkuser by any person so qualified to carry one out. I will abide by whatever decision you come to. DC, go ahead and file one. If it gets declined, I'll file for myself to be CU'd. I just want this finished so I can either get banned, or proven that I told the truth here, and I can get back to work. Yeesh. BarkingFish (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Penyulap

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

Penyulap (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

I would like to propose a restriction on Penyulap who has been visibly overwhelming the AN noticeboards for the last few months with what is, to my eyes, almost invariably pointless inflammatory drama-mongering, schoolboy humour, TLDR lengthy rants, tangential analyses and generally hijacking discussions to make their own pointy theses. Though some Administrators may see this as harmless as they can tune it out, other Commons contributors come to these noticeboards with a wide range of problems asking for help from the admin community, some of the requesters are worried or feel harassed and having Penyulap throw petrol on discussions in an apparently joyous attempt to inflame drama is not only unhelpful, but it actively reduces the potential for collegiate and satisfactory conclusions to these discussions and the advice therein. For examples see this current noticeboard and you can check the archives for lots of additional examples.

I propose that Penyulap (talk · contribs) is placed under a one month restriction to one comment of less than 100 words in any thread on any Administrator noticeboard and similarly one rebuttal in any thread, again of less than 100 words. This makes a maximum of 2 comments in any thread, which is sufficient for the vast majority of folks here. A thread is defined as any top level section on these noticeboards. It would be great if Penyulap would do this as a voluntary restriction, with any comment failing to meet this restriction being free to be collapsed or deleted by any contributor during the restriction period. Penyulap remains free to vent their spleen on other noticeboards or off-wiki; as they probably do already. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Another 19 page time-wasting harassment thread from Fae, same as the last 10 page time-wasting harassment thread from Fae. Penyulap ☏ 20:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Unfortunately, he has taken to hi-jacking topics and treating the AN boards as a "forum page" (to the point that they also troll). While such behavior continues AN boards, I'll be only dealing with urgent matters that require immediate action. As much as we tell people not to raise stuff that happens on Wikipedia, I think that in this case, Penyulap has moved his disruptive behavior here since being blocked on en.Wiki. Bidgee (talk) 10:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Bidgee, this posture of you is hypocritical, by bringing up what happened on enwiki you contradict yourself with your recent comments at #[[8]]where, I quote you, you say "If you can't show some/any Commons related behaviour, I'll be closing this discussion since you're bring issues from another Wiki to Commons. What ever happensed on es.wiki stays there. Bidgee (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)" and "You've got to show diffs (relating to Commons and not Wikipedia) to prove the allegations you're making. Sorry but what happened on the Spanish Wikipedia has no bearing here. Bidgee (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)". So the question is, do you just flap to the direction of the wind when it suits you? This is exactly the type of behavour that has Penyulap and others (myself included) complaining of some admin abusive behaviour. If you so condemn bringing other wiki events here, why do you do it yourself? Do you hold yourself to another standard? To me, it looks like hypocrisy, say one thing, do another. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Smell that Tomascastelazo? Smells like excuses are nearby. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It reminds me of George Orwell´s quote from Animal Farm that says "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." Peter Edgerly Firchow, in Modern Utopian Fictions from H.G. Wells to Iris Murdoch (2007), p. 106 expresses clearly the phenomenom happening here: In Animal Farm, though Napoleon and the pigs may not "own" the means to production in the technical sense of possessing a legal piece of paper that says they do … the pigs behave as if they own the farm and have a canine police force to back up their claim. It is clear who the pigs and the dogs are around here. ;) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

@b The block was a sad thing for many people, the last contributions of Pesky or Jag, or Andreasegde say a lot about how popular en.wiki has become with good contributors.

Still, I suggest creating a redirect from Commons:Bidgee finds Penyulap irritating to IDONTLIKEIT, and on behalf of everyone who likes to see people trying to use other wikidramas as a meat substitute, "woop-de-do" Penyulap ☏ 10:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You're treading on a very fine line, your above and below comments are very much uncivil behavior. The Administrators' noticeboards are not forums, they are for dealing with issues that arise on Commons, while the odd light hearted comment can help, you've made this place far more heated then it normally would be. I suggest that you read what this and the other Administrators' noticeboards are for, do you see anything about it being a "off topic forum"? Move the off topic chat to Village pump or user talk pages, and not use Administrators' noticeboards for your off topic comments and insults. Bidgee (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Here, after I supported this proposal, Penyulap accuses me a revenge because of Tomascastelazo. Can anyone tell me why? Since I really have no idea what this thread should have to do with TC, this kind of accusations are nothing but a very cheap trolling to me. The user currently doesn't seem to learn anything from her ban on enwiki. --A.Savin 11:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't need a diff, I'll repeat it to your face right now, that my defence of Tomas against draconian punishment is one of your axes to grind, (maybe there are more) That's not what blocks are for, and your block had to be undone. As for my ban on en.wiki, I'm not, and never have been, banned anywhere, ever, but thanks for the falsehood, we all love off-commons crap. :D Penyulap ☏ 20:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

HEY, Pesky is back !!!! this is great news, and although she is unwell, she'll say hi now and then. Penyulap ☏ 10:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose My first encounter with Penyulap was not very comfortable (he handled my Graphic lab request in a very childish way and ranted in my nomination page); but I think it is his natural character/behaviour. It will be nice if he make some efforts to avoid the overrun; but it always up to him. The only thing we can do is to ignore a bit; it works (from my experience). I hate some editors aggressive nature to respond to everything; but I more hate some senior editors’ and fellow admins’ attempt to close their mouths. J Kadavoor J e e 11:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

here is the request. I forgot all about that, I remember now I had such trouble with the Internet that I couldn't upload the work in time (see history), I was beaten to it eventually by a colleague. So I put the work I did into a humours image :) Sorry, yes I do talk a lot, though I think it's just my sunny attitude that irritates the glum most of all. I forgot that the request came from you. I fixed some of the Internet problems since then, my mouth is just as big though :( Penyulap ☏ 11:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I am proposing what I hope is a sensible restriction, based on the norms of most contributors discussions on these boards. You may think that 100 words and a maximum of 2 posts is too little, by all means come up with an alternative proposal. The aim here is not censorship, just a trial period to find a way to assure that a collegiate atmosphere is retained, rather than these noticeboards intended to help users with problems, instead becoming an irrelevant, harassing and abusive trial by ~~Penyulap~~ fire. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Just ignore (as I said earlier), if you think some funny comments are irrelevant; trying to stop them by angry response or warnings (like this proposal) will boost up such behaviours (in my experience). @Penyulap: I appreciated your skills in photo-editing and spy-working (like retrieving very old data from the archives). I request both parties to cool down.

J Kadavoor J e e 11:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Support I have no idea what this childish babbling was about but I want no part of it and wish it (and Penyulap too, for all I care) would just go away. This nonsense is not something I need, want or have any time to waste on. If this proposal stands to reduce it, I'm all in favour. Maybe Penyulap would find Facebook more to their tastes? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You proclaim you don't have any idea what is going on or why, but love a good vote ? Uh-ha. Penyulap ☏ 20:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Support This user's primary (or perhaps sole) purpose in this namespace seems to be to derail as many administrative discussions as possible with off-topic kibbitzing and diversions. His posts seem calculated to irritate and offend, and therefore to draw attention to himself but away from the topic at hand. I'm sorry if he finds our discussions on media copyright queries and user conduct complaints too dry; perhaps the Ringling Bros. might be a better venue to showcase his particular talents? —Psychonaut (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Obviously to do with my objection to, and your strenuous support of, harassment of other users. There is so much of this kind of thing by you,it's hard to know where to start. Penyulap ☏ 20:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Support I doubt anything will come of this however reading thro the contribs rather more heat than light is being generated at present. There is always plenty to do on Commons that doesn't require the kind of input seen here. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd forgotten that You led the charge to hound a multi-award winning photographer off commons. Even the entire commons community and I apologising to him for your actions couldn't stop him leaving. Penyulap ☏ 21:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Support, sensible and logical proposal. -- Cirt (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You want commons to keep the most deeply offensive images to the worlds largest religion and and I do not see any educational value in it. How this project is supposed to attract supporters from around the world when we go out of our way to offend them in the worst possible way, oh forget it, I'm talking to the deaf. Get over it already, I did. Penyulap ☏ 21:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Support the rationales above —Mono 16:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

and nothing to do with your mishandling of Canoe1967, or my questioning you over it at your RfA ? I had forgotten that, but you obviously haven't. Penyulap ☏ 20:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Support --A.Savin 19:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Clear revenge for my strenuous objection to your draconian block of User Tomas which had to be reversed. Here is an idea, if you don't like objections to your bad decisions, put more thought in rather than harassing the people who object to them. Penyulap ☏ 20:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Quite frankly, I have found his "babbling" annoying at times, but he is a friend and his heart is in the right place. He sees things for what they are and has a colourful way of pointing them out. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

OH YOU WOULD SAY THAT !!

Opps, sorry, I was on a roll there. :) I had no idea why on earth these people had lined up to support a troll until I actually went looking, I couldn't remember almost any of this stuff or the people involved until I asked myself 'why on earth are they doing this' and went looking for answers. My Gosh it's hard to just forgive and forget when people want to drag their misdeeds around like little kids playing with their stools. Get over it already. Penyulap ☏ 21:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose If you have a problem with what he's saying, the solution is simple: ignore him. Arbitrary sanctions will only create more drama, and Commons has experienced enough of it these past few days. Enough is enough. 2607:F720:F00:4032:E9B5:296B:7C08:A573 22:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

you should really sign in to comment, standing up for a better project is easy and nothing to be anonymous about. I'm not going to be a 'New Yorker' and be blind to bullying, cross the road and not see people getting stabbed, I'll fight it if I can, and live somewhere else if I can't. Same with commons. I won't stand for bullying, and if this project fails because of it, I'll write another website for all the people who won't tolerate it either. To those who say I should go to, what was it 'facebook' ? I say to hell with that, you go to facebook, I'm staying right here.

Incidentally, ignoring me is good for them, but what about me ? you've got no idea what a trial it is to endure my mouth 24/7, which is what I'm stuck with. I need to go to court and get a restraining order against the constant droning. Even when my mouth is shut there is the internal dialogue to put up with. It's awful. Penyulap ☏ 22:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Support You'll note that he can't even take this seriously. The fact that he can drag out conflict with every editor here (and yes, that includes me) says a lot about him, not the editors in question.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Two different sections on your talkpage from two different admins enough said. Penyulap ☏ 00:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Prosfilaes you're hardly a neutral observer, your motives are pretty clear. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I never claimed to be a neutral observer; can anyone claim to be a neutral observer with someone who has interjected themselves into every major discussion on Commons? I'm not sure what you think my motives are; my motives are that I find him consistently rude and irrelevant and intrusive everywhere, and continuously claiming Commons is driving away people while actively making it more hostile to other people.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what I think you're motives are; to support the silencing of someone you find an annoyance and have unfavourable past interactions with. There's a lot of users who have engaged in various actions which "drive away" people, and of all those things I think being colourful and using hyperbole is the least offensive. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I make it a point to 'insert myself' between the bullies and victim, or the fighting parties who are not evenly matched, thing is, commons is a huge place with a LOT of editors and a LOT of discussions, and the description 'every major discussion' says a lot about the kind of discussions we are both attracted to, for different reasons.

You better believe it 'every major discussion', but I'd describe it as 'every time trolls jump into a car to go and run someone down, Penyulap jumps in there with them, and just before they hit the editor, pen says 'here let me help' and grabs the wheel. Somehow the trolling car always hits a tree, a ditch, a wall, and very rarely hits the intended victim. Oh, you'll call me a troll surely enough, same as artists here call me an artist, and newbies call me helpful, bot operators call me a bot operator, thing is, every other group likes me. It's the trolls who think I am one of them, but the worst one of them. Penyulap ☏ 01:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

As his words show, Penyulap feels Commons is a battlefield, and his place to get involved in every fight. He basically accuses most of us of being trolls and bullies; the fact that he doesn't call out people by name shouldn't protect him from the consequences of making personal attacks.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If you don't directly name someone, or at least make a very obvious inference, how can you personally attack them? The statement suggests that anybody who says "Oh Commons, it's full of trolls and such" can be punished for personal attacks of the non-existent. As for Commons being a battlefield, there's a lot of people who scrap, it's part of life. Very few stretch it far enough to make it a serious issue. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose If this is not a poster child for good old fashion intolerant censorship and brown-nosing attempt, I do not know what is. And of course being a target of Penyulap´s diatribe can indeed be irritating, especially if you deserve it. But the question to answer would be if Penyulap´s interventions have legitimate basis. For what I have seen, they do. And yes, I became aware of Penyulap´s exstence because of a conflict I was involved, and we ended up on the same side... I looked over Penyulap´s history and contributions and I get the idea of a user who first, contributes constructively to the mission of the project, with deeds, not words, unlike many who make a lot of noise but provide very little substance; and second, Penyulap can indeed be irritating, but that is because Penyulap will call people on their bullshit publicly and of course I can see those people calling for her block, which is the weapon of choice of the intolerants. There is nothing to fear about Penyulap unless you are intolerant, canniving, hypocrite, a sockpuppet, despotic, etc., etc. I find this call to silence Penyulap a very brute act of harrassment and intimidation. If Penyulap had placed a similar request of another user some people would have jumped all over her/him! I challenge Fae to document with specific and well founded evidence that would justify a block. And no, a "general" feeling is not enough. Provide evidence or be relegated to the corner of blabbermouths. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- It would be really useful if people could read the proposal rather than making up what they would like to argue about or using this as an excuse for personal attacks. I and others do not have to be "intolerant, canniving, hypocrite, a sockpuppet, despotic" in order to fear Penylap's random diatribes, parody or piss-taking; unfortunately the archives show that one need only get in the way of Penylap using Commons as a personal blog rather than the collegiate project it is aimed to be in order to become the latest target - behaviour that is likely to drive away contributors, not help build a community. I do not have to "justify a block" as a block is not being proposed. The nomination is obviously not "censorship", nor a "call to silence" as the proposal merely limits Penylap to a level of contributions to these noticeboards that is the norm, rather than turning every discussion into their personal pointlessly long 4CHAN style drama side-show or time-wasting childish comedy act. --Fæ (talk) 05:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Fæ, Fæ, Fæ, are you telling Tomas to read your remarks when you do not extend to him the same courtesy ? hmm.

I don't think people need to live in fear of me, commander Jebulon possibly, but not me.

and as for the 4CHAN stuff, if that is not why your doing this to the ANU, what are you doing it for ? You know, 'the Penyulap show' blah blah blah, it should be on my talkpage, feel free to put the next dozen discussions there and save the ANU for things that require urgent admin interaction. Penyulap ☏ 06:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

- - While considering the possibilities that Penyulap´s behaviour is somewhat disruptive, which if it is, it disrupts another type of of even worse behaviour, and this is what pisses people off. Even if Penyulap´s behavior were disruptive in a negative way, it is far from being as disruptive as that exhibited by some people here that insult, block and block with impunity and that are given passes with lame excuses as "it happened too long ago" without addressing the core issues, blatantly violating clear and stated policy but always counting on the creativity of the justifications by their peers, etc., etc. A collegiate athmosphere? Where? When? I think this place survives to a great extent because most people really don´t get too involved and are happy to just contribute and thus avoid so much bull around here. Proposing to silence, because that is what it is, whether you like it or not, or even if you find some creative euphemism for censure, is the very first obstacle to NOT having a collegiate athmosphere. Nothing releases more creative energy than the challenge of things, of debate centered on how to achieve a common good. And censorship or any other form of silencing is definitely not a path for creativity. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

actually Tom, it is a popular bluff/misconception/name-calling to call someone 'disruptive', a catch-all because people don't know what it actually is, what it IS is where the normal processes are interfered with, like blanking ANU, removing templates, making 500 DR's without merit at the same time, stuff like that. That is the kind of disruption which requires intervention. Calling a person you don't agree with 'disruptive' is just name-calling with the hope that an admin doesn't understand what it means. Penyulap ☏ 06:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Tomascastelazo, with respect to your comment "insult, block and block with impunity", again, the proposal does not mention, anywhere, any sort of block, please read it and comment on the proposal rather than using this thread as a general soapbox against administrators. As for insults, any observer of the threads on this page being overwhelmed by inflammatory posts by Penyulap, can see that the balance of "insults" is definitely weighed down on the Penylap side - rather the point of this proposal. --Fæ (talk) 06:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Fæ, are you telling Tomas to read your remarks when you do not extend to him the same courtesy ? Penyulap ☏ 06:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Former active commons user here. I still read these noticeboards on occasion, and when I do, I find penyulap's commentary to be the some of the most well though out and straight to the point out of anybody here. Sure, he inserts some humor here and there, but it's seriously nothin harmful. You lot need to put away the pitchforks and lighten the hell up. 70.197.72.135 00:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Request I think he already understand the concern “we” rose (“It will be nice if he make some efforts to brief his opinions so that people can follow the discussion without much disturbance”). I think it is enough now; and I hope a difference in future. We can consider a similar discussion in future; if otherwise. There is no meaning in throwing mud each other. I request an EOD now. J Kadavoor J e e 06:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

generally discussion should be left open until everyone has had a say, but when it's Fae, well, I think if anyone knows where on earth he is going with this crap that couldn't be solved by a quick note on my talkpage in big letters saying 'shut up you talk too much' I don't know. I think just like 'the Penyulap show' and he's trying to boost (or probably epic failing to decrease) my popularity, like I don't have a fat enough head as it is<blush>. btw, feel free everyone to yell at me on my talkpage how much I rave on, that I have a massive ego, that I dress like a pimp, or wear a cape before sitting at the computer, it's cool to blow off steam or attempt to strangle me, I get that a lot (shrug). Even my bot hates me and tries to kill me now and then, it's true. He even makes placards

. Penyulap ☏ 06:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose – I don't believe that we should restrict Penyulap's ability to speak. Be mellow and chill. I feel that Penyulap is a pleasure to have around. He or she can provide comic relief at times, and he or she can be someone whose comments provoke deeper thinking and discussion at other times. I don't believe that Commons should go on the "You have the right to express your thoughts freely, but only if we like what you say" route. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Penyulap does good work when he is not busy talking. However I also feel that he is able to maintain the quantity of his opinions by sacrificing their quality. I usually try to filter him out and ignore, but it is not productive for everybody to be doing it, and it is confusing for people coming from the outside looking for help. --Jarekt (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

G. Coronades and EeuHP would disagree, they were thankful for the help they got, further, how do you feel people from the outside view these time-waster threads started by Fae ? Penyulap ☏ 21:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Support more work, less talk --Ezarateesteban 13:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I like and agree with this one :) If all supports were this well reasoned and wise, I'd be doing it already.

still, Fae adding an extra 5000-words-so-far section each time I add a superfluous sentence seems somewhat counter-productive (shrug) :D Penyulap ☏ 20:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Support This should encourage Penyulap to make his/her salient points in a more concise and dispassionate manner. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment -- Something is obviously wrong with the participation pattern of Penyulap, whose unique (?) contributions to Commons seem to be concentrated at AN/U. A little like those people who spend most of their free time assisting to court sessions. Independently of the present proposal being approved or not, Penyulap’s contribution will likely continue to be a source of irritation for many users, some of them very well-known and respected editors. Sooner or later, it seems inevitable that his edits will be considered disruptive of the normal functioning of the project and some kind of sanction will be applied. Unless Penyulap himself takes a generous break and acknowledges that his behavior (and interests) will have be adjusted to the comfort of others, and not only the other way around. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

CommentWhat I find the most annoying, is this abuse of expressions like "disruptive", "the normal functioning of the project", "behavior that are not adjusted to the comfort of others" (since when is that a Commons policy?) "not productive", "the project don't need that" and so, more proper of a sect than of a free open wikipedia. Ezarate, yes, I agree, more work less talk... where have you read that dealing with what Penyulap wants to say, even if you don't like it, is not part of your job as administrator? So, how about practising what you preach?--2.137.208.103 16:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Alvesgaspar is one of the minority of editors who drove a multi-award winning professional away from commons. Where everyone else formed a clear consensus that the actions were deplorable, and we all apologised, Alvesgaspar held out because the photos that were good enough for National Geographic were not good enough for him, and hey, fuck anyone who doesn't upload Quality images or better. "The low-resolution thirteen pictures that were uploaded by him will never satisfy the Quality Image requirements and can hardly be used in any serious printed work." having a look at the images, I'd say he's wrong about the images, wrong about the idea they can't be used in a serious printed work, and I'D LOVE TO SEE any DR go down as a delete, I really would, he's wrong that every contributor has to come up with uploads that meet quality image requirements, or presumably be hounded off commons. He is steadfast in that opinion. Doesn't like pro's giving us freebies "I’m not willing to welcome a professional photographer to Commons when his only obvious goal is self-promotion.". I guess he doesn't like me talking, or welcoming people he doesn't like, or the whole apologise for the deplorable treatment of a pro photographer who gave us some freebies.

To the professional photographers of the world I say 'give us your freebies !!!' and we'll give you attribution !! decorate your userpage with links to your awards, we don't care !!!

and you know, like, we'll never agree on that one, or the idea that destroying their professional reputation to set an example to other professionals is a good idea. Penyulap ☏ 20:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment"Penyulap does good work when he is not busy talking." Yes; probably. But we can't insist it. I think his/her current concentration on these pages is mainly due to his/her self declared "Commercial Work Embargo". Hope he will be back to his mall soon. :) J Kadavoor J e e 16:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I find it strange that double voting on admin elections has such strong support from a few people here, strangely enough, I know you'd never believe it, but a lot of those are in this conversation, supporting it ! yes, hard to believe I know, but it's true.! Seems something to have fixed up as a priority, IMHO, hence the pause in work. Penyulap ☏ 20:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Support It is time to work. Jmvkrecords ⚜ Intra Talk 20:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it's time for yet another time-wasting harassment thread from Fae, same as the last time-wasting harassment thread from Fae, I thought we were clear on this, everyone is voting. Penyulap ☏ 21:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Support -- Apparently my suggestion for a generous wiki break was not accepted. The last comments by Penyulap also speak for themselves. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Must be difficult to continue your personal work of hounding professional photographers off commons with me about. Penyulap ☏ 21:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Support - I have had no previous interaction with Penyulap, but just the sheer volume of them here is incredible. I honestly considered whether I could just ban them. Please, just take some time off from AN/U. Take some pretty photos or something, stroke a cat, burn down a city, whatever, just don't type so much. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If you don't like Commons, please kindly fuck off and quit whining about it. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

you don't understand cross-promotion at the village pump, so this was your response, I'd call telling me to fuck off for trying my best to improve what is wrong with commons "an interaction". Penyulap ☏ 21:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Support - as I had earlier written elsewhere, Penyulap shows creativity and abilities in the graph-lab, but his obsessive commenting and hi-jacking of AN board threads unrelated to him is clearly obstructive and must stop. I can't say whether he wants to damage Commons in revenge for his block on :en, however, his behaviour over the last months is simply incomprehensible for me. --Túrelio (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose The only "disruptive" and "obstructive" business here is this attempt to cut down the right of personal opinion, and looking at the names of the "supporters", this looks like a nice settling of score.--DeLezo (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Now, that's an interesting comment from an account with overall 3 edits on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Support - too many derailed discussion and way too much blurb created by this user. I originally did not want to vote here but the incredible amount of blurb and the offense wording in response to support votes changed my mind. Block log at en wiki does not seem to show a lot of collaborative working ability by this user. --Denniss (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I support all editors doing the right thing, smoothing tensions where people are upset, dialogue is the enemy of contention. As it is your newly stated desire, I'll no longer make such comments to support you, or others it upsets. I'll save it for the people who want my support. Doesn't require ANU, you could have simply been ungrateful on my talkpage, without the project damaging drama. Penyulap ☏ 02:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Support he does not add much value to the discussions anyways. --Dschwen (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I see y'all are doing the Penyulap Show, Part II. I saw all the posts and counted them up. As of now...

Support - 17

Oppose - 8

Other - 3

Posts by Penyulap - 28

Yep, that sounds about right. Carry on... – JBarta (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I might also add that 3 of the 8 opposes (1,2,3) are either brand new accounts or IP addresses whose only significant contribution is to oppose this proposal. – JBarta (talk) 07:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

- How awful! How do they dare to oppose this proposal! And without any other significant contribution! Keep the good job, Jbarta!--95.126.133.184 11:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Holding opinions is fine, but what I see is a user who's repeatedly causing problems needlessly, derailing discussion threads (even this one!), and being a general nuisance — all without contributing anything positive. This is the kind of thing for which people are justifiably blocked. Nyttend (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope you're all proud of yourselves, carrying your pitchforks and torches. Nobody has been able to show where Penyulap has harmed or vandalised this project. You all want to block him for what? Talking too much. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

At some point talking too much becomes disruptive. Penyulap has passed that point. He is unwilling (or unable) to limit his voluminous and often nonsensical postings. – JBarta (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose as per w:Freedom of speech--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry Canoe1967, but that is a hollow statement. There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech. If that were the case, this project (any complex collective project) would become unmanageable. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  - Not as hollow as your response. We don't block people cause they talk too much, we block people when they go out of bounds with what they say, such as personal attacks. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the usual strawman-argument. Do you read anywhere in Fae's proposal the word "block"? --Túrelio (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Where did I say Fae suggested a block? There are supporters here however who are suggesting such an action. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Question Where? Please show us those suggestions. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Denniss brings up Penyulap's EN Block Log
Nyttend: "This is the kind of thing for which people are justifiably blocked"
Tomascastelazo: "I challenge Fae to document with specific and well founded evidence that would justify a block.". So while Fae has stated he isn't proposing a block, clearly I'm not the only one under the impression that some are trying to turn this into one with the mob mentality that is going on here. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You're being overly dramatic. There is no "mob mentality". Just a whole bunch of editors speaking out about a disruptive editor. I'm sure each and every one would prefer to see Penyulap contribute more constructively on his own without having to resort to disciplinary measures. – JBarta (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so I say that there is talk here about blocking Penyulap. I get told that's not true, and when I post proof that it is true (at least in limited form), I'm "overly dramatic". You guys loose on one accusation and just jump on to another, excellent strategy. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap shouldn't be blocked, but he should have his volume control turned down. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I say again: no one has suggested here that Penyulap should be blocked: I know it, Fry1989 knows it, as well as anybody who cares to read carefully the discussion to the end. Still Fry1989 insists on his lie, trying deliberately to dramatize the discussion and enforce his strawman argument. In straight English that is called intellectual dishonesty. Sorry, but I couldn’t find a mellower way of saying what needs to be said here. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"This is the kind of thing for which people are justifiably blocked" is a VERY obvious inference for blocking Penyulap, so don't call me a liar just because you couldn't read and got called out on it when you said I made up mentions of a block. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose This is a stereotypical example of the witch hunt mentality plaguing wmf wikis. Editors here are finding drama and fault where there is none. This proposal to place a arbitrary restriction upon another editor's ability to comment is the most ludicrous one I have seen yet. 137.110.59.0 22:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose You can always just choose not to read anything he writes. I'd suggest to him that he get it under control a bit so that fewer people would want to make that choice (since it means that the substance of what he is saying often gets lost in the TL;DR), but I wouldn't want to enforce that suggestion. - Jmabel ! talk 23:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, you can't. We don't have filtering, and given that messages are signed at the bottom, there's no way to selectively manually skip messages unless you read from the bottom up.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I personally believe that penyulap always has something beneficial to add to a discussion, and usually in a very humorous manner too :) Restricting his ability to comment would undoubtably be a detriment to the Commons. 70.211.17.182 00:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Yes, he can be annoying at times, but he does make the occasional useful comment. I don't think a formal sanction is necessary, but I do think Peny could take the advice on this thread 76.88.32.133 05:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think on one hand it is nice that some people want to say something anonymously, and I think it is sad that the commons community is so hostile that they feel the need to do so, on the other hand, I also see the idea that pretending to be pen or a pen supporter and leave anon comments is in someone's head. I'd point out that although it gets some people overexcited and to say 'AH-HA! a CLUE!' like inspector clueso?, well it works for a few people here who probably wouldn't actually check contribs and that needs to be pointed out to those too slow to see it, heck some people don't even read discussions as we all know. As for me and my friends and anyone with a brain, it's far too lame to try to emulate me, but it's funny and sad at the same time when they think they can, like the section called Imposter? and that Ye Pun Pal thing, the thing is, that as far as believable socks goes, I think my bot has more brain power in that department, and he's just a frippin bot ! lolz. Sure, he gets it all wrong, BittyBattyBitBot always had a lack of human appreciation for music, over technical language and so on and so forth, but hey, he's still better than the wannabees, and was never programmed to even do that. So when PALZ is pretending to be Auntie pesky, or a PALZ poetry fan, there is like some wit in it. I think it's funny that my bot is funnier than my critics even though he's just a bot :)

I think it's a culture thing, like how for some reason matt thinks I'd listen to him on some planet in the universe, but on the other hand Tom, Fry, and countless other people could just tell me to shut up or fuck off and that would be ok. Actually, I think I've told my friends to shut up on many occasions and it's not a problem, we are friends and we know how to be friends. Some people don't know how to be friends, or have the courage to simply come to my talkpage and say 'you talk too much', they don't know how to make friends or be listened to without the help of an admin (or therapist), thats sad cause I don't bite, people feel I'm quite friendly, so if your failing with someone as easy to get along with as me, the I feel pity for you, at least at first. Thing is, friendship is easy and fun. It's not rocket science. Hmm, giving advice on this topic is probably too long for this page, but the thing is, it's so sad that so many people need the urgent administrator attention board to say what Tom could just say, and be colourful about it too, and add a dozen expletives to, and get away with no problems. I guess I don't understand people who live in the United states of utopia, hiding in their houses with one hand on their pistol and the other hand on their pistol, lonely and afraid. You should just try to get out and make some friends. Make friends first and then tell them to shut up and fuck off, that way, you won't destroy this project for every other culture that is more mature and gentle than your own. People will look at this discussion and know just how fucked up commons is. I guess it doesn't matter in the end. Websites come and go. It's the fun, the friendship and camaraderie whilst you work that is worthwhile. If you don't understand or have the skills to get along you can just ask, pulling someone's hair because you like them, or trying to make yourself happy by stopping other people being happy is as juvenile as it is ineffective.

Anyhow I'm back to drawing. Good luck playing 'follow the leader' with Fæ. Yet another time-wasting, commons-damaging thread in the wrong venue, which can't actually go anywhere and you can't even see what he's doing. What - ev - er. Ha! it's like the USA, everyone is angry, they have no idea who they are angry at or why, so they just fight each other instead of the people responsible. Penyulap ☏ 09:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose An absurd proposal. Restricting an editor's ability to participate in community discussions because he is 'annoying' is the most ridiculous thing I've heard of. I am already disappointed enough with the way Commons is run as it is. Do not disappoint me more. 2600:1013:B00A:770A:117B:2C07:E600:BA2E 04:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Spamming and derailing discussions with forced wannabe funny highschool-level humor-attempts is more than merely annoying. It wastes valuable contributor time and makes contribution unpleasant. I can play the disappointment game as well (only I'm not doing it anonymously). It disappoints me that anonymous poeple care more about an artificial "censorship-drama" than constructive participation in this project. This blatant disregard for the project goals seems like the "most ridiculous thing" to me. --Dschwen (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Serious business. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

A sysop at encyclopediadramatica.se and a participant at Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy discussions. Wow, another comic making a really constructive contribution. *roll eyes* --Dschwen (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a few people needing urgent admin interaction to tell me in 8,000 words or more that I talk too much. You probably missed that part. 8,000 words, talk too much, get it, lots of talking, talk too much ? no ? no ? nothing ? Penyulap ☏ 00:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Just adding a comment to break the record on bytes in a commons discussion. We only needed 24 bytes but I like full sentences.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

WooHoo, WooHoo, I'm finally famous off-wiki !!! a thread with my name on it Woohoo, the fame has gone straight to my head.

Tar tar little people, I don't have time for you anymoar. Penyulap ☏ 01:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Support user has just carried his disruption from enwiki over here. --Rs chen 7754 04:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The old 'I don't like' = 'disruption'. The old 'carry our grudges from en to commons'. Yawn, ZZZzzzzz.

Come on, play wall-o-crap at least. <Dr smith Lost in space> Oh, the pain ! the pain ! look at the archives, you can see my vague claims are true, look at the archives, won't someone think of the children, Look at the archives !!! OooOOhhh. Penyulap ☏ 04:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Enough? Just a few comments... Michael Suearez, great link!!!! On the thread itself... To begin with, the proposal to censure a user in a manner that is not common, or where there are no guideliness, policy or precedent is just plain stupid. How can a punishement be proposed to silence someone´s freedom of expression? How can the community allow and play along on such stupid proposal, as desirable as it may be? Invent a punishment targeted to a particular individual because that indiviual is a pain in the ass? It is indeed abhorrent! Panyulap´s ideas or posts, interventions, etc., may not be the most popular, but they certainly represent a significant segment of the population, just look at the votes... He definitely represents, radically perhaps, the feelings of some valuable contributors. And the other camp better listen, for his comments hold a certain logic and express legitimate concerns. This thread itself shows the double standard or hypocrisy of some users and admins, for example, Penyulaps´s ennwiki history is being dragged here, and I don´t see his opposers complaining about it, yet when I personally dragged someonne´s spanish wiki past in another argument, the now silent camp on this issue ganged up on the inappropriatness of doing so. So where is the congruency here? If someone does not like Penyulap´s posts and takes issue on them, just don´t read them!!! To silence Penyulap is to silence any voice around here. We cannot allow for herd mentality to take the day. I proopose that an admin close thhis discussion that started in stupidity and has fed on stupidity. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the proposed remedy is a little unworkable. And I agree that editors should have wide leeway in expressing their thoughts and opinions. But at some point, excesses can and should be dealt with like anything else. Freedom does not equal abuse. Some editors simply have a hard time functioning effectively or constructively in this environment. This is a good essay on the topic. – JBarta (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Since the proposed punishment originates on a subjectiive personal opinion of a user against the rights and mode of expression of another user, and since the proposed punishment/remedial action calls for a restriction of the right to participate of another user by the way of a punishment that is not contemplated, described in guidelines or policies in Commons, the proposal cannnot be given any consideration whatsoever. The accusation and proposed punishement amount to "I don´t like Pennyula´s (or any user) manner of participating therefore I call for his limited participation." This would establish a bad precedent. Has Penyulap broken any rules? Guidelines? Policy? That is the question. Whay is the Commons-legal basis of this? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I don't know what specific policy or guideline (if any) is being broken by Penyulap. Then again, there is no law against farting in elevators either... – JBarta (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The fact is that no policy or guidelines are being broken by Penyulap, and the punishement proposed does not exist either, and the fact that people are ignoring this trivial issue and playing along with the proposer, and in the meantime being hypocrites (read bidgee in this post) is much worse than a stinky fart in a crowded elevator... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

My own personal opinion here, but I think most (all?) those supporters are less looking for some sort of actual administrative action than they are simply making a statement suggesting that Penyulap change his ways. In other words... stop farting in the elevator already! – JBarta (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Support also, all those IP votes should be ignored. Amada44 ^{talk to me} 17:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Why should IP votes be ignored? Because they are contrary to your opinion? The question is, are they legitimate votes? Yes or no. If yes, they should be allowed, if not, I agree, discard them, but before we do that, we must be sure that they are illegitimate votes, with prooof. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Amada44, I think your vote should be ignored. How do you feel about that? You're gonna need proof to invalidate the IP votes that you don't like. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

But you're aware of the fact that the possibility to vote anonymously is very easy to abuse? --A.Savin 19:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that possibility exists, as the certainty exists, that is, beyond statistical posibilities, as tangible reality, that block executioners exist that block users without due cause and process on the request (possibly) of others. So it is understandable that some users, due to the fear of retribution from some choose to participate anonymously (which is not prohibited, so it is therefore allowed, and not less valid or legitimate than signed contributions). Why allow baseless suspissions to go unchallenged when they come from an apparent majority and legitimate issues ignored when they come from an apparent minority? In this case, what is the wiki-legal basis for Fae´s proposal and what is the wiki-legal basis for Amada´s proposal? If no crime has been commited, why mettle out a punishment? I think that there is something wrong here. Is is not disruptive for someone to call for the punishment of someone without wiki-legal reason? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Amada44 tried to lead a charge against Russ, plastering the VP with THOUSAND pixel high images trying to grab attention to something more suited to a quick note on a user talkpage, it was far too easy to steer that little car into a tree. I find a lot of things about the tactics similar to Fae's. Penyulap ☏ 00:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment -- What disturbs me more is how some users have apparently forgotten the issue under discussion and hijacked the thread to make grandiloquent and hollow proclamations of freedom of speech, primacy of law and alike, as if we were writing a constitution or preparing a revolution. Bullshit! In the process they also forget that this is a cooperative project where we are more or less free to do whatever we want as long as we don’t fart under the other users’ noses (nice image, Jbarta ) and allow them to have fun as well. It disturbs me how those users, starting with Penyulap, haven’t realized that Commons is not their private pulpit or blog. This problem would have been instantaneously solved if Penyulap had acknowledged that he was causing a problem and tried to shift his attention from his own navel to the welfare of other people … and the goals of the project. But he didn’t as all the words he produced in the meantime eloquently show. In the end the one being more seriously affected will be he, whatever the outcome of this discussion is. As for the IP votes I’m amazed how people can be so stupid in believing that vandalizing the discussion will help Penyulap’s colors. With such friends he doesn’t really need any enemies... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I may not be an admin but I think someone needs to tell you that's quite enough. The last part of your paragraph especially is out of order. You have not provided any evidence that these IP votes are vandalism or abuse by a single user. You do not get to just yell out "fire" without smelling smoke first. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you are telling lies. I did not say (and do not believe) that those IP addresses were from a single user. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

READ THE ENTIRE SENTENCE! "You have not provided any evidence that these IP votes are vandalism or abuse by a single user." Two qualifiers of what could invalidate these IP votes. If you can't read everything properly, you don't belong here. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

A wrong approach. It is well-known that most big WM projects have their criteria for the eligibility to vote. In Commons, there is such criterion on COM:FPC, for example. And as long as it is very much easier to abuse anonymity for multiple voting than to detect such abuse, the existence of these criteria has its very good reason. --A.Savin 21:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Whether you approve of my approach or not is irrelevant to the fact this is the second time Alvesgaspar has called me a liar when infact he is the one who isn't fully reading everything. I stand by my initial principle: You do not get to just yell out "fire" without smelling smoke first. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, maybe someplace in Wikijstan people can be convicted of a non-crime, but here a clear violation is necessary to punish someone, which is what started this discussion and nobody has clearly expressed what the crime is. So what exactly is the reason to limit the free expression of a user who is being singled out, based on breach of guidelines or policy. And no, this is not a defense of a particular user, but the defense of any user who can be singled out at will by another user with friends, or administrators who have a double discourse, double vote, canvass, proxy block executioners and who knows what other clandestine behaviour they engage in. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I was reading that through, and opened the 'voting rules' link and then when I got to the end went to read that page only to find that I'm a featured picture. I've never been a featured picture before, but I appreciate the nomination and will do my best to anti-alias and be dust-free.

I think the point that is missed here is every group on commons is happy enough with me except one. Every group either likes me enough or likes me a lot. This thread is quite lovely for at least one thing, it's a list or roll-call of people with proven and diff'ed grudges to bear. I've been putting diffs in people, you've been grumbling and whining and haven't got a single diff you can point to, maybe one or two play wall-o-crap or log-o-crap like 'oh some other wiki' where if anyone looked, and rest assured some have people, they see what is going on. It's long been claimed that commons isn't the same lord-of-the-flies that en.wiki is, but who really knows.

I wonder when counting votes if people who are so clearly sore about being rebuked for their wrongdoings count. Give a freaking diff to some wrongdoing you whinging so and so's. Sheesh, if you can't find SOMETHING I've done wrong you just haven't tried, or I'm completely mistaken about just how freaking squeaky clean I am. I wonder if I could dish dirt on myself, I mean is it that hard a task that nobody can take up the challenge ? Not one person and one diff ?

Plus, I don't think enough effort was put into the proposal in the first place, I would have said that every response on AN had to be in the form of a haiku, or had to use the phrase 'that was a sticky situation' in every sentence, or every word had to start with the same letter. Something sexy would get more votes. Penyulap ☏ 00:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Closing

I think this has run long enough now. After roughly 6 days, the vote count is 19 support, 14 oppose, of which 6 votes were by IPs, all on the oppose side, and one further oppose was Penyulap. I think this shows favour towards the proposal, albeit not overwhelming. I further note that while I do not out of hand discount IP edits, not one of the IPs which opposed the proposal had ever edited Commons before, and frankly if they're not Commons users I don't see their opinions as being especially relevant. As has been noted, Commons is a collaborative project, and for collaboration we need to be able to work together. Penyulap seems to have a problem with this, and while I enjoy jokes and humour as much as the next person, we must not let it get in the way of the reason we are here.

The sanction as voted on was for Penyulap to be allowed a total of two responses to a thread (defined as a top-level section), of not more than 100 words. Due to the suggestions that this is too restricting I am willing to moderate it to two responses plus one for each 2nd level (===) heading, with no word limit.

The sanction will last for one month (until 22nd May 2013), at which point we will discuss whether it is still necessary. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Matt, who told me If you don't like Commons, please kindly fuck off and quit whining about it. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Hmm.. interesting alternative to improving commons.

So here is my one and only question, when counting 'votes', do people who have serious grudges which have been proven with diffs, count at all ? I don't think so.

Using votes of people who have grudges to bear to invent absurd new rules that target specific individuals rather than everyone voting on rules that apply to everyone makes a mockery of process and destroys any semblance of civil order. Penyulap ☏ 00:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

and moogsi is helping with a revenge close. crossposting to my tp Penyulap ☏ 00:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

He asked for someone else to do it, I did it. I don't agree with it at all, as it happens. Rein in your paranoia a bit, please –⁠moogsi (blah) 00:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I diff'ed my paranoia, and your

Oppose cannot be found, so 1 + 1 = bullshit. Penyulap ☏ 00:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Your statement still accuses me of vengeful actions. The only thing I resent you for is forcing me to put my name anywhere near this trainwreck; you will find neither a

Support nor an

Oppose from me because I'm not obliged to vote on things which look like a waste of time. I don't think linking to a page that shows me agreeing with you and saying that your view echoes my own previous sentiment is really evidence of a motive for revenge. I respectfully withdraw myself from this and hopefully do not disabuse you of the notion that 1 + 1 = whatever you think it = –⁠moogsi (blah) 01:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I was the only one who opposed your adminship after all, considering just how far your wide knowledge of every commons system and enculturation has come, I thought it was a little suspicious.

After all does everyone demonstrate as much experience with the system at 5 months ? Just look how far you've come since that first edit 5 months ago, to helping close discussion filled with socking allegations and full of diff'ed grudges. Penyulap ☏ 01:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason Moogsi posted on your talk page is because I asked him to as the pageload bug (see AN, VP, HD, etc) is preventing me from viewing your talk page and doing it myself. Believe me, I did try. As for votes being a mockery... well, the diff you posted I really didn't remember it was you, to me it was just someone complaining for no good reason and I saw no need to sugarcoat my feelings about it. You are picking at everyone who thinks you should just calm down, and you wonder why people vote that way. This is why. Please, take the restrictions in good grace, and take some time off from the noticeboards. Go do some categorising or uploading or finding copyvios or something. Something productive, something which helps Commons as a whole. Your restriction begins here. I will grant you one further response in this thread, then that's the end of it. Please note I will consider going against the spirit of the rules as transgressions, so don't think you can just create a million subheadings to reply ad nauseam. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Mattbuck, both of your comments in this subsection use around 200 words. Perhaps you should triple or quadruple the proposed restriction. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I stated no word limit. The sanction is thus: A maximum of two responses per == heading, plus one per === heading. No word limit. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. Sorry. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose any sanction whatsoever for no policy or guideline was violated. How can there be punishment on the opinion of a few users? Even 8 votes represent almost 33% of the voting population, and with the IPs it would be more. Still, 33% is a decent percentage of the population who are not in agreement with this kanguroo court and a punishment would go against the wishes of that segment. Jeez... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocks or partial participation bans are not punishment, they serve as a protective measure to spare our contributors form wasting their time with immature nonsense. --Dschwen (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you just accept the closing instead of starting the "vote" again? It's getting ridiculous. --A.Savin 07:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Support A.Savin's proposal.

--Jebulon (talk) 08:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Support as above; because this is the most foolish proposal I ever seen here. Then why not a foolish closing too. This is the place where foolishness prevails.

J Kadavoor J e e 11:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment – Isn't a hundred words and two comments too few? What if someone replies to Penyulap's second reply? Shouldn't Penyulap be permitted to reply back? How about 500 words, four comments, and the right to response to anyone who questions or attempts to rebut Penyulap instead? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no word limit. Sorry for the confusion. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry. What about increasing the amount of comments that Penyulap is permitted to make? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Two comments per topic and one per subheading. That's already an increase on the voted proposal. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! This really is an outrage! And this is not about Penyulap´s defense! If this is allowed, then anybody can come up with dubious bullshit and nominate anyone for whatever and impose whatever penalty. This is punishment disguised under the euphemism of "protective measures." This amounts to plain old censorship. This will set a very dangerous precedent where anyone with a little canvassing, that happens to happen a lot around here, even administrator canvasing, to silence anyone. Administrators have proven that they are not above misbehaviour, canvassing, double voting, etc., and this is just one more sign of unchecked authority over a community that contributes in good faith at large and yet can be subjected to the abuse of such bad apples. How about intituting a policy that limits the administrative actions of whoever that any user nominates? Pretty ridiculous, isn´t it? If someone does not like Pennyulap´s contributions or diatribe, it is very simple to deal with it: don´t read it and don´t respond. Problem solved. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Question -- @Mattbuck: with an outcome of 19:8 (I'm discouting the obvious socks) I don't understand why this discussion wasn't already closed and the proposed action enforced. What are we waiting for? Maybe I'm not seing the whole picture.... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

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

The matter is closed, the restriction is in place. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Information: Penyulap (talk · contribs) is placed under a one month restriction (until 22nd May 2013) to post no more than a maximum of two responses per == heading, plus one per === heading on any of the Administrators' noticeboards. There is no word limit. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

And after one month we will consider whether the sanction is still necessary. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Poll – allowable amount of comments

How many comments should Penyulap be permitted to make? One? Two? Three? Four? Help us draw a conclusion by submitting your opinion.

The best response to the poll would be to ignore it. --Dschwen (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

We should delete COM:AN/U and let the community deal with this, really Pennyulap has made this noticeboard almost unusable as a tool for the administrators. If there is a problem with someone we should just open a RFC/U let the community decide and the admins will enforce the decision if needed. Really enought to see non-admin complaining on how we should use our noticeboard. --PierreSelim (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, maybe it is time to consider the possibility of allowing only admins to the AN/U discussions, together with the users directly involved. Or, at least, to restrict the voting to admins. The new poll started below doesn't make sense and should be eliminated! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"The new poll started below doesn't make sense and should be eliminated" = "I don't like it, it's not how I would have done it"; am I right? And maybe you should have said something about non-admins not voting before non-admins voted. I'd say you're too late now. BarkingFish (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to do with my preferences and not late at all! A specific proposal was made above by Fae and approved by consensus: I propose that Penyulap is placed under a one month restriction to one comment of less than 100 words in any thread on any Administrator noticeboard and similarly one rebuttal in any thread, again of less than 100 words. Ignoring the outcome and starting everything over again offends the democraticity which (I believe) is one of the pillars of Commons. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't believe that non-sysops should be disenfranchised. The noticeboard shouldn't become exclusive. We don't have to stick with the conditions proposed by Fæ. We, as a group, can propose and adopt better conditions. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

If you are as fed up as me with the whole story, just put

 ignoreUserList = {
  'User talk:Penyulap': '<span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;"><a href="/wiki/User:Penyulap" title="User:Penyulap"><b>Penyulap</b></a></span> <a href="/wiki/User_talk:Penyulap" title="User talk:Penyulap"><span style="font-size: 1.2em;color:transparent;text-shadow:green 0em 0.2em 0.02em;">☏</span></a>'
 };
 importScript('User:Dschwen/ignore.js');

Into your common.js file. --Dschwen (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No restriction

First choice per my reasoning in the initial section of this discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Minor restriction Have Penyulap sign his posts at the top and the bottom so they are easier to skip over. Other options would be posting in a different colour etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
This. If you start to restrict people from commenting, pretty soon you'll be able to restrict them from anything for any reason. No. BarkingFish (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Support No restriction on anyone. Block or ban, but no restrictions to users exercising their right to express themselves freely as long as they are within guuidelines or procedures. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Support I come to this silly voting round. Simply ignore statements that don't help the debate, they will dry out eventually. Auto graying or coloring might be a good idea. --Foroa (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Per above. Ridiculous and arbitrary restriction. Just block him if he's being a problem. Enough of the community's time has been wasted on this already. 128.54.4.198 18:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

One comment

Not a choice. This isn't an option that I would consider. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Zero comments

Not a choice. This isn't an option that I would consider. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

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

user:Kieranmaher

Hi, I would to ask for a little help with user:Kieranmaher. I deleted 3 of the uploads of this user because of no permission. These images had been in Category:Media without a license: needs history check. A third user removed the license template from 3 of the users uploads, because they had been copied from a book. The user seems to be the co-author of the book, but this is not confirmed by OTRS. After a week I worked on the dayly subcats of Category:Unknown and deleted these 3 images like a lot of others. Some time later the user complaint on my talk page asking for a reason for these deletion (see here). I tried to explain that he should send a permitting mail to the OTRS-Team. Next day he complained again (see here) anouncing that he will "delete" all of his images here on commons and his wikibook articles where the images were used. He then blanked or all his wikibook articles and replaced the content with a complaint about me (see here and here). Today he started to overwrite all of his uploads here on commons with blank or "crap" images (see here). He might be correct and be the copyright holder of the 3 images in question, but it should be reasonable for him to confirm this through OTRS. I started to revert his overwriting uploads, but I don't like editwarring with him over a lot of pages, so I stopped that after a few items. Should these 3 images perhaps simply restored? I don't think so, but I might be wrong. Could somebody else try to explain him the situation,so he might calm down? I don't think a block is appropriate here because there is a good chance that he is the real copyright holder of the 3 images and he just got "pissed off" about our (or my) bureaucratic behaviour in his case. Any tips or help is welcome. PS: Inbetween he reuploaded the 3 images in question with little modified new named but without the original source note of the co-author and the source-book (compare this, this and this with this, this and this). PPS: I will inform him about this thread. regards --Ju Ta 20:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it was correct to tag the files for permission to be sent to OTRS, the ball is in their court but if they don't want to send the permission, the file will be deleted. If they want the files deleted, they will need to create a mass deletion request but it may or may not end in their favor. Bidgee (talk) 07:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Godhår97

User Godhår97 has uploaded files he/she has uploaded earlier and which were clearly copyright violations. Now the user has uploaded the files again plus some more. Take a look at Special:Log. Regards --Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. User blocked, and all uploads have been deleted. INeverCry 19:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards --Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

User:IMorganFreemanI

Could an admin please have a look at this and this upload (see version history). I think this can be called vandalism? --Martina talk 19:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

10 minutes after you opened this section, the account has been blocked by Didym for vandalism. I agree with both of you. --Dereckson (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please be aware of the facts before offering an opinion; the signal:noise ratio on this subject is already ridiculously low –⁠moogsi (blah) 18:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Alternative restriction on Penyulap to replace current: (Penyulap 3)

Above, Bidgee asked if I had anything better, that I lay it on the table for debate. Well I have something I consider more acceptable and closer to what I would like to have seen, albeit I didn't want to see any restriction at all- if it comes to compromise, so be it. This is what I propose:

I propose that there be no restriction upon the number of comments that Penyulap can make in a single thread - BUT, for a period of 60 days - that there be a limit as already imposed of no more than 100 words per comment, and that they can only intervene on matters where they are directly mentioned or involved. This keeps the comments short - and limited to appropriate threads. When the thread is closed, so are their contributions to the page until the next time they're involved or mentioned. BarkingFish (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

A word limit isn't being imposed on Penyulap. I made that mistake too. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

"if you care to read back up this section" were mattbuck made the "bloody poor decision" you would have noticed that there is no word limit. Amada44 ^{talk to me} 15:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC) ::If the restriction has been placed as proposed by Fae, then yes there is: "I propose that Penyulap (Talk · contribs) is placed under a one month restriction to one comment of less than 100 words in any thread on any Administrator noticeboard and similarly one rebuttal in any thread, again of less than 100 words." (emph. mine) - If the proposal was modified, please show me where, cause I clearly missed it. BarkingFish (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Scratch that. OK, the restriction is different. Even so, I still disagree with it being here, but it seems there will be no budging. And incidentally, that archive was modified after it had been closed, against the instructions clearly stated. Maybe the actual text of the restriction should have been placed in a different section to avoid tl;dr syndrome. BarkingFish (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggest speedy closure of this - it's really time for everyone to move on. --Rs chen 7754 16:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

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

SimonMKay

SimonMKay (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Multiple issues here, and I'm pressed for time to continue to look into it at the moment. The user has a long history of copyright violations (see log). The following issues need further investigation, and I believe blocks and other measures are in order. Sorry for leaving the investigation work half done.

They recently started uploading files from https://www.flickr.com/people/89901053@N08, which is possibly the user's own account for license laundering purposes given that File:Kaitlyn and Layla vs Eve Torres and Beth Phoenix.jpg was uploaded to Flickr on 2013-04-10 and then uploaded here on 2013-04-16. Needs to be added to COM:QFI and other uploads need checking too.

Have a look at File:Kaitlyn.jpg and possible deleted edits there. Interests and edits between the user and Davidlasngel (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user seem to overlap suspiciously. Socks, anyone? May be worth looking for others too. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

As this thread about the placement of the proposed moderate restriction of Penyulap is leading nowhere and as Penyulap now has opened an additional ~~playground~~thread at VP[9], there is no need to keep this open. --Túrelio (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Concerning Penyulap and the section above: (Penyulap 2)

Despite the fact I'm under investigation here myself, I feel obliged to comment. Could I please ask that mattbuck retract his close of the vote and restriction subsequently placed on Penyulap? He is clearly involved in this matter, and I do not feel he is distanced from it far enough to be able to make an objective closure, and with being involved, I don't feel he should be closing it anyway, regardless of how close he is. I would ask another admin, one who so far is not in that thread, to close in an appropriate manner - (and take into account the votes in the section below, requesting no restriction). BarkingFish (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, admin Mattbuck (talk · contribs) did a fine job with the close and the restriction is sensible, rational, and a logical step moving forwards which will hopefully help to ameliorate the behavior pattern in the future. -- Cirt (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely no, the restriction is far from rational. It basically says they can speak once to say something, and only be allowed one rebuttal if they're questioned. So essentially, if they're questioned more than once about something in a thread on AN, they're screwed. This is not acceptable. You cannot stop someone from answering questions. I may disagree with some of what they say, but I will defend staunchly their right to say it. I again ask that the restriction is reviewed by an alternate admin - this close is simply flat out of order. BarkingFish (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
If you have a better alternative, please put it on the table and we can debate it. I don't like the restriction and wouldn't have supported it if Penyulap took note and toned down their comments/replies on AN/U rather than turning it in to "Penyulap's Noticeboard". Bidgee (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok then, Bidgee - I do have a better alternative. Let me put it on the table. I propose that there be no restriction upon the number of comments that Penyulap can make - BUT - that there be a limit as already imposed of no more than 100 words per comment, and that they can only intervene on matters where they are directly mentioned or involved. This keeps the comments short - and in the right place. If the restriction were amended, would this be something you would consider, and if not - what would you change? There's got to be a better way to handle this. BarkingFish (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I am with BarkingFish on this one. There was no clear cut consensus to impose a restriction on Penyulap, and the discussion was closed by an involved user who was obviously interested in pushing his own agenda. Let the discussion be reopened -128.54.4.246 04:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't like this outcome, but I hope Penyulap will see this as an opportunity to focus on other work on Commons for a month or so. - Jmabel ! talk 05:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. I fully support Mattbuck's close and the restriction. Regrettably, over the last weeks Penyulap did not show any understanding or improvement of the behaviour in question, quite the reverse. If those voting against this restriction are fine with a dysfunctional COM:AN/U, we can rename it to COM:Playground or COM:Penyulap's playground and from then on ignore any AN/U-related complaints. I'm sure most admins would be fine with that. There's enough else to do. --Túrelio (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

100% support your idea. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Support the idea of making COM:Playground, not only could it be a sandbox noticeboard and soapbox for Penyulap and others where they can experiment to their heart's content until they find the boundaries of the Office enforceable site terms and conditions ("You support a civil environment and do not harass other users"), it would be a good place to move future off-topic and ranty crap to from this and other noticeboards. It still puzzles me why anyone would want to use Commons as a 4CHAN style forum when there are sites out there where rants, personal attacks and defamatory material are welcomed and admired for the lolz; as unfortunately many contributors here know well. --Fæ (talk) 07:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment As BarkingFish commented above, a person has the right to respond if someone includes his name/words/actions in his comment. So the current proposal is inadequate; so a clause should have added to handle this exception. I think Fæ’s intention was to discourage Penyulap from commenting on every response that any person make here. For that, you may think about banning Pen from this place (COM:AN/U) unless the complaint is against him or make complicated proposal like this with enough exceptions to make sure that his basic rights (freedom to answer if he is questioned anywhere) are not compromised. JKadavoor Jee 07:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nonsense; editors are guaranteed no such rights. There are thousands of editors who are blocked or banned, and therefore have no ability to respond to COM:AN comments which mention or concern them. This is not the least bit controversial, but rather an intended effect of that particular sanction. The whole idea of sanctioning editors is that you remove some of the freedoms they previously enjoyed (and abused) in order to prevent disruption. In this particular case, the sanction is much less restrictive than a block; it allows moderated participation. If he's about to exceed his posting limit for a particular thread, either because he's not done answering questions or just doesn't feel he's said enough, he can always invite people to read further contributions of his on his user talk page or some other user-space page he creates for this purpose. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  - You miss the target entirely, Psychonaut. Penyulap isn't blocked. And while that is the case, if they are questioned here, they should be entitled to reply here. If people were sitting here discussing a potential block on me (which admittedly, they are) – and I wasn't allowed to comment because of a restriction – I'd request an admin to lift it. I'd be buggered if people were going to discuss me here without me being allowed right of reply. Penyulap should be granted the same. Moderated participation is not acceptable in those circumstances. BarkingFish (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
    - I'm not missing anything. In the unlikely event that someone starts a discussion in the next month proposing to block Penyulap (or proposing any other action of great importance to Penyulap), and Penyulap believes it will be necessary to make more than his set number of contributions, then the last one of those contributions should end with, "I am currently under a community restriction from posting further comments in this section. Any further correspondence from me on this topic will be posted at User talk:Penyulap." Let him exercise his right of reply there. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  - Nonsense? Is it our policy to wait till so many valuable contributions are collected; then start to harass them by making some deletion requests repeatedly; try to provoke them; then block them by finding a "reason" that he used bad words against our admins? Then it is wise to save myself from this place before you start turning against me. Thanks all. J Kadavoor J e e 11:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment -- I see nothing wrong with the closure by Mattbuck and MichaelMaggs except that it shoud have been done immediately after the outcome was announced. As per the sanction I beleive it is a civilized and sensisite measure, which tried to avoid a ban or a block. It is a shame that the offender didn't take the opportunity and decided to attack personally everyone who supported the proposal, with old material taken out of context. It should be clear by now that the continuation of the old behavior will have much more serious consequences. Penyulap, please take a break and try to understand why so many editors disaprove your ways. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I was not involved in the discussion in any way, nor in the closure. My only contribution was to add a summary of the restriction for the benefit of those who might not want to trawl through the whole saga. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

- And while you're at it, Penyulap, please understand why there are more than a few editors who feel that you're not being treated fairly, and that this restriction was placed by someone who was clearly involved in your case. Leave it for a month, and we'll see where it goes - but this is a freaking travesty. 'Set number of contributions...' ha! coughbollockscough. 09:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarkingFish (talk • contribs) 10:23, 24 April 2013‎ (UTC) (Thank you whoever caught this - I missed out a ~ when I signed this. Damn keyboard and my temper don't help! :D ) BarkingFish (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see myself as involved with the topic. I posted I think two comments in it and when closing I applied a sanction which was significantly lighter than the one initially voted on. There was a 2:1 majority of actual users who supported the proposal, and a majority of all voters supported the proposal. That counts as consensus. The thread was not going to go anywhere further - someone needed to close it - and the new proposal was irrelevant because the original sanction was in place. I will not reverse my closure of a topic which had a result and where no further discussion could possibly be helpful. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok then, if you care to read back up this section, I have suggested an alternative to the present restriction. Since you won't reverse your closure of what is obviously (in my eyes at least) a bloody poor decision, I'll file my suggestion and ask for debate on it. The restriction currently in place is wrong, and your decision to close it even moreso. BarkingFish (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Could someone uninvolved now close this thread as it obviously isn't going anywhere? If folks want to grief about general issues rather than the case, then COM:VP is a good location. If you want to enjoy writing comments like "coughbollockscough", then this noticeboard is probably one of the worst places to test the limits because nobody will give a damn, until you manage to step over the line into disruption or harassment, with the inevitable consequence, primarily due to you being an arse by wasting everyone's time trying to poke the bear, checking the dead horse really is dead and generally baiting for the LOLz. There are plenty of useful things to do, why not have a crack at adding some votes to open Deletion requests? I'm sure there will be some dubious selfies for deletion to get hot and bothered about. --Fæ (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

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

IPv6 support

Months ago I found that accessing Wikipedia.org from a native IPv6-only machine worked fine. Recently, however, I am not able to connect from a Windows7 machine on TimeWarner cable (US) with only the IPv6 stack loaded. I can access other sites such as google.com, US government sites, Akamai, etc., so I presume something has changed about the Wikipedia IPv6 configuration.

Please continue to make Wikipedia natively accessible via IPv6 for the benefit of worldwide connectivity. Thanks.

1) This is not Wikipedia, you are on the wrong site. 2) I thought that I saw IPv6 edits just recently. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Fastily

Good evening,

I hereby offer to launch a deadminship procedure against Fastily, with four rationales:

(1) Fastily closes DR with too many errors. He clearly prefers quantity to quality. This leads to some problematic situations:

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pont de Peipin (1666).JPG. A new contributor nominated the file to deletion, because there were a factual error in the description. On the DR, this issue were raised. Fastily deleted the file. Please note this kind of error has a cost: the photo uploader considered to leave the project. Please also notice Fastily doesn't notify the restoration back on the DR. Please also note Fastily says on his talk page to be fr-2, but as we'll see below, these errors occur in English too.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Parcguell.jpg. He deleted a file used 37 times on projects, and so in SCOPE.

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:NeocoreGames. The DR were about revisions of the files, he deleted files. Of course, without any reply to the de minimis debate. This DR is really with the French one noted above is really a proof he doesn't read the DRs. Maybe the fact the DR were about revisions and not files were hidden in the DR? Let's read it:

Paradox Interactive Logo isn't covered by OTRS ticket, which only allows screenshots/concept art.

Uploader originally removed logo and requested old revisions deletion, but processing the request, it occurred to me logo could be de minimis. We allowed in the past for example coffee machine with Nespresso logo.

So the question is are the logo de minimis?. If so, we should revert the logos removal on each version. If not, we should delete them (the revisions, not the files).

Warning. As mentioned before, this DR concerns old revisions of the file. It doesn't pursue to delete current files.

Hmmm... it seemed rather clear. I don't know about the other contributors, but when I take the time to write very precisely something (the question, the YES action, the NO action), with a warning message in bold, I expect the person who close it to read that.

I could go on this list but these three samples illustrate the "close without read the DR" behavior I noticed.

(2) Fastily doesn't comment closures. During the four first days in the DRs work in March, 19 messages in 4 days were let on his talk page (counted by DR, not by person). Yes, he succeeded to close DRs and raise 19 questions about closures in 4 days!

Argument given by Fastily as reply is it's only 19 on a lot of DRs closed. Even if he would have closed 1000 DRs these days, that would mean 3,8% (one DR to 26) were wrong or raised questions! This is a very high ratio, especially, as Fastily close less than 1000... (500? one DR to 13! 100? one DR to 5!).

This could be because none of the DR are commented, raising a lot of questions. DRs are also a place where we can educate contributors and explain to people how Wikimedia Commons apply copyright issues.

Indeed, when a DR asks one or more questions on copyright law, the closure doesn't contain any reply to the question, so people aren't able to understand it. I seriously wonder if he reads these questions, because well... the examples in (1) makes me wonder if Fastily reads the DR before to close them.

(3) Fastily refuses to amend himself. When challenged on the DR matters, he considers to do the right things, justify ad nauseam we have a backlog and we have to empty it, than his closures. Strangely, the restore log tells a different story (Two examples: 1 and 2).

(4) Fastily lied. When I see him on IRC March 16th, I notified him the 19 messages in 4 days fact noted in (1) weren't acceptable. He declared he asked tools to "help assist [him] in [his] dev work" and to be "over it" about the DRs and to not close anymore DRs. He quickly resumed this activity, with still a constant stream of complaints on his talk page.

This discussion shows the decision to assign him again the sysop tools were contested from the start, and the bureaucrat having given the right back agrees it were a bad idea.

In conclusion, the ratio cost/benefits for Wikimedia Commons of having Fastily to delete stuff seems to me to justify a deadminship.

Note: If a real need of the tools is demonstrated by Fastily, I'm open to a social restriction like to forbid Fastily to use sysop tools for deletion purpose instead. --Dereckson (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Fastily is a cool-headed and helpful admin. Some of the points also seem trivial, for example "(2) Fastily doesn't comment closures.". Yes that can be an annoyance, but I can list a bunch of admins who often don't, it's hardly a reason to remove. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback.

I mainly by this point search an explanation for so much complaints about DR on his talk page. Probably if the no comment weren't combined with being wrong and delete without read, that wouldn't be so problematic, like for the other admins you point.

Should I deduct from your « Some of the points also seem trivial », some others points are serious? Maybe the fact Fastily doesn't read DR before to close it for example?

Furthermore, I don't agree with your cool-headed statement: “Multichill and I disagreed once in the past, and since then, he's made it his mission to belittle, harass, and childishly attack me at every opportunity” (diff here). This kind a personal attack isn't something I qualify of cool-headed. --Dereckson (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It is extremely ironic how you quoted my answer to multichill when this entire post of yours is driven by the same motive of emotional, personal vengeance. True, we've disagreed in the past, and perhaps not even in the most professional manner, but it is most disappointing to see that you've taken your baseless grudge to the next level on a fallacious, exaggerated set of arguments. -FASTILY 03:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose This needs dispute resolution, not deadminship proceedings. —Mono 00:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is for conflicts between users. Here I see tool abuse and behavior (close DRs without reading them), bad for the project. --Dereckson (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It would help if you included a link to some misbehaviour, I've read through all of that and followed the links and read them, and there is nothing of merit here. I love a good de-adminship as much as the next guy, but your link to this discussion is more of a reason for a de-adminship discussion for Ecemaml than Fastily. I'd like to consider supporting a de-adminship discussion, but you'll have to dig up some trash of merit first. Penyulap ☏ 00:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Why someone would want to dig up stuff? I stated a clear problem: Fastily closes DR and deletes files without reading first the DRs and I seek a solution. I'm not interested by wiki-drama. --Dereckson (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

So ? Fae closed a recent discussion where it's been PROVEN that he didn't read the comments there, PLUS where it's been brought to his attention that he didn't read someone comment, he can't even tell us who made the comment, seriously, I give Fastily extra points for being somewhat sober and often awake whilst editing, that's a good thing for an admin, he doesn't give off that whole 19'60's Kombie full of smoke 'Whoa man, just let me get my head together, Whoooah' kind of feeling. (nods) Penyulap ☏ 00:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Closing DRs without comment is not good, but hardly deadmin worth. Most DRs don't need comments. I agree, let's have some discussion before deadmin.

Sidenote, but the new AN/U layout annoys me - the tables make it look like this is already archived. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, and matt here can tell you Fastily is polite, matt told me to 'fuck off' for trying to fix things at the VP, hmm, yes, many an admin has a POTTY-MOUTH. Incidentally I've fixed that boxing a few times, and it gets undone. Easy enough to find the edit summary where I fix it I probably mention community tabs, that'd give people the code required to edit war. Penyulap ☏ 01:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose I would think that a better solution than taking the bit away from Fastily would be to find a way to get more admins involved with closing DRs. That way more time could be taken on each individual DR, and we wouldn't get a huge backlog that very few admins are willing to address. I think this de-adminship suggestion is a bit extreme, especially considering that fastily always does his best to fix any mistakes he makes, and that he donates quite a bit of his time to doing the "dirty work". INeverCry 01:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, Fastily (talk · contribs) is a helpful admin with a good sense of judgment and professional demeanor. -- Cirt (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Weak oppose Fastily's activities on DRs are apauling. When I see this person's name as the closer of any of the DRs that I am watching my heart freezes for a second. I would say that the reason is followed about 60-70% of the time, which I better than a completely random chance, but there is a lot of work to be done. Deletion of in scope images seems to be the biggest problem, but it is probably more a problem with this whole community at this time where people think that by destroying somebody else's work they have accomplished something. There are some other activities of this admin which I find very inappropriate, but there's no reason to dump them here. I believe that this individual should be warned and should think clearly about one's actions, but not deadmined. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice if Fastily could be bothered to provide a meaningful explanation for apparently surprising decisions, such as at Commons:Deletion requests/uploads by VBLPhoenix, instead of dismissing my concerns with an ultimately rather uncommunicative brush-off message, as he did here... AnonMoos (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Rationale updated. I can't say I held you in the highest esteem following our disagreement over source with regards to PD-old files, but given that your position on the matter has, through consensus, become accepted Commons practice, you do have my apologies. -FASTILY 03:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

How did he find out about this discussion anyhow? spooky! (that's ominous, it's like he's everywhere) Penyulap ☏ 04:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment I am also concerned by Fastily's carelessness-through-speed, and believe that his actions are often quite risky. On the other hand, he is usually responsive to criticism, and his heart is in the right place. So this is neither a vote for or against at this stage, but I do want to throw a couple of observations into the mix so that we have enough information to discuss the best outcome:

Fastily runs two bots FSIII FSV that I am aware of, which have not been submitted for approval by the community. He also appears to use automated tools through his main (admin) account. Five days ago I asked if this could be rectified, and got an (ambiguously) affirmative answer, but it was archived with no action since.
The bots are often used at speeds much faster than the standard speed limit. I have previously blocked Fastily's bots for violating the bot speed limits, and he rectified the problem at the time, so he was already well aware of the rules.
One of the things the bots do is upload hundreds of (sometimes large) files, which are then deleted with his admin account. The stated aim is to test his upload framework. However, this often amounts to bulk-copyvio uploads. For example File:YRqbvuSOos1374038982693326550.pdf (lecture notes) File:ZyOvow3221396996319577159.pdf (in-copyright book), and many many others. (It also concerns me how much disk space is consumed in this endeavour, but that is a tangential point).
Recently his bot-tagging accidentally put two very very heavily used files at risk of (automated?) deletion: [10] [11]. Undoing the consequences of a deletion would have been a nightmare. But as I mentioned earlier, Fastily is usually responsive when an error is identified.
One speedy deletion I am aware of clearly wasn't even looked at, because the requested license had already been added by a new uploader, who had simply failed to remove one of the no-license tags.

To be clear, I don't think Fastily's actions stem from any bad faith on his part, but I think there are valid reasons to ask for and expect change in his operations. --99of9 (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

And bring up your pet beef day with Fastily continues. Frankly, I was beginning to wonder when you were going to post here.

My same conditions stand. I will gladly take these over to BRFA, if you promise not to harass/belittle/accuse me of bad faith like you did here. You never agreed to this, and because I know you will comment on my BRFAs, I have taken no action.
For the record, you have never blocked my bots for violating your speed limit guideline. Either way, I have set up my own, private, designated mediawiki server to run tests on because of your continued harassment.
No bots are ever run out of my main account. I use a set of self-written, supervised, semi-automted tools (see User:Fastily/FAQ#Programming), not too unlike visualfilechange.js or cat-a-lot. The upload test suite used to randomly select a folder from a big pile of junk documents to upload. I will admit that it was an oversight to not police what it was uploading, but as far as I know, and according to Category:Test images, " License may but must not apply. ". If that's wrong, you'd better remove it. Nonetheless, these unit tests will trouble you no more because they now run on my local, private server.
This was the result of a broken library function. I set it to mass tag the images in a gallery, but it accidentally included those files as well. I already explained to you that this was fixed the moment you brought it up.
I do my best to avoid mistakes, but being human, I'm not perfect, and neither are you. If I was, I'd be your god.

-FASTILY 04:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Bots need approval. That's the law. Still, bot requests need interested parties to comment on them as well. My request for a bot flag on Japanese wiki has taken a solid 12 months to get any interest at all, and it still has not been decided. I only just noticed that someone had noticed it just that moment when I checked. (sigh) still, someone should help Fastily by looking at his bot thing to see if it has merit to counter any possible 'IDon't like you' type comments. Won't be me though, I can't be bothered. Bots are boring, just ask them. Still PALZ9000 has been operating on Ja.wiki for a year and zero people care.

Although PALZ sockpuppet did cause quite a stir by uploading hideous poetry to commons, and for some reason they blocked his sock's never-used account on en.wiki. Penyulap ☏ 05:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You equate assuming bad faith with the harassment and belittlement you feel, and I have repeatedly assured you that I am confident of your good faith.
You're right, it wasn't all about the speed: Full block rationale, but you were certainly made aware of the speed limits. The speed limits are obviously not mine, but yes, I do expect that an administrator would uphold a community guideline except in unusual circumstances. Thank you for setting up your test server, that does mitigate some of my bot concerns.
"randomly selected", "[un]policed", "broken library function", "accidentally", "oversight", "mistakes". To me these point to carelessness, and carelessness combined with robots/automated tools equals danger.

--99of9 (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) anything + 'robots/automated tools equals' Hysteria, Richard, after 5 million edits to en.wiki was blocked for using cut'n'paste just once. I think Japan is cool with bots. Penyulap ☏ 06:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I see you have ripped my words out of context and literally twisted them to fit your absurd accusation. This blatant attempt to bait me is appalling, and most unbecoming of a bureaucrat. You repeatedly claim to assume good faith, but I'm just not seeing it. -FASTILY 06:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose What INeverCry said. It does seem to be more of a systemic problem than that of any one user who actually steps into the firing line here. The alternative to closing all these DRs is either letting them lapse and creating a backlog which no-one will ever look at or care about, or closing requests after a certain time as Kept due to no consensus, which would make requesting deletion next to useless in many cases. This doesn't make Fastily immune to criticism, but there are so few people involved in closing DRs that it's impractical to get it done in time without sacrificing some care. It would be the same no matter who were doing it. One of course can argue that not getting it done is preferable, but that's another discussion –⁠moogsi (blah) 08:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll keep this topic open (but keep it on topic and within the AN/U's scope), allowing anyone to give their opinions regrading Fastily's actions. There is no consensus of support to remove his Sysop rights but I do hope that he takes the criticism on-board. Fastily, I suggest that you request bot status for your bots per 99of9's comments. Bidgee (talk) 09:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Well if all there is are comments that belong on Fastily's talkpage, then some pie would be ok, along with the hey what about bot bits for those bots of yours. I says we find someone who needs punishment and force them to take up the boring task of bot assessment. If double voting in elections doesn't do it, I hardly see how using ANU as Fastily's personal talkpage is going to do it. Still, I know jack about Fastily except there was something I don't know about en.wiki, which doesn't count either way, so we need more meat to have a good BBQ. Or some pie, pie is good, is there more pie, enough for everyone ? let's all have pie. I had some before, it was nice. I like pie. Penyulap ☏ 09:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap, Can you please stop hi-jacking topics? It is starting to become rather irritating. Bidgee (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Bidgee, deleting other people edits, like this and this and this is trying to keep the Jet-plane in a contentious place, rather than having a calming effect upon the discussion. I think you are taking editing commons as far too much of a life-and-death sort of most important thing in the world kind of thing. A bit of wikilove goes a long way to easing tensions. Calling it trolling is nonsense. You just don't like wikilove I think, which is why you call it, and me, the Luurrv doctor, irritating. Lighten up. Penyulap ☏ 11:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Fastily has been too trigger-happy for far too long. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Support. Unfortunately it was me who granted his request to get the bit back: I resigned my tools some time ago, believing that I no longer had any use for them. Lately, I have been developing several editing tools for Commons, and it'd really be useful to have the tools back so as to make testing less of a pain. This turned out to have been quite a misrepresentation. I blame myself for not looking into the circumstances of the resignation and believing tool testing motivation. Fastily was a familiar name to which I had no negative associations at that time :-(. --Dschwen (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose In my experiences with him, he is occasionally too quick to delete. But he's a generally competent admin who's fantastic at getting things done. When you're handling so much volume, it's natural to make mistakes along the way; we're human. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Commons certainly wouldn't benefit from desysopping him. --A.Savin 11:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose He's irreplaceable. That's not an unqualified endorsement, but a statement of fact. We have a large volume of work to do, he does it reasonably competently, and we have no one interested in taking on that volume of work do to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Support I agree with Prosfilaes that Fastily is doing a lot of work and he would be hard to replace. However, I rarely have a reason to double check results of deletion requests, but it seems each time I do I find incorrectly (IMHO) closed DR by Fastily. For example:

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Afghanistan 110605-M-XX999-003 (5839031876).jpg - which was only send to DR because it come from isafmedia's photostream which is blacklisted. The nominator did not see anything wrong with the file but wanted to double check. Fastily deleted it with no explanation.
I also could not figure out the reasons for deleting File:Afghanistan arms 1973-1974.svg which was derived from File:Afghanistan arms 1931-1973.svg (by deleting 4 letters), while keeping the source file.
I was also puzzled by Commons:Deletion requests/File:State arms of German Democratic Republic.svg (used on en:East Germany) which was deleted because of disputed accuracy. However accuracy is not a valid reason for deletion: we keep files and let individual wikipedias decide which file to use.

All of those cases indicate deletion closures which are done without taking time to understand (and may be even read) the issues involved. I do not know how typical those are, but for me those are just random sample of files I run into. To his defense he always promptly undeleted files I pointed out. Finally, templates like {{No license since}} asks admins to verify the file history that the license was not removed throughout vandalism or accident. Fastily is deleting files with {{No license since}} at the rate of ~70/minute and I do not think it is possible to check the history at that rate. Even the explanation of his speed at User:Fastily/FAQ does not seem right: it would take hours to look up history of 1-2 hundred files. --Jarekt (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

A few words for Fastily: you do a lot of work, however sometimes I would like to see you act less like a robot than you do. I do remember undeleting pictures of The Milkmaid which were obviously public domain all over the world that you had deleted by accident. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Support he has been a recurring topic on these noticeboards for quite some time and will be that in the future if he stays administrator. I really don't appreciate the personal attacks directed at me. He is one of the reasons I'm much less active ont Commons. Multichill (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment I've not checked this page for a few days, so I didn't see the discussion until now. I'm a bit troubled about how Fastily handles his talk page. For example, I posted a question about a questionable deletion and Fastily has set up archival of discussions which haven't been edited for 24 hours. However, Fastily hasn't been editing for over a week, so this discussion (together with other discussions) were archived without any reply. Also, check this and this: two seemingly identical situations, one closed as delete (although the file remains with the {{Delete}} template still there) and one closed as keep. By the way, I think that there was a discussion about one of them at COM:VPC after the "keep" closure. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I don't recall this sysop telling me to fuck off (lately), I don't know if they deleted lots of my images, probably, but I don't care about DR's, as far as I can tell they haven't uploaded much of polandball, or at least not as many as I have, I haven't seen any outrageous use of Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V so I can't see any problem with this editor (grumble). Do they do anything useful ? I didn't look. Penyulap ☏ 13:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Gustavo neto

Hello. You can tell the user Gustavo neto to stop putting logos (nike, puma) on the kit? wikipedia us, we were told that the only logos allowed were those of adidas. thank you--Principal adjoint (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Charliechaplinofficial

Charliechaplinofficial (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Apparently went through all Charlie Chaplin images, removing licensing tags and substituting links to the company he represents. Unfortunately, a large part of this is completely bogus, since (for example) "The Kid" is in public domain in the United States (released before 1923), etc. This individual also seems to be pretty confused about licensing posthumous personality rights for Chaplin's estate vs. owning copyrights for everything Chaplin did in his career and every photograph of Chaplin -- his firm may do the first, but it self-evidently cannot do the second. Don't feel like manually reverting all the user's edits to image pages, but it should be done... AnonMoos (talk) 05:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The user also seems to be randomly removing descriptions in other languages, categories, and other useful information. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted all their changes for the moment. This looks like a single purpose account which should be considered damagingly disruptive by creating copyfraud problems. I recommend an indef block until such a time as the account holder can explain their actions or commit to changing this behaviour. --Fæ (talk) 07:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Dialogue is better for the project than throwing editors away, ( and making work for the legal department as well in this case ? ). I doubt there are many people willing to put the effort into dialogue. Penyulap ☏ 08:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I added comments to User talk:Charliechaplinofficial, but unfortunately the user's edits in the form in which the user made them were not useful, and it seems that the user will have to take the initiative to learn more about how things are done on Commons to make useful edits. AnonMoos (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Knot theory

User:AnonMoos has accused me of not answering questions, insulted me ("I really don't know what your problem is", "Dude, what is your problem???"), and, shouting (highest level heading (one "="), all caps), accused me of vandalism. This first would be fine if AnonMoos answered questions and the last would be fine if I had committed vandalism. AnonMoos also writes as if users own the images they upload and categories they use (or at least AnonMoos does). Hyacinth (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What is it lately with people wanting to vandalise category pages and then accuse others of being rude. "Dude, what is your problem???" is definitely not an insult, not unless you are a professional victim or somesuch. You vandalised the category tree and you got a "rise" out of the user who has participated in its creation and would have to spend time undoing your damage, what else did you expect? (Or I should ask "What is your problem???") Sinnamon Girl (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Creating a category is not vandalism. What is it with people not knowing the definitions of basic principles on Wikipedia and Commons? Is implying someone is a professional victim (not actually a profession) an insult? Please show me how AnonMoos created "Category:Knots (knot theory)" or "Category:Links (knot theory)". Hyacinth (talk) 05:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't create them, but I participated in the discussions that led to their creation, and no-one objected to their existence for well over 5 years, until you took a sudden dislike to them yesterday... AnonMoos (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop attributing emotion and motive to me. Hyacinth (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If you participated in these discussions where are they? Hyacinth (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Since you don't offer reasoned arguments for your actions, I'm left with few alternative explanations than a personal dislike. I don't see how those old discussions would be too relevant to the outcome of the current dispute, but as I said on your user talk page, if my suggestions for the category names ("Knot-theoretic links" and "Knot-theoretic knots") had found approval, I probably would have been the one creating the categories... AnonMoos (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

In knot theory, "Knots" (1 loop only) and "Links" (2 loops or more) are separate and distinct things, and Category:Knots (knot theory) and Category:Links (knot theory) have existed since November 2007 without any controversy, until all of a sudden yesterday Hyacinth abruptly unilaterally decided to abolish the distinction and amalgamate them into a single category. I don't care too much about a lot of the other stuff he does in knot categorization (though some of it seems to be makework without great value, and the constant churn can be annoying to try to keep track of), but I object in the extreme to his attempts to eliminate Category:Links (knot theory). Under the circumstances, the burden is really on him to articulate reasons why the category should be abolished, and so far he's conspicuously failed to do so... AnonMoos (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Merging is not eliminating.

(what makes you think I'm male?) Hyacinth (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Most people on Wikimedia are male, and it probably seemed more polite than calling you "it". I don't think you can take offence over that. But no, AnonMoos is right, merging a category is eliminating it: a category is a set of distinct things, if you merge it they are no longer distinct. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hyacinth -- I might have vaguely assumed you were possibly female, based on the flower reference, but then I saw at the top of your en.Wikipedia user talk page that you call yourself "Mikhail", which is pretty unambiguously male! AnonMoos (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If neither AnonMoos or I have answered any questions on my talk page, AnonMoos has asked 4 (two of which where "what's you problem") while I have asked 6. Calling me unforthcoming while not answering my questions is hypocritical. So is declaring the unexplained actions of others "quite clear" while declaring my actions unclear. Hyacinth (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hyacinth -- such counting is really not the main issue. The main issue is that since 1) There's an accepted significant and easily-definable difference between knots and links in knot theory and 2) You're trying to change the stable status quo since November 2007, Therefore most people would agree that the burden is on you to articulate why you want to merge things, much more than it's on me to explain in any detail why things should remain unmerged. Even if you don't see this, you should act as if you do see it, because you refusing to offer any explanation at all as to why things should be merged is a non-starter. AnonMoos (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Could someone explain why we would want to merge knot and link categories, apart from potentially at a single top parent level? To my mind they are topologically different families, which seems the easiest distinction. One might have them merged in something like a illuminated manuscript category, but I would consider that a different sort of beast if not a cropped detail of a specific type of artistic knot, or a specific type of link in artwork. Even writing this down makes me remember why I walk away from category wars. --Fæ (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Rather than draw this section out even further, on, and on, and on, what I do with discussions like this, what I have always done with discussions like this, is put all onto the appropriate talkpage. Explanations go on either category's talkpages, neither of which exist at the time of posting this comment. If discussion is drawn out here at ANU, someone else won't be capable of finding said discussion when they edit the category, and if they have something to add to the discussion, then they cannot because the section will have archived.

This board seems to have an abundance of people who love using the wrong forum to listen to the sound of their own voices, rather than people who understand how to get the job done. Makes me wonder just how long it will take to create those category discussion pages. Penyulap ☏ 10:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Archive - I agree, the purpose of this noticeboard is for matters that require administrator's intervention, I don't see that in this dispute. Category discussions can run for years, I would suggest avoid reverting the work of others where this is significant, unless there is a reasonable level of consensus for sweeping change. Referring to a standard taxonomy based on topological definitions might be helpful, with a parallel for the obvious non-mathematical taxonomy. --Fæ (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

What might have required intervention was an incipient edit war over Category:Links (knot theory). If that's over, then we can get back to our regular ongoing dull and boring pattern of me finding minor flaws and issues with Hyacinth's unilateral actions in knot and link categorization...

AnonMoos (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Multiple copyvio - The jiz

The jiz (talk · contribs) has uploaded multiple copyvio images. Another similarly-named user on en.wikipedia Jizjos (talk · contribs) also seems to be linked although I can't find any images uploaded by that user. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I could not find any deleted contributions for Jizjos on en.wikipedia, so no images were ever uploaded on that project. However, he was blocked as a vandalism only account. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Delicious carbuncle

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

English Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy thrive on da dramuh. We on Commons do not. So in aid of that, if you want to continue this, en:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#The_handling_of_child_pornography_on_Wikimedia_Commons sounds like the perfect spot for it. Let's get back to doing what we do best and don't feed the trolls. Is a great song, isn't it? russavia (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

I'd like to ask to block User:Delicious carbuncle, reason Harrassment. He was harrassing another Commons user here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales Giving away his real life data and taking a commons discussion into public to have revenge after he didn't get what he wanted on Commons. This behaviour did not only affect the user he is talking about, but even me. I got a real life too and I don't want other users to discuss it in public. If he can do that to one of us he can do it to all of us.--Stanzilla (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain what "taking a commons discussion into public to have revenge after he didn't get what he wanted on Commons" relates to? What was it that I wanted and where did the "commons discussion" take place? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I refer to "Before anyone suggests that Mattbuck was not aware of the other images, let me tell you that he closed his deletion request as “Kept: Sent to another DR”." and I assume you wanted him to delete. Okay, if you weren't involved, then you didn't state what you wanted and just stalked? That's even more scary.--Stanzilla (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not participate in that discussion or any discussion on Commons about those images. The images were deleted after I contacted the WMF. You think that reading deletion discussions is stalking? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I think that writing on another website about deletion discussions of a certain user and tracking down to his real life at the same time could be considered stalking. I was told in IRC that this will lead to myself being exposed on Wikipediocracy as well. And that's most likely why nobody dares to say anything against Delicious carbuncle. Not because everybody agrees. Delicious carbuncle is spreading terror.--Stanzilla (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Spreading terror? That sound realistic. By the way, have you seen Mattbuck's user page? He links to his website. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

@Stanzilla, all this is the main purpose of WCy, even though they sometimes pick up valid criticism, which they also could have raised on-wiki, as most of them are still active users. But that gives them less lulz or something, I assume. --Túrelio (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

His username is "Mattbuck". His userpage says, "I'm a maths PhD student at the University of Nottingham." As far as I'm concerned, Mattbuck isn't anonymous or trying to be anonymous. Mattbuck gave away his own real life data to the public, and Commons discussion are public, not private. Commons is transparent, which means that it's open to public debate. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

As you well know, what's outrageous in the recent WCy-posting is the malicious association of an identified person with childp*rn. But no surprise as they didn't even care to associate a completely unrelated, but fully identifiable person with this topic, simply by using a portrait image from Flickr, without giving a thought whether such an unjustified association might real-life-damage the depicted person. In my country such an image use would be a safe court case, worth around € 5,000 in damages plus legal fees (to be paid by DC or whoever put the image there). --Túrelio (talk)

As far as I know, the creator of that image has not contacted Wikipediocracy, although Russavia has alerted them to its use. The situation seems similar to what happens all the time with images hosted on or taken from Commons. The difference is that Wikipediocracy would very likely remove the image if asked. I am told, incidentally, that the description of that comic image was "pedophile", so the use may not come as a surprise to the author. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose The unwanted posts are on English Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy, not on Commons. Blocking Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) on Commons wouldn't affect his ability to post such posts on English Wikipedia. A block is useless if it doesn't affect the unwanted behaviour. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Support infinite block for constant trolling and disruption. Stanzilla is right about stalking. I can confirm the "spreading terror" above (well, no need to, he wrote "That sound realistic" himself), and I'm well aware of people scared by the gang Delicious carbuncle belongs to. Go on, my dear heap of carbon, now let's see what you can find on me. And you others, don't be scared, he usually harasses only one person at a time, he won't persecute the next until he's busy with the last. --Nemo 13:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC) P.s.: Yes, I have a past history with him: he harassed people on Meta and I had to block him, he took revenge etc. etc. However I wasn't (yet) persecuted by him on Commons, so my experience only helps me understanding better what he's doing here.
- You weren't harassed or "persecuted". I know about the real you, and the Meta community dealt with you appropriately by desyopping you. Don't bring your lying and manipulations here. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  - Please refrain from adding comments on how things I didn't say are not true. --Nemo 13:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Let me add canvassing.[12] --Nemo 14:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose DC should be welcome to participate in the community processes here. If he spots child porn images, that should be dealt with using the normal channels. He can complain here if these processes are not working ok., he can vent his frustrations on external sites, if he feels the need to do so. It is better to let things sort out themselves instead of having to ban people. Usually, if someone is doing bad things, there is a track record of that which automatically will discredit that person. But by jumping on that person, you actually make other people who feel strongly about the cause that person is persuing, to come to the defense of him. That leads to a faction that will defend this person even if there later is such bad behavior here that would merit some form of a restriction. So, one should only think about taking measures if there is evidence of such bad behavior right here for which anyone else is routely restricted. Count Iblis (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per Stefan4. Discuss English Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy matters there. It is not good to show your power in your own pond. J Kadavoor J e e 16:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Foroa

Foroa (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

He started an edit war for instance here/here and here/here, deleting the names he thinks were wrong multiple times, without leaving a comment or a category redirect. I never wanted to end in an edit war, so I wrote him as far as I noticed his deletions, expecting an explanation of what was happening (actually in the second case I was definitely wrong, but didn't know). From a message to his talk all I got back was a rude threaten.

As many other users (see his talk) I gently asked to leave a category redirect when he moves a category name, since I just came from a wikipedia's Commonscat link and found a strange red link, here. His answer was just deleting the redirect I just created again (15:27, 27 apr 2013).

I also asked if he can reply to me to my user talk, as anyone, he just replied ironically.

I have a very light knowledge of Commons procedures (probably this is not the proper place to report a problem with an admin), I am mostly an uploader, but his arrogance and lack of cooperation is starting to be annoying, and I think it is not compatible with the admin flag. His cancellations of cat can be dangerous as we are missing a lot of link entering from the wikipedias version (with Commonscat and similar). I am a Commons user from a long time, so I can find the new names quite easily, but when I try to leave a redirect to less familiar users, I am not expecting to get it deleted soon without any reason. His pretens of "Unusability of the system" was just ridiculous. --Sailko (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I do think that Foroa's approach to naming categories is more in line with the international nature of Commons. The only thing that confuses me is that he didn't want to temporarily put a redirect. But I think that's a minor issue. In this case I feel that the best thing would actually be for you to add " (Florence)" to the names of categories of streets and other generic objects. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not the name of categories, the issue is a rude admin who doesn't explain what he does, starts kind of edit war and ignores on purpouse legitimate requests. --Sailko (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Sailko, rudeness is a basic property of most admins here. J Kadavoor J e e 04:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I will probably sound "rude" then. But Foroa did explain, I had no knowledge of the situation, and I read the links that you have yourself posted and nothing else, and understood the situation quite clearly. Foroa was direct, but that's not the same thing as being "rude". Foroa provided enough information to understand the situation. Maybe it was possible to be nicer to you, but that is not a responsibility of anybody. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Foroa hasn't demonstrated any real need to delete these redirects. Commons won't break if it has 10 billion redirects and this isn't going to be about anything other than what this is about, so why delete it? Especially bearing in mind that links to that category from other Wikimedia projects, and outside Wikimedia, will break without it.

If that cat gets moved (and redirected) again at a future date, which probably won't happen, then there will a double redirect. That's unfortunate, but can be detected/correct by bot.

If Foroa hadn't deleted the redirects, this thread wouldn't have arisen...--Nilfanion (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply to users Sailko complaint. Note that I was intended to give a more extensive reply on requesters use page (one of the few users that want to discuss things in a ping pong user talk page, so that other people have problems following it). It is clear that Sailko forgets the basic naming rule in Commons, so I need some time to make a compact overview of his misconceptions.

The most important category naming rule in commons Commons:Categories states: The category name would be enough to guess the subject, but some extra text can be useful to precisely define it. Obviously, many categories in Category:Streets in Florence don't comply with that, and for example Via dell'Osservatorio‎, Via Strozzi, Via Sant'Antonino and many others don't comply with that.

You seem to handle your personal rule that a category name should be as short as possible, leaving the others with the conflicts. While most categorisers in Italy, which I consider one of the best categorisation teams of the Commons world, understand that and apply a systematic naming and disambiguation as it is much more efficient in the long run, avoids conflicts and moves, you regularly remove their disambiguations without any form of warning as at that time, there is no conflict at Commons yet. --Foroa (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

If i may say, she (?) is making much mistakes because she doesn't discusses her vieuws, most of the time she is always wrong and ruins work of others. can someone guide her? Carolus (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, seems you have quite a conflict of interest here, considering your disagreement with Foroa (User_talk:Foroa#WARNING) and your rather personally attacking posting[13]. A disagreement does not necessarily mean that the other has made a mistake. Of course, anybody, including admins, make mistakes every now and then. But to claim that Foroa is "always wrong" is absurd. In regard to categorization he is one of the most experienced editors. --Túrelio (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

IMHO Foroa is abusing his admin privileges! Foroa blocked Carolus although Foroa participated in the same edit war! IMHO it's not ok to block someone you disaggree with when you fail to bring arguments! Carolus should be unblocked immediately to be able to defend himself! a×p_de ^Hello! 18:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree. The edit war we can see here is actually a contentual conflict, where Foroa used admin privileges against her opponent. Let me also say that I didn't want to read me into several previous complaints against this admin on COM:ANU in the last few months; for myself, however, I had negative experiences with this admin as well, when she misused her rollback button against me after I tried to remove obvious nonsense added by her to a category. So, I wonder if we really should tolerate her arrogancy any longer. Let me also say that I appreciate Foroa's efforts on categorization, but for the work with Cat-a-lot/HotCat one doesn't need admin tools, and, as you may guess, I don't believe that the user shows enough tact in using same. --A.Savin 19:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't know whether it's the best place to discuss this, but I created Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#check possible admin abuse by user:foroa (block of user:carolus). I'm biased myself that's why I won't decide on this either. a×p_de ^Hello! 19:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I made a short block as a preserving measure. Can I ask that a Dutch speaking administrator evaluates the bad faith, rudeness and totally irrational behaviour of Carolus, which made in my judgment the short block justified. --Foroa (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I am influenced by italian wikipedia rules, where you put the parentesis with city names only at the last chance, and I agree sometimes I named incorrectly some commons categories (for instance I did not revert Category:Piazza d'Azeglio (Florence), I admitted this since my first edit here). BTW, just to let you know, the categorization system of Italian cats has been decided by a very low number of users (mostly by one only, Giovanni dall'Orto) and "not" widely agreed, since it is also different from the other european categories system. For instance in Holland they have category:Van Gogh Museum (not category:Van Gogh Museum (Amsterdam)) and in Italy we must have silly Category:Pinacoteca di Brera (Milan)... I could make many more examples. "Ping pong" is also how I discuss usually with 99% of users in all the wikimedia projects I edit for. If somebody wanted to keep all replies to his page he has to leave a short message on the other user's discussion page, or he would never notice he has a new message to read ([http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sailko&diff=29750585&oldid=29617771 example).

Anyway, to go back to the TOPIC, the reason I started this discussion, is because I felt Foroa has a very unpleasant attitude to the privileges his status of admin include: he moves up and down category names, he can use bots, he can use Hotcat for subactegories (normal users can't), without feeling the need to give any explication to the users (even if he reverts for the third time, exactly like in an Edit war), he deletes categories and redirects just because he can and he doesn't care other needs, he gives rude messages to his talk page (or wherever he wants) just because he does a lot of job here, and he feels he's the ruler of everything. Get a break please! --Sailko (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Less chance that you get help from other admins here; better you post at Stewards' noticeboard. J Kadavoor J e e 15:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I must admit that I reacted sharper than I usually do, probably because of your several attempts in the past to remove disambiguation terms. Statements like Even if it is false that the churches category names were renamed after my fault: I just gave up moving back Santa Maria del Fiore (Florence), even if no other churches in the world have such name while this shows clearly that there are at least 3 other churches with that name, along with several parishes and schools. While you corrected quickly Category:Via Romana, it is not correct because there are already 4 different Via Romana categories on Commons, and may more to come... As I stated, your Italian colleagues disambiguate systematically because it is just simpler and more efficient to have a uniform naming system, than to have to search if the name is unique and waste time with renaming. After all, 97 % of the shorter names names reveal to be not unique, and frankly, I doubt that I can make an appointment or send a letter to someone in the unique "Via de' Benci" without mentioning Firenze.

You seemed irritated because of the fact that I did not answer on your user page, which you seem to consider the default. Well it is not the case, some moment, there has even be a proposal to forbid this ping pong communication on Commons. Anyway, my way of responding is on the top of my user page and if you edit my user page, there is a banner that clearly states so.

And yes, maybe I was too rude to the taste of some people. But I have work to do as I move around 10000 categories per year, so I try to cut discussions short. Obviously, I felt irritated for what I felt as lack of community sense, you have taken it too heavily, but anyway, I apologize for that. --Foroa (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this reply is satisfying, since the main complaint by Sailko is lack of explanations. J Kadavoor J e e 06:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

First i would like to know if Foroa is a man or a woman? Can you please tell Foroa?Carolus (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I thank for explanation. If Foroa won't cancel anymore possible cat redirects I'll be fine (he/she can cancel the wrong ones, ok). I am also quite irritable for too much job I want to do on commons, since the beginning of 2013 only I already uploaded more than 6.000+ images, it's more than 50 a day, every day. So I like shortcuts, as everyone, in my perspective. I will be more careful selecting category names and will gradually move to disambiguated names where needed... consider some names where made in 2006, 2007, 2008... things do change in years! --Sailko (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this discussion can be closed as "solved". J Kadavoor J e e 05:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Alorkalabahi

I came across this user earlier today on Wikidata, where they were changing labels, apparently for fun. I warned them, to no avail, and had to block them for 24 hours. Then they started to edit their talk page on Wikidata, adding pictures, which they uploaded here, apparently also for fun. Note that they requested one file to be moved, also fo fun, and to my utmost surprise, the file was moved, so that I can not move it back (please do). This activity here should be somehow stopped. On Wikidata, the user never responded.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I have done this on this occasion mate. But in future, would you like to take care of it yourself?!??!? russavia (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. We had some conversation about it earlier, just to repeat, I need some time to sort out how I manage my time with advanced permissions on three projects I got in three months period. If I manage to keep it under control, may be sometime in the fall.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Reincarnated as User:Distrikkarubaga, uploaded the same file (did not yet request the move).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Done Uploads have been deleted and both accounts blocked. --A.Savin 21:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

User:AtomicGagou and bogus DR

After performing a Google-images search (negative) for both the nominated and the uncropped native image, I have now early-closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:King Willem-Alexander, Queen Maxima and their daughters 2013.jpg (and related 3 DRs) as it is clearly an abusive DR, filed by AtomicGagou (talk · contribs) based on bogus "evidence", which has unanimously found to be without merit as is evident from the DR discussion. The nominated image had initially been uploaded from Flickr by User:CrazyPhunk. However, the Flickr-photographer became aware of the request and was found to be User:Floris2132 (on Commons since 2010). In order to convince her of his authorship, User:Floris2132 even uploaded the uncropped native version directly to Commons[14], to which AtomicGagou's only answer to file it also for deletion.[15] Of course she also filed DRs for the related crops File:Catharina-Amalia.jpg, File:Princess Alexia.jpg and File:Princess Ariane.jpg.
To me it's obvious that AtomicGagou filed this DR as a sort of revenge after her own upload of a Dutch princess' image (File:Prinses Catharina-Amalia.jpg), taken from the RVD-website, which expressedly allows only non-commercial use[16], had been deleted twice as she had re-uploaded it after deletion. As is evident from the DR discussion, AtomicGagou simply wasn't willing to accept our Licensing-policy and even announced to upload the image a third time.

In addition to filing these bogus DRs, AtomicGagou displayed an incredible amount of aggressive and disruptive behaviour, I hadn't observed as of yet. For example (not exhaustive):

She twice changed the IP# in IP comments to a username and thereby associated IP with username (a.k.a. outing): [17],[18]
She did repeatedly manipulate one commenting IP's number so that it appeared to come from a regular user, even after she was told[19] that it wasn't his edit: [20],[21]
She repeatedly removed other user's comments from the discussion: [22],[23]
She displayed an overly arrogant attitude towards other commenters: [24],[25]
In addition to the nomination she added overall 5 bolded DELETION "votes" to the DR discussion.[26]
It seems that she even removed the nominated image(s) from the pages on other wikis where they were in use.[27]
When I had tagged her re-upload of File:Prinses Catharina-Amalia.jpg for no-permission (before becoming aware of the earlier DR) and put the default notification on her talkpage, which was my first contact with this user, she complained about "harassment and pollution of my page"[28] and even put her no-permission-message on my talkpage[29], whereas in an earlier DR she complained not to have been notified[30].

As User:AtomicGagou has shown a persistant unreasonableness in both DR discussions, I recommend a block of noticeable length, but I will not block her by myself, as I have also been a (minor) target of her aggression. --Túrelio (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks. INeverCry 23:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

90.84.144.76 (talk · contribs)

Not really surprised, but the edit target, the edit pattern and the wording of this IP strongly suggest that we have a case of block evasion. In order to minimize further disruption I have now semi-protected Commons:Deletion requests/File:King Willem-Alexander, Queen Maxima and their daughters 2013.jpg and File:King Willem-Alexander, Queen Maxima and their daughters 2013.jpg for 1 week. Per our policy COM:BP, block evasion can result in a block prolongation. --Túrelio (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Holen-mor (talk · contribs)

Half a day later, the 1-edit-in-2009-account User:Holen-mor re-appears and repeats the edits of IP 90.84.144.76[31], i.e. reversal of my DR-closure and reversal of my removal of DR-tag from File:King Willem-Alexander, Queen Maxima and their daughters 2013.jpg. I have included this account into my CU request from this morning.
Now really, what is going on here? All this fuss about a (nice) image of the new royal family of the Netherlands? It's becoming even more ridiculous than it was already. Is this a revenge-action of the French secret service DCRI for not deleting their antenna image?
Please could one of my colleagues revert the 2 recent edits of Holen-mor and then fully-protect the DR-discussion and the image. --Túrelio (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Done I've full-protected the DR and file, and placed a short block on the User:Holen-mor account to prevent further disruptive editing. INeverCry 17:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Further involved IPs:

82.124.181.121 (talk · contribs) - CU-confirmed sock.
90.61.234.2 (talk · contribs) - CU-confirmed sock.
92.132.251.114 (talk · contribs)
90.84.144.157 (talk · contribs)
90.84.144.136 (talk · contribs)

--Túrelio (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

90.84.144.207 (talk · contribs)

another one --Denniss (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

All

Confirmed (FWIW). Trijnstel_talk 22:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Sabretoothbeast

Sabretoothbeast (talk · contribs) has recently uploaded a dozen or so images whose source is listed as 'www.google.com' under obviously false public domain flags. Could an admin please delete these images and warn/block Sabretoothbeast as appropriate. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Done Uploads deleted, user warned. INeverCry 17:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Fry1989

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 35

Contents

Closure of Ecemaml discussion

Definite resignation

AJA29091998

user:Mouh2jijel

User:Bossange

КатеринаМишнёва

User:BarkingFish

Penyulap

Closing

Poll – allowable amount of comments

No restriction

Four comments

Three comments

Two comments

One comment

Zero comments

user:Kieranmaher

Godhår97

User:IMorganFreemanI

Alternative restriction on Penyulap to replace current: (Penyulap 3)

SimonMKay

Concerning Penyulap and the section above: (Penyulap 2)

IPv6 support

Fastily

Gustavo neto

User:Charliechaplinofficial

Knot theory

Multiple copyvio - The jiz

User:Delicious carbuncle

Foroa

User:Alorkalabahi

User:AtomicGagou and bogus DR

90.84.144.76 (talk · contribs)

Holen-mor (talk · contribs)

Sabretoothbeast

User:Fry1989

Navigation menu

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 35

Closure of Ecemaml discussion

Definite resignation

AJA29091998

user:Mouh2jijel

КатеринаМишнёва

Penyulap

Closing

Poll – allowable amount of comments

No restriction

Four comments

Three comments

Two comments

One comment

Zero comments

Alternative restriction on Penyulap to replace current: (Penyulap 3)

Concerning Penyulap and the section above: (Penyulap 2)

IPv6 support

Fastily

Gustavo neto

Knot theory

Multiple copyvio - The jiz

User:AtomicGagou and bogus DR

90.84.144.76 (talk · contribs)

Holen-mor (talk · contribs)

Sabretoothbeast

User:Fry1989

Navigation menu

Search