Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 39

Gmwfromparis

This user uploaded File:European Union Flag 28 countries 2013.jpg. As the stars in the European flag are deliberately not meant to be representative of the number of member states, I really saw no scope and nominated the image for deletion. The user has sent me a personal email accusing me of "not appreciating his proposals", wanting to "take credit for his design", being "against freedom of speech" and "trying to steal his design". I have not responded to these accusations, however this is an inappropriate use of the Commons emailing system as far as I'm concerned. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Well unfortunately there is no way to just block his emailing privileges without blocking editing. From what you've described, it sounds like the user is upset and trolling as a result. I'm not going to respond to this one (and good thing you didn't either) for fear of feeding, but if the user continues to harass, I or another admin will warn. If it continues, a block is not out of the question. --O (谈 • висчвын) 03:14, 12 August 2013 (GMT)

Fry1989

He gives me an Accusation , every time he says i nominate files or vote Politically motivated , he tries to stop me from nominating and voting , he wants to start a war , he talks in a rude way ,i don't know all that because we had a dispute so they are a revenge ? , BTW , i need somebody to get him away of my side before my words start to be out of control , for now i'm holding myself , and it's all my right to talk worst than he talk to me .GhiathArodaki (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Like I said. Fight that out behind bars or on your/his discussion page. The problem starts with your wording policatal motivated... in the DR. I told you so on my talk page already. Please! I am not taking sides, btw. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 19:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The last time when we had a problem , the result said he don't get in my way , and i don't get in his way , i did that , but he don't do so .GhiathArodaki (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I have every right to vote in any DR I come across. I also have every right to oppose such DRs where I see a lack of substance or political motivation. Everything this user does is politically motivated. It's always an insult to Islam, an insult to Syria, an insult to Arabs. Commons is not censored, we hold thousands of images with differing political, historical, or religious viewpoints and we do not delete them because someone feels insulted. This user doesn't understand that concept at all. All anybody needs to do is look through his edit history, and you will find it littered with political comments of a perceived insult which he sees as grounds to get rid of whatever image it may be for the day. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Then why , when i uploaded filess like these they were deleted ?? , can you tell me why ?.GhiathArodaki (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You've already been told why, you just refuse to accept it. You uploaded images in retaliation, after you had nominated images you found insulting and they were kept. You uploaded images with a "reverse insult" in opposition to the ones you wanted to have deleted. That is why. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

so is that a rule here ? , if a pictures i nominate them for deletion and i , in the same time uploaded another file that is oppose to these pictures , my pictures must be deleted ? , ok forget about thise picture , how about the greater syria picture ? , or the levant picture that had a syrian flag ? , or the ficional ispifoney flag ? .GhiathArodaki (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The rule you broke here was that you nominated images for deletion because you didn't "like them", and after they were kept you uploaded images in retaliation. If you had uploaded those images in their own right, they very likely could have stayed. It was because of why you uploaded them that they had to go. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

all of those images that i said are my work and holds my copyright , the first image you are saying i uploaded it as a revenge , you are wrong , when i saw "free speech" and no censor are accepted here , then i uploaded this image , you are keeping to say this is a revenge , you don't read my mind , you don't know my faith , so stop accusations .GhiathArodaki (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You keep trying to censor Commons, but whine that people have tried to censor you. Does anybody else sense the irony? Fry1989 ^eh? 20:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Censor me for what ? , what i have uploaded that should be censored ? , talk about yourself .GhiathArodaki (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

---

GhiathArodaki -- as someone who has seen your whole Commons career unfold from the beginning, it seems reasonably clear that that the majority of your actions here have been motivated by your desire to uphold the Assad regime, and eliminate what you consider to be "insults" to the Assad regime or to your conception of Syrian nationalism. What other reason is there for your recent round of deletion nominations on "Greater Iraq" related images, except that you consider any idea of "Greater Iraq" to be an insult to your own preferred cause of Greater Syria? If you have any other motivation, then please explain it to us. And I uploaded File:La Syrie rayonnante.svg specifically to be a more acceptable replacement for some of your previous semi-dubious efforts, but you won't use it on your Arabic Wikipedia user page, presumably because it includes a map of the borders of Syria over the last 70 years, while you consider these borders to be an "insult" to your expansive (i.e. irredentist) notions of Syrian nationhood. Etc. etc.
I'm sure you have basically good intentions, but Wikimedia Commons is for supporting the Wikipedias with relevant images, and building up an archive of useful images, not for importing political controversies... AnonMoos (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't care if there is an insult to stupid assad regime , because i don't support assad , and stop saying i support assad , yes i liked the image you did but i'll not use it because golan hights and iskandrun are not included , no i don't see this "insulting" , i see this "stealing" .GhiathArodaki (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

GhiathArodaki -- You sometimes say that you're not an Assad regime supporter, but you have unbounded love for the flag of a red-white-black horizontal tricolor with two green stars, while loathing with passionate intensity the flag of a green-white-black horizontal tricolor with three red stars, which leads people to draw their own conclusions. And the map in File:La Syrie rayonnante.svg doesn't include Alexandretta because Syria hasn't had any control over Alexandretta since about 1939 (however much you may think it was stolen by the French and the Turks). But it actually should include the Golan Heights, as discussed on your user talk page. If I replace the map of Syria with the letters سوريا in a circle, will you use the image then? AnonMoos (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

yes i love our flag , like any man who love the flag of his country ,i don't think it's a shame if i love my country flag, this flag is the syrian flag assad does not have any hand on it , and the other is the revolution flag and the fourth mandate flag , also the syrian flag that was during the syrian indepention from france , the syrian flag shows the unity the union , while the other shows the cut of countries , also the syrian flag was put by arabs not foregins , and syria is written سورية not سوريا, and no golan hights and iskandrunn must be included in the map , thank god that i didn't say include the true syrian map .GhiathArodaki (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The spelling سورية could be considered more technically correct, but سوريا seems to be more commonly encountered, certainly officially. And I created the graphic to get away from irredentism, not endorse it. AnonMoos (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

سورية is the official spelling of syria , while سوريا is the western and paois spelling , سورية is the arabic spelling , we say سورية عربية , i told you i don't include any syrian map that doesn't include golan hights and Iskandrun , what i say isn't irredentism .GhiathArodaki (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I think your quarrel is with a whole lot of people other than me (many of them Arabs)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't care if GhiathArodaki supports the Assad regime or not (though the evidence is complelling), all I care about is the clear bias this user has espoused. Anything with a message he does not like, he will nominate for deletion. It's either insulting to him as a Muslim, insulting to him as an Arab, or insulting to him as a Syrian. At the same time however, he uploads images with the exact reverse message in retaliation while trying to censor the ones he doesn't like. He attacks other users so much so that some of his comments on user pages had to be striked out by admins. His political motivations are absolutely unacceptable here. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

what evidence ? , what did i do to show that i'm an assad regime supporter ? , and you think all what i upload is a respond ? , don't be silly please ? , you don't read minds , you don't read faith , you are nothing , All the files i nominate for deletion are out of scope , like the Eygpt flag on Middle east and africa , or the greater iraq files , or the dump islamic iran file , those files are out of scope , and i tried to protect the wiki from the wars that it was going to happen , you don't care for the wars , that is your problem , i told every body that any thing that insult any relegion must be deleted , you don't want to understand , don't understand , and i'll not care , but just leave me alone , you said to me to leave you alone , i did that , but you don't , you try give me accusations , why should i don't respond you ? , all of your accusations are wrong , you only want to give a bad image and let people here hate me because we had a little dispute and you thought i gave you an accusation that you are an israeli supporter , while i did not , after the dispute , every report that was at me you go there and write what happened in the dispute in you foloklore and with your lies , because i have uploaded a file that is oppose a files i nominate them for deletion , you say every time i upload a file it's a revenge or retaliation , you are the one here who is revenging , you are hunting me , because every move i do i see you there , that means that you use to see my latest controbutions or whatever , not only you , other users do so , also first time we had the dispute , i was completly new to this wiki , so i didn't know anything , and i'm not that old here , i'll say i have made a nomination by a mistake understand , the first three files that includes the syrian revolution flag , i thought they are saying as this is the new flag of syria or whatever , and then it was meant for other use , it was meant for a historical thing , mistake understand happens , and it is not a shame , so this is the solution , you don't get in my side and i don't get in your side. you want to vote , vote , but don't give a accusations to me that are wrong .GhiathArodaki (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that part of the problem is that GhiathArodaki treats whatever he was taught in school as the unassailable eternal truth, and his notion of Syrian nationalism, Arab nationalism, and Muslim identity etc., is that no non-Syrian should have anything to say about Syrian matters, no non-Arab has any right to speak about Arabs, no non-Muslim will ever have anything useful to say about Islam, etc. etc... AnonMoos (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

in school they didn't teach us anything about that , i hate the arab nationalist , but that doesn't mean i hate arabs , and yes you don't have the right to say anything bad or try to solve a problem in syria or muslims or arab world , as i don't have the right to say anything about your countries or give a solve for a problem ,We do not want any foreign interference in our countries.GhiathArodaki (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

We have no grounds to block you at this point, despite your obvious incompatibility with Commons principles, but I honestly think you should just leave for good. You're freaking out about things nobody here has even talked about. Everyone is against you, everything is wrong and an attack, everything is the West trying to control and interfere in Middle Eastern affairs. Every image with a message you disagree with must be deleted, while you expect to be allowed to upload whatever you like with the opposite message. You don't respect freedom of speech here when it comes to opposing views, or quite often even accepted fact. This isn't the place for you. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

i told you that the freedom of speech is a non sense thing , yes the west are trying to control every thing in the Arab world and muslim world , not the middle east , the middle east is a western word just to add israel to the arabian area , talk about yourself westerns "freedom of speech" , what a pathetic thing , you don't give us the freedom of speech , you are the dictator people , people like you don't even belong to the whole world , there are hundred of images here that i dissagree with , why i didn't make a campagin againist it ? , again i'll say , this freedom if speech your talking about with the meaning that if i insult you , you must accept , we will crush it and put it under our legs , we have got bored of your lies western , that is enough .GhiathArodaki (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobody here is trying to control anything in the Arab world. Commons doesn't even have such big geopolitical power. ;) What we're doing is to provide images to the world, including images that can be used to express points of view that you don't agree with or feel insulted by. I'm sure we also provide images that can be used to express points of view that you do agree with. Neither is a valid reason for deleting anything. darkweasel94 21:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of his previously-uploaded images were deleted for being low-quality reply or retaliation images, which had no real usefulness otherwise. AnonMoos (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Like what ?, I didn't upload any retaliation image , when you talk give examples.GhiathArodaki (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

If the (now -deleted) image of a green-white-black horizontal tricolor, with three red stars of David on the central white stripe wasn't a retaliation image, then I don't know what is. AnonMoos (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of speech means that if you insult me, I must accept it? That's exactly what it means. Words can only hurt you as much as you let them. I do believe you've done more then your fair share of insulting people during your time here, and they have all shown incredible restraint in how they've responded. Freedom of speech is a two-way road. If you try and censor things you don't like but want to upload things you do like at the same time, you don't deserve the right to freedom of speech. You must give to others what you expect in return. Freedom of speech also means that we present facts here even if they are unpopular. The facts regarding Syria's territorial integrity obviously are unpopular to you, but we still have the obligation to tell people the truth. We will not allow you to censor this place. That seems to be your over-riding goal, from the first day you arrived you have tried to get deleted images with messages you don't like. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

i don't even care about the freedom of speech , because i don't accept to be insult by anybody ,i signed up to wikipedia for a non political goal , i hated the politicals , but then when i have read more about the history and what is happening in syria , i loved it and i will not accept any insults , Down with the freedom of speech , so this is the true mean of the freedom of speech , if someone say a dirty swear to another , the another must accept it ? , is that ? , freedom of speech Do not give people their dignity ? , i'm not censoring anything here or censoring the site , i'm trying to protect the site from wars , i don't think syrians or muslims or arabs when they see an insult to their symbol they will stand and laugh , no they will do as i did , this is my duty for my homeland and religion , i'm ready to leave this stupid site , that don't give a respect to others , and don't care about there dignity , yes i'm ready to leave it , but if i'm going to leave , all of my uploads must be deleted , they are my works and i don't want to publish them , i'm free to do what i want with them.GhiathArodaki (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

If you don't care about freedom of speech, then I'll say it agian: LEAVE!' This is one of the most basic principles of Commons. We are an image repository for all images, we do not take a political stance and remove images that might insult one group or another. If you are incapable of understanding that principle, or your so blinded by pride that you believe anything you don't like must be silenced, then you have no place here. If you continue down this course of action, the community will eventually be forced to give you a "permanent vacation". Fry1989 ^eh? 18:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll Leave from this dirty place , but i'll leave with my images .GhiathArodaki (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

What you call dirty, others call freedom. The freedom to see many different views and make their own choice on what they think is right. The freedom to see facts even if they're unpopular. You want to take that away from people, you want to silence what you don't like and some times even silence the truth. It's people like you which is why half this world is a shithole to live in, where people are always afraid of what to say and think. Such behaviour will not be missed. Fry1989 ^eh?

I'll Leave from this dirty place , but i'll leave with my images, I Will not waste my time in a nasty place with a person that i don't care about and have no value , no body controls me , i don't care about the community , they are not my masters , i'll go by myself and my ruling , They do not equate the value of ant, as you so, annon , keep your pathetic file for yourself , Fry , Because you are rude with the word you said , don't get angry from my rude words , this world isn't in need for a non value people like you , i don't silence the truth , i silence the lies you make .GhiathArodaki (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Obvious username violation

User:Samuraiantiqueworld's username is in clear violation of Commons:Username policy#Company/group names. He/she already got blocked on English Wikipedia for the same violation.[12] Note: I do not hold a grudge against him/her (even if the feeling is not mutual), and I think a formal request to change the username should be enough. I do not want this user to get blocked over this. Hijiri88 (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh wait: on Commons is it okay to use a company name if it can be proven that the user actually is an authorized rep of the company? If so, sorry my bad. (>_<) Hijiri88 (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Our editors are individuals, not companies. Problems arise when two people use the same company name -- one is a good editor and the other is a problem -- how do we deal with him or her? Also, what happens when the person leaves the company? Finally, there is the simple fact that most people who use a company name are here solely to promote the company, which is a violation of COM:Advert. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) See Commons:Username policy#Company/group names. I suggest resolution by discussion. A voluntary change of name would be far less confusing and we should try to be nice unless the account is just being used for blatant promotion and failing to respond to questions. Accounts (as on any Wikimedia project) are intended to be individual accounts, rather than group accounts. In this case it would be okay to change to a name like User:Simon (Samuraiantiqueworld) which neatly converts their edits from a group back to a responsible individual.

By the way, their uploads look within scope and interesting, not promotional at all as far as I can see. So let's be extra nice for someone who appears to be interested in sharing for the benefit of open knowledge. --Fæ (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I would be concerned, though, that if he was blocked for this, he might just give up then and there and, rather than come up with a new user name, continue editing under a sock account. This appears to be what happened on English Wikipedia (although I don't really remember the details, as I was not directly involved until later). And it's also somewhat problematic. Hijiri88 (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

While he is certainly a valuable contributor, I would not be any happier with User:Simon (Samuraiantiqueworld), which still has his business name in it. While certainly businesses that deal in interesting objects can be great contributors, we do not allow them to promote themselves here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they are a valuable contributor. If you have strong views on what would be acceptable under the username policy (there is some flexibility in its wording) I suggest you try engaging them in dialogue and try hard to ensure they are not vulnerable to getting blocked through a misunderstanding. I note that organizations such as chapters allow their staff to use account names on projects which might be thought to promote the organization, and were I to take the policy literally as stated, then I would expect users such as Conti to be forced to change their account names. Let's not go there. --Fæ (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm with Fæ on this one. Let's not judge the users intentions based on his or her username, but let's look at the contributions. IMO there is nothing wrong about giving credit where credit is due. If the company allows useful contributions to be made on company time it is just fair to attribute them with the company name. The Advert policy exists to prevent commons to be flooded by useless and biassed ad spam. This policy should not get in the way of having commons benefit from a benevolent company upload. --Dschwen (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I want to add one point to this debate that is not connected to this particular case. At de-wp, we have an OTRS-driven process to verify user accounts that are named after organizations or prominent people (see this page at de-wp). According to this process, we have meanwhile 1,642 verified users. (Verified means that they are able to send emails from the organization or personal contact they claim to represent.) This has some advantages and there also some legitimate concerns (like those raised above in regard to advertising). One advantage that is seen at de-wp is that contributions coming from users with an conflict of interest (i.e. companies editing their own Wikipedia article) are more easily recognized if coming from a verified user. The policy as it current stands supports this exception. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That is a great point. If you have company representatives editing it is certainly a plus to have them visibly do so. We should think about having such a verification process on Commons. --Dschwen (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Immediate unblock request for Samuraiantiqueworld so they do a CHU request for themselves

• Re: User_talk:Samuraiantiqueworld#Blocked

Maybe could we unblock the user ? He seems open to a name change... Pleclown (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Support I am amazed that Jim took this block action when simple discussion would have resolved the problem. Jim, actions like this drive away good faith contributors and are very, very un-mellow, are you having a bad day or something? Please unblock immediately as a gesture of goodwill and on the understanding that this user is happy to request a new account name. --Fæ (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I unblocked the user. There is no immediate danger to the project. A block does not seem necessary to me at this point. --Dschwen (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the support, I really appreciate it!!!!, I think blocking an experience user who has taken a lot of time to create and organize hundreds of categories and populate them with vast ammounts of properly licensed images that are free to be used by anyone for any reason was a little overboard. I am extremely offended by suggestions that my participation in Wikipedia Commons has anything to do with commercial interests, my participation is all about contributing knowledge and sharing information, as anyone who looks at my work can plainly see. Although User:Hijiri88 denies it, this was definitely an attempt to use Wikipedia Commons as a means to continue a dispute that was started on Wikipedia, whether there is a basis for the accusations made here or not is a different matter, I just want to clarify why this has even come to any ones attention in the first place since my name was well know and it was never a problem here until now as its obvious that there has never been any intention of selling or advertising etc on my part.

• • I came here originally because I had access to knowledge and images that no one else had, all that was here in the areas I work on mainly (Japanese / Samurai weapons, armor and associated items and Indo-Persian weapons and armor) was a bunch of images grouped in a few categories with no organization and no way for interested people to find these images, I also found that many types of armor and weapons related items which I had images of did not have categories on Wikipedia Commons, which for the most part means that Wikipedia articles on these subjects did not have any corresponding images for readers to look at while reading the articles. It took a massive effort on my part to systematically review the huge amounts of images that were just dumped into a few categories and sort them all into properly named categories and sub categories. In addition since I had access to many images that were not currently available on Wikipedia commons I started uploading these images and creating categories for them, many of these images are extremely rare, with some of them being the only know images on the internet. There are only a few people in the world with the knowledge and properly licensed images to do what I have done here and most of them do not want to take the time to contribute to Wikipedia commons, and I have asked other people with similar knowledge to contribute here but unfortunately that have not happened. In addition I have spent large amounts of time going through properly licensed Flicker images and adding them to the appropriate Wikipedia Commons categories.

• • For anyone interested in what I actually do here I have provided some links, if you take the time to expand these categories you will see what I have been working on, which is creating categories and sub categories and populating them with appropriate images so that people can actually find these images when searching for them, I will ask everyone who has commented here to take a minute and just expand each and every category / sub category in Category:Samurai_armour alone and you will see why I think that it is absolutely absurd that anyone would even be worrying about what name I am using, I have spent years researching this and all of the other subjects I edit, what type of financial gain does anyone think I am getting from my contributions here???

Category:Samurai_armour Category:Samurai_weapons Category:Samurai_horse_equipment Samurai_accoutrements Category:Chainmail Category:Indo-Persian_armour Category:Indo-Persian_armour Category:Depictions_of_samurai samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for creating this tempest. It's too bad that time does not allow full checking when we see an obvious violation of our way of doing things -- if I had known that he had 15,000 edits, I would have handled it differently, but we're all too busy.

As many of you know, I feel very strongly that users should be individuals, not groups, or organizations. There are simply too many potential problems that can arise from multiple people using one username. That leads directly to our consensus that organizational usernames are not acceptable. There is also the fact that Samuraiantiqueworld.com is a the domain name for this user's commercial web site. Although no direct promotional activities are present on Commons, just using the name probably violates COM:Advert.

My preference would be for a change to a name that is not the web site -- "Samurai" appears to be free, for one possibility. With that understood, I note that we have grandfathered a few users who have been around for a some time and who have names that are problematic. Although I cannot recommend doing that in this case, I will not object if others feel it is the appropriate action. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I can heartily recommend using the Popups feature available in Preferences/Gadgets if you do not already use it. This means I can hover over anyone's signature and check their user contributions and flags (handy for seeing who is a sysop or new user). Not everyone likes it, but worth taking for a test run. --Fæ (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

As I stated above, I find it a bit far fetched that having Samuraiantiqueworld in the username is a violation of COM:Advert just because someone could get the idea to type it in a webbrowser and append a .com. Look at the users' actions, not at the username. And AFBorchert said it above, having the affiliation clearly stated in the username can also be seen as a disclosure. Lastly nothing point to your assertion that this user is a group account. He seems to be a solitary editor. Again, do not just look at the username, please. Unfortunately the SUL account check tool is currently not working, so I cannot look into renaming Samuraiantiqueworld. This might be a good case for the upcoming global user rename. After three years of activities I don't think we have to rush this anyways. --Dschwen (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

And even if he had Samuraiantiqueworld.com in the username I still don't think merely that fact would be problematic. The policy just states content which constitutes advertising or self-promotion may be deleted from Commons. It is about the contributed content. Applying this to a username seems very much like overreaching to me. --Dschwen (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Dschwen, you're kind of missing the point. I don't think SAW has been engaging in problematic behaviour, or that he should (have been) blocked. But his username is a violation of the rule that users are not allowed use the name of a company or group. Hijiri88 (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I'm missing the point at all. Have you read what Jim wrote above? He is the one who made the point about COM:Advert. The minor issue with COM:UPOLICY could be solved with a short mail to info-commons@wikimedia.org (or a rename to Username (Samuraiantiqueworld). --Dschwen (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I know you weren't the first one to miss the point. And I'm not putting blame on anyone here. Just that "advertising" is not a complaint I made, and it's not a policy SAW is actually guilty of violating. I specifically said at the start that he could get a rename and let that be that. So pointing out after he has already been unblocked that this is the case is somewhat redundant. Anyway, no harm, no foul. :-) Hijiri88 (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to write here. Only a little bit of Mustard.I don't understand even the problem. The photographs User:Samurantiquesworld has given here to use in Commons are very unique. You will never find a contributor who will give such photos, explanings, writers help with informations (like me) and historical knowlege. Trust me. I wrote to all important Museums around the world to beg for assistance with photos for commons, because my drawings are not perfect, and I even don't get any answers from the Museums. Not positive, not negative only none. So many people in Wikipedia.de and Wikimedia are crying that no real Specialists will work in here. One is coming to work and contribute and for this nonsense with the Users name he will be blocked ????????? I write near all the Asian weapons articles in WP.de and without his help, informations and pictures it will near be impossible. The picture quality is very good and some of the photographed items you will not find in the best and most famous Museums.

So I'll beg everybody here who has something to say and Ideas what to do, to help to let stay the User:Samuraiantiquesworld here in commons. There must be a way. Greetings and sorry for my bad english --MittlererWeg (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I reject Samuraiantiqueworld's assumption of bad faith on my part. I pointed out that he was originally blocked on Wikipedia for a username violation, and was guilty of the exact same violation here. I never said that he should be blocked, or that he was trying to engage in self-promotion. My only interaction with him in the past was when his block-evasion sockpuppet on Wikipedia reverted a bunch of my edits in an area I clearly know more about than he does (not being able to speak Japanese led him to [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jitte#Requested move consistently misspell Japanese words], and so on). Responding to MittlerWeg's defense of SAW: Photos of Japanese weapons and armour can be easily produced by anyone who lives in Japan and regularly visits museums, and those of us with proper academic credentials can provide better explanations too. I am someone with an actual background in this area and SAW's sockpuppet tried to force me out of the area on English Wikipedia.

Anyway, despite SAW's continued holding of a grudge against me, the feeling is NOT mutual. He should just get a new username and remain unblocked. And if he ever wants to come back to Wikipedia and contribute constructively under one account, he will have my full support.

Hijiri88 (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, to anyone who still thinks SAW wasn't engaged in sockpuppetry/ownership on en.wp, please consider what his motivations for uploading this file could possibly have been. Hijiri88 (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobody here is a mind reader, that's what AGF is for. --Dschwen (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, actually we don't need to do any mind reading here, because we can actually see his en.wp sock showing up here asking himself to upload the file[13] his main account responding saying he wasn't sure if he had one[14] his main account saying that he had already uploaded a different file and citing an extremely obscure and expensive book that not many people likely have access to[15] his main account uploading the file[16] and his en.wp sock linking to it and citing the same book[17] all in the space of around 30 hours. Hijiri88 (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

"Jitte" or "Jutte"

SAW veered radically off-topic by making a AGF-violation and claiming I was here talking about usernames because of something to do with Japanese weaponry. I'd like to see this resolved here, so I'm giving it its own sub-section. Please remember that en.wiki already has a consensus on the issue. Hijiri88 (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• • User:Hijiri88 has revealed the true reason for attacking me here in the first place, User:Hijiri88 is obsessed with changing long standing image descriptions and or category names and User:Hijiri88 would like me out of the way in order to do this. User:Hijiri88 is trying to manipulate the editors here. I have asked for a discussion of this users edits here [18] and I think that this subject should be discussed there not here. This discussion is supposed to be about my name, not about User:Hijiri88's personal problems with me and my editing etc, thank you samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope. My reason for bringing you up here was your username. I realized during the course of your discussion that by including inaccurate descriptions on images here, you had been effectively altering cross-wiki content on English Wikipedia. en:Talk:Jitte#Requested move already clearly established that "jutte" is just an obscure spelling of "jitte", and your books that appear to say otherwise are just plain wrong according to actual definitions of these Japanese words as written by actual Japanese speakers. Therefore, I changed the descriptions to reflect consensus and historical fact. You reverted me, but I don't see why you should be allowed do so, when consensus was already clearly established against you(r sockpuppet) on the issue. Hijiri88 (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Prev

User does not contribute anything meaningful to the project, but only seems interested in uploading PNG/JPEG versions of flags we already have in SVG format. User also has sever warnings for vandalism. I suggest an indefinite block. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Let's try 3 months for now. I don't think she/he will be back anyway. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hijiri88 (talk · contribs)

Hello could I get an admin review of this user's recent actions please!!! I would ask that User:Hijiri88 be asked not to make any further edits of the type now being currently made until a discussion can take place in the proper venue. User:Hijiri88 is making changes to image descriptions on categories which I have worked on for a long time without any discussion, User:Hijiri88 feels that due to a superior understanding of JAPANESE that long standing names of items should be changed. User:Hijiri88 has no history here and as I understand it no knowledge of the subject now being edited by User:Hijiri88 (Japanese armor and weapons). I have spent many years studying and researching this subject with more than 15,000 edits, I have added the majority of the categories and images that User:Hijiri88 is now editing without any discussion. I would like someone to look at his recent edits so this situation can be discussed properly, thank you samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like this requires topical knowledge rather than just an admin. Any chance you could find somebody familiar with the topic on en.wp to help? --Dschwen (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

We already resolved this on en.wiki. Please see en:Talk:Jitte#Requested move. The discussion involved one user making a weak argument about "common name", because apparently SAW's misunderstanding is shared by a martial arts magazine or two, and SAW's sockpuppet Darkness walks, but pretty much everyone else accepting that jitte is the proper name and jutte is an obscure variant. I made the changes to the image descriptions here on Commons because consensus was already established back in April/May. The only user who is likely to disapprove is SAW, out of some misplaced sense of "ownership" or personal grudge against me. Cheers! Hijiri88 (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The pages need to be fixed because [20] now contradicts en.wiki's actual article on the topic. Plus, SAW's above claim to "more than 15,000 edits" is irrelevant. Not all of them are good, and he could claim the same thing on en.wiki but he's still been indeffed there twice, and now is attempting to continue to exert influence through "ownership" of its images.

• • Dschwen I should have explained the problem better, this has to do with Commons, not Wikipedia. Let me try to make this more understandable, in Commons there are two Japanese weapons, one is called a "jutte" Category:Jutte, the jutte is a small truncheon like weapon, the other weapon is called a "jitte" Category:Jitte, which is a small hand held spear like weapon. User:Hijiri88 knows that there are two categories on Commons and yet User:Hijiri88 changed the image description of a "jutte" calling it a "jitte" instead and added this comment (Fixing spelling). Difference between revisions of "File:Jutte 1.JPG", in fact User:Hijiri88 did the same thing on 13 different images knowing that I would revert these edits. When an editor purposely makes edits knowing that the edits will be controversial and reverted it is a form of edit warring and I want to avoid this type of editing, it has no place here, User:Hijiri88 knows that there are appropriate methods for disputing an image description and or a category name. Any other editors on Commons would revert the same type of edits made to image descriptions in categories that they have been working on, to call that revert "ownership" is antagonistic and disrespectful, these were not "good faith" edits, there were done specifically to get a reaction. I am simply requesting that User:Hijiri88 stop making derogatory remarks about me and stop making edits that will knowingly be contested and instead if there is a serious belief that an image description and or category name is wrong that User:Hijiri88 use the appropriate venue on Commons to discuss the issue. I hope this is a clearer description on the problem.samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

GhiathArodaki (talk · contribs)

I guess that such an anti gay statement shouldn't remain without consequences. Since I blocked this user recently, I would prefer another admin to decide. --Leyo 06:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Indef, communication blocked. We can do without those kind of people. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 06:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Beleiutz

Serial copyright violator Beleiutz (talk · contribs) is back, continuing to upload images with falsified licencing information using his sockpuppet Mateescu (talk · contribs). The two accounts were already checkusered on English Wikipedia, and both are blocked there for copyright violations, though Mateescu is the only one of several socks which remains unblocked here on Commons. Further details are available at en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beleiutz, en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beleiutz/Archive, and the user talk pages of the various sockpuppets here and on English Wikipedia. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for this notification! Regards, High Contrast (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Since the other two accounts are indefinitely blocked here, consider extending the block for the other confirmed sockpuppet Consiliul (talk · contribs) to indefinite as well. It seems this user likes to reappear every few months and try the same old shenanigans, so there's a good possibility they'll misuse that account again once the block expires. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Was there a checkuser-request on en.wiki for Consiliul (talk · contribs), too? --High Contrast (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Results were posted at en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive805#User Consiliul use of internal links. The match was ruled possible on technical grounds, and considering the behavioural evidence as well, the account was confirmed and blocked as a sockpuppet [24]. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done --High Contrast (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like they're back as Maria Streza (talk · contribs). That account has uploaded a copyvio image, and an IP account on the English Wikipedia (in the same IP range as a previous one) immediately added it to one of Beleiutz's favourite articles. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked as a precaution, but I think this is nothing but a throwaway account. --O (谈 • висчвын) 21:44, 23 August 2013 (GMT)

They've returned yet again as Roberta Place (talk · contribs). —Psychonaut (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked and filename protected from re-creation for one month. --O (谈 • висчвын) 16:00, 24 August 2013 (GMT)

Request the unblocking of the an animated GIF

Hello, to illustrate the article https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constante_de_Planck we have made an animated gif, Archivo:HornoCuerpoNegroGif.gif , on the basis of an already existing fixed photo, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HORNO_CUERPO_NEGRO_TT.jpg of five years ago and that is not our. One way to incorporate the animated gif into the Wikimedia Commons data base would be modifying the old drawing and put the animated gif in its place. We have already tried to do so but is not possible to convert a jpg format to another animated gif type. The old drawing is a stationary photo of the radiation inside the Black Body cavity at the end of the process. Now with our animation, is observed the entire process on the inside of the black body to the influence of light on it. From the entrance of the light, through successive absorptions in the cavity, until completely absorbed. We believe that a cartoon in a physical process of difficult understanding, helps a lot. This is what we wanted to do with the animated gif. In this moment the upload of the animated gif to internet is blocked by the administrator Ju Ta http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JuTa. Although we have asked you the unblocking of the animated gif on August 9 but he did not answer. Please, I request another administrator to review this case and also I request the unblocking of the upload of the animated gif to the Wikimedia Commons database. Many thanks in advance, --LFISUPM2013 (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

links fixed by darkweasel94 17:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. Could you write it in spanish ? Pleclown (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe LFISUPM2013 wants Commons:Deletion requests/File:HornoCuerpoNegroGif.gif undeleted. darkweasel94 18:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Perdon por el retraso en la contestación ya que he estado unos días sin internet. En efecto como dice el usuario darkweasel94, lo que solicito es que el gif animado Commons:Deletion requests/File:HornoCuerpoNegroGif.gif no sea borrada. Además intento subirla de nuevo y no puedo porque está bloqueada la subida de esta imagen. Así pues, por favor solicito poder subir a Commons el gif animado Commons:Deletion requests/File:HornoCuerpoNegroGif.gif. Muchas gracias y un saludo. --LFISUPM2013 (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Ottava Rima (let's try and not let this one get derailed)

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.

I am going to close it, as there has not been any discussion in the past few days. There is no consensus to lift the indefinite block at the moment. There was also a global ban proposal for Ottava Rima at Meta that failed (see this). We can bring Ottava up again when/if he makes another unblock request. For now, there is no reason to keep this open. --WorldTraveller101  T  C  G  E 17:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Discussion

I am frankly fed up. As you are all aware, there has been a lot of debate over the Pricasso images, and it has been heated on both sides. However, I feel Ottava Rima's actions have gone beyond the pale. Almost every single edit he makes is attacking myself, Russavia, Wnt, Fae or others he considers part of the "porn cabal". I recently closed a deletion request on one of the Pricasso images - I closed it as keep on the grounds that

1. Nothing in relation to SCOPE arguments had changed since it was kept a few weeks prior (name any other notable painter where we'd delete a video of them painting)
2. The copyright issues were better discussed in a deletion request of the source image (I believe these have now been resolved via OTRS)

Now, it has always been the community interpretation that we do not require images to be in use anywhere on WMF for them to be within scope. But apparently my going by this consensus is a bad thing, and means I am incapable of comprehending English and should be banned. This despite other admins endorsing the close, and there never having been a policy that every image must be in use (if that is now the case, please start a DR of the 17,000,000 unused images).

According to Ottava, this is all a referendum on the "porn cabal". Apparently we're here to wage war against a myriad group of opponents (we) create at a whim. We could all be replaced by bots without any loss. The faster we are shipped off Commons the better. We have a cult of personality. We are immoral. Add to that baseless accusations of canvassing, the browbeating of anyone who dares voice a contrary opinion, and oh did I mention those were all just from Ottava's last 50 edits?

I point you all towards 99of9’s closing of the discussion which ended with Ottava’s indefinite block back in 2012. In particular, conditions of any unblock included that Ottava refrain from

• excessive accusations and disproportionate calls for exclusions, blocks and de-sysops, especially against those with whom [Ottava] disagree[s]
• generally seeking drama

I think it’s clear that both of those were violated. Furthermore, consider this. When Ottava asked to be unblocked in May 2012, his stated reason was I am sorry and I deeply regret my actions in late December/early January where I entered into an excessive combative interaction with multiple admin which detracted from the over all prosperity of the community and disrupted honest discussion about important issues. I resolve that if I am allowed back I would focus primarily on uploading images and not participate in or create "drama.". In the 15 (fifteen) months since then, Ottava has made precisely 2 (two) filespace edits, and has uploaded only 1 (one) file - a new version of an already-existing file. Ottava in no way helps with our project, he just mires us in ceaseless arguments over the same issues over and over and over.

Ottava was brought up at AN/U two months ago, and after much noise it dropped off the radar with the general opinion that it had all calmed down and it was better to keep it that way. It appears to have become uncalmed.

I propose a return to the indefinite block that Ottava received in 2012, only this time let’s make it stick. There should be no conditions under which Ottava may be unblocked - enough is enough. He has proven incapable of working in a collegial manner, we should accept that the leopard will not change its spots.

-mattbuck (Talk) 17:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I note that Ottava is currently banned from editing COM:AN and its subpages, however it has been consensus in the past that he be allowed to post here in order to defend himself. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Also please note "last 50 edits" was an estimate, but was correct at time of posting. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

•  indefinite block/community ban Everything Mattbuck has posted here is fact. This edit from OR is one of the most ridiculous things I have seen from OR, and goes to show that they are not here to contribute and/or collaborate, but are here to troll, harass and generally cause drama. I'm with Mattbuck, enough is enough. russavia (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

deflag tangent

You violated multiple policies and tag teamed with Mattbuck to disrupt. You were banned from en.wiki for trolling and disruption, and you then declared war on en.wiki and Jimbo Wales. As a result, you are being de-cratted because the community is tired of your actions. You will eventually be banned from here too for your petty, disruptive actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have violated no policies on this project Ottava, but yes, I might be eventually banned from this project But this is not about me; this is about your disruption which has been continual since your unblock; an unblock which was granted by the community because of your statement which said you would not create drama and would concentrate on file work. None of that has occurred, and you've only gotten involved in more and more drama than before you were blocked. Also, that you have chosen this thread as a continuation of the behaviour that brought Mattbuck here in the first place, is only going to wear out the patience of this community even more, and make an indefinite block/community ban ever more likely for you. russavia (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You paid for a guy to rub his penis over an image of Jimbo Wales, joined Mattbuck to taunt Jimbo at his talk page, and violated so many policies here in a war against your supposed political enemies. We were once friends a long time ago until you went down such a blatantly awful path where you troll and attack people. The consensus is overwhelmingly clear yet here you are proclaiming you did nothing wrong. How can you even sleep at night. You did a really, really, REALLY awful thing and yet you claim not to have done anything wrong? And Mattbuck should be equally ashamed for aiding you. YOU BROKE OUR RULES. How do you not get that? This is not a game where you can continue to behave in such an atrocious manner. You hurt a lot of people and you seem to take pleasure in it. That sickens me. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Ottava, for the amount of time and energy you have spent following this issue, I find it hugely problematic that at this late date, you would continue to falsely claim that Russavia paid Pricasso. I don't know whether you genuinely believe Russavia has lied about this, or have simply missed the multiple claims to the contrary. But either way, it's problematic, and a good example of the kind of behavior that I think has led to this request being opened. If you believe he has lied, you should say so clearly and directly, and present evidence. If not, you should let the matter drop. -Pete F (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The media has reported that Russavia commissioned the work. So Pete, you are the one lying here. Why you would defend Russavia's clear abuse is not really comprehensible, but many people have called you out on your statements like those above. It has also been pointed out by others that you most likely have a personal vendetta, so I really don't think your actions are okay. It is sad that people think that Commons can be used for this way. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

[29] "the fact is Russavia really did commission the painting. Pricasso told me as much in an email." It is time for Peteforsyth and Russavia to stop lying about what took place. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Desysop and ban Mattbuck Mattbuck is one of the most abusive, disruptive admin on the project. He has a long history of lying about policy, making conflicted closes and blocks, and outright harassment of other users. He absolutely lied about our policies to claim that a sexually harassing video with absolutely no educational use needs to stay against consensus because of a blatant lie about what policy says. This abuse is absolutely disgusting and should not be tolerated. His support of Russavia cannot be deemed anything but pure and blatant trolling, and his utter abuse of IRC to canvass and to harass other people, especially with his abuse (such as calling other people "cunts" for disagreeing with his blatant abuse) is a complete embarrassment to the project. It is about time Mattbuck was kicked out. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who thought he abused his privileges in a recent discussion among others. He is so far beyond saving that he can't even see how obvious abuse is inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• You are under an editing restriction prohibiting you from complaining or commenting about other people on this noticeboard, which you just did for the second or third time in a few months. Admins, I don't think that violating an editing restriction requires any community discussion here whatsoever for a block. darkweasel94 18:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• You were told 3 times before that you were completely wrong. Why do you keep persist in such an obvious lie when you know that it is incivil and not acceptable under policy? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Darkweasel194, how many times have you and others been told that Ottava Rima's restriction does not apply to AN/Us which are about him? I'm no friend of Ottava Rima, in fact I was quite disturbed to see their block lifted, but lets be honest here! I've seen admins tell you that at least 5 times in the last 2 weeks. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I've seen only Ottava Rima himself and one administrator (once) tell me something close to that, but perhaps you can provide diffs to back up your statement? And yes - he is allowed to defend himself. He is not allowed, or at least I'm not aware of such a consensus, to start conversations about desysopping or banning random people just because there happens to be a thread open about him where he puts them to circumvent the editing restriction. darkweasel94 18:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

So you admit that an administrator told you that you were wrong and yet you persisted otherwise? And you think that you are being appropriate? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

From the restrictions: "Failure to adhere to these restrictions and expected norms of behaviour on Commons may result in further blocks." This thread has been active now for only a sparrow's fart, and already OR is deviating from expected normals of behaviour on Commons, throwing baseless accusations towards Mattbuck; in obvious retaliation and to attempt to derail this thread completely. But even then, let's not allow this thread to be derailed. We know that OR will continue to attempt to browbeat other editors here (one of the things that has brought this issue here) and continue to make wild, outrageous, unsupported and false accusations against others (another thing that has brought this issue here), so if anyone must respond to OR, either consider not doing it (don't feed the trolls), but if you absolutely must do, respond once and then say nothing more. russavia (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Russavia, if what you are doing is not abuse, then expected norms of commons would be to have me pay for a movie of a guy rubbing his penis over a picture of your face and posting it all over the internet. Then harassing him and anyone else who disagrees with it, canvassing, attacking people where ever, etc. and then pretending that it is acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Support - As per the many reasons given by mattbuck, all of which have been confirmed for me by Ottava's ridiculous "Desysop and ban Mattbuck" vote above. None of us have the time or patience for behaviour such as that. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Really? Mattbuck claimed that multiple admin support him. Only one admin did, the User O, and it was obvious that multiple people felt he was clearly in conflict and made an abusive close. He doesn't get a pass because someone else would have done the same thing. He is not allowed to close requests he is an active participant on. Why would you allow such abuse to happen? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't care. If mattbuck did something questionable, collect the facts (emphasis on the word "facts") and in a cool and rational manner take up your issue in the appropriate location in an appropriate manner. This discussion is about *your* behaviour. The discussion is less than half an hour old and you've already resorted to multiple insults and childish accusations. You've already proven mattbuck's point. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No. AN is about all involved. Mattbuck put me here because I pointed out that he clearly violated our policies by closing something he was involved in and ignoring our policies. There are no childish accusations or insults, and you cannot find any. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Support as someone named on Ottava Rima's target black list to get cast out 'in disgrace'. Ottava Rima has been highly active in the de-bureaucrat discussion over the last few days and has made multiple disruptive and offensive false allegations without supporting his assertions with credible or verifiable evidence, or bringing them to this noticeboard or to an approachable administrator for action. He has then followed allegations with calling various other contributors liars when challenged (example diff). I would be happy to see OR limited to uploading files and helping the project by creating content, but after literally several years worth of evidence we must conclude that he is incapable of taking part in collegiate discussion without creating a hostile environment; I do not claim to understand what motivates or causes anyone to behave this way as it must distress OR as well as everyone else. Enough is enough. I am disappointed as I know he has suffered homophobic abuse off-wiki, and my instinct would be to give him space to participate in making the projects more welcoming for other users experiencing LGBT related problems or possible harassment. --Fæ (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Really? Trying to smear me as a homophobe after making a lot of claims that were blatantly false? A new low. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict)  Support Ottava Rima, the more you respond here, the less sympathetic you make people toward you, IMHO. Reasons for my support have been given by others above, and given that you keep violating existing editing restrictions and trying to wikilawyer yourself out of that, I see no way your continued presence leads to a better media archive. darkweasel94 18:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You were told by multiple people that I have not violated editing restrictions, so why do you persist? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict with closing)

• Commons really needs to get it's house in order. I did not get along at all well with Ottava back when he was still allowed on en.wp but I don't see him being the main problem here, the problem is admins who pull the old "circle the wagons" technique whenever one of their own is questioned. It appears to me that Ottava is correct and that several extremists have been promoted to positions of trust on this project. That error needs to be rectified, but that won't happen if the extremists all back one another up and the more mainstream admins don't stand up to them. I realize anyone can participate in these discussions but the admin corps really needs to show some leadership here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose. I am not convinced that this block is justified by Commons Policies (which, other than the editing restriction, don't seem to be cited in earlier posts... correct me if I'm wrong). Ottava's behavior does not seem to blatantly violate the Commons:Blocking policy -- it's very questionable if Ottava's behavior could fall under the policy's harassment sub-section: "Accounts and IP addresses which are used primarily to create a hostile environment for another user may be blocked." Ottava and Mattbuck need to assume good faith and bring this discussion to Commons:Village pump for outside input before escalating it to this level. It seems like that step was not recently performed by the admin requesting the block (again, correct me if I'm wrong). In conclusion, this set of incidents does not demonstrate the attitude of a mellow environment that Commons is supposed to be. Tucoxn (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • This isn't actually a discussion about whether the current block is justified, it's a community ban discussion where we should evaluate his behavior - just as you say. darkweasel94 22:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

    Tucoxn, the way we on Commons deal with possibly problematic users is to bring a topic up here at AN/U, not Village Pump. This board is for outside input on user problems. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Mattbuck, if that is really the case, then Commons' policy, which states, "Good faith disputes between users, however, should be brought to Commons:Village pump for outside input" should be changed. Otherwise, follow the policy that has been set. Tucoxn (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• excommunicate per NOTHERE (and if we don't have a local equivalent to en:WP:NOTHERE it's about time we did). Ottava Rima contributes nothing and is a waste of time and effort to those who do. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  That does seem like a good policy. Congratulations, you've actually found something from en.wp that I like! -mattbuck (Talk) 22:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  Going small as this is a bit tangential. WP:NOTHERE is okay, but rather than creating another essay, the same thing could be achieved by adding a teeny bit more explanation in Blocking policy perhaps by cribbing from the en.wp list. It would be a worthwhile improvement and make it easy to see how certain types of persistent non-collegiate behaviours are 'block-worthy'. Having the automatic privilege to engage in discussion on this project, does not imply a right to overwhelm everyone else through unreasonable disruptive campaigning, personal attacks or soapboxing. --Fæ (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Having the automatic privilege to engage in discussion on this project, does not imply a right to overwhelm everyone else through unreasonable disruptive campaigning, personal attacks or soapboxing. - yes, but if this was policy and you were apply it in a consistent manner than that would imply that ANYONE, not just Ottava in particular, who engages in that kind of behavior gets slapped around. That would mean that User:とある白い猫/13 would be the prime candidate, with, well, Russavia himself clocking in at close second - both of whom have been posting a lot of nasty comments in the discussion, making personal attacks and very much soapboxing - with Ottava maybe closing off the top three. Was there a block request for とある白い猫/13 or Russavia that I missed? No? Then get your story straight first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Indefblocked: I think, after uncivil and defaming comments by OR in this thread above we don't need to discuss them any longer. I've also taken this personal attack and OR's block log into account. Please note that this thread is/was just about problems with OR (and there were several indeed), not about those with Russavia. --A.Savin 18:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, OR contests block [30] --A.Savin 19:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

---

•  Support: Per OP, especially this: «In the 15 (fifteen) months since then, Ottava has made precisely 2 (two) filespace edits, and has uploaded only 1 (one) file». -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support per discussion on this page July 6-7 of this year. - Jmabel ! talk 15:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  I believe that discussion is here: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Disruptive editing by Ottava Rima - 5 July 2013 - opinions--Fæ (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Unfortunate support: I generally dislike people being blocked and cornered, but I tried to help, but it failed. At the moment, Ottava seems interested in making deleterious and provocative remarks and excuses on his talk page. I wanted him unblocked, but at this point, I cannot see how it would be beneficial to the community, let alone how it is going to occur. I am yet to make up my mind on indefinite block versus a community ban, both at this point are legit, albeit Ottava could come back, but only time will tell: he times off. Sorry it came to this. --WorldTraveller101  T  C  G  E 01:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support community ban, per obvious inability to comply with unblock terms and his own promises to be a non-disruptive contributor to the project. --Nemo 09:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support per Nemo--Steinsplitter (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support an indefinite block, although I would be happier if he was reblocked by someone who is clearly uninvolved (e.g. the closer of this discussion). His last unblock was essentially a last chance to show he can manage to contribute constructively and collegially here, and he has shown he can't, at least at present. That's a shame, because he has done useful work in the past. --Avenue (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support indefinite block, per Tuválkin. Rima is not here for help. Taivo (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Unable to work in a collegial environment and keep himself from being disruptive. -Djsasso (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Procedural objections

Speedy closure

Is there a reason this was speedy closed? An indef-block (or do you mean this as a community ban?) on a long-term contributor should surely be discussed for more than a couple of hours! I suggest at least reopening the discussion, even if the block is maintained for now. --99of9 (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I was pretty surprised myself over the speed of this closure. Agree with User:99of9 that for community bans the discussion should be kept open longer. Other users who haven't commented yet may have evidence and arguments that may be missed. --O (谈 • висчвын) 03:25, 23 August 2013 (GMT)

I agree with 99of9, this close seems a bit hasty when there were others with points to raise and other options beyond a block might be discussed, such as extending the current editing restriction to all discussions. With a block remaining in place, responses from Ottava Rima would have to be moderated, so I would expect this to quench unverified or vague claims of malfeasance against others, apparently intended to derail the discussion, rather than responding directly to questions about his behaviour. It may be more productive for an administrator to offer to act as interlocutor by email than use Ottava Rima's talk page, considering the nature of existing discussion there. --Fæ (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

A.Savin has reversed the close. Bidgee (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Dismiss

•  Dismiss the whole procedure. The opening statement was saying let's try and not let this one get derailed. The very fact that the cited person was sentenced in one hour and sixteen minutes after the citation is a total derailment. End of the story. If needed, a more detailled statement can be found at Commons_talk:Bureaucrats/Requests/Russavia_(de-Bureaucrat)#About two current subordinate cases. Pldx1 (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  What I meant by "not let this one get derailed" is that the previous OR topic was hijacked and the conversation became about nothing even remotely related to Ottava's behaviour. I want Ottava banned, I make no bones about that, but if the community decides he should stay I will abide by that. What I want is a discussion of his behaviour and a resolution.

  Regarding this being a "subordinate case", I disagree. I accept that Ottava's recent problematic behaviour is on matters relating to the decratting discussion, but it is not a product of that discussion. Many many people have managed to object to Russavia being a bureaucrat without themselves being objectionable - Ottava can behave in such a manner, he has simply chosen not to. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  I should further note that I found the speed with which Ottava was banned quite surprising, but his behaviour just in this thread did nothing but hurt his case. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Dismiss the whole procedure. To add to what Pldx1 says above in a very pertinent comment about how this very much looks like a railroading, it's also worth noting that to a significant extent this block request was orchestrated and arranged on Commons IRC by a small group of friends. That does not necessarily include the original closing admin. Basically Mattbuck, for a day or two, first talked up wanting to get Ottava blocked, he then announced the block request to his friends on IRC, his friends - basically the people who commented in the originally-closed-discussion - showed up and made the appropriate support comments and that led to the block. Then there was some toasting cheering and grave dancing on IRC as in "mission accomplished". And all of this in the midsts of a very contentious discussion about one of these friend's (russavia) de-cratship where russavia and other users have engaged in the badgering of the "de-crat" voters which is as bad if not worse than anything Ottava said. Whatever one thinks of Ottava, the way this was done is just wrong for a number of reasons. You want to have a block discussion about him? Fine. Wait till the mess with russavia is over. And structure the discussion where it's not all "Mattbuck and friends". Oh yeah. Some people requested that I provide "evidence". What should I do? Post the IRC conversations here? Provide a link? You tell me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Copyright of IRC comments would remain with the writers, and their permission would have to be asked first, I believe. As a couple of administrators and myself have our own logs from #wikimedia-commons, if you have particular dates and times that you believe prove someone has acted against policy, it might be worth giving that specific information at least, even if the detailed text might only be available to others by email. If you have not already reviewed it, Russavia walked through his activities on IRC on Ottava Rima's user talk page, this has been recently blanked but a snapshot is available here and may go a long way to address and resolve your allegations.--Fæ (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • IANAL, but I think quoting the IRC would be fair use (in the U.S. legal sense), copyright shouldn't be an issue if something needs to be quoted. - Jmabel ! talk 00:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Well, first, I was under the impression that logging the IRC channels is prohibited by IRC policy so I just don't understand how Fae (and those "friends" "couple administrators" of his) have not been banned from the channel. I believe when you log in it very explicitly says that you're not allowed to do it. But here we have Fae admitting that he and these other administrators have been doing it for awhile. I guess, maybe the IRC people there didn't know - well, here we have a pretty explicit admission.
      • Second, I don't think it's so much an issue of copyright (which Jmabel is right, would fall under fair use) as "wez gonna ban you if you post'em" kind of thing. I mean, it's not like I'm afraid that I'd get sued - that's a silly proposition. It's that people like Fæ keep asking someone to "provide evidence" (and we ban you if you don't!) but as soon a sentence or two gets posted, it's a pretty sure deal that the ban hammer will come down too. It's sort of a nice system they got there; you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. That's why I think Fæ, who's transparently been keeping logs despite the injunctions to the contrary, should be the one to post the logs. And also, it's not just that "something needs to be quoted". Rather it's a whole bunch of posts from a bunch different days which establish the pattern described above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Volunteer Marek, it would be really refreshing if you focused on the topic of this thread rather than using it as a platform to attack me. If you wish to get me blocked on this project, create a separate thread for that and provide some evidence of, something. Public logging is not the same thing as your IRC application keeping a cache of your conversation, or you referring to it for your personal use. --Fæ (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Fae, I am not attacking you and my post is perfectly on subject. Though I got to say, I'm quite surprised that you so freely admit that you, and some "other admins" have been busy logging IRC, despite the fact that that is a big "no-no". But since you keep asking for "evidence" that Ottava's block was arranged on IRC I am asking you to publish the relevant logs yourself. Or I can do it, as long as I know I won't get blocked for it myself. So either quit it with the provide some evidence or post the darned logs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

IRC

 Comment -- Ottava has made a statement. With all due respect to those skeptical about the IRC logs, I had logs emailed to me by Ottava that shows mattbuck literally saying "who feels like revoking OR's talk page access?" This seems like a group of sneaky Commoners figuring out to provoke and bait Ottava. This doesn't excuse Ottava's ad hominem comments, albeit it sends a very strong signal: It comes to show that Ottava is receiving a decent amount of heat, nearly as much as he's giving off. Just something for Commoners to ponder upon. --WorldTraveller101  T  C  G  E 02:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Which is exactly why I'm saying that this block should be reversed for now, wait till the russavia fiasco is over, let the IRC calm down, and then we can have this discussion. That's the only way of even beginning to assure that this whole thing isn't one huge sneaky cock-up. ::And Ottava probably didn't send you everything as he logged in pretty late in the discussion. If you want the whole thing, some of which goes back a few days, ask Fae to send you the full logs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm...I seem to concur and not at the same time. You bring up some good points, but unblocking him will allow him to vent his anger and be provocative anywhere. Having him do it at his own talk page is much preferable than to doing it here. --WorldTraveller101  T  C  G  E 02:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it seems like you've established some kind of rapport... or at least something resembling that, with him. So how about you ask him (over email I presume) if he's willing to behave, stay away from the russavia de-crat discussion and AN/U for the time being and keep whatever issues he wishes to raise to his talk page. If he agrees, unblock him and close it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, a few problems: 1) I'm not an admin and 2) there is much opposition to an unblock, so even if I was, it would be beyond controversial. I tried to help out. Let's look at an unblock after the de-bureaucrat case has closed, which is where sparks are flying. The issue is he does not appear to be willing to behave, but I would be willing to help him again. --WorldTraveller101  T  C  G  E 02:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's right, you're not an admin - that was discussed on IRC as well. But still if you're in touch with Ottava then you can ask him for a commitment (I guess he could make on on his talk page, but in my experience those kinds of things are more credible when made person to person) and see what he says. He might not have been willing to behave when this first happened - and who can blame him - but I'm guessing he might have cooled down abit by now.

Asking for an un-block after the de-crat thing and all is the upside down way of doing it. It would legitimatize exactly the kind of "arranging and canvassing blocks of enemies on IRC" that is the main problem here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue is he was derailing the de-bureaucrat discussions. Sadly, no one wiould be willing to unblock him. Once he has finished venting and I am able to talk sense into him, then we'll try for an unblock. --WorldTraveller101  T  C  G  E 03:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I said that, yes, and I content that it was in a joking manner, though I accept IRC doesn't convey emotions well. Frankly, I'm happy for him to keep talk page access, as it lets him just keep digging himself deeper. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a "joke" until it turns into action. You also

1. Mentioned the need to get Ottava blocked on IRC on several occasions on days prior to this report

2. Announced on IRC to russavia, Fae and darkweasel (at least - not sure who else was on there at the time) that you were about to file this report

3. Titled your report "let's not get this derailed" which seems like an invitation to get this railroaded.

4. Russavia, Fae and darkweasel dutifully show up and support your block request. In fact they are 3 out of 4 users that commented before the initial closure (is Skeezix1000 on IRC)?

5. The report is closed in record time, in a little over an hour, giving you the block you want (is A.Savin on IRC?)

6. On IRC you guys congratulate each other on a job well done. You state, addressing Fae explicitly, that (paraphrashing) "today was the day we rid Commons of Ottava". Yes, you used "we" which is direct evidence that this was a concerted, coordinated effort.

Given all of the above, as well as the unseemly denials about the obvious, do you really think you're trustworthy enough to be a sysop on this project? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I have ANU on my watchlist (on Commons I auto-add everything I edit to my watchlist, btw), and if my memory serves, I found this discussion through my watchlist - which I normally check more frequently than I check #wikimedia-commons. Even if my initial click on this section did originate from the KVIrc window (which I don't know precisely anymore), I'd otherwise have found it a few minutes later from my watchlist, so I definitely was not "canvassed" in any reasonable meaning of the word. Otherwise, please stop derailing this discussion; if you have anything to add about Ottava Rima, you can do that, but processes don't exist for their own sake. Ottava Rima is now blocked, but he is not yet community banned, and we can discuss bans, unblock conditions, etc., whether or not he is blocked. darkweasel94 14:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec with Darkweasel - see, we on IRC refresh our watchlists a lot! For instance I saw this 2 mins after you posted it because that was when I refreshed my watchlist. There's no conspiracy in being quick to reply to things.)

So...

1. It's hardly surprising I mentioned I wanted to get someone I thought was being disruptive to other admins.
2. See above.
3. As mentioned earlier, I meant that as "let's keep this one on-topic"
4. So people who think Ottava should be banned show up and support a proposal that he be banned. This is surprising why?
5. I don't know if A Savin is on IRC. The speed surprised me too, but Ottava certainly gave people enough ammunition with his replies.
6. Yes, people who think Ottava should be banned are happy when Ottava is banned. As for "we", well, I wasn't the one who banned him so I could hardly say "I", what I meant was that we (Commons users) had finally seen Ottava banned.

The only way it was coordinated was that I talked to russavia before I posted the thread, and he gave me some suggestions. No one else was involved in the writing of the thread, no one else was consulted, no one else was told. There is no conspiracy, there is no cabal, there are merely a number of things I said which you have misinterpreted. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Without further derailing this discussion with more accusations, could you at least add precise IRC log times to your claims above (like "2013-08-22 20:45", which was when Ottava was on the channel making various statements)? I honestly cannot find the sections mentioned in your critique, presumably as you are paraphrasing in your own words rather than quoting. By the way, speculating as to how the word "we" might be read on IRC is very thin evidence of grand conspiracy, considering the context means it may refer to one person, everyone in the channel or every Wikimedian on the planet. BTW, I have AN/U on my watchlist. Watchlists are effective as a way of noticing block discussions and considering I had an active thread here on another matter, you might expect me to be watching it. --Fæ (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Surprising? Probably not, at least not in terms of Wiki Commons. Canvassing? Unfair? Unworthy of an admin? Youbetcha.
2. What was the point of announcing it on IRC if not to solicit support?
3. Ok. That's not what it looks like to an outside observer.
4. Yes, but these are the same people whom you canvassed. That's what canvassing IS - getting people who you know will support a certain action to come along and support that action. If you had posted your message in a venue where there was a bunch of Ottava supporters than that wouldn't have been canvassing. And I'm pretty sure you know what "canvassing" is.
5. Ok.
6. No, you were addressing Fae directly, you, russavia and Fae have been discussing getting Ottava blocked for a few days, darkweasel busted out the popcorn when Ottava showed up. So it was not "we the Commons" (what's that anyway), don't insult our intelligence. It was very much we as in the people you canvassed in IRC who helped you get the block you wanted.

It's not a dark room conspiracy, with grassy knolls and cloaks and daggers. It's a bunch of guys coordinating their actions on IRC. Not as picturesque but sneaky and against policy all the same.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The point was frustration mainly. People do that sometimes. I did not canvas anyone, I didn't need to. Yes I was addressing Fae directly, but I still did not mean it as "Fae and I", there is a wider use of "we". From dictionary.com: we [wee] plural pronoun, possessive our or ours, objective us. ... 3. (used to denote people in general): the marvels of science that we take for granted. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Mattbuck, I appreciate the clarification, albeit this is such a fragile and emotional situation and it all never goes down well. In fact, two weeks ago, at English Wikipedia, there were jokes in poor taste made on IRC, and more made on wiki and in the end it resulted with a WMF employee being desysopped and another long-term user being banned indefinitely. I will chat with him again once this has all settled down. Just let him score a goal on himself, which he unfortunately is about to. Thanks for the clarification though. --WorldTraveller101  T  C  G  E 15:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

@Mattbuck - so it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is? Please. You had been talking up Ottava's block for a couple days to your IRC friends. You announced you were going to post the block request to your IRC friends. You were explicitly addressing one of them, Fae, when you said "today we rid Commons of Ottava". You guys were in the midst of self-congratulatory, grave dancing, discussion among yourself. Sorry, to any honest outside observer it's pretty clear that when you said "we" you meant "me, Fae and russavia" - these were the people who showed up to support your block request after all.

Look. You got busted. Your weaseling and attempts at sophistry are not exactly making you look any better.

Now remind me. Did you ask (pp) "who wants to block Ottava's talk page access?" BEFORE or AFTER you said "today is the day that we rid Commons of Ottava"?

Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

No-one has done anything wrong in this instance VM, and you of all people should not be lecturing anyone about such things -- you are still abusing dispute resolution and treating projects as a battleground I see. Nothing untoward has occurred in the #wikimedia-commons IRC channel, of course my logs prove this. Also, it is also clearly evident you are trolling here -- all but suggesting that you'll post the IRC logs here, when you know full well that this is a no-no -- do you not remember when you "accidentally your inbox" during the Wikipediametric (EEML) case, and I was blocked because I linked to an archived version of it (which was later oversighted); surely you realise that if you were to do such a thing here, it would likely result in a block. Now, a message for others, if we can simply stop feeding the trolls, let's get back to the issue at hand, shall we. russavia (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see you draw a connection between EEML and your IRC activities. In the former case, some admins had to give up their tools. So shouldn't you (and mattbuck) give up yours? And anyway, I have not been "threatening to post" the logs. Don't be ridiculous. I know damn well that the second I did that one of the IRC crowd would come down with a ban hammer. In fact, if I'm allowed just a tiny bit of bad faith, I think that Fae's repeated demands for "evidence", when he knows very well that these logs can't be posted just may be a provocation along those lines. Like I said, you guys set up a nice little "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, demanding "evidence" on one hand, and standing ready to block if it's actually ever posted. That's why I suggested that Fae posts his logs since he (and you) have apparently been logging IRC chat for future use.

As to the substance of the matter - this IS the issue at hand. The subsection is titled "IRC". The reason why it's titled "IRC" is because IRC is where mattbuck, you and Fae coordinated Ottava's block, then celebrated it. OF COURSE you don't see "anything untoward" ... because you were the one participating in the untoward behavior! So it's not like we can take your affirmation at face value. It's like if a guy is suspected of burglarizing a house, is told "we have a video tape of you inside the house, stealing stuff" and he's all like "no! I've seen that tape and there's nothing untoward in it! And don't even play it because that's against the rules!". Jeez.

Now. Let me repeat the question to mattbuck: Did you ask (pp) "who wants to block Ottava's talk page access?" BEFORE or AFTER you said "today is the day that we rid Commons of Ottava"?

Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, you are sounding more and more like Ottava Rima with mis- and dis-information and ridiculous attacks. I think this section can be closed off as an irrelevant deflection. russavia (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Good job at running interference for your IRC friend. Now, let me repeat the question to mattbuck: Did you ask (pp) "who wants to block Ottava's talk page access?" BEFORE or AFTER you said "today is the day that we rid Commons of Ottava"? Do you think this kind of behavior is worthy of a Commons admin? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite unsure why you're asking because

1. You claim to have the logs which means you already know
2. It doesn't seem especially relevant either way.

-mattbuck (Talk) 08:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to query me as to why I was asking, I just ... asked you to answer the question, not evade it. Anyway. For the purpose of examining your (mattbuck) conduct, as well as that of the friends you recruited to railroad this block through (Fae, russavia, etc.) yeah, this probably is not going to go anywhere. I guess, it's not time for that yet. Still, I think it's been made painfully clear that - whatever one thinks of Ottava as an editor - this particular block is illegitimate and should be undone. Yes, Ottava can be difficult. But that doesn't give you and your circle of buddies a free pass to gang up on him. Bullying is bullying, even if the kid that's getting knocked around is not the most popular one around. This time you did it to Ottava, next time you might do it to someone else. So just undo this, and we can drop this whole discussion of all the sneaky things you and your friends were up to on IRC. Deal? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The block was done by A.Savin, whom I have never seen on IRC yet. The three people (russavia, Fæ and myself) you accuse of having been canvassed on IRC are all regular participants here who probably have ANU on their watchlist (I do at least). So what role does IRC really play in this block? I don't see any, except that there were some comments about it there (without objectively trying to circumvent consensus-building). I was also surprised that the block was done so quickly, but nobody except A.Savin needs to explain themself for it - it's not mattbuck's, russavia's, Fæ's or my fault if A.Savin does something. darkweasel94 23:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

From what I can tell, you were in there while the canvassing was going on, and "busted out the popcorn". Sure, "getting canvassed" is not as bad as doing the actual canvassing, so I'm not clear on your role in it. Probably just played along and did what you would've done anyway. That doesn't excuse mattbuck and the others though. As to A.Savin, why don't you ask him if he saw the request and follow up on IRC? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The last time I used IRC was about may 2010 I think, and yes, I have ANU on my watchlist. --A.Savin 10:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek at 14:43 on 24 August I asked Without further derailing this discussion with more accusations, could you at least add precise IRC log times to your claims, you failed to do this. You appear unwilling to explain precisely how to find the evidence for your much repeated false and defamatory assertions of a group conspiracy to manipulate the community against Ottava Rima, along with your new unsourced assertions of bullying. Immediately cease making these assertions, which you have now actively used to disrupt several consensus building discussions on this project, or it will be necessary to start a new request on this noticeboard so that independent administrators can consider if action is now appropriate to stop you creating a deliberately hostile environment. I hope we can avoid doing this, as it will waste my time and that of other volunteers on this project who have much, much better things to do helping to create educational content on Commons, rather than being forced to review your allegations based on inflated bad faith interpretations of off-wiki informal banter. --Fæ (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Fae, what's the point of precise times? You have the logs, you know what you said and when. On 8/22 the conversation was pretty much ongoing. Best I can tell mattbuck's canvassing for someone to revoke Ottava's talk page access happened sometime around 12:30 (log time) on 8/22. His "yeay!" we got "rid of Ottava" comment was around 14:30 on the same day. His canvassing for the block request itself occurred earlier. Throughout that day you guys were talking about it. There, I've answered mattbuck's question for him - he FIRST canvassed, THEN grave danced.

Again, if you're going to "demand evidence" then either allow me to link to the existing logs, post just the portion of comments made by the people concerned (you, mattbuck, russavia, darkweasel) or post the logs yourself. Otherwise cut it out with the "unsupported assertions" stuff - the assertions are supported and evidence can be provided, as you well know.

You can falsely label this "creating a deliberately hostile environment", but that's not what this is. Canvassing on IRC and coordinating attacks upon editors - as you, russavia and mattbuck have done - THAT's creating a "hostile environment". If that doesn't qualify then I don't know what does. THIS right here? That's just someone calling you out on your shenanigans. Shame. Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You point to two items on IRC. I have to add 8 hours to your times quoted to get my UK timezone.

1. I see mattbuck at 2013-08-22 20:38 mentioning OR's talk page (this is the first time I'm reading it, as even though I fairly regularly follow the channel, nobody reads everything said by everyone before it scrolls off your window). The only reply I can see on this is from Russavia who fairly immediately says he is ignoring it. 'Ottava' makes various allegations in the channel at 2013-08-22 20:43 onwards, so this discussion is hardly a secret from Ottava Rima (due to the IRC logs being quoted by Ottava Rima, it is safe to assume this is the same person).
2. I see mattbuck makes a comment at 2013-08-22 22:41 with regard to Ottava Rima's block. Nobody replies to the comment or acknowledges it, so it is unclear how many even read it.

I can't see any benefit in publishing the relevant lines from the logs. There is nothing there that could possibly demonstrate inappropriate manipulation of Commons consensus processes or that provided undue influence compared to discussions with and about Ottava Rima by the same people that were being held in parallel on-wiki. As this is an open channel, and Ottava Rima was openly following the discussion at the time, nothing written there could possibly be a conspiracy secret from Ottava Rima.

I invite an independent administrator to collapse this thread about IRC as there is nothing here that benefits the Ottava Rima discussion or that could be considered properly to support the allegations of bullying or a group conspiracy. I will be happy to supply a full copy of my IRC log of the 22nd August in confidence by email, should the community show sufficient interest in an independent investigation. --Fæ (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

finally a use for this file

I "busted out the popcorn" (exact quote: finally a use for this file: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Popcorn.svg - and yeah I have no problem with people quoting what I wrote on public IRC channels unless it involves personal data) when Ottava Rima joined the channel and started throwing insults and accusations at people - and Ottava Rima was already blocked at the time. What's true is that some admins had some time before discussed about whether to remove Ottava Rima's talk page access, but calling that "canvassing" does appear strange, and his talk page access isn't revoked now, so just where is the problem that needs to be solved? darkweasel94 09:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

So just where is the problem that needs to be solved?

Quoting the just above text, that was available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License; additional terms may apply.

May be time to close, as dismiss? Pldx1 (talk) 10:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

---

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