Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Shortcut: COM:AN/U

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~16
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-07: ~48

Other:

• Duplicates: ~0
• Advertisements/spam: ~6
• Personal photos/selfies: ~22
• Other speedy deletions: ~7
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~2
• Undeletion requests: ~10

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~4
• Interface admin: ~16
• Technical: ~1
• Template protection: ~12
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Note

• Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
• It is usually appropriate to notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

Beta M

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

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

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

Noticeboard disruptions and cross wiki problems

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

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

User:Toilet

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

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

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

Mostly OK photos, you should not ask for permission if the photo was taken in a public place. Trycatch (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

? If u take a picture of a person with recognizable face, it is not "okay", maybe they donna want that every person can see her/him. And pictures like that or hardly "public". --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It's ok, see COM:PEOPLE (though the laws vary from country to country). What about the mentioned photo -- it looks like a public performance or something. Trycatch (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a little tricky. I think these are good photos and well within scope, but a lot of them are from Peru, where generally you need permission to publish a photo of a private person taken in a public space. Someone with some expertise should follow up. - Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Country specific consent requirements#Peru suggests that the issue is not so straightforward. P.S. As a side note, it was a bad idea to introduce country-specific laws to COM:PEOPLE. The picture was published on Commons, in the US, by a person from the Netherlands, why the supposed limitations on publication of it in Peru matter? Now we have to analyse all these extremely tricky laws (and probably delete some useful educational pictures) without any benefit for Commons. Trycatch (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not the right place to discuss Common's policy, but a short answer: That's because we're not only gathering pics but free content, really free, to spread it to anybody for any purpose. In some muslim countries there can also be a quite issue to publish pictures of people. In Germany and the Netherland you're not allowed to publicly show everybodies face even if seen in public.

Seems to be a selfpromoter. There are, additionally to the COM:PERSON stuff, some images that show himself so that authorship "own" is questionable. --Martina talk 21:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

To be hosted on Commons the work should be "free" only in copyright sense of this word, see Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. Commons generally do not care about non-copyright restrictions (if it's legally possible in the US, of course), dunno why the exception for personality rights was made. Of course, it's not the right place to discuss, and so on. Trycatch (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

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

But then we still have the issue about those hand-drawings User Toilet is uploading every time after the deletion of them. This is btw the reason for his first block. I donna see any sense in deletion discussions if the uploader gives a fuck on them. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

PS: Again I have to stress that User Toilet is uploading tons of private holiday photos from Picasa, regardless copyright or scope issues. He is not interested in constructive contribution rather sees commons as an advertisment/free web space. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Peter Damian (talk · contribs)

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

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

Fred the Oyster

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

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

Mistress Selina Kyle

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

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

SilkTork

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

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

User:Centpacrr - unnecessary alteration of images

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

Could you point out a discussion with this user related to this matter (other than the commented diffs) ? --PierreSelim (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are three four: 1, 2, 3, 4. – JBarta (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply: What the complainant calls here "unnecessary alteration of images" is actually just a difference in philosophy on image repair. The few images about which he/she is "complaining" are a couple of dozen of the more then 500 from which I have removed watermarks in the past couple of months which while doing so I also found were underexposed in full or in part, or which clearly required some degree of color correction as well needing watermarks removed. For some reason the complaining user feels that every image, no matter how flawed, is sacrosanct and should never be altered in any way, so the issue here is not that I have damaged or defaced any images (the alterations that I have made are almost always quite slight and essentially only noticeable when compared side-by-side to the original file), but a difference in editing philosophy between myself and the complainant. I have had a number of discussions with this user (who in what I perceive as a possible attempt to intimidate me claimed in one of them to be "...in the U.S. Witness Protection Program, currently residing in New Jersey. In the not too distant past I was an enforcer and occasional assassin for a well known crime syndicate") explaining that there is more than one acceptable way to treat images and contribute to WP. The most recent of these discussions occurred just today (March 16) and can be found here. I will stand by the final comment I made in that discussion (to which he/she has not responded as of this posting) as my "answer" to this "complaint". Centpacrr (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the dispute is fairly simply solved, carry on doing whatever work on images you think necessary, and if you think it is an uncontroversial change, upload the new version over the top of the original. If someone reverts the change, then there is controversy after all. A revert war serves no purpose at all (and is highly disruptive), simple solution is to upload the changed version as a separate file and link the two through "other version" in the info box. NB this is not an invitation for someone to revert all your changed versions, that would be extraordinarily unproductive. It is also not an invitation to assume that all your changes are uncontroversial: taking note of why changes are reverted might save uploading images twice. ---Tony Wills (talk) 06:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess we'll leave it at that for now and hope for the best. Thank-you. – JBarta (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

User:Mattbuck and User:Rd232

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

Yeah, I cannot comment on a pattern, but this particular case is a blatant overreaction. I tried to reason with Rd232 on his userpage, but he seems to have himself dug in, "standing by" his block. --Dschwen (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

No, a 24 hour block for something so blatantly unconstructive is entirely appropriate. Rd232 (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"I don't see any "trolling" in Mattbuck's words" - then you don't understand what trolling is. The post is an exemplary example of trolling. The post claims to be a policy proposal (even the section head said that) which includes the words As such, anyone who has ever, is currently or ever might post a message on [named external website] will be summarily banned for disrupting the project. No proof is required that the user is/was/will be a [user of that site], an accusation by any user or anonymous IP is enough, and no protestations of innocence will be accepted. Rd232 (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

From en:Troll (Internet):

"a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion"

Trolling is the associated verb. The post was undoubtedly inflammatory and intended to provoke emotional response. Rd232 (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, sarcasm and trolling are in no way incompatible: In sarcasm, ridicule or mockery is used harshly, often crudely and contemptuously, for destructive purposes. It may be used as part of the effort to provoke an emotional response. Rd232 (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

On a less sensitive topic, yes. The irresponsibility here requires more than mere removal. Rd232 (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the topic's sensitivity is just the point here. No need imho to add more fuel to the fire in this issue. But a 24h block of a parttaking user is inflammatory. - A.Savin 14:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

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

There's not even an unblock request. It is puzzling to me how eagerly people defend disruption on Commons. Rd232 (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

@Rd232, I think blocking Mattbuck was neither necessary nor o.k., as he posted this "proposal" just once and did not re-instate it after it had been deleted, very different from other discutants. Even we admins should be allowed sometimes to show our feelings, provided it's not a personal attack. The underlying case seems to be rather complicated and our procedures to deal with it very deficient. I would therefore recommend you to lift Matt's block. --Túrelio (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Trycatch, Túrelio, et al. I think Mattbuck's "proposal" was an edgy, sarcastic, but not totally unacceptable, response to a situation he didn't like. Any block was unwarranted, even if he had been a relatively new user. Blocking an experienced user (50,000+ edits here), let alone an Admin, should be done only after consultation with others.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

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

I'm going to weigh in in favor of the unblock anyway. I want to make it clear that like the others I find this block to be unjustified, and I don't want it to be brought up later as a claim that Mattbuck is anything but an exemplary user. Emotions are running very high about this topic, yes - that is not a reason to suddenly move the goalposts and be obsessive about civility, but rather, a time to give everyone (including Rd232) a little slack and recognize that mistakes are being made all around. Wnt (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

the fact that this from mattbuck passes without comment or warning (never mind block) suggests some slack is being cut. Rd232 (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems that Rd232 still thinks that he was right from the start, defending Commons from the "disruption" by Mattbuck. It's somewhat ridiculous giving the consensus above, but this is his business. If he will continue to do these strange things, it will be the topic of another thread. Trycatch (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This precedes the VP post by 10 minutes, and Matt said in his unblock request "this is how I vent". It's not acceptable, and he knows that. To me, that merits a block. But I'm getting that Commons' attitude to disruption is that causing it is fine, whilst combatting it is bad, so I will try to adjust to that. Rd232 (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rd232. Thank you for lifting the block. I think that was the right thing to do. I do not agree with your conclusion that "Commons' attitude to disruption is that causing it is fine, whilst combatting it is bad". Rather, the discussion shows quite clearly that what is perceived as disruption differs a lot from user to user. In this case you just do not have the same perception of disruption as most other admins and users who have commented here (myself including). I think the key point is to accept that there will always be different ways to see things, and that sometimes you have to compromise or bend if you want to be part of a community. I believe it is called to "show empathy". I can say for myself that there are a couple of prevailing ways of thinking and norms here on Commons, which fit badly with my own values and annoy me from time to time. For me, though, it is outweighted by the higher purpose of Commons, and by some great Commons friends I have gotten to learn over the years. --Slaunger (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, thanks, I suppose that's just a nice way of putting what I really meant. My frustration on this subject, BTW, is not limited to this one incident. Rd232 (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, that comment was addressed to me probably more than anybody, and I say, leave it alone. I understand his frustration, indeed, share it. Wnt (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"that comment was addressed to me probably more than anybody" - I don't see why. Rd232 (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Because I was mentioned in the post before, and because the day I side with Delicious carbuncle over Mattbuck... well, let's just say the Devil's bangin' on the radiator, but there ain't nobody listenin'. Wnt (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Could admins reframe from making arbitrary blocks based on "trolling" in matters about this without consensus. It seems that blocks have been made and have been overturned, especially by admins involved. I'm not going to name names, just sending this out. Thanks. Techman224^Talk 22:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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

---

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

User:Ppb-gera

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

Some other accounts related to this:

• Yves18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Additional: deleting the edits relating to user Christine Türpitz should be done, his discussion-site should be deleted. --Quedel (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Jogo.obb is a different user, Ppb-gera is already blocked globally. --Seewolf (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Add those

• *wwwppb-gerade* (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• 90.187.2.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• 90.186.224.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

• wwwppb-gerade* is blocked, the IP adresses are dynamic. I have documented his ranges here and built an anti-stalking filter here --Seewolf (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Heman25

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

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

cool down blocks re Beta M

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

User Saibo

PayasitasNifuNifa

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

 Done I see this was dealt here. Techman224^Talk 17:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Fred the Oyster (again)

Fred the Oyster (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely for generally being rude to people, per Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Geni's_allegations_against_Beta_M#Fred_the_Oyster. Rd232 (talk · contribs) today reduced the block to a week, including time served, meaning he will be unblocked in three days. This followed a lack of consensus for anything at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Geni's_allegations_against_Beta_M#Proposal:_Reduce_Fred_the_Oyster's_block_from_indef_to_one_week, which Rd232 closed. I would just like to point out these things:

• 15:44 . . Rd232 (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Fred the Oyster (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 01:19, 21 March 2012 (account creation blocked) ‎(Reducing block to 1 week)
• 17:38, 18 March 2012 Tiptoety (talk | contribs | block) blocked The Hedonist (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Abusing multiple accounts: Fred the Oyster) (unblock | change block)

The Hedonist was making edits for about an hour after Rd232 changed the block settings. This is of course not Fred's first sock of the past week, AN/U was protected due to his IP socking, as was his talk page. The talk page is now unprotected, and has been for several days, and Fred has had his talk page privs reenabled for the past several days. There has been no {{Unblock}} request, which is of course the usual way for people to say they would rather not be blocked. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Block. If we allow users to call other "kiddy fiddlers" or similar then it will hard to block ANYONE for being rude. And the reduction was disputed and had only been open for 2 days. So why could the unblock not wait?

And if I may remind you that Abigor was de-sysopped and blocked for socking then I think the case is clear. One week is not enough. --MGA73 (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a note... Fred was not blocked for the "kiddy fiddler" comment (alone) but for more than one case of bad language towards other editors. I just used this one as an example. --MGA73 (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I've restored the block and hereby request Fred the Oyster to demand unblock on his talk page. Perhaps it's right that there were some concessions via e-mail, but I think in similar controversal cases the discussion on block/unblock should be public. - A.Savin 18:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You have no right to do that. Fred may be to proud to do an unblock request, but I'm not, and I will "demand" (as you put it) that you return it back to a 1-week block immediately. Three admins now agree that an indef is not apprpriate and over-reaching. This is vigilante over-reactionaryism from an argument where everyone was heated. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hm? "Three admins [...] agree" does not look like consensus in this case since there are also some more than three users with contrary opinion; and "to[o] proud to do an unblock request" is a somewhat strange argument for reverting a user block. - A.Savin 22:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

At the time the block was instituted unilaterally by Tiptoety, two Admins (99of9 and Dcoetzee) had already opposed an indef as too much. There was no concensus to do it in the first place. Rd232 also clearly opposes it, or else he would not have reduced it to one week. There was no concensus for an indef, and there remains to be one. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

But, at least, there was a discussion which lead to the block. Whereas the last unblock was without any proposal. Same btw for Mattbuck's 24h block by the same admin. That's what disturbing me. Rd232 should seriously consider, not to use anymore admin tools in discussions related to Beta_M case. Otherwise, it will look like abuse, which could result in a de-adminship request. - A.Savin 23:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"the last unblock was without any proposal" - what? You participated in the discussion about that proposal. And if you mean that unblock requests via email are suddenly not permitted, maybe you should let the world know. "Abuse" - ah, the comedy really begins now. Mattbuck can troll VP and tell everyone to fuck off without anyone breathing a word of disapproval; Saibo can disrupt attempts to enforce copyright and make false claims about office actions, without any consequence; Tiptoety can indef a productive user without consensus or even lengthy discussion; A.Savin can wheelwar against the implementation of a consensus to reduce a block; but hey, let's deal with that troublemaker Rd232. Rd232 (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Now don't overstate, I reverted you just one time and that is no wheel war. 00:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Look at the heading in the en.wp definition (Commons doesn't define the term): Reinstating a reverted action ("Wheel warring"). There was no consensus for the indef-block, yet you restored it. Rd232 (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Fry, you appear unaware of this. There are actually more than three of us. --99of9 (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently so. Admittedly, I've not read everything that's gone on since I first gave my objections on the 14th, I've been too busy. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Summary

• The initial discussion at AN/U was about Fred's use of the term "kiddy fiddler" in relation to Beta M, apparently as a synonym for "pedophile" (he rejected the assertion that he meant "child rapist"). These kinds of descriptions were used by various people, some of them leading to block requests - none of them received blocks.
• 1.5 hours after that AN/U discussion was launched, User:Tiptoety jumped in with an indef-block. Mattbuck had requested an indef-block, two users had explicitly opposed the proposal, others had commented without clearly taking a view, and no-one had explicitly supported it. The block rationale was sweeping, declaring not that this user was acting like many people in a particular heated context, but rather Unable to take part in a collaborative community environment without engaging in personal attacks, childish name calling, and continual disruption. Actions are counter to the collegial atmosphere of Commons (block log entry). True, there had been repeated problems in the past, by they hadn't been raised in that discussion, and I would argue Fred had been better behaved recently, and that his record is probably exaggerated. At any rate, there was no consensus for an indef-block - Tiptoety just imposed his judgement into a discussion which had not been going very long. No-one (apart from me) seems to have explicitly criticised this precipitate action, prior to this thread.
• The post-block disruption amounts to FOUR (count 'em, FOUR) IP-based edits to COM:AN/U, two of which are a simple attempt to vote in the Beta M discussion, and the other two are this and this. There's also one very angry comment just before that [2] which triggered the removal of talk access. (There's also - I didn't know this at the time I reduced the block - a sock, which during this block was however only used to make constructive edits, so it's not exactly disruption.)
• Number of people supporting straight reduction to 1 week (here): 9
  • Oppose: 5 (not counting Niabot's due the sarcastic rationale)
  • That gives 64% support for unblock (and the oppose rationales were fairly weak, and partly wanted acknowledgement of problems, which happened by email).
  • That's why I reduced the block to 1 week. I personally think 3 days would have been plenty, in the extraordinary heated circumstances of the Beta M affair, but I respected the backing for 99of9's proposal.
• Bottom line, everything that transpired was either due to the heated circumstances, or due to the fallout of a very bad block. I think the consequences of both should be as limited as possible. In words more measured than Fred's - it is extraordinary that some users were practically in despair over the loss of Beta M (a user whose views and past are by now well established), yet seem unconcerned to lose a skilled and productive contributor whose only sin at the outset of this incident was to use a slang term of ambiguous meaning, and was unlucky enough to have a block-happy admin wander past with seemingly zero respect for community discussion. Rd232 (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd say that it would be good to have both Beta_M and Fred the Oyster back on Commons. The difference is that Fred the Oyster has had some disruptive behaviour (I've not seen any of that from Beta_M's side) and opposes blocks by using sockpuppets, which suggests that he doesn't care about Commons policies. I would have supported lifting the block or reducing it to one week given Rd232's e-mail conversation with the user, but in the light of the sockpuppet, I'm no longer certain. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
    • "which suggests that he doesn't care about Commons policies" - no, it suggests that he cares about Commons more than about respecting bad enforcement of Commons policies. The sock was used entirely for productive purposes, which if it had been someone other than Fred no-one would dream of complaining about. Rd232 (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
      • You are wrong here Rd232. Anyone who uses a sockpuppet to evade a block should have the sockpuppet blocked, and be blocked themselves until such time as they recognise that it is not on. It has nothing to do with Fred individually; in fact, COM:AN/B is just one venue on Commons where editors who are using sockpuppets to evade blocks and the like are brought to our attention, and which one sees they are blocked. russavia (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
        • You misunderstood - I meant if the actions had been taken by someone who was not socking, no-one would complain. The actions in themselves were fine, separated from who did them. And BTW, it was pointed out recently that there's actually no policy against socking! (Not that that excuses it.) Rd232 (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
          • OK, I read your words as written quite differently. But if that is not what you meant, granted. As to socking; whilst there is no actual socking policy, it is plainly covered in Commons:BP#Use under Evasion of blocks. Also, it should be noted that Fred claims at User_talk:Fred_the_Oyster#User:The_Hedonist that he doesn't use open proxies and never has done. This, this, and this would on the surface disprove that notion. Those are the 3 IP's that we had to block as a result of socking -- their comments (especially edit summaries) make it clear this was FtO. russavia (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
            • How do you know they're open proxies? Fred says they're not. Rd232 (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
            • True, the sock use relevant here is actually covered :) . But see Commons_talk:Blocking_policy#Socks.3F. Rd232 (talk) 01:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Rd232, Tiptoety has made it clear countless times that his use of the term "kiddy fiddler" was not the reason for the block. Rather, it things such as this, where Fred tell's other editors "If he can't then I suggest he shut the fuck up, grow up and figure out another way to protect a convicted paedophile." Acting in such a way towards other editors is long-term problematic behaviour from Fred, and in light of the nature of what was going on (being an emotive issue), Fred's interjections in telling others to shut the fuck up, is reprehensible, and I am miffed as to why you are turning a blind eye to this, and instead pushing the incorrect "meme" that it had to do with his using the term "kiddy fiddler". Please also refer to your talk page, where I have stated that if Fred has told you in private that this is a problem he acknowledges, then he is more than able to acknowledge this as part of an unblock request on his talk page, which can be attended to by an uninvolved admin (read: not yourself). As it stands at the moment, given his unrepentant attitude, and his using sockpuppets to evade the block (which he started using "The Hedonist" 10 minutes before you reduced his block), I would be very surprised if the community is going to be willing to unblock him at all; if there is consensus for an unblock (which your "figures" also misrepresent, as they fail to take in previous discussion from community members), I am thinking that a ban from community boards is going to have to put on Fred, so that he can continue to contribute. Being a valued contributor does not give one a free pass to engage in incivility against other editors, who are just as valued. russavia (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Tiptoety has made it clear countless times that his use of the term "kiddy fiddler" was not the reason for the block - and I have not made it clear that I understand that?? My point has precisely been that he unilaterally decided to drag up all of Fred's past and to block for it without reference to the "kiddy fiddler" remark which was the one that was actually under discussion. Rd232 (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• A long and persistent history of "fucking about"[3], "my arse"[4] and "bullshit and bollocks"[5] would be read by most people as unacceptable disruptive and personal harassment (these are the most obvious recent examples, I have not bothered to dig out the C-word). These are not signs of a "skilled and productive contributor", where by definition a requirement is to be able to work in a collegiate manner, not constantly aim to turn Wikimedia Commons into a hostile environment for everyone unlucky enough to be near him on one of his frequent bad days. A simple public acceptance that his behaviour has not been acceptable, and he is prepared to change in future, is what is needed, not just your sympathy expressed by private emails. --Fæ (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"a long and persistent history" of occasional swearwords, evidenced with diffs from 14 and 18 March 2012 (after the bad indef-block). Burn the witch! Burn her! Rd232 (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

"These are not signs of a "skilled and productive contributor" (sic) ?? And since when are a user's choice of words when they're frustrated and recently kicked in the nuts a sign of whether or not they're skilled and productive. No, their works and contributions are. What absolute nonsense. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Fry, are you suggesting that all of the other contributors to this site, who also get frustrated at times and don't resort to such behaviour (of which there is no mitigation), should not expect to hold FtO up to the same standard? You seem to be suggesting that FtO is above every other editor on this project. I am sure that others will also say so, but I am saying that he is not above any other editor on this project. He wasn't being harassed, which is a mitigating circumstance for lashing; he interjected into an issue which was already obviously an emotional one and resorted to telling other editors to shut the fuck up. In your mind, is this acceptable behaviour? russavia (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No Russavia, I'm saying it's a crock of shit (to take a page from Fred) to say that because somebody gets indef blocked when there was absolutely no consensus and objections from multiple admins for such an extreme punishment, and then gets mad because of that and uses some choice words, that somehow makes them not "skilled and productive". You don't judge someone's skills and productivity by their words in discussions and talk pages. You judge that by their contributions and works, of which Fred's are spectacular. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Bolding is not a substitute for diffs: prove that you're not misquoting or omitting relevant context (as Fred says you are). Besides which, none of this can get away from the fact that if you wind back the clock to before Tiptoety's bad block, there was nothing recent there that would justify a block of any length, never mind indef. Rd232 (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, following Fred's violent reaction to his block, his socking, his attitude of "I can do whatever you want and you suckers can't stop me", and my own further research into his past behaviour, I have completely reversed my initial position. This is not the heat of the moment in a tense discussion - this is Fred's personality. I don't expect him to be polite, but I do expect him to be respectful to other editors, and if he is unblocked in 3 days he's just going to end up re-blocked in short order, which wastes our time and his. If he is to be invited back we need, at the very least, some assurance that he won't continue his flagrant disregard of policy. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

he's just going to end up re-blocked in short order - how on earth do you justify such a claim? Look at his block log, carefully. There are just two (TWO) separate blocks for incivility before the recent incident, the last in mid-January, total block length 4 days. And from there we stride to indef-block? Rd232 (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I did look at his block log. I also looked at his edit history on this noticeboard, where he was warned but not blocked on several occasions. When not officially warned, he's often still attacking/mocking somebody, or at least being very aggressive. By themselves, none of these would be remarkable, but they point to a pattern of disrespect of our contributors and our staff that has been going on for months. Here is a short list:

"So if you aren't going make pertinent comments may I politely suggest that you fuck off and go do something more useful, somewhere else." (officially warned for this comment by User:99of9)

"My, my, you do have the proverbial Jewish chip on your shoulder don't you?" (a comment which alarmed User:Jmabel)

Warning by User:Jameslwoodward: "I would appreciate it if Fry1989 and Fred the Oyster toned down their comments."

"We have enough dicks here already, so let's have more pussy, though bums and legs would be better!!" (warned by User:ragesoss, responded "You mean for the miserable buggers with no sense of humour? Why should their preferences be prioritised ahead of mischievous buggers like me?")

"It also looks like another example of Fastily's bull-headedness for no apparent reason. There's no logical reason that images should be deleted simply because the OTRS mob can't get their butts in gear." (warned by User:Túrelio, responded "Language? My you must have had a sheltered life.")

"Don't be a plonker. Unless you can prove this IP is a blocked or banned user then you are on a hiding to nothing. You certainly can't have them blocked for merely !voting against you. This isn't like running to Mummy you know."

"In all these posts you've not made anything that has the semblance of being productive yet you have no problem taking up everyone's time with your poor little hurt editor's persona. Presumably you have nothing else to do as you just keep popping back up like an ageing whack-a-mole. Give it a bloody rest, or are you attempting to go for the commons irritating editor 2011 award?"

And there are more. Whether or not he was in the right in these cases, that doesn't mean he can't communicate civilly about his concerns. I have hope for him since on many other occasions he showed admirable restraint, and we should encourage him to take up that habit again. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Fred can be a royal pain in the butt and a waste of our time and words (3,300 words here). I don't like the color in some his language. I think Dcoetzee's hope that he will consistently show admirable restraint is unrealistic. On the other hand, he does valuable work and, if you can take his remarks with good humor and a grain of salt, he is a useful goad to some of us when we start taking ourselves too seriously. While I would have picked different words, I might well have made several of the remarks above. I think we would miss him if he was banned or chose to leave.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

(i) most of those comments are not that bad. There has to be room for personality on Commons. (ii) most are from November (and I think generally he's been milder since then) (iii) all are from COM:AN or COM:AN/U. Now, my concern at this point is that Fred won't back down and apologise, in which case, he will stay blocked and we will lose a valuable contributor on SVG content in particular. Maybe an edit restriction would help? Since most of the problems arise when he has ventured into COM:AN or subpages, a topic ban from those pages (except where his actions are discussed by others) might work. I would also add an explicit restriction to using only one account, because although the contributions under that sock were constructive, it should not be done. If Fred publicly agrees to these restrictions, that's probably the closest we'll get to the sort of statement that some people want to hear. Rd232 (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I focused on older comments because his most recent comments were already discussed extensively above, and I'm trying to speak to a long-term pattern. I agree that some were quite mild - I focused mainly on comments he was warned for. He's also had some problems on his own talk page, which of course we can't ban him from. I think a limited-time topic ban might be useful, but he did raise several important issues on COM:AN and I'd like to see him return to it. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Users get slightly more leeway on their own talk pages - though opinion varies on how much more, it wouldn't cover all of the recent comments. But the recent comments were related to an exceptional circumstance (which led an admin to post "fuck the lot of you"... I keep coming back to that not to cudgel the poster of it but to prove how heated the circumstances were), and furthermore a bad indef-block in that exceptional circumstance. In a topic ban context, useful information for discussions a user is banned from can always be provided to another user, so that they can post it there if appropriate. Rd232 (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I would favor a topic ban, provided we clearly advise Fred that he can contact any other active, uninvolved user to ask them to post on COM:AN for him in their own words (the point being that they would effectively translate the concern into civil language). Dcoetzee (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "uninvolved" is necessary as long as responsibility is clear. I've also removed from my proposal below the exception I mentioned above where his actions are discussed because (a) exactly those threads are more likely to cause problems and (b) it's difficult to word clearly. Simple is easier to understand and enforce. Rd232 (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit restrictions proposal

Unblock subject to the following edit restriction:

Fred the Oyster is banned from editing COM:AN and its subpages. Where necessary (including starting new threads), he can contact any other user to ask them to post for him (users doing so take responsibility for ensuring Fred's points are made in a civil manner). In addition, the operator of the Fred the Oyster account is restricted to using only that account.

If things go well in the presence of these restrictions (particularly judged in terms of civility in discussions outside COM:AN, eg on user talk pages and in deletion discussions), then Fred could ask for them to be lifted after, say, 3 months. Lifting would be subject to community discussion and consensus at AN/U. Rd232 (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Rd232 (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support - A.Savin 12:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support With the caveat that this should be extended without the need for long debate and discussion, as appropriate, as a ban on any other named notice board, or discussion space (such as deletion requests) if anyone brings a reasonable complaint about inappropriate personal attacks to AN during the edit restriction. Related to the linked examples given above, this includes anything interpreted as defamation (such as homophobic or racial slurs), baiting contributors through the use of persistent blatant sarcasm, inflammatory language such as telling them to fuck off, or introducing unnecessary terms (not descriptive of a file under discussion) with the apparent intention to offend such as bollocks, pussy, dick, bugger or shit. I would prefer some assurance that Fred the Oyster has reviewed his use of alternative accounts with Rd232 or another named and trusted administrator so that they can monitor any sock puppet accounts which are in legitimate use or retired. Fæ (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • It complicates things far too much to specify what would be unacceptable, or how much discussion of it would be appropriate. If problems arise elsewhere, an extension of the topic ban can be proposed and discussed like any other community discussion. As for accounts, Fred has declared his accounts on his user talk page (1 sock blocked, 1 account retired, in addition to Fred the Oyster). Rd232 (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose What if the topic ban is not respected ? Should we discuss again ? However I'm not against, and I would support if we decide what to do if Fred break this restrictions. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC) see alternative --PierreSelim (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • My expectation is that any breach will result in an indefinite block until Fred the Oyster were prepared to openly ask for an unblock (rather than through private email negotiations), explain that he understood why his behaviour is a problem and make a commitment to stop his disruptive editing. --Fæ (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Any breach of any topic ban should be met by appropriate sanction (typically short-term blocks), if necessary discussed by the community. The type and severity of the breach, a record of good behaviour or previous breaches can all be taken into account in the severity of the sanction. Severe or repeated breaches might lead to a community ban discussion. Rd232 (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support. Measure seems reasonable, duration seems reasonable. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment As part of the problem is Fred's incivility towards other editors, it would be amiss not to address this. No-one is expecting an apology from Fred, but we do expect him to recognise that incivility is not on. If he isn't willing to recognise that editors are expected to be civil, then we need to make it part of this, because after all that is what is a major part of the overall problem. If we make it clear that Fred the Oyster is to remain civil in his interactions with other editors, then I would support. russavia (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it would suffice to tack on something like this: "Moreover, Fred the Oyster is admonished to be civil in all his interactions with other users." Dcoetzee (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I would reword the last sentence to Fred the Oyster is reminded to stay civil during his participation on Commons, and is restricted to using only that account. Failure to adhere to these restrictions and expected norms of behaviour on Commons may result in further blocks. This makes it clear that he is expected to stay civil, that he is expected to use only the single account, and that there may be consequences to prevent further disruption. Unfortunately, this is going to have to be spelled out. Also, just for transparency, I am going to drop a note on the talk pages of those who have commented above, just to alert them to the proposed alternative/amendement. russavia (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
      • No to the amendment. All of this discussion, plus the topic ban, constitutes a strong reminder of the value the community places on civility; and if problems arise in future in areas he's not topic-banned from, then that can be addressed by community discussion. Because of the subjectiveness of civility, community discussion is appropriate, and not a vague licence for individual admins to impose their own unspecified standards on an ad hoc basis. Rd232 (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose - this fails to address Fred's main problem, which is civility towards other users. It would allow him to continue to be rude and aggressive towards others, so long as his "translator" makes nice for him. If someone were for instance to call another user "a retarded pig" (not saying Fred has done that) on a their own user talk page, this is to me as big a problem as them saying it here, and someone translating that as "I respectfully disagree" is unhelpful. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Contact could be email, and such abusive comments made onwiki would not been given a free pass because of the edit restriction any more than if made by another user. The point of the translation is not to translate nasty into nice, it is adding a buffer which would hopefully make Fred think carefully about how he says something, because the point won't immediately be injected in that form into a live AN/U discussion. Rd232 (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternative restrictions proposal

I am suggesting an alternative unblock subject to the following edit restriction:

Fred the Oyster is banned from editing COM:AN and its subpages. Where necessary (including starting new threads), he can contact any other editor to ask them to post for him. Fred the Oyster is reminded to stay civil during his participation on Commons, and is restricted to using only that account. Failure to adhere to these restrictions and expected norms of behaviour on Commons may result in further blocks.

Adding the same caveat as Rd232 above: If things go well in the presence of these restrictions (particularly judged in terms of civility in discussions outside COM:AN, eg on user talk pages and in deletion discussions), then Fred could ask for them to be lifted after, say, 3 months. Lifting would be subject to community discussion and consensus at AN/U.

One will note also that I have removed the caveat placing responsibility for being civil onto the editor who may respond to such a request, and placed this back where it belongs; on the actual editor. I've also added notice that failure to adhere to these condition may result in a block. This proposal will likely address all concerns which have been expressed by editors previously. russavia (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

•  Support russavia (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Though it misses the opportunity to spell out that "civil" includes any inappropriate use of bollocks, shit, bugger, arse etc. that we have become used to seeing from Fred the Oyster. As we don't have an agreed statement of what civil means, for convenience I would interpret that as being identical to en:Wikipedia:Civility. --Fæ (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support - A.Savin 16:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support - the main issue is civility IMO. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose - whilst the wording itself is merely ambiguous, the comments here indicate that the ambiguity will be read as enabling admins to block for whatever they perceive as incivility. This would merely cause more problems. If civility issues arise, they should be handled through discussion, not unilateral admin action. Rd232 (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --PierreSelim (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternative alternative restrictions proposal

Adopting Fred's own version, which covers everything without introducing ambiguity about the meaning of breaching a "reminder":

Fred the Oyster is banned from editing COM:AN and its subpages. Where necessary (including starting new threads), he can contact any other editor to ask them to post for him. Fred the Oyster is restricted to using only that account. Failure to adhere to these restrictions and expected norms of behaviour on Commons may result in further blocks.
If things go well in the presence of these restrictions then Fred could ask for them to be lifted after 3 months. Lifting would be subject to community discussion and consensus at AN/U.

•  Support Rd232 (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose As per previous discussions, it does not explicitly address his incivility towards other editors, which was the reason for his initial ban. It should be noted the talk page section is titled "This is what I will agree to". The exclusion of civility from what he will agree to, implies, at least in my mind, that he will not agree to being civil. We should be reminding FtO he is not in the position to be demanding of the community what he will or will not agree to. russavia (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. Fred will stick to the same standards of civility as he has in the past, which most of the time, outside of COM:AN/U, has been acceptable. Your proposal - an enormously and obviously unhelpful thing to do, especially considering I'd already criticised your idea before you made it - could almost be read as an attempt to torpedo this unblock discussion, by effectively demanding what you know Fred won't agree to - that he basically write out in neat letters I will be a good little boy and if I use any rude words any admin can block me. Rd232 (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Russavia. The one account thing is simply per out standard SOCK policy. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • standard SOCK policy - that would be COM:SOCK, would it? Rd232 (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support – I support the use of "expected norms" over "civility". "Expected norms" means that Fred should be treated just like everyone else here and should be allowed to say the things that others may say. Fred is asking for equality and to be given the freedom to speak as others speak. Forcing "civility" on him would make Fred less equal and less free than others in discussions. Forcing "civility" into the agreement would mean that Fred may be re-blocked for saying things that others can easily get anyway with saying. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per bollocks, shit, bugger, arse rationale above; some seem to view such behaviour as acceptable or at least tolerable which gives a loophole to argue this is a "norm", I don't. --Fæ (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Wonderful. You're now explicitly arguing that instead of respecting the "expected norms of behaviour on Commons" as judged by community discussion where necessary, that we should apply your standards. What makes you so special? Rd232 (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Rd232, there is an argument against the word "civil" which has a pretty good definition as a firm policy on Wikipedia, whereas the word "norms" used here is not only weaker (as defined in any dictionary) but lacks any definition on any Wikimedia project. Consequently as a block restriction you could drive a double decker bus through it. As for me being special and wonderful, yes I am, thanks for noticing, though here I am merely expressing an opinion like any of the norms. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose --PierreSelim (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Towards wiki-stalking/harassment

• Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs)

This user has issued these posts to me today based on my renames. His entire contribution has been focusing on my contribution since.

He has also nominated three four five a lot of images I uploaded. Any user can question the copyright status of another or even nominate them for deletion however one does not do so right after issuing such a notification.

Is it normal for a user to go through the entire contribution of another user the second he or she is in a strong disagreement? It only serves to agonize others. I am particularly sensitive to this kind of treatment due to my past experience with a certain now globally locked user whom made it his vocation to monitor every edit I make for 5 years.

I'd like to note the main concern I have here is his tone. It is my belief that this kind of behavior should be discouraged as it only serves to create a hostile environment. Users should not seek out all of each others dirty laundry on first sign of conflict.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 20:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, when it's Pieter Kuiper. He does this routinely. And no, nothing will be done about it, just as it hasn't the past 50 times he's been reported here for the exact same thing. No consensus to, too many people support him. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of Mattbuck's understandable pessimism, thank you for correctly complaining on this noticeboard. The relevant policy that Pieter Kuiper has a long history of breaking is COM:BP which states that harassment is not acceptable - "Accounts and IP addresses which are used primarily to create a hostile environment for another user may be blocked". The comment you received here is typical of his abusive behaviour and what appears to me to be a sustained pattern of disruptive and disturbing hounding of others. I hope that an administrator will be prepared to ensure Pieter Kuiper will improve his appalling behaviour by enforcing the blocking policy as a perfectly good representation of what was once consensus and a vision for how Commons ought to remain a welcoming environment for all contributors rather than a constant war zone. --Fæ (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope that is the case. I am currently writing my rationale at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ethiopia African potrayal of Jesus.JPG explaining US-Copyright law and how Ethiopian copyright law is non binding inside the US. What is hilarious to me is I was the person that created Commons:L#Ethiopia section this week as well as prior to that all works from Ethiopia was considered in the public domain per US Copyright law. The user is currently nominating practically each and every image he can find that I have moved from en.wikipedia to commons based on policies back in 2008 which were more relaxed. Certainly a review in the normal course of time would be warmly welcome but that is not what is happening here. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 22:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

“

Stop feeling sorry for yourself. You only have yourself to blame for being so pushy. And I had more disputes with Saibo than with you. As for the issue: yes, Commons should change policy. Give it some time. There is no immediate hurry. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

”

Also I'd like to use the quote of this users own post above from this very page and like to ask him why he is so pushy and why he is in such a hurry to review my entire contribution to commons. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 22:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You disregarded renaming policy. So I had a look at you uploads, if those were according to policy. And indeed, there were problems. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, it was vital for you to put File:Electric razor transparant.png (uploaded 5 June 2006) for deletion (this file was based as a derivative work of File:Electric razor.jpg which was deleted in 2 July 2007 - 4 years ago) based on my allegedly inappropriate file renames. On the bright side this is one less image with a copyright problem for me to worry about. I just hope Shave the Wales will not suffer over this. :) -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 00:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

User has shifted focus on nominating images on my user page for deletion. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 00:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment I'm really getting tired of seeing Pieter Kuiper's name on this board. I've seen it atleast 10 times in the last year or so, and that's just with glancing by, not actually looking for Kuiper reports. Clearly there is a problem, and the Community's patience is not infinite. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I am tired of them too. Pieter Kuiper identifies uploaders' copyright violations, and then the uploaders complain about him here. --JN466 13:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Really? Who is complaining about his nominations? I see no evidence about any complaint about his uploads in the entire thread. In fact the very first post acknowledges that any user can nominate images with copyright problems for deletion. The complaint here is something else. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 17:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is we don't want to prevent users making valid attempts to clean up copyright problems, and a common way for copyright problems to be found is for user X to come across a problem with user Y, and then to check user Y's contributions. That's a normal process, and if the DRs that result are reasonable, it's something we have to accept, even if it may feel unpleasant. If the DRs are not reasonable, then we have a problem, but that needs to be shown. As to tone: we can always ask people to try and be nicer or more helpful, but with Commons' multilingual (first language not English) and multicultural environment, you have to make allowances. Rd232 (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Well said, Rd232. I completely agree. While Pieter can be very irritating at times, there is nothing wrong with going through a user's contributions and tagging those that appear to have a problem, provided of course that you legitimately believe that there is a problem. I do it several times a week.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If you do it with persistently abusive comments whilst making fun of their foreign name, then it becomes a problem, particularly when you have a long history of user after user complaining on this noticeboard that you are making Commons a hostile environment for them. --Fæ (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• While we don't want to prevent users making valid attempts to clean up copyright problems, this task is not suitable for everyone. People actively going through someone elses contributions should give great care not to antagonize the other party and if necessary explain copyright and commons policy. It is just as important for us to educate newer users as it is to keep commons free of copyrighted content. I would argue the latter is more important as it helps reduce or possibly even share the commons workload by gaining new contributors.
• Also the problem and complain here is not because he is going through my contribution. Problem is he is doing so right after the first disagreement. In his own words: What is the hurry? You sort out one disagreement then deal with other problems. You do not pile problems in front of people and more importantly you do not threaten people. If a users conduct is really problematic, you take it to this very noticeboard and not take the matters to your own hands. This way a fair treatment is more likely as users conduct is reviewed by multiple people.
• All but one of his nominations addressed the wrong person. All of his nominations (except razor one, which was a derivative of someone else's work) was for content I moved from other wikis to commons more than half a decade ago when policy on commons was more relaxed and OTRS did not exist. The original uploaders were never contacted.
• Someone using English as a second language does not give them a free pass away from being polite or civil. I do not believe the consistent behavioral problems surrounding this user can be attributed to his English skills. To get examples you do not need to go far. Check comments posted by this user on this very page (including other threads), his talk page and village pump. I can pile up so many examples with trivial ease and have already quoted one and someone else linked to his reply to my notification of him of this thread. While we can remind people to be polite and civil, we do require it. You ask people to do what is optional. Users should NOT "be very irritating at times" and instead make an effort to avoid being just that. Furthermore this remark of his on villge pump is plainly racist and completely undermines the multi-cultural nature of the Commons project as a whole. Clearly this user is not JUST reviewing copyright problems.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 08:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat (User:White Cat) must stop accusing me of racism. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

How would you classify the linked remark then? Seeing non-European languages here is a casual occurrence and should not be a problem for anyone. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 08:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You state clearly enough on your user page that you are gaijin, so it's clear that Kuiper's comment is not directed at your race, but rather your choice of using Japanese script in your username. You were at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Non_Latin_Alphabet_Usernames where there were discussions of why such usernames are frustrating and and advocating that at least users voluntarily add a transliteration to the signature; I see that you haven't bothered doing so. (Again, the issue has nothing to do with non-European languages; it has to do with non-European scripts which tend to be just visual babble to most of our users.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I do take great offense when people act in an offensive manner to other cultures, even ones that are not necessarily my own. I would also take offense when people classify the racial/ethnic profile of users based on their userpage. Also please take special care in using the term "gaijin" in the future bearing its etymology and history in mind as it can be seen as derogatory due to its xenophobic use to discriminate.

Please do not bring your irrelevant (perhaps controversial) claims attempting to regulate people's signatures to this user problem claim on Pieter Kuiper's conduct.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 09:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, you picked a username that would be needlessly complicated for most other users, not because it was your native tongue, but because it was cool. When someone called you on that, you can claim that you have the right to use that username, but instead you choose to cry racism, even though it had nothing to do with your race or anyone else's.

There's no reason for other cultures to take offense at what Kuiper said; in fact, IIRC, you would not be allowed to use a name with Han ideographs in Japan. It's always a risky thing to take offense, especially great offense, when people act in a way you consider offensive to other cultures; a lot of people have taken offense at things the culture in question in culture, such as people taking offense at the FSU Seminoles.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hm? In Japan most people have names consisting of only Chinese characters (what you called "Han ideographs"). Foreigners are not required to change their names (since a few years not even required for if you wish to change citizenship), but the option to use those characters still exists for those foreigners who wish to change their name into something more Japanese. To Aru Shiroi Neko would definitely be able to change to a Japanese name, were he to move to Japan (not sure where he currently lives – maybe he already lives there). --Stefan4 (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

“

Requests for name changes like these from User:White Cat or User:Cool Cat should not be done. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

”

Also I'd like to ask for someone to explain me how is it that this user is not targeting me site-wide given the above remark. It is also curious his post to that page came almost at the same time as Prosfilaes mentioned it here. Coincidences are interesting.

This section header was intentionally chosen as "Towards wiki-stalking/harassment" because I was uncertain if I was overreacting. I am however observing a pattern that leads to wiki-stalking/harassment even if it does not perhaps currently qualify.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 09:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Deliberately referring to users by nicknames that they have not agreed to or used themselves is foolish and easily read as intended to be offensive. Though とある白い猫 has mentioned an interpretation of their username on their user page, this not identical to the name that Pieter Kuiper has apparently made up one day. If alternative names are to be used, they must be agreed with the user or claims of deliberately causing offence must be taken seriously. I note that Pieter Kuiper has appears to have done nothing in response to these complaints but inflame and encourage drama rather than making any attempt to reconcile with とある白い猫 in the collegiate manner we would hope for on Commons. --Fæ (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Kuiper took a real issue and handled it in a rude and insulting manner.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is user "Pieter Kuiper" treated differently as other users? Anybody else can get problems here for not having such a long list of harassment/bad behaviour. --178.2.60.90 16:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

He's not; Pieter Kuiper is sui generis. Commons has a long history of tolerating bad behavior from contributors, and Pieter Kuiper has always stayed close enough to the lines that Commons has tolerated him. In particular, nominating files for deletion when they don't have proper licenses is a good thing, which means it's hard to object with Kuiper does it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? How far back does this history go because I lived it and do not remember tolerating bad behavior from contributors. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 17:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

How long did it take for User:Ottava Rima to get blocked here? We have a lot of users who have gotten the boot from en.WP, like Ottava and Fred the Oyster, who either have not been permanently blocked or took a long time getting there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This is all getting a bit confusing. There are complaints about tone and attitude, but aside from a fairly ludicrous complaint of a racist comment, it's not really substantiated as a problem. Nor has it been demonstrated that there are real problems with the DRs. The original poster said You do not pile problems in front of people and more importantly you do not threaten people. - implying threats, which are not evidenced. About the only conclusion I can get out of this so far is that the original poster might get more sympathy from non-Japanese speakers if he respected Commons:Signatures#Signatures_supporting_multilingualism, possibly by somehow linking to User:とある白い猫/In many languages... (not being able to easily put a name to a user is a real disincentive to engage). Beyond that, I suggest (i) providing more evidence of problems and (ii) suggesting some actions that can be taken. Rd232 (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The evidence is substantial if you dismiss the irrelevant remarks from Prosfilaes regarding my signature. If my signature is that much of a problem, start a separate discussion.

My questions to you are: Is civility optional? Do we expect users to be polite? Is it OK to make intentional effort to cause other users stress? Pieter Kuiper is neither civil nor is he polite. Pieter Kuiper also makes an effort to cause others stress and does not attempt to resolve problems through consolidation. There is clear consensus that Pieter Kuiper "can be irritating at times".

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 19:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Civility and politeness are too a large extent subjective; and most people "can be irritating at times". For the rest, provide some diffs. As for the signature: it might be considered polite to follow the recommendation and make it easier for non-Japanese users to interact with you. That you apparently don't agree just goes to show how these things are subjective. Rd232 (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

How would you react if I replied to you with "Stop feeling sorry for yourself. You only have yourself to blame for being so pushy?" Indeed politeness is subjective but that doesn't mean people should act like complete dicks. It seems to me you are advocating the behavior of Pieter Kuiper and it seems like the only problem in this entire thread as far as you are concerned is my signature. I am actually going to propose the removal of this Commons:Signatures clause as it is clearly open to abuse. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 22:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

One statement, from 2 weeks ago, not directed at you (at me, in fact). And whilst not particularly helpful or nice, not sanctionable. Rd232 (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

What is sanctionable? -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 23:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Difficult to say in the abstract (context matters). The Fred the Oyster discussion on this page may be a useful reference for things people get upset about. Rd232 (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"It seems to me you are advocating the behavior of Pieter Kuiper" - I asked you to provide evidence, and to suggest actions. You've failed to do either, but implicitly called Kuiper a dick, and implicitly accused me of abusing policy. In addition, you're being over-defensive about an issue you can easily deal with. It's ironic that you have problems with Kuiper's collegiality, but won't do a simple thing to support it yourself. Rd232 (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec, reply to Rd232) Presumably you consider it acceptable for Commons that contributors call each other's statements "bollocks" as Pieter Kuiper did in his edit comment on this page yesterday in direct reply to とある白い猫 (diff) in an apparent trolling attempt? How can my opinion that Pieter Kuiper's deliberate intention is to create a hostile environment and create drama be called subjective with this sort of evidence available? --Fæ (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Evidence "available" is meaningless; a diff in the hand is worth a hundred in the bush. I've asked for diffs; that's just one, but it's a start. No, in general "bollocks" (in an edit summary especially) is not acceptable, but I would make an allowance for that particular example because it was a reaction to an unwarranted accusation of racism, which is liable to make most non-racists quite angry. Rd232 (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You consider calling a statement "bollocks" to be beyond the pale and yet calling a statement racist is not? Calling a statement "bollocks" or "bullshit" to me is just a short colorful way of assertively disagreeing with something. I don't see that Kuiper has any intention to create drama.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I have not said anything about とある白い猫's behaviour. The long term pattern attracting multiple complaints from multiple users on AN boards is Pieter Kuiper's. My response to complaints is to look at the complaint, not find a reason to boomerang on the complainant and dismiss it. If you believe that とある白い猫 has a long term problematic pattern of disruptive behaviour this would be useful to take into account but probably a reason to create a new thread. In practice I understand that this will be another cross on Pieter Kuiper's card without action, however I do believe we should encourage future complainants who genuinely feel that his behaviour is hampering their ability to make positive contributions to Commons. It is nice to see everyone here so forgiving of disruptive behaviour, however if Pieter Kuiper's name keeps on appearing here month after month, at some point a careful administrator will count these up, draw the line and judge the record as evidence for firm action. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

if Pieter Kuiper's name keeps on appearing here month after month, at some point a careful administrator will count these up, draw the line and judge the record as evidence for firm action. - if an admin literally does that, they'll get their arse handed to them on a plate. Merely having a name pop up repeatedly is not evidence. For this incident, I keep asking for evidence, and what little there has been so far has been irrelevant or minor. If there really isn't any more, then that's quite a lot of discussion about very little. Rd232 (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Correct, it's written down but not literal, just as your threat to hand another admin their arse on a plate was not literal. I hope. --Fæ (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you know the difference between a threat and a statement? Clue: if you forget your umbrella and it rains, you'll probably get wet is not a threat. Rd232 (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Xanderliptak rides again

ResolvedJDF6574 has been blocked

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

I have created this case for further investigation; as I myself have not dealed with this in the past. Best regards. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 10:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure the CU can give you something, the ban is more than 1 year old, CU have access only to the last 3 months history. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I know, but there might be some data stored in the log which could eventually help. As CU at other project log data sometimes might help a bit in the investigations. Very best. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 11:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That's the last person we need to come back. Hope the CU works out. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Collaboration with en.wiki CU or steward is also possible. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 19:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

We're working on this on the CU list.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd ask a request to be filed in a manner to track the existing sockpuppets (or a lack of them). I am not sure this noticeboard is the right place to address CU related post/results. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 10:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved. User blocked. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 14:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 14:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Dandy_vg

• Dandy_vg (talk · contribs)

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

Resolved at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=68607299#Quick_block_may_be_necessary --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 17:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Reporting a committed copyright violator

ResolvedM0tty blocked the user for 3 days and deleted the copyvios. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

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

 Done Blocked for 3 days and image deleted. --M0tty (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Andshel

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

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

Futbol60194Cris

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

I'm curious how you know this user is a child, and female no-less. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Well it isn't in the permissions queues since I can't access it. Anyone have access to info queues? Techman224^Talk 01:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The child's father sent an email to OTRS, it is in info-es queue --Ezarateesteban 11:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I deleted two files with the reason "No permission according to ticket:2012032110014588". Was there a specific reason for not doing it yourselft ? --PierreSelim (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The ticket only involves the image that I deleted yesterday --Ezarateesteban 13:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Then I'll probably restore the picture, and start a DR. PierreSelim (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Lscom

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

Question

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

Because it was a personal attack, I guess? - A.Savin 16:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack, although it was certainly disrespectful, and intended to be so. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Because that sort of behaviour is not acceptable on Commons. Simple as that. It doesn't matter where you post it, it is simply not acceptable. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Mattbuck, you blocked me for a week despite the obvious fact that you are an involved administrator. For instance, perhaps you remember calling me a "troll," in a discussion over your refusal to do more than give a warning to a user who had made a obviously antisemitic comment [6]. But despite that problematic involvement, you now see nothing wrong with giving me a one week block for saying something on my own talk page that harmed no one. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally I would support a de-adminship of Mattbuck. He's trigger happy, and doesn't shy away from conflicts of interest. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

And he is really in no position to criticize vulgarisms. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a direct personal attack to me (okay, I'm a sensitive soul with thin skin but this appears pretty blatant unless you can provide sources showing that Russavia is a coprophile) and rather than putting forward a request for an unblock with a meaningful explanation of why it was not meant as a personal attack, you go on to declare your block as "wiki-fascism". Not a statement that an independent administrator would read as you intending to support the mission of the project or something that can be read as a commitment to foster a non-hostile Commons environment. --Fæ (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

How is telling someone to "eat shit" a personal attack? It's an insult absolutely, but it doesn't attack them as a person, it doesn't say something about them that's not true, and to me it's pretty much the same thing as giving someone the finger. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Fæ, it was disrespectful, intentionally. You have not connected the dots to show that is a "direct personal attack." I did not request an unblock because it does not matter very much to me if I can edit on Commons or not, and I can live perfectly well without it. But that does not mean I do not think the block unfair. If you think I do not have the right to ask, and to question the block, show me the rule forbidding that. (Was the part about the "non-hostile Commons environment" supposed to be funny?) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Russavia came to you with a politely worded request. You could have said no, go away, or not replied. Replying with "eat shit" is extreme and reads as a personal attack to me. Anyway, as you don't care about the reality of the block, the discussion here is overly hypothetical. You have every right to question the block and ask about the policy behind it though I don't understand why you failed to do that at the time rather than now. I'll leave an answer to the involved admins to explain if they want to, though as one of the "norms" I might guess Commons:Blocking policy looks like relevant policy and mentions the "hostile environment" thing that you think is some sort of joke. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Rd232, I did not reject russavia's warning, that I not return to that discussion on Fred's talk page, and I have not not returned. Nor did I say I would disregard his point. The block was a nonsensical exercise of administrative powers. It is absurd. But if the block is for a week, or a month, or a year, makes no difference to me because there are other things I can do. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not reject russavia's warning - really? "eat shit" is not a (nasty) rejection of the (polite) request? This thread is drifting into troll territory. Rd232 (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Figure it out for yourself, Rd232. Did I return to Fred's talk page, either then or later? Did I say I would? As for you once again accusing me of being a "troll," the last time you did that it was suggested you avoid interactions with me. But you have chosen to ignore that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it was (AFAIR) suggested that I avoid admin action in relation to you, which I have. And I have not accused you of "being a troll", nor even exactly said that you were trolling here - though frankly, I think you are trolling. We are discussing your two-word statement; that is unambiguously a rejection of the request it is a response to. That you didn't then do what the request asked you not to do proves nothing about that statement (maybe you weren't going to do anything more anyway, maybe you changed your mind later), especially as your opportunity to do it was swiftly limited by a block. Rd232 (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that blocks are not punitive but protective and that it seems Malcolm Schosha still seems to think that such expressions are harmless (which means he's likely to carry on in much the same way), I'd say it was too short and should be extended. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It does not follow. LX, you need to work on your rational thinking. If I had returned to the discussion on Fred's talk page, then lengthening the block would make perfect sense, but my answer to russavia (ie "eat shit") did not even imply an inclination to do that. In fact, when I got that warning from russavia, I was trying to convince another user to stop placing his edits on Fred's talk page because they were not helpful in the circumstances. Once that user stopped harassing Fred, there was no reason for me to return there. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Please check your accusations of irrational thinking at the door. Regardless of whether or not that particular situation is resolved, if you don't understand that such language is unacceptable, you're likely to use it again on Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Certainly I will continue use the language I choose to use. But Mattbuck, who blocked me has used such language too, and so have many others. Should all of them be blocked, or just the particular ones you want gone from Commons? It seems to me that you want to re-engineer human nature to suite your personal preferences, which is very irrational. But, of course, if the Commons administrative class decides that my presence here is harmful, then they will send me into wiki-exile, and it will then be my part to depart without sorrow. Nevertheless, the claim that my responding to russavia on my own talk page, by saying "eat shit," has harmed him or Commons is absurd. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't mistake your own inability to mind your language for human nature. I stand by my original point. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Wiki95pedia

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

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

Martin Kraft

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

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

• Additional: attempt of personal discretization and speculations instead of factual discussion, harassment on my talk page and rearrangement of not unwanted and already deleted contribution --Wladyslaw (talk)

This is a confusing statement. Matrin Kraft created the new blue version to replace the "candy-colored" map. Martin however finds there is not a clear consensus for his new version, so he reverts. Some other users ignore the consensus-building process that is still ongoing. Martin reverts back from his version to the status quo. And he gets reported here for that? --Dschwen (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You should check the file history of File:ARD Karte.svg clearly. There was no consensus for this version that was to close to the CD of ARD, this one was a compromise of User:Ben774 that Martin Kraft constantly reverted. And please do not chance my contributions. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

More over Martin Kraft was requested from a german admin the day before yesterday not to apply this very coloured version. I have uploaded a new compromise. We will see if Mr. Kraft will accept this. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Wladyslav, I did check the file history, and Martins move to upload over a heavily used version was not a very smart one. However he is seeking consensus now. There is more than one person needed for an edit war. And it is customary in this forum to change loaded section heading to more balanced ones. No need to snap. --Dschwen (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This statements are qualified for finding a compromise in your opinion? --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Cherry picking one outburst hardly paints an objective picture of what is going on here. --Dschwen (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If I have overlook a constructive contribution of M. Kraft since I am searching a compromise you can link it to me. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• To me it looks like an editorial problem. I would suggest to accept all versions under different filename (split the history file), and move this discussion where it belongs on wikipedia. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• urgs. first, there was a multi-colored map that nobody really seemed to like. martin created a new version, uploaded it to a different location, put it up for debate (also on dewiki), a few users (two or three) supported it and one user, Ben774, didn't like it. lacking further voices, martin then uploaded his version as a new version of File:ARD Karte.svg which led into an edit war with Ben, eventually ended by martin at some point (march 22); ben argued that there was no consensus at all. yesterday he brought the issue to the attention of dewiki administrators, and i proposed that we continue to wait for further input, asked for such input, and got myself involved, arguing -- as all other participants, including one who joined the debate afterward -- that i prefer martin's new version. Ben continued to argue that the white-colored logos were factually wrong and misleading to the reader, and then proposed a "compromise" version, uploaded by him under a different name (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ARD-Karte-BLAU.svg). after waiting a full 41 minutes for comments, he then finally uploaded it to File:ARD Karte.svg. what happened during those 41 minutes? one user argued the he'd prefer some version of martin's proposal, and spoke out in favor of either Ben's version with colored logos or another, considerably older version with black logos. another user, CellarDoord85, who had already been involved beforehand and then argued in favor of martin's proposal argued that he finds that Ben's proposal fits better the context in which it appears and proposed that File:ARD Karte.svg gets reverted back to the original "candy-colored" version and that martin uploads Ben's compromise to the place where he had uploaded his original proposal, so that we can change the image inclusions on dewiki to the different file name while others can still use the candy-colored version.
  and so, as ben now uploaded his derivative work of martin's proposal to File:ARD Karte.svg, martin reverted that change, arguing that there's no consensus yet. Wladyslaw intervened, asking Martin to stop with his arrogant behavior. and, well, now we're in the middle of the nice revert-game that has led to this report. ah, meanwhile, another version has been proposed by niabot, which inspired Wladyslaw (and seriously, i have no idea how one can get to such an idea after the course of this intense debate) to upload yet another "compromise" version to File:ARD Karte.svg, this time one without any consensus at all.
  proposal: as pointed out yesterday in response to martin's notification of administrators on dewiki, i advocate to leave the image as it used to be (i.e. in the colored version) and just upload other versions under different file names (i have some understanding for martin's approach, though, because if it hadn't been for this "controversy," just uploading a new version over the old one would have been the most efficient move after all -- however, it is no longer). we can then discuss on dewiki which image should be used in articles; there is now plenty to discuss, thanks to the several new version, some of which i also like. there's no urgency whatsoever in this matter. —Pill (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

 Support as the most reasonable approach. --Túrelio (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Then, please restore the colorful map. I just protected it because I don't want a lot of reverts there. And honestly spoken, I don't want to participate in this war that was completely unnecessary and shows one more that discuss before taking action is important and there is no need to rush. Thanks -- RE rillke questions? 18:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The colorful map is for encyclopaedic use not suitedable and I do not see a majority for this. Apart from that the decision what kind of map should stay is to discuss here File talk:ARD Karte.svg. Here is the wrong place for that. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

AN/U section headings

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

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

Taxiarchos228

Taxiarchos228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User wrote here an old and here a new personal attack. I can't accept such a behavior. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

For those who don't want to have to look, both comments accuse people of revenge voting at FPC, first Alchemist, then Martin Kraft. I have to say, as personal attacks go, this is a refreshing change of pace from recent times. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Is that 4 u already personal attack? For me this is just comments out of a different view which professional people are able to ignore.--Sanandros (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It's against AGF certainly, I wouldn't really consider it a personal attack, more an unfounded allegation. Still, it's not nice to have people chucking that around. I am curious to know, what makes Taxiarchos think that people want revenge on him? -mattbuck (Talk) 18:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look here too. He is in two wikipedias blocked, indefinite. Now you can ask why ... It is simple UNPOSSIBLE to discus with him. "All people, no the world like only a revenge to him." --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Alchemist should keep his feet firmly on the ground. In both cases I have shown the obvious coherence between a disagreement and the afterward voting at FPC. To show this coherence is no personal attack. Essentially Alchemist seems to be very vengeful because he can't ignore any situation where he thinks he had to moralize - even in cases he is not involved like in this one. This is a kind of stalking, isn't it? --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing in the links you posted on the diffs Alchemist posted that would give a "revenge" voting reason. Nor do I see any evidence they are "revenge" voting. They seem to have reasonable objections to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you don't see because your language skills in german are not so good. Fact is, that Alchemist and I had a difference of opinion in Novenber 2011 as you can see here. Just two days later he voted with contra here and also at other candidatures of mine (I am just to lazy to search them out, but if it is important for you I will). Since November he stalks after my contributions like he did here. Actual he should be notifyed on this page. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)