Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:32, 26 April 2012

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 ^{[new section]}	User problems ^{[new section]}	Blocks and protections ^{[new section]}	Other ^{[new section]}
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}

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.

User:Mattbuck

Admin Mattbuck blocked me a few days ago because of this announcement. This is very strange and biased because of some points I will conduct now.

(1) Mattbuck was obviously not able to follow circumstance because he assumed me for thinks that never happend. See here.

(2) Maybe it was a misunderstanding or disinterest of mattbuck so he threatened me not to commend QI/FP-statements which he reputed to be personal assaults by me. I never insulted one person because he or she is voting against me pictures. But I surly question the voting if it is smelling like a revenge. And I never did this because of a disagreement which is some months back (like mattbuck tries to imply). But if my behaviour should be culpable than for sure the behaviour of others acting same like Jebulon did should be penaled in the same way. But curiously mattbuck did not noticed this although I pointed this out.

(3) Just a few minutes before he posted his threat at my discussion page he voted at a highly controversial candidature against my picture. Because I considered his acting as a provocation I asked him if I could take him seriously if he is joining a candidature, gives dubiously contra-reason and wants to play a neutral troubleshooter. This gives me strong misgivings - until now.

(4) The high point of this infamy was that mattbuck published without my agreement my mail I have send to him. This infringement of protection of privacy is an ignoble behaviour for an administrator.

(5) Conclusion: I detected now and then that mattbuck is not a very confident and calm admin. But this behaviour is not tolerable that he is blocking me although he is involved because, in fact he conscious get himself involved.

So I request to revoke his rights of admins because he did not expound to handle this rights with care but only for his one conception that has nothing in common with defence of this project. I contributed thousands of pictures to this project, concern other user with respect and await the same to me. Nothing more, but also nothing less. --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[]

This related to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_27#Taxiarchos228. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[]

You repeatedly claimed people were voting at QI/FP as revenge against you for some imagined slight that those people did not even remember. I warned you not to. Yes, I voted against your image at QI, because I did not think it was worthy of QI. As anyone who watches my edits there (none for past week, bad connection) can tell you, I tend to consider any overexposure to be an immediate reason for decline. Your image had overexposure, and was in my mind badly composed, so I voted against it. Your response to this was to send me an email in which you accused me of voting against you as revenge - the exact thing I had just told you not to do. Therefore I blocked you for 3 days. You did not appeal this block through use of {{Unblock}}, and so were unbanned 9 days ago. I see nothing more to discuss. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[]

(after EC) Comprehension of you was not to await. Please do not repeat untrue myths like some imagined slight that those people did not even remember. You obviously acted biased because you self involved, it was not up to you to make here a decision. It is totaly beside the point how many days this ban is ago because here is a hard aberration and exceeding of your authority. --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[]

As noted in the original discussion about you, you here and here accused people of voting in revenge. Then in that very topic about you, you did it again and again. Finally after I warned you, and after Walter Siegmund warned you, you did it again, this time via email. Your behaviour was to my mind unacceptable so I banned you. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[]

And don't forgott this. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[]

A very wrong block. Abuse of admin buttons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Taxiarchos228; You are welcome to discuss Mattbuck's behavior here, but to remove his admin bit, you must follow the process of COM:DESYSOP. Please note that "this process should only be used for serious offenses in which there seems to be some consensus for removal". --Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Between expiration of the block (9 days ago) and the start of this topic, I see no Taxiarchos228 edits to User talk:Mattbuck. Taxiarchos228, could you try to resolve this with Mattbuck, before you involve the community and propose excessive measures like a desysop? Ices2Csharp (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[]

What would that be good for? He would clearly risk a new block by Mattbuck! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[]

...Your opinion of me is that low? -mattbuck (Talk) 22:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[]

He sent you a wikimail, and you blocked him for that. The other day, I was blocked because I posted on someone's userpage by another admin. It is dangerous. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Was it you, who recently said: "Stop to feel sorry about yourself"? BTW, I thought you know that we use we use this great utilety? -- RE rillke questions? 23:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[]

I created that you know, because Saibo is my sockpuppet and Niabot is Saibo's sockpuppet. I, for the record, am Whitecat's sockpuppet, and I think he's Niabot's sockpuppet. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[]

It's such a pity that I can't be your sockpuppet. *cry* So who’s my sockpuppetmaster now? --Geitost ^diskusjon 00:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]

You do realize that a sockpuppet always has its puppetmasters arm up its behind, do you? ;-). --Dschwen (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]

I think that a block of Taxiarchos228 at the time was justified, as his repeated claims regarding the revenge votes were unwarranted, uncollegial and poisonous to the review atmosphere. But I agree that such a block should not have been done by mattbuck. In my opinion he was clearly involved. I also resent quoting private communications on-wiki, unless there is a clear agreement between the two parties users, that this is acceptable. I would be upset about that, if another user quoted email communications without my explicit acceptance. If I were mattbuck, I would apologize. --Slaunger (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Agree with slaunger here, although I can understand Mattbuck publishing the mail. This almost smells like baiting by Taxiarchos, and then trying to lawyer about breach of privacy is a bit phony. Anyhow, what is the deal with all these very weak calls for de-admin. With the "arguments" presented it looks like demanding the death penalty for a parking violation, at best. Of course there are always the usual suspects to chime in with "lynch the admin" cries. I'm waiting for a few more who apparently didn't get the memo yet! --Dschwen (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Slaunger's comments above are wise as are those of 25 March 2012 (Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_27#Taxiarchos228). To quote Slaunger, "I hope Wladyslaw will take this advice as he is also a great photographer and a very productive asset to the project, which was clear to me when I nominated his first FP on Commons." The quality of our reviewers ranges from high to low. We have only a few who are both expert and have good communication skills. For many photographers, I've noticed that FPC and QI cease to be helpful to them at some point. Taxiarchos228 may have reached that point. FPC and QI are not essential to Commons, but talented contributors are its foundation. Taxiarchos228 would be well-advised, I think, to take a break from FPC and QI. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[]
- It's remarkable: every one detects the clear misuse of mattbuck, but no one wants to pull the consequences that should be pulled in such a case. @Dschwen: I never said that mattbuck should be de-admined for ever, there is also the possibility to de-admin temporarily. But until now mattbuck didn't even apologize for his fault. Instead of giving me advices how to contribute in Commons we should stick to the question. Mattbucks misuse is not a single error but a long series of many minor and major faults. For a single fault it never would be worthwhile to write here. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

User:JBarta and File:Biographies of living persons.jpg

User:Dardan007 has uploaded the file:Biographies of living persons.jpg. The name and the English description are rather confusing considering that what we see is just a person with sleepy eyes. Does the image represent a biography cover, biographer or a person's picture from a book with biographical chapters? In this context, I placed a note at the talkpage of the file and User:Jeff G. ツ placed a talkback note at the uploader's talkpage. Since the file was uncategorised, I had added Category:Biographies because of the description. In this context, user:Jbarta has been tagging this file for rename without any target. He has also used derogatory language on my talkpage. I request the admins to help me with the rename issue.

Also, I wonder how a user can call a filemover "silly" (see:User_talk:Hindustanilanguage#rename)when he himself has tagged another file File:Pussy close to orgasm.jpg for deletion citing Commons:Nudity#New_uploads when the clear guideline is available on this very page:
If a file depicts some phenomenon or circumstance which we do not already have representations of (for example, diseases or body modifications) then it should be kept, as it adds to the educational content of Commons. Wikimedia Commons should have media depicting human anatomy in all its variety and diversity.

IS THIS AN ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR ON COMMONS? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC).[]

The real issue here (the one that caused this noticeboard posting) is over the proper use of the rename tag. While a completely and properly filled out rename tag is a wonderful thing, the tag is designed in such a way to allow simply placing {{rename}} which then calls rename needs target and lets other users see that a rename is requested and then possibly suggest a more proper name. This usage is perfectly acceptable and noted in the template instructions. Hindustanilanguage is resisting this and insists that the only way the tag can be used is to fill it out completely. – JBarta (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]

I hope admins will carefully look into the matter and also the language used in the communication. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC).[]

Update: Another user has renamed the file to a better, though still essentially useless name and has nominated it for deletion. While the rename issue regarding this image specifically seems to be put to rest, the reason for this post (on the acceptable usage of the rename tag in general) could still be addressed. – JBarta (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Good. Now set all your worries to rest and try to do something productive rather than worrying about a redundant file. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC).[]

No, I think it would be a good issue to resolve. That way one of us doesn't make the same mistake in the future. – JBarta (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Update 2: Seems one of the protagonists has altered the template documentation to more closely fit his views of proper usage. Having tired long ago of wiki-battles, and since admins here seem preoccupied with more important matters, I'll bow out here. From my perspective the issue is resolved. – JBarta (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

User:Tarc

What do we have here? [1] I see a personal attack and deformation of Saibo in this comment ("...since his friend Beta M..."), considering previous comments including the words "enabler" and of such kind by Tarc. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言 13:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]

First off, the odds that this is Saibo complaining about a comment directed at himself is the same as a coin toss, I'm not sure how seriously to take this.

Second, what we have here is Saibo, a user who has been strident and aggressive in his spirited defense of Beta M, going to far as to declare himself a intermediary who will investigate evidence allegedly provided by Beta M in order to exonerate him. I see nothing untowards about my comment, as Saibo's conduct since Beta M was banned has been downright deplorable. Tarc (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]

WOW. You just continue the allegations right now. I'm opposed to hear from you that there odds that i might be the same person as Saibo and I'm also opposed to hear that Saibo would support pedohilia, which includes myself in the odds. You should learn when it is enough. For me it is right at this point and I'm not willed to interact with people like you that are only here to discriminate other users or their actions by making vague or false statements. No greetings. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言 15:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]

I did not say that Saibo explicitly supports pedophilia, I said that Saibo supports Beta M, and that his incessant demands from the WMF to provide information that they are unable to provide is part of the reason I do not wish to see the block lifted. Tarc (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]

and inexplicitly? --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言 15:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]

I'd like to see evidence and reasons for a block. And I ask myself too: why is Saibo blocked and Tarc not? Sockpuppet of mattbuck? (bah, scnr) --Funfood ␌ 16:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]

I am not blocked because I have not violated any policies of this project. Certain people have their hackles raised because I hold an opinion contrary to their own. Tarc (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Because no one felt that Tarc needed a "cool down"? Saibo's block isn't based on policy, so I feel that the block ought to be remove. Let Saibo speak however fiercely as he or she wishes. Let Tarc speak however fiercely as he or she wishes. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Suarez, Saibo's block isn't just for the Beta M stuff, it has to do with his general disruptiveness and behavior in the last few weeks. Read mattbuck's rationale. As for Naibot, this person was just given a 48h block on en.wiki for disrupting Jimbo's talk page with a pedophile-related joke that didn't go over so well with the audience. Both (50/50 whether 'both' is necessary) behaviors are becoming a net negative. Tarc (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]

and again and again and again... That block is questionable to the core. I never intended such a usage of the words. All thanks belong to DC for serious investigation and presentation of something i didn't say. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言 17:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Tarc, one of the most problematic aspects of your editing on Commons is the import of problems from en-WP to here. Doing that is disruptive to the discussion here. Your accusations may go beyond being ad hominems (which is bad enough), and appear to be actual personal attacks on the Commons users who are getting in the way of your editing goals. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]

That is fairly ironic coming from a multiple-times-banned en.wiki editor who has brought those old en.wiki disputes to both Meta and now to Commons trying to get me into trouble. As far as "importing", um, no...the problem is right here at Commons itself and how it deals with problematic users...or how it doesn't deal with them, resulting in global locks. I have made no personal attacks here; in both this and the previous frivolous report, no one has actually be able to identify one. Tarc (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Thanks for proving my point Tarc. I asked you to stop importing problems to Commons, and you reply by making a personal attack on me, based on issues that you have imported from en-WP and Meta. This demonstrates exactly why I think you should not be editing here at all. The very important pedophilia issue could be dealt with much better by other Commons users who do not share your problematic approach. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]

I a not "proving" anything, other than pointing out that your claims regarding "importing problems" are demonstrably false. I have a problem with Saibo, Beta M, and Niabot on THIS project, and this project alone. I pointed out, however, how Niabot is becoming problematic on multiple projects. Are we clear? Tarc (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]

It would be great...if it were true, but I think it is not. You have regularly attacked those Commons users you think have gotten in the way of your editing goals. Often you have done that by importing issues from other projects. In general, you respond to obstacles to your editing goals with accusations and personal attacks. I wish you would leave dealing with the very important pedophilia issue to more capable Commons editors; and that you would leave Commons also, unless you have some image files you want to upload. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Malcolm, your claims to not reflect any reality of which I am aware. I have condemned a convicted felon and condemned those who didn't want to ban a convicted felon, neither of which qualify as personal attacks. My actions did not contravene any Commons policy, were squarely and completely in the right, I have no regrets, and will continue to do as I did if the need arises. My actions, and those of others (particularly the Wikipedia Review) were ultimately upheld by the Office Action that banned Beta M from the project. The reason I have had 2 complaints filed against me is because there are entrenched personalities in this project that did not like having their anthills kicked over. We all know that, even your friend Mbz1 recognized that above. I will not respond to you after this, as I refuse to be baited any further. Tarc (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]

ROFL. I can't take your wording serious if your first comment in this thread was to deepen/repeating the allegations against me, my sock siabo, saibo and saibos sock aka me. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言 18:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Tarc, everything I have said is based on edits you have made on this noticeboard. I know nothing about 'Office' actions against Beta M, nor about the history of Beta M; and I gave up on Wikipedia Review long ago because I consider it much more hopelessly defective than WP, which it claims to 'review.' Reading through your edits on this very page are more than enough to convince that you are the wrong person to deal with the problem which you have taken upon yourself to deal with. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Guys, why do not you stop now.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Yes, it should really be stopped now. Support a one week block for cooling-down, afterwards we all will see, if Tarc wants to contribute to Commons in a polite and useful way. Up to now, there's nothing useful in his whole edits in this project and also not on Jimbos talk page, where he was talking about Commons which had to be reigned by others. No, that's not useful editing here. He puts a big wedge inbetween the community, and the community has to deal with all these accuses and insults all the time. --Geitost ^diskusjon 21:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]
- This is all this ever amounts to; the same piling on by the same handful of names, making vague waves at "accuses and insults" without actually naming one. It is a fact that Beta M has been locked out of the project by the WMF. It is an opinion, based upon a plausible body of evidence up above that Saibo has been overly-aggressive in his support of Beta M's unblock. I have ruffled some feathers around here by pointing these things out. As I said in the first frivolous filing against me, I do not insult other editors, I do not edit-war, nor do I stalk or harass. Some people do not like the content of what I am saying, it isn't really about the saying itself. That is not a blockable offense on this or any other Wikimedia project, sorry. Tarc (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]
  - Hey Tarc, I can not speak for anyone else but your edit summery, "These supports come from those who oppose the message..", does not apply to me, and you know that. My objection is not your message on the pedophilia issue, but rather that your approach is doing more harm than good. Your presence here is, in my view, proving divisive and toxic. Please stop hiding behind the pedophilia issue to excuse your deplorable behavior on Commons. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]
    - Malcolm, I will stand corrected, as your "support" is driven by our old en.wiki Israel-Palestine animosity. As for "deplorable", you still cannot point to an actual deplorable comment. Tarc (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]
      - Hey Tarc, when I made this comment supporting you [2], I got blocked for a week by Rd232 who wanted the discussion closed. I was not driven by old disputes, but by what I thought the right thing to do. I would still be supporting you now, but have decided that your behavior here makes you the wrong person for dealing with the pedophilia issue. I wish you would get out of the way and let someone more capable deal with that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[]
      - I am more than capable with dealing with the problems in this project, and will continue to do so. I categorically reject the assertion that the line "since his friend Beta M", the spark for this Niabot complaint, was in anyway problematic. Time to unwatch this page for a bit. Tarc (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Magideleon

Magideleon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), after the removal of some copyvios she made, she wrote this in Pinal.jpg file description: yo misma tome la imagen, hijos de puta (translated from Spanish, it means i took the picture myself, sons of bitches). Allan Aguilar • talk • 23:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Comment. There are more insults from this user: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sistermagdolnagabor.jpg Allan Aguilar • talk • 23:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[]

And again: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sintitulo.jpeg. Allan Aguilar • talk • 00:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[]

2 semanas de reflexión Ezarateesteban 01:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Block review of user:Thekohser

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

The editor is unblocked.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

I believe Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)'s block of Thekohser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a bad block and should be overturned. Here's why:

There's nothing Thekohser said that was not said here before.
Fæ himself is arguing for "transparency and accountability".
russavia is not the right admin to block this editor, and here's why:

A)In his post to AN made at 17:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Russavia himself linked to mailing list and with this outed another editor. I cannot link to this post, but it is still there.

B)I do not believe that a user who believes it's OK to post these to Jimbo's talk "When I masturbate in public, I don't really feel any different than when I do it in private; can you possibly tell us why when you masturbate in public, it hurts? Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 19:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)"and "We should then have the hook,...DYK...Vladimir Zhirinovsky put a ring on his big cock, and then placed it between Ms XXX's tits? Let's see how you guys would handle that one eh. Lighten up.....geeeez. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 22:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)" is capabale of making intelligent decisions in general, and in particular the decisions about blocking an editor who is strongly opposing adding porno images to Commons.[]

Support unblock

--Mbz1 (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Oppose If you want to take a look at Thekoshers recent actions at the well known off-wiki trash collections, then I'm sure that the block is more then valid, regardless of anything that is or might be related to blocking admin himself. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言 16:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[]
Well, the blocking admin said the block has nothing to do with off-wiki activities. Besides if you are calling exposing a user who is supporting child love "off-wiki trash" I'd better stay with this "trash" than with a site that allows such users to participate. Besides aren't you yourself blocked on English wikipedia for posting to Jimbo's talk on wiki trash? Does it mean you should be blocked on commons too? Besides russavia himself is blocked on english wiki for 6 months partly for adding a racist cartoon to his user page. Does it mean he should be blocked here too? maybe it is not such a bad idea :-) Come on, your oppose reason is invalid.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Not really. I'm not talking about the overly repeat BM case. I talk about his recent actions on-wiki and his reactions to the block off-wiki that indicate that an unblock wouldn't be a good option. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言 17:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Well, as I demonstrated above the editor said nothing new that was not said before at this very wiki, and as I demonstrated above russavia, the blocking admin, explicitly stated:"...it is within your rights to publish whatever you like off-wiki under the guise of US freedom of speech". So reverting the block or keeping blocked should be decided in a simple logic exercise:
1. The blocking admin did not block the editor for off-wiki activities. The editor was blocked for on wiki activities.
2. The editor's on wiki activities were not a blockade offense as I demonstrated above.
3. Conclusion: the editor should be unblocked.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[]

"... the editor said nothing new that was not said before at this very wiki, ..."
Just because something was said elsewhere doesn't make it any better to post it again. Russavia surely hadn't this interpretation in mind, that you put together. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言 17:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Yes, right, but the thing is that is that this something was said not elsewhere, but at this very wiki, at a page that was heavily watched by probably most Commons admins, including russavia, and because the users who said it were neither blocked nor even warned, it it right to assume that it was OK to say it, and it probably was. Besides in a worst case scenario an editor should have been given a warning and not a month long block.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Support unblock. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[]

There is a current unblock request on thekohser's talk page, which any admin is welcome to review. I do ask that before any unblock is considered, that they contact me via email beforehand. In relation to this thread, with the unblock request on the talk page being current, this thread is moot. russavia (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

I don't see why the unblock being posted on his talk page makes this thread "moot" (which, to be pedantic, means "arguable" in its purest form). There's more discussion and more eyes here. Killiondude (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

I agree with Killiondude. Russavia previously said that Saibo's unblock discussion is "moot", because there was no unblock request, and this discussion is moot, because there is an unblock request. Hmm. --Trycatch (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Clearly russavia is an incompetent admin. For example why he requests email communications in this particular case? I see no reason whatsoever why this unblock could not be discussed on wiki. Now russavia blocked another user. I am not going to discuss the merits of the block, but russavia acted as an involved admin (not the first time), and admins should not use administrative tools while involved. Period.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Agreed that this wasn't a good block. If someone would like to make a proper case that DC has been harassing users on Commons, it would be nice to have a separate thread in which diffs and evidence are laid out. It seems in this case that Russavia assumed that DC was referring to Fae in some offhand comment (which by itself wasn't really harassment) and blocked when DC didn't retract said comment. Killiondude (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Support unblock – Stating the facts isn't harassment. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Support. Also unblock Delicious carbuncle already. For monkey's sake, it's obvious what's going on here. Russavia is abusing his admin powers by going after people that have dared to be critical of his, or his buddies', actions in the recent and not so recent past. He's lining people up against the wall and pulling the block trigger. It looks like he's trying to put into practice, though covered by some flimsy excuses, the (frankly idiotic) idea originally proposed by Mattbuck that anyone who comments at Wikipediocracy be automatically banned/blocked. All this while waving the NOTCENSORED flag around. At some point a discussion on a desysopping is very much in order. Admin tools aren't supposed to be used for personal vendettas.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]
- NOTCENSORED has nothing to do with personal attacks or dirt campaigns against users or user groups. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言 14:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]
- I think that Russavia does a good job as an administrator. I see no reason to desysop him. Besides, aren't the sysop permissions also granted to him because of his bureaucrat flag so that removing the sysop flag wouldn't affect anything? --Stefan4 (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Support unblock of Thekohser. Russavia was very involved, and should not have imposed this block. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Comment ~~A lot~~ The majority of account names here (in fact, I believe all support opinions so far expressed) seem very familiar to me from off-wiki canvassing over the last few months. Would those who are active on ~~Greg Kohs'~~ thekohser's off-wiki forum please do the decent thing and identify themselves as having a, quite specific, conflict of interest? I am sure this would help any admin considering what action to take and how to appropriately weight opinions here. If this is not done, then any "consensus" is very likely to have a later challenge of having been manipulated by a blatant travelling circus. By the way, anyone with doubts that "Thekosher" is ~~Greg Kohs~~ Gregory Kohs should take a look here on Commons at User:Thekohser where Thekohser says "I am Gregory Kohs". Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

By the way, anyone with doubts that "Fæ" is Ashley Van Haeften should take a look over here on Wikimedia UK at Ashley Van Haeften (Fæ) where Fæ says "Ashley Van Haeften (Fae)". -- Thekohser (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Thekohser and I aren't friends, and I don't owe any debt or allegiance to him. If anything, some might consider me to be one of the most disloyal members of the Wikipedia Review. I've leaked two whole 300 Club threads and many more screenshots onto Encyclopedia Dramatica:

http://encyclopediadramatica.se/File:Michaeldsuarez300ClubLeak.png (Selina's comment is a reference to my attempts to have some negative comments about Fæ removed as I've promised. Selina mistakenly believed that I was acting on Fæ's behalf instead of my own free will.)
http://encyclopediadramatica.se/File:MichaeldsuarezLeakGomi.jpg
http://encyclopediadramatica.se/File:MichaeldsuarezWikipediaReviewSuspended.png

I'm !voting because it's the right thing to do in my mind; I'm not doing this as a favor. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

(edit conflict)*:Fæ, I started the thread, and, yes, I am posting at off-wiki site you mentioned, but neither I nor anybody else I know of added the link to this thread. Fæ, it is improper to accuse anybody who posts to wikipediocracy to have "a quite specific, conflict of interest". There are different people there, and they have a different interests just as wikipedians do. I started this thread only because I believe the block was improper, and I provided quite a few arguments to prove my point. Of course you and everybody else is welcome to point out, where I got it wrong, but I assure you this thread has absolutely nothing to do with any special conflict of interest, except maybe trying to make Commons more fair place. Fæ, a few days ago I opposed tarc's block. I cannot stress strong enough what that user has done to me. He bullied, and harassed me on and off wiki beyond belief every time he saw my name. To give you only one example here's what tarc said about me on WR "I find it highly amusing that the fuckwit of the hour monitors this thread and used it to get Rd232 to turn her talk page access back on.What did you do Mila, promise him a blowjob someday? " Still, when I believed the block of that user was not warranted I opposed it. I hope that you,Fæ, will also find enough strength to put the fairness above your own feelings about off-wiki site.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

- Yep. Traveling circus on tour. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言 15:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]
  - That is nonsense. Even if every single user who supports the unblock had some sort of off-wiki contact with Thekohser, it does not follow that their arguments are invalid. The very claim is a cheap trick. As for myself, my only contact off-wiki with Thekohser was on a forum that I stopped participating in about two years ago, and our exchanges there were usually acrimonious disagreements over virtually everything. I do not support the unblock because of some supposed bias in his favor, but because the block was a misuse of administrative power that should not be allowed to stand. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Comment As I said above I am not going to discuss the merits of the block of DC, but IMO the user could have been blocked because of misunderstanding. It reminds me the situation, in which russavia himself was involved, when he said:"Sorry Fae, when the Committee announced it's meeting, we were expecting your attendance. We did contact your personal assistant, but they informed us that you were otherwise tied up and wouldn't be able to make it. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 03:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)" AGK interpreted this post by russavia as a PA against Fae: "Russavia, if I was just a little more sure that "tied up" in your reply to Fae is not the innocent idiom it purports to be, I would block you indefinitely for abusive behaviour. AGK 19:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)". And now russavia blocked DC because of kind of similar misunderstanding. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Unblocked by me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]
Well, in your justification you state that the user was unblocked due to consensus in this discussion. It is very easy to see that the "consensus" is formed by users coming from WR - a website founded and maintained by Mr Kohs - some of whom have little contribution on Commons and only show up here to vote. If we accept this as consensus, then it means they can just as easily influence every discussion - just show up and vote collectively. I did not express any opinion in this thread, since I thought no admin will take what is going on here for consensus, but, for the record, I was against the unblock of TheKohser, who just showed up here with a personal attack, bringing his external conflicts, after several months of inactivity. I find this unfortunate.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC) To add: I am not sure a week was justified, but this is an entirely different issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]
May be to clarify a bit. My problem is not so much that he was unblocked, but that the reason for overturning the block was "consensus", while there is clearly no consensus here.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]
Thekohser did not found WR, and as far as I know he does not maintained it either. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]
@Malcolm, he's talking about different site.

@Ymblanter, During russavia RFA there were many Russians, who never voted on RFA before. One of them even stated: "The Russians are coming Symbol support vote.svg Support --Алый Король (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)" Should we go ahead and cancel the result of this RFA because the voters probably had a specific COI, and quite possible were canvassed to the thread?--Mbz1 (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]
Even if I picked another reason besides "consensus" ya'll would have said it is not fair/we have to look outside the box/the day ends in Y. Ok, so he has an off-wiki site and made comments, big deal. I do, others do, and we are critical of the Commons at times. I saw nothing wrong here in the terms of the unblock and the block should not have been applied. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]
No, this is not correct. If you gave a different reason, for instance, that you reviewed the block and found that Russavia was in a COI situation, or that you think one day block is enough, or there was no reason to block, I might or might not accept your reasoning, but I would never contest your decision. You can still change the justification to an acceptable one. Please do not use the bad faith arguments in the future.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

No Mbz1, it is Ymblanter who is confused. He wrote "..the "consensus" is formed by users coming from WR - a website founded and maintained by Mr Kohs..", and that is incorrect. Ymblanter is confused, and arguing his emotions, while trying to make is sound rational. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

I do not think it is relevant at all for my argument, and I am not an emotional person at all. I just object to calling consensus what is not a consensus. This is my only point.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

I am neutral about this block/unblock affair and don't think it's a big deal, but I completely agree with Ymblanter -- the thing I see above is very hard to mistake for a "community consensus". @Mbz1. Russiavia's RfA was canvassed via ru-wiki, it's true, and I criticized this fact from the start (read my comment on w:ru:Википедия:Форум/Архив/Новости/2010/05#Russavia). But Russavia anyway got overwhelming support from the regulars, so even you'll remove the canvassed votes, it will not change anything. Canvassing was taken into account by the closing bureaucrat, later Russavia easily got bureaucrat flag himself without any canvassing, so I have no idea why you've decided to bring this thing up two years after. --Trycatch (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Thanks for the link! I was not aware about this. Why did I bring this RFA up now? Just as an example.

If nobody minds, I am going to mark this thread as "resolved" to reduce the drama. Of course, everybody, please, feel free to reopen it, if disagree.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

GIGO; Garbage in, garbage out. A bad block will result in a poisoned atmosphere, so someone stepping up to rectify such a mistake is all that is needed. Carry on, folks. Tarc (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

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

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

Independent review by a bureaucrat requested

This "consensus" was an incorrect rationale as an unblock justification when it has been already reported as manipulated by a travelling circus.

To then have the person raising the unblock request as the person halting further discussion is out of order. Since when did the off-wiki canvassing mob from ~~Greg Kohs'~~ thekohser's website start dictating how Wikimedia Commons processes ought to work, particularly as it relates to ~~Greg Kohs~~ thekohser himself?

Could we please have an independent bureaucrat summarize what has happened here and confirm or reject the rationale for Zscout370's unblock decision as stated. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

This is an out and out personal attack by Fæ on other Commons users. Since I am one of the users who supported the unblock, I challenge him to support his accusation against me. In my view, his accusation is both unsupported and vicious, and deserves a block for disruptiveness. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Comment out of curiosity why asking for a bureaucrat on the admin noticeboard ? --PierreSelim (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]
- In this context, I believe the role of Bureaucrat as defined by COM:Bureaucrats Community role is suited to the required review here. I can raise a note on Bureaucrats' noticeboard to flag this discussion for attention if you feel it would not be noticed. --Fæ (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

I don't think there's any need to take any further action here unless the blocking admin, who made a vague claim to relevant private information but hasn't commented here (I don't know if Zscout did talk to him, as the blocking admin requested), wishes to pursue the matter. Without relevant private information, the block was clearly unjustified, and pointing out that X, Y and Z agree it's unjustified doesn't change that fact. If there is anything so extraordinary here as to require bureaucrat review, it's the block, not the unblock. Rd232 (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]
- The rationale for overturning the block was stated as "consensus", not due to private information or due to the unblocking admin stating the original block was at fault. The discussion has been challenged as being actively manipulated by a travelling circus. An independent review is needed if the community is to have confidence in the outcome. That review may well assess the original block rationale, as well as the unblock rationale. This would address the additional concerns you are raising here. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Though I've no deeply-informed opinion about user:Thekohser and his block, I agree with Fæ that this unblock request was obviously a proof-of-concept study whether the well-known "travelling circus" etc. can influence decision-making on Commons, in which they regrettably have succeeded. If this request had really been about Mr. Kohs being possible to edit on Commons, he could have easily used his second account User:Thekohser (usurped), which had never been blocked. --Túrelio (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[]

are you really suggesting a user should have used an alternate account to evade a block instead of appealing the block? I seem to have wandered into an alternate universe here - how do I get back home? Rd232 (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Sorry to tell you this Rd232, but once you believe in the Kohser's methods, the ruby slippers just don't work any more. I have suggested a different path home on your talk page, it's just not as easy. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Please see Commons:Requests for comment/offsite discussions. Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[]

NB: There was, as far as I can see, there is only one oppose vote. It did not require a "traveling circus" to out vote a single oppose. Of the so called "traveling circus" that supported the unblock, the votes were from a editors who I have not previously seen in agreement on anything. Fæ's accusations seem both irrational and vicious, and I do not understand why he has not been blocked for disruptivness, nor even been given a warning. Considering the speed in which other users have been given blocks and warnings, this has become a fairness issue. Why has no administrator taken action against Fæ? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[]

I'm closing this discussion since the review request has been withdrawn on the 'crat board. If there is a change of heart, I'm willing to do a review of both the block and unblock, if the originating party wishes to disclose the private evidence to me. Otherwise it could be sent to higher powers, but the discussion here has run its course. --99of9 (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[]

P.S. Even without a review, I think a (voluntary?) interaction ban between Fæ and Thekohser would probably help all concerned... but that can be discussed in a different section. --99of9 (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[]

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

Possible account with an intent of impersonation

I've marked the file:Amanda Reznor.jpg for deletion based on the DR Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Colorareznor.jpg. The files are supposed to be uploaded by User:Amandareznor. I searched the internet and found an account on twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/amandareznor . She appears to be a writer. I wonder whether she has created an account or somebody else on her name, given the fact that only two edits exist in her global account.Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC).[]

Copyvio from [3] --Ezarateesteban 16:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Should this impersonating account not be BLOCKED? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC).[]

Are you sure it's not the same person ? --PierreSelim (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[]

I am not quite sure. But please tell me the policy about the files such as File:Combo_RGB_cropped.jpg - Individuals either own or as a reps of organisations/ persons register for Commons only to upload one or two images, if indeed they represent the organization/person. Thereafter, there is no contribution. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC).[]

inappropriate username Josestalin9 (talk · contribs)

The same as we hardly would accept a user impersonating Adolf Hitler, Josestalin9 is an inappropriate username IMO — notwithstanding the fact the this users only upload was a copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

My first reaction was to agree and move my mouse toward a block, and I don't mean to split hairs, but it is "Jose", not "Joseph" and Google shows that are people of the name "Jose Stalin". Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Jose Stalin is an alternative Spanish transliteration of Иосиф Сталин, as mentioned in Iósif Stalin. The IP address that added the copyvio upload to a Wikipedia article also made this edit. I don't think we lost a valuable contributor here. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[]

New account Josestalin (talk · contribs) a sockpuppet of Josestalin9 (talk · contribs)? --Túrelio (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Stalin is a surname in Sweden (sv:Kerstin-Maria Stalín for example). I really do not see the problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Mike letto (talk · contribs)

I have immediately indef'd this new user after he uploaded the 2 images File:Pedophile Mug Shot2.jpg and File:Pedophile mug shot.jpg, both images categorized into Homosexuality and Pedophiles and both showing the same fully identifiable person containing the descriptions "Hey kids!" resp. "My dates been in the bathroom for a long time". They were shot in a casual situation, indoor and gave not the slightest evidence of the uploader's claim. I've also deleted both images. A quick Google-images search gave no hits. In addition, I've asked legal/WMF for advise. --Túrelio (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Ok for me, good idea to ask legal/WMF. Please keep us informed if you can. --PierreSelim (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Creation of Wrong Category by SpacemanSpiff

SpacemanSpiff has created a wrong Category:Sheetal_Mallar. I think it will be appropriate to rename it to Category:Sheetal Malhar. See. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC).[]

Hi Hindustani, categories and their correct names are to be discussed at COM:CFD. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Creation of "bulk images" category to avoid crowding specific categories.

I'm maintaining Category:Synthesizers for several years. Today, I've created Category:Musicians with synthesizers (bulk images) under Category:Musicians with synthesizers to avoid crowding categories by almost same bulk images. However, administration User:A.Savin revert it and he/she said he/she will block me if I try to it again.

In my eyes, his/her action is not reasonable because he/she didn't try to form consensus through discussion before reverting it.

Is his/her action right as administrator of Wikimedia Commons ? I'm glad if I could read your sincere advices. best, --Clusternote (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Read Commons:Categories. The scope of a category is to make images easier to find according to their topic. Neither Category:Musicians with synthesizers (bulk images) nor Category:Musicians with synthesizers on Schallwelle 2012 which you attempted to create recently seem helpful for that issue. An inferior category should not be created just to split up the superior one. And you should not arrogate to call images "bulk" when they are in project scope and of acceptable quality. - A.Savin 11:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Commons:Galleries could be used to gather set of "best" and most representive pictures about given subject. A.J. (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Relevant quote: Categories should contain all files related to the subject while galleries should contain a sample of files related to the subject. Ideally, galleries should contain the best of what we have. All files should be in at least one category, but not all files should be in a gallery.. A.J. (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[]

I'm calling "bulk images" for almost same images such like below. These almost same images are unnecessary crowding the category and disturb easiness of finding of desired images.

Schallwelle 2012 - Frank van Bogaert

File:Schallwelle_2012_Img33_-_Frank_van_Bogaert_01.jpg
File:Schallwelle_2012_Img34_-_Frank_van_Bogaert_02.jpg
File:Schallwelle_2012_Img35_-_Frank_van_Bogaert_03.jpg
File:Schallwelle_2012_Img36_-_Frank_van_Bogaert_04.jpg
File:Schallwelle_2012_Img37_-_Frank_van_Bogaert_05.jpg

Schallwelle 2012 - Frank van Bogaert - with Erik Wollo
File:Schallwelle_2012_Img38_-_Frank_van_Bogaert_06 - with Erik Wollo.jpg
File:Schallwelle_2012_Img39_-_Frank_van_Bogaert_07 - with Erik Wollo.jpg
File:Schallwelle_2012_Img40_-_Frank_van_Bogaert_08 - with Erik Wollo.jpg
File:Schallwelle 2012 Img41 - Frank van Bogaert 09 - with Erik Wollo.jpg

On this situation, by sub-categorizing these almost same images under "... (bulk images)" category, the outlook of upper category became clear, and user can easily find desired image except for almost same images. Also these almost same images can easily find through musician categories (for example, Category:Frank van Bogaert) described on sample image left on upper category, or CatScan utility.

Originally, my intention of creating Category:Musicians with synthesizers is not for the place holder of bulk images, but for the almost unique images of each musicians/instruments pair, as already written on top of category: "There should be only one image/video per each musicians to avoid crowding of category.". And this explicit rule is already accepted on various similar categories including Category:Guitarists with guitars hierarchy, Category:Bassists with instruments hierarchy, etc, etc. --Clusternote (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[]

This "one-musician-rule" is purely your invention, no comparable category forbids multiple files of the same subject. If you want to establish such limitations, you should start a proposal on COM:VP or at discussion pages related to categories. - A.Savin 13:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[]

+1 to what A.Savin said. I believe Clusternote is confusing categories for galleries. Galleries: Galleries exist to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons. Usually, they are created to give a sample or overview of all the media on a given topic. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Hi, PierreSelim. It is not my original idea. Similar rule is already realized on several other categories, and these are well functioned by cooperation of users. --Clusternote (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Hi, A.J. Thanks for your suggestion. Probably above categories (Category:Guitarists with guitars, etc) may be worked as somewhat "category as gallery" which is not yet widely accepted notion on Wikimedia Commons.

On guitar relating categories, the users are so friendly and almost cooperative, thus, these implicit notion ~~suggested~~ realized by other user have been virtually accepted without explicit discussions.

However, synthesizer category seems not (I didn't know it until today). Probably we need new consensus to create category excluding bulk images (if this idea is accepted). --Clusternote (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Categories are usable through the upload wizard for exemple where users won't see the notice whether it's a gallery category or not (I can think also of cat-a-lot, etc.). It means just this usage is wrong by design, users can and will not see your implicit rules. Really you should be looking for galleries it was design for the usage you want.--PierreSelim (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[]

I know well about these issue. Category:Musicians with synthesizers is not matched with any Wikipedia category, thus, it may be almost ignored at uploading, then volunteers including me may manually copy them to the category if it is appropriate. Therefore, invisibility of notice at uploading may be no problem at all.

On the other hand, gallery on Wikimedia Commons is not what is needed on this issue. The issue to be solved is crowding of category caused by almost same images. best, --Clusternote (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[]

It doesn't need to be matched on Wikipedia to be used. One last time you should look for gallery. Your usage is just totally different than the usual usage on Commons, if you want to change things like this you must discuss first (it's not the other way around). --PierreSelim (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Thanks for your kindly advice. What I explained above is already realized on Guitar related categories by other users to solve several problems, and it seems almost accepted by others including me as practical and rational idea, thus I expect it may be also useful on synthesizer category. However, my expectation seems not appropriate (probably because this idea is slightly hard to understand without enough experience on re-organization of thousands of not well organized or possibly un-categorized media). I withdrew the proposal, and later I'll try to resolve the issue by other means. Thanks. --Clusternote (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[]

First, indeed, Clusternote maintains the music instrument categories very well since many years. Obviously, "bulk image" categories are not a good idea, basically we should have some stacking system to pile up similar images series (possibly in various file formats). On the other hand, Category:Musicians with synthesizers on Schallwelle 2012 was a good idea. As this does not sound acceptable neither, we have to filter more strongly. I removed some of the Schallwelle images from [[:Category:Musicians with synthesizers as they did not really showed the musician AND the synth; they might basically suggest the presence of a synth or because the author knows that there was a synth. --Foroa (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[]

You could include a gallery in the description of the category ? It would keep the idea of showing a limited amount of picture and won't ruin the category system. --PierreSelim (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Problematic category moves by NeverDoING

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

Recently I uploaded some images and created a new category for them [4], and yesterday ‎user:NeverDoING moved them all to Category:Triple spiral. I left an explanation on NeverDoING's talk page [5] explaining why he/she should not have done that. But because NeverDoING is a German speaker, I asked A.Savin to translate my message which he did.

But the problem seems to go beyond language, and NeverDoING has now made a number of category moves that seem problematic. For instance he/she moved 'Category:Historic Buildings in Fort Worth to Category:Historic buildings in Texas', and 'category: Historic buildings in Fort Worth' no longer exists. Actually, 'Category:Historic Buildings in Fort Worth' should have been made a sub-category of 'Category:Historic buildings in Texas' (if it was not already). [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]

Could something be done to restrain NeverDoING's enthusiasm for moving categories until he understands what he is doing? I have notified NeverDoING of this thread. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Actually, the category Category:Historic Buildings in Fort Worth never existed in the first place, and this is a common procedure here on Wikimedia Commons to move files from an non-existing category to a more general one (especially when it comes to geography-related categories). A very similar situation applies to Category:Celtic spirals: you had placed many images in a non-existing category, and NeverDoING simply moved them to an existing one, in this case Category:Triple spiral (shouldn't be it plural, by the way?) per the English Wikipedia definition (more details on NeverDoING's talk page). For more information on categorising images on Commons, please refer to Commons:Categories; and please, don't bring such topics to this noticeboard before trying to actually talk to the user in question. Thank you! odder (talk) 08:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[]

I did try to talk to the person in question, to no avail. I also asked an administrator if bringing the discussion to a Commons noticeboard would be the best course, and he suggested I bring it here. I do not know if Historic Buildings in Fort Worth existed as a category, but NeverDoING's edit summaries to 13 files said he was moving them from that category to another. I do know for certain that Celtic Spirals existed as a category because I had created that category myself, and NeverDoING seems to have obliterated it when moving the images I uploaded to category Triple spiral; where most of them do not belong because they are not triple spirals. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[]

This is actually not true; the logs tell me that Category:Celtic spirals was created by NeverDoING on April 19, and you placed some files into this non-existing category as early as on April 17. Additionally, you have left just one message on NeverDoING's talk page, then asked A.Savin for help with translation, and then asked him again whether you shouldn't bring this topic to a Commons noticeboard, without trying to contact NeverDoING for the second time. I see that A.Savin indeed suggested bringing this topic into here, but it doesn't really justify not contacting the user for at least a second time before doing so (in my opinion). I am not an expert in Celtic symbols, so I won't go into details about the merits, but I believe that NeverDoING acted upon the suggestion of an English Wikipedia article on triple spiral. odder (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Hey Odder, I created the category for these files when I uploaded them, and I intend to add more to Category:Celtic spirals when I can get this mess straightened out. As for your other comments, they are either also wrong, or do not make any sense. All I want is for the Category:Celtic spirals to be restored, and the files returned to them. That seems a rational expectation, and it seems simple and easy to understand. I do not think that is asking for much. (I think NeverDoING has made a mess with other categories that he has moved, but if no one else on Commons cares about that, then screw it.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[]

(EC) Let's not exaggerate the problem, Malcolm. You created a number of images with a non existing Category:Celtic spirals. We routinely spot such "upcoming" categories and the first thing we try to do is to merge check if there is a real need for a new category or it belongs rather to another existing category. So NeverDoING was under the impression that it was belonging to Category:Triple spiral, a corresponding Celtic symbol, so he moved it overthere.

Similarly, he spotted the non existing Category:Historic Buildings in Fort Worth with a capitalisation error. There is a debate going on historic buildings as the definition is unclear, and basically, nearly all buildings are historical one way or another. So he moved it to an existing higher level one Category:Historic buildings in Texas; it makes no sense to spread the historic building problem even deeper in the category trees. A move to Category:Buildings in Fort Worth, Texas might have been better, but correct categorisation never ends. --Foroa (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Foroa, I uploaded the files on 17 April. I created Category:Celtic spirals on 18 April. NeverDoING moved Category:Celtic spirals to Category:Triple spiral on 20 April [19]. I explained to NeverDoING that he had made a mistake, but he was not interested. But, you know what: Forget I even asked. The files are in a wrong category, but that's just one more Commons SNAFU. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Actually, there is clearly a valid point here. I am not really happy with the fact that this file is in the category which is included in Category:Celtic symbols. I first thought about recreating Category:Celtic spirals as a subcategory of Category:Triple spiral, but this is also not a good solution since not all Celtic spirals are triple. Celtic spirals seem to originate from the Newgrange symbopls, which are the same but not Celtic. Any ideas how to solve this?--Ymblanter (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[]

It had been my intention to make 'Celtic spirals' a subcategory of Category:Celtic art. Additionally I intended to make subcategories for Celtic Knots, Celtic Step patterns (also called 'key patterns'), Celtic animal patterns, and Celtic 'tree of life'. These are all recognized categories in Celtic Art. All the images I uploaded on 17 April were from a section of the book by J. Romilly Allen (called 'Celtic art in pagan and Christian times') on Celtic spirals, so I kept them together; although the Newgrange spirals could be separated out. Allen's book is still considered one of the best scholarly studies on Celtic art, even though published more than 100 years ago. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Yes, I have just seen that there are some spirals in the book which are not (or at least do not look like) triple spirals. Otherwise, there could be a category of Category:Celtic spirals which belongs to both Category:Celtic symbols (or Category:Celtic art), and Category:Triple spiral.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Yes. That seems a logical approach. Aside from the two Newgrange images, only one of the other images is definitely a triple spiral. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[]

As someone who has uploaded a lot of Triple spiral images, they're not all Celtic, and I'm not sure I see any need for a distinctive category for spiral images which are Celtic-but-non-triple. There's also an existing category Category:Celtic knots and three or four categories with "tree of life" in their names. AnonMoos (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[]

AnonMoos, I have no idea why 'triple spiral' is a category, instead of an image gallery. About the only thing to be found on the subject, in a web search, is the WP article, which is also mostly your own work. There is no apparent rational reason for the category. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Not sure what that's about -- there's a Category:Triple spiral because we have at least 63 images of triple spirals (only about half by me). We could create a gallery of some of the best triple spiral images, but that would not mean that the category should be deleted. The article "Triple Spiral" is in fact not really mostly by me, and the Newgrange stone is rather famous quite independently of anything I've ever done. Put "triple spiral" into Google image search, and you can turn up thousands of triple spiral images not by me... AnonMoos (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[]

revision 70081813 by 200.3.222.40

A user by the IP address cited above attempted to stealthily remove a key argument of the DR Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Carta_a_Videla._Andrés_Belguich.jpg. I've undone this move. I wonder if this represents the IP of the uploader. My main focus here is to inform that the key argument of the DR cited above can now be removed by a person with vested interest to see the file remains intact. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC).[]

No big deal. The IP just did one edit and this was blatant vandalism. --High Contrast (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Inspite of all these attempts, the file has been deleted. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC).[]

Shania Twain Portugal

Shania Twain Portugal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

She still uploads copyvios besides warnings. Ralgis 17:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Comment Hello! You must tell User:Shania Twain Portugal on his talk page that you have posted a something about her/him here on this noticeboard. --High Contrast (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Info I've done this on her talkpage for Ralgis. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC).[]

Perfect. Let's see what she/he is saying to this. --High Contrast (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Comment Good night, do not understand what is at issue, just published a flickr image with a license different from what was there because in the Commons there was a license that was in filckr, I thought the issue was resolved because the image was deleted. If you are referring to this http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:S%C3%ADlvia_Rizzo.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1, but has been eliminated by that I do not see what problem. All other images are loaded for me in the right way, by the way OTRS, only awaiting verification by a volunteer. So I'm not even notice the problem, I'm sorry but my English is not very good. thanks, Shania Twain Portugal (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Because you tagged the image with cc-by-2.0 instead of the correct cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 (which is a speedy deletion tag due to the noncommercial restriction). --Denniss (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Hmm ok, I understand, is that I had not realized that the license was different from what I put, that's why there did not appear, thanks. By the way, someone could help me accompanying the request for permission to OTRS the following images: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Agarra_que_%C3%A9_honesto.png and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vai_de_Email_a_pior.png, is that I've asked several OTRS volunteers help but none helped me, will you I can indicate some specific volunteer you do not mind helping me? thanks, Shania Twain Portugal (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Lordquinn (talk · contribs)

I have indef blocked this new user, as he tried to use Commons to solicit sexual contacts, either seriously or as a very bad joke, per the descriptions of his 3 low-quality penis-homeshot uploads ("I like it when females make fun of my tiny penis. If you are female and interested contact me via email." and "I like it when women laugh and make fun of it. If you are interested in poking fun at it leave me a message."). Other opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Fully agree - pretty sure that is a sock - I eliminated similar sometime in the past couple of months I am pretty sure. Same posting style etc however CU shows nothing for this one - will dig more later. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[]

User:189.70.92.232

Not a vandal, per se, but certainly a troll... Anons should not be closing deletion requests. Also consider his deletion reasoning here... he's arguing the file should be deleted because it's in black and white?? -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 04:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Please check suspect contributions from an user

Hello, I'm an admin in it.wiki. I discovered that User:LucaChp loaded several images in Commons in explicit copyright violation (the pictures are all evidently marked with a "©" sign). I was able to mark some of them for speedy deletion, where I was able to evidence it, but this user uploaded also many other contributions, all of them in the very short term. I'd kindly ask the admins here on Commons to have a check also on the other contributions by this user, since I suspect there could be further copyright infringements. Many thanks. --L736E (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[]

I've got rid of a few. Looking at a number of them though the EXIF info is of the same camera and the standard of photography is the same so those ones I guess are legit. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Rename requests of unknown IP address holders

I would like to know the esteemed opinion in connection with an angry message by an unknown IP addressee on my talk page. As a safety measure I refused the renaming requests. But the IP addressee is outsmarting me by reverting my denial and probably unknowingly an admin / filemover would have renamed the files by now. Please advice and look into the intentions of this user. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC).[]

Should anyone wish to contact me about the above, or any of my other edits, please add a comment to my talk page. Answers may be delayed (dinner time). I am unlikely to check this page for commments. 212.10.73.34 18:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[]

And by the way, this isn't about "outsmarting" anyone. This is about two files with misleading names, me requesting a rename, and you refusing solely because it was made by an IP (evidently without any checking; you could have asked me or followed the recommendation in my comment on your talk). The files are still on the misleading names, but at least they now have the rename requests. The reverts were also peculiar because the request for rename was reverted, but my corrections to the identification in the Description box and categories weren't. 212.10.73.34 18:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[]

What stops you from having an account? Consider this: I give a check of $5,000 to John who has some identity (at least name) and another situation where some X comes and asks for same and I blindly had it over to him. Is there any difference? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC).[]

By the way its post midnight in my country and I'm diving into the bed. Discussions, if any, involving me, shall continue tomorrow. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC).[]

I do not know this bird, but file:Monasa_nigrifrons_6.jpg clearly does not fit in Category:Monasa nigrifrons. The name must be wrong. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[]

@Hindustanilanguage: That example ("$5,000 to John") is irrelevant to wikipedia. It appears you are suggesting that assume good faith only is something registered users should expect. IP edits = assume bad faith?! Even if you feared sneaky vandalism, you could easily have done something to actually check this: You did not ask me to provide details for the identification, you did not base the revert on my other edits (~40 edits, none with any problems, before you revert), you did not check the identification yourself (two very different species; dark grey plumage & red beak vs. barred black-and-white plumage & grey beak), and you did not check the flickr source of the files (which has the correct ID). Your edit summary made it perfectly clear why it was reverted; solely because the edit was by an IP. If that was a valid reason, IP editing wouldn't be possible on wikipedia. And when I pointed you to your mistake, your reaction was to add a message here, asking others to "look into the intentions of this user". Contrary to the suggestion in your first post I am not angry (and if it appeared like that, my mistake), but I am certainly puzzled by your actions and hope this is a one-off. 212.10.73.34 00:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[]

On this very Commons, one user gave threat to my very existence. Another user used the term "riding on a high horse" for my humble efforts to maintain norms. But there are two points which need clarification and probably admins can help us out:

Should filemovers like myself view the rename requests by IP address holders as much trusted as account holders?
Opinion of others like Pieter Kuiper with regard to the request.

I've no ill feeling for 212.10.73.34 (Denmark User). But my friendly and humble request to you is please have an account because:

Your edits will be viewed more credible.

Each person can edit from at least four locations (4 IPs) : home PC, laptop, family member's PC and may be office / university PC. Possibility of inadvertent situation where two persons edit from the same IP is high. Whereas your occasional edits even from a totally new IP will be recorded your account. Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC).[]

Anyone can edit under IP, and you should not assume the quality of the edit by the username or IP. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Congrats, 212.10.73.34, you've made a point. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC).[]

Regarding the rename request, I would have accepted it, despite the very bad quality of the pictures it's almost certain the IP had the good identification. --PierreSelim (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Since I was busy with other file-moves, categorization and other activities, I didn't carry out the renaming personally but I s'pose someone from our filemovers' brotherhood might have done it already. But tell me Pierre, will you not at all insist on 'desirability' if not 'necessity' of having user-id? Is it really bad that I am tagged as Hindustanilanguage and you are PierreSelim when we could just type and happily be part of our close-knit Wiki World and avail its goodies? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC).[]

Ottava Rima

Ottava Rima (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Ottava Rima was blocked more than three months ago in consequence of this discussion which asks for a public discussion before an unblock can be done. Some days ago, Ottava Rima posted an unblock request on his talk page with a rationale of "Yeah" which was subsequently declined. Today, Ottava Rima stated that he is ready to open a discussion. Ottava Rima contacted me via IRC, asking for support. I told Ottava Rima that I will post at this board as soon as I see a statement by him in response to the closure that lead to the block. This statement has now been posted at his talk page. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Does "Admins have been so unfair and you shouldn't block a contributor that has uploaded so much good stuff" really deserve consideration?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[]

He was blocked on the basis of being unable to work constructively with other people. Herby declined the "yeah" unblock as he assumed that Ottava would post a more comprehensive unblock reason, and so thought the account might be compromised. Ottava's response, rather than taking this onboard and coming up with a better reason, was to immediately claim it was harrassment and a conspiracy against him. He has not changed, he will not change, he should stay blocked. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Just to say that I was probably wrong to decline the unblock request with hindsight. However - to me - an unblock request based on "Yeah" simply was not serious and showed no indication of wishing the deal with the issues that had been raised. Fairly obviously I will not have anything further to do with the unblock request although I think OR is wrong to declare that certain people cannot deal with him - he is a user like everyone else. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Comment Ottava Rima was given few second chances already [20], however the discussion closure in January is clear to me, if Ottava Rima would agree on the condition listed here he could be unblock after a month. If he does not respect those conditions we have the possibility to reinstate the block. Now, I'm puzzled because I don't find it clear that Ottava Rima fully agrees with thoses condition while reading his talk page: here he agrees with the conditions, here it doesn't matter what he says, and there he requests a review of the original block. To conclude, I'm not opposed to the unblock however I'm not totally convinced it will last very long. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[]

I'd like to hear his "agreement with conditions" in his own words, because I also find unclear exactly what he agrees to or how he plans to behave. --99of9 (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Comment I'd like to thank Herby for his comment! Anybody could make a mistake, but only fair and brave ones admit they did. mattbuck has no business commenting neither here nor at Ottava's talk page, not after that barnstar he gave to another editor. Now about Ottava, I believe Ottava should be satisfied with Herby's comment and drop his request at looking into original block. Now it is time to look forward, not back. Of course some could say that I did not use my own advise towards Gwen Gale, but there was a different story. If it were concerning only me alone, I would not have submitted the RFC. Only because she has bullied dozens of users, including but not limited to 16-years old kid to the extend he felt as killing himself, and a world known expert who left wikipedia because of her, I did not feel as keeping silent was the right thing to do. I know it is hard for Ottava to admit he was wrong especially, if he's sure he was right. So let's drop the request about admission. If Ottava withdraws his request of looking into original block,and promises to let go on his charges against Herby, I believe he could be unblocked. After all any user could be reblocked by an uninvolved admin, if a problem persist. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[]
The barnstar was a bit of sarcastic humour, albeit yes, in bad taste. Such humour should not preclude me from being able to comment on matters in which I have been involved. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[]
That barnstar was a baiting of a blocked editor, and it was not the first time you did it. I believe I read somewhere at that very board that you published an email a blocked editor sent to you. You are an admin, and you should be especially sensitive to these kind of things. It is so easy to become a bully. May I please ask you to read what an admin HJ Mitchell said about never ending bullying of admin sandstein: "The way you dish out blocks is worse than any admin I've ever seen, but you cannot or will not accept that there is a problem. You lack the judgement, and the thickness of skin, to do the job properly; you lack the compassion, humanity and humility to admit it when you fuck up (and we all fuck up Sandstein, even you); and you lack the perspective to be imposing blocks." Although it was said on English wikipedia about sandstein, and about blocking, but sadly it applies to many admins at every WMF project, including Commons, and bullying could express itself differently, not only in imposing blocks. We all should exercise compassion and humanity towards another ~~users~~ human beings, and if we " fuck up" we should be compassionate and fair to admit it just to make this another human being to feel better. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Would you please refrain from this kind of attacks, that can be read between the lines, which have no correlation to reality and have little to nothing to do with the outrage from Ottava? --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言 21:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[]

The reason I supported Ottava Rima's block was because in what should have been neutral discussions he would quickly escalate to personal attacks and accuse long-term editors of intent to damage Commons. Some people lose their temper and do such things, but even when calm Ottava Rima has never seemed to recognize that his behavior is less than productive. Now that he's been blocked, he posts an unblock message where the closest thing to admitting that he could behave better is basically a claim that he should get a pass for being a good contributor, and says of Mattbuck "Such people should really have no ability to participate in any kind of discussion as they use admin tools as just another way to spread hate."[21] If he's continuing the behavior that got him blocked while asking for an unblock, why should we think that he'll do anything different when unblocked?--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[]

I do not support an unblock. Looking at his talk page, it is littered with nothing but attempts to find fault at his original block, whether it's how it was applied, who applied it, or who weighed in on the discussion about doing a block. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Comment Why was this thread even created? The initial unblock request was so ridiculous the responding admin thought it might be an imposter, and there hasn't been another. Nor has there been a clear statement by Ottava addressing the conditions set out in the Block decision, namely Admits responsibility for, and commits not to continue... (I won't quote the list here). But Ottava's subsequent comments on his talk page give every impression that he does not recognise why he was blocked, and does not intend to try to address the problems. It is also worth remembering that in the past Ottava has been unblocked on the basis of a clear endorsement of an edit restriction, which he then subsequently repudiated (Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_32#Breach_of_previous_restrictions) without consequence. As the lengthy block discussion showed, Ottava has acted in a certain way for a very long time, across multiple projects. There is no sign whatsoever of that changing. But in the absence of a serious unblock request, why are we even talking about it? Rd232 (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Block query

Spotting the latest contributions of this user I've placed a block to prevent further disruption. the name will probably ring a bell with a number of users. The history of copvios and some previous vandalism (combined with the RfA/RfCU etc) suggest to me that others should have some input into this. I really an not sure whether it is time for a much longer block (or indef)? Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[]

I begin to think it's a vandalism-only account. And given the fact he's also blocked indef on en-wiki I'd support an indef block here as well. Trijnstel_talk 13:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[]

I just noticed Billinghurst globally locked the account, which means he can't login on any Wikimedia project anymore. Trijnstel_talk 13:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[]

As this account has been globally locked and Trijnstel 've said above, I have blocked it indefinitely. But please tell me whether the email/talk page function should be blocked or not. Regards--Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[]

COM:BLOCK gives no support for blocking email and talk page access. And that global lock also seems a bit over the top, to put it mildly. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Given the belief apparently that the account is compromised the lock seems fine for now. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[]

User:Juicybnana

I believe User:Juicybnana is an alternate account of User:Juicyyummybanana. Juicyyummybanana was previously brought to AN/U (by myself) here, for uploading useless exhibitionist pics. Juicybnana now appears to be doing the same thing. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[]

Abuse of multiple account - blocked, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[]

I blocked Juicyyummybanana now as well. Trijnstel_talk 12:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 <br/>
 __TOC__
-== User:Saibo ==
-{{discussion top|Closed as suggested by Túrelio and agreed to by Rd232 until Saibo's temporary block expires. --[[User:AFBorchert|AFBorchert]] ([[User talk:AFBorchert|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)}}
-{{user14|Saibo}}
-'''We need to talk about Saibo.''' Whilst I'm not the best person to raise this, having had a number of disagreements with him, somebody has to, so here goes.
-# In February Saibo disrupted a discussion about how to handle a particular class of copyright violations and beyond this review PD status of all PD files ([[Commons:Requests_for_comment/PD_review]]): My attempt to deal with this disruption was met with Saibo accusing me of "vandalism" and even [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FVandalism&diff=67732340&oldid=67732083 reporting the issue to COM:ANV] ([[Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_26#Arbitrary_discussion_deletion_by_Rd232|subsequent AN/U thread]]).
-## The background to this behaviour is the extraordinary belief (especially for a Commons admin!) that Commons is not subject to US law, and that therefore enforcing policies mandated by US law ([[COM:URAA]]) is ''try[ing] to convert "Commons" to "US Commons"'', as his user page still declares.
-# In mid-March, following the global lock of Beta M, Saibo ([[Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_26#User_Saibo|AN/U thread]]) [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASaibo&diff=68405157&oldid=68382685 inserted on his userpage] a false claim that he had been locked by [[User:WMFOffice]] as an [[Commons:Office action|office action]]. The edit summary accompanying it mimics the global block log entry of [[User:Beta M]]. Saibo also created [[Commons:Office actions/User blocks]], and [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Office_actions&diff=prev&oldid=68405754 added] a link to it from [[Commons:Office actions]]. This follows a [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Geni%27s_allegations_against_Beta_M&diff=prev&oldid=68383536 request] that he be blocked by the Office himself.
-## In the space of 4 hours, Saibo reverted this 4 times [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Saibo&action=history], before finally settling on [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Saibo&diff=68419556&oldid=68414670 a variation of the message] which remains to this day.
-## Saibo continues to refer to the removals of his notice as "vandalism".
-# Saibo is developing [[User:Saibo/WMF]], which includes misleading statements like WMF blocking Beta M ''for unknown reasons''. A detailed public justification of the global lock is not possible, but it is clear from the explanation and context ([[Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Geni's_allegations_against_Beta_M#Global_lock]]) what the reasons are.
-# In April, Saibo acts on behalf of globally locked user Beta M, effectively [[Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Geni's_allegations_against_Beta_M#Postscript:_attempt_to_appeal_an_Office_action_to_the_Commons_community|attempting to appeal an Office action to the Commons community]]. The community cannot overturn an Office action, and since the Office cannot and will not engage in detailed public discussion of the matter, it is impossible in any case for the community to review the decision. Re-opening discussion on this topic which so divided Commons only recently is entirely unnecessary.
-## In response to my [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Geni%27s_allegations_against_Beta_M&oldid=69644429 courtesy-blanking] (per prior discussion, as noted [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rd232&diff=69659176&oldid=69647233 here]) and protecting the Beta M subpage, Saibo re-opened the discussion, with the unprotection log entry including the phrase [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Commons%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard%2FUser+problems%2FGeni%27s+allegations+against+Beta+M Thanks for not manipulating discussions].
-## Saibo continues to badger WMF community liaison staff to reverse an Office action agreed at the highest level ([[User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#Why_did_you_block_a_user_without_a_reason.3F]], [[User_talk:Mdennis_(WMF)#WMF_fails_to_provide_a_reason_since_2012-03-16]]).
-## Saibo gets annoyed by an editor, and starts [[Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Tarc_.E2.80.93_here_to_contribute|an AN/U indef-block request]], saying ''he does nothing here [[Special:Contributions/Tarc|nothing-except-bullshit contribs]]''.
-# Saibo claims to have retired, but continues to contribute, and continues to use admin tools, including (11 and 12 April - [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Saibo logs])
-## reblocking a user with the block log summary ''Creating pages out of project scope after warnings: (back to original - Alison seems to be in a rage ...)''
-## Not once but ''twice'' [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Mein_penis_und_ringelsocken.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 undeleting] a file deleted via a DR. The DR had been speedy-closed as the (classic [[COM:PANTS]]...) file clearly falls under [[Commons:Nudity#New_uploads]], as the nominator said. The undeletion log entries were (i) ''no reason given'' and (ii) ''lolwhat?''. Further, the second time Saibo re-opened the DR (on neither occasion providing any substantive reason to keep the file), he [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mein_penis_und_ringelsocken.jpg&diff=69647026&oldid=69646986 used the rollback tool], in violation of [[COM:ROLLBACK|its usage guidelines]].
-Now, I know active admins make mistakes, and there are legitimate differences of opinion over how situations should be handled - and quite probably most people reading this will think of several mistakes I've made, and several actions I've taken they disagree with. But I believe that the behaviour described above is beyond this normal mistake/different of opinion; it is beyond the pale. Something must be done, and I think a desysop discussion ([[Commons:Requests and votes/Saibo (de-adminship)]]) must be held. However, I'm open to alternative suggestions. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
-:Note: on going to notify Saibo of this thread, I discovered he had been [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASaibo&diff=69784038&oldid=69750658 blocked by Mattbuck for 1 week]. The block log entry is ''Cooling off period. User is generally a good guy, but is engaging in unadminlike behaviour. Please take the time off and come back fresh in a week.'', which suggests the focus is on the more recent events. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 00:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
-::It's sad to see an active contributor getting so lost. I think the best thing to do for Saibo is to leave Commons for now, until he feels less frustrated. Voluntary giving up his administrator rights for now could be helpful. A forced removal would only add to his frustration. [[User:Ices2Csharp|Ices2Csharp]] ([[User talk:Ices2Csharp|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 00:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
-:::Voluntary retirement/resignation would certainly be the most dignified and least dramatic option. Since Saibo seems to have pretty much lost faith in the WMF and its projects, maybe he should seriously consider it. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 00:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
-::::Since we are discussing Saibo, can I ask about Niabot? It seems to be taken for granted by some people that the two accounts are controlled by the same person. Is this some sort of open secret on Commons, or did I get the wrong impression? [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 01:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
-:::::Do you have any evidence? If not, then this isn't the place for baseless speculation. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 01:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
-::::::Looks like Delicious carbuncle is right. Hmm. Did he ever abused multiple accounts -- e.g. used two accounts in the same discussion, evaded blocks, etc.? [[User:Trycatch|Trycatch]] ([[User talk:Trycatch|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 02:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
-:::::::''"Looks like Delicious carbuncle is right."'' Do you mean that sarcastically? Do you really believe that Saibo and Niabot are the same person? [http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=986#p986 The "evidence"] is flimsy. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 02:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
-::::::::Please don't link to conspiracy dramatist websites, you only give them more oxygen.
-::::::::I decided to ban Saibo because, yes, he has gone off the handle. However, I do not feel a deadmin is necessary here, merely a holiday. -''[[User:Mattbuck|mattbuck]]'' <small>([[User talk:Mattbuck|Talk]])</small> 02:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
-:::::::::<small>Can we please use the correct terminology: you ''blocked'' Saibo - a technical measure. A "ban" is a community decision. Saibo complained about this distinction very recently... [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 06:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)</small>
-::::::::::<small>Rd232, please! The situation is too serious for such things. --[[User:Túrelio|Túrelio]] ([[User talk:Túrelio|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 07:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)</small>
-:::::::::::<small>if it's serious we ought to use the right terms, yes? And Saibo had made an issue of the distinction [[Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Tarc_.E2.80.93_here_to_contribute|only days ago]]. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 07:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)</small>
-::::::: The real name of Niabot is known and is not a secret, he is an active participant of e.g. mailing lists. I do not think there is any evidence that Saibo is the same person.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 07:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
-::::::: I don't think we need to speculate about this here; [[COM:SPI]] is that way. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
-:Again Rd232 is trying to invent some unneeded drama. Saibo is a good admin. Yes, he is off after the lock of Beta_M and do some unprofessional stuff, but I don't see any abuse of admin tools, except warring at [[:File:Mein penis und ringelsocken.jpg]] -- it was really bad, but Denniss participated in the war as well (and speedy deletion as "out of scope" looked indeed very strange). Mitigation of [[:User:Ralf 20]]'s block was absolutely correct, by the way (Alison indefblocked a user with a clean block log for uploading some out of scope pictures -- {{WTF}}). Let him time to cool down, there is no need for this discussion yet. [[User:Trycatch|Trycatch]] ([[User talk:Trycatch|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 01:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
-::I believe Saibo is the one who has been causing the drama, and plenty of it. Although he's generally a productive admin, he seems to be on a tear these days. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 07:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
-:::He too (that's why Mattbuck blocked him -- the time will show was it a wise decision or no), but not he alone definitely. [[User:Trycatch|Trycatch]] ([[User talk:Trycatch|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 07:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
-::''trying to invent some unneeded drama'' - is that an accusation of bad faith? The very fact that '''completely independently, and almost at the same time''' another admin (Mattbuck) felt it necessary to block Saibo for a week proves that there is a real problem; and his block summary began with ''Your behaviour recently is unprofessional and unbecoming to an admin. You are being disruptive, vindictive and frankly a troll.'' Mattbuck seems to think that Saibo can remain an admin, but I don't see how that's tenable. As for the Ralf20 block - I was citing it primarily for the block summary, not the block reduction (though that's an issue too, given the [[Special:Block/Ralf_20|block log]] and [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=Ralf+20&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1 upload history]). [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 07:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
-I propose to temp-close this discussion for now, until Saibo's temporary cool-down-block expires, as then he himself may have come to a more informed decision about his further participation on Commons. Otherwise, I feel this thread will only end in name-calling etc. --[[User:Túrelio|Túrelio]] ([[User talk:Túrelio|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 07:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
-: Sounds like a good idea.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
-: {{s}} temp close, giving Saibo time to think about what he wants. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
-{{discussion bottom}}
-*{{Comment}} I have no sympathy either for user's Saibo cause, or for the way he tried to reach it, but mattbuck should not have been the one to block the user, not after this comment by saibo [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=69779238], in which the user accused mattbuck in "vandalizing" his user page. This post made mattbuck an involved admin.--[[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] ([[User talk:Mbz1|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
-*:<small>Moved from Tarc section by mattbuck</small>
-*:I blocked Saibo because I consider him a friend, and sometimes friends need to say that you're being a bit of an ass. -''[[User:Mattbuck|mattbuck]]'' <small>([[User talk:Mattbuck|Talk]])</small> 19:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
-*::[http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=69779238], [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Saibo/WMF&diff=69779824], [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mattbuck&diff=prev&oldid=69780385] &ndash; I would consider Mattbuck to be an involved sysop as well. Did you try speaking to Saibo and asking him or her to cool down before making the block? --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-::::Already when Saibo started to go "rogue", quite a number of well-meaning users from different "camps" encouraged him to cool-down or to take a break. --[[User:Túrelio|Túrelio]] ([[User talk:Túrelio|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-===Unblock===
-{{discussion-top|Saibo is free to request an unblock by using the {{tl|unblock}} template, and until such time as this occurs, this discussion is moot. [[User:Russavia|russavia]] ([[User talk:Russavia|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)}}
-Saibo wasn't involved in any edit wars, and the [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&user=Saibo&offset=20120412000000 undeletion warring] doesn't appear to be all that serious. I don't agree with the block. Blocks shouldn't be used to force individuals to modify their behavior. [[:en:WP:COOLDOWN]] &ndash; "Cool down" blocks are also discouraged on enwiki. The block by Mattbuck could simply be providing Saibo with another reason to dislike Wikimedia. Saibo has been quiet (both here and on dewiki) since being blocked (although the autoblock might've played a role in that), so he or she should be considered "cooled down"; therefore, Saibo should be '''unblocked'''. Does Saibo really have to wait an entire week? --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-:You seem not to have realized (or don't want to) that this was a friendly block (yes!) in order to protect Saibo (somewhat from himself and from a beginning de-sysop, see above). As he hadn't cooled-down in the weeks after Beta-M's gobal lock, 1 week may even be too short, though I hope he'll come to terms with it in that time. --[[User:Túrelio|Túrelio]] ([[User talk:Túrelio|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-*{{oppose}} - Saibo has been running roughshod over this project ever since his friend Beta M was kicked out.  Overturning porn deletions with no valid rationale, threatening to ban users while citing no policy-based reason to do so, and the constant badgering of WMF staff to either overturn Beta's ban or disclose private info on why they will not.  This is conduct quite unbecoming of an admin.  Also, abject silence does not equate to "time off for good behavior"; absent Saibo actually addressing the reason he was blocked in the first place, it should run for the duration. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-*{{support|Strong support}} - He is very cooled down at the time, much more than myself, by the way. He hasn't threatened anyone, he has just made a thread about Tarc who also posts at a forum, where there are posted accuses about Saibo, and goes around to Jimbos talk page saying that Commons should be reigned by others outside of Commons. There have been posted insults in that forum, even there Saibo reacted very calm. I don't understand this block at all, and it just makes no sense blocking the one who has been insulted in forums instead of the accounts here on commons which make such harrassment about other commons people here. Please consider, that Saibo has been thinking a lot about the whole case, and I'm sure, he will react in the same calm and friendly mood, if anyone tries to talk with him in a calm and friendly way, anytime a person has anything to criticize with him. So please unblock him. He even stayed calm, when getting to know about this whole CU thing. I find that quite amazing. He has talked to Mattbuck also, and there is no evidence shown to me, that there is any kind of anger about Mattbuck's block either. In addition, he talked very calm with Mattbuck about this autoblock thing. I can't even think of a calmer way to face such things. I would surely not be that calm, that's for sure. --<span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Geitost|Geitost]] <sup>[[User talk:Geitost|''diskusjon'']]</sup></span> 20:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-*{{comment}} - I will not be commenting on this issue one way or the other, in terms of support/oppose. I leave it up to Saibo - my block is friendly, and if he wishes to unban himself I have no objection to it. I will be gone for the next few days so unable to partake in any drama for a while, but I look forward to reading all about it when I get home again. -''[[User:Mattbuck|mattbuck]]'' <small>([[User talk:Mattbuck|Talk]])</small> 21:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-*{{comment}} Even if you leave it up to him, I'm against that and I suggest to Saibo not to follow this proposal, because it's always very bad, if someone looks at a block log and sees there that a user unblocked himself. No, that's no way for this. Either anyone unblocks him with a comment and link to this here, or he puts a normal unblock template onto his talk page. But please, no self-unblocking. Don't like these things at all. Then the next one comes saying: See at his block log, he unblocked himself. No, please not. --<span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Geitost|Geitost]] <sup>[[User talk:Geitost|''diskusjon'']]</sup></span> 22:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-**Agreed. [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saibo&diff=69917032&oldid=69834526 I've advised] Saibo to use [[Template:Unblock]] instead of unblocking himself or herself. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-{{discussion-bottom}}
 == [[User:Mattbuck]] ==
@@ Line 162: / Line 100: @@
 *****Hey Tarc, when I made this comment supporting you [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=68139428], I got blocked for a week by Rd232 who wanted the discussion closed. I was not driven by old disputes, but by what I thought the right thing to do. I would still be supporting you now, but have decided that your behavior here makes you the wrong person for dealing with the pedophilia issue. I wish you would get out of the way and let someone more capable deal with that. [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 00:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 *****I am more than capable with dealing with the problems in this project, and will continue to do so.  I categorically reject the assertion that the line "since his friend Beta M", the spark for this Niabot complaint, was in anyway problematic.  Time to unwatch this page for a bit. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 04:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
-== LGLMZ ==
-{{userlinks|LGLMZ}} has been blocked 4 times because of copyvios, and now he's doing it again. [[User:Allan Javier Aguilar Castillo|<font color="#74C365">Allan Aguilar</font>]] • [[User talk:Allan Javier Aguilar Castillo|<font color="#ED1C24">talk</font>]] • 19:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-{{done}} Blocked for one month, strong warning. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<strong>Jim</strong> . . . . <small><small>[[User:Jameslwoodward|Jameslwoodward]]</small> ([[User talk:Jameslwoodward|talk to me]])</small> 21:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 == Magideleon ==

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:32, 26 April 2012

Contents

User:Mattbuck

User:JBarta and File:Biographies of living persons.jpg

User:Tarc

Magideleon

Block review of user:Thekohser

Independent review by a bureaucrat requested

Possible account with an intent of impersonation

inappropriate username Josestalin9 (talk · contribs)

Mike letto (talk · contribs)

Creation of Wrong Category by SpacemanSpiff

Creation of "bulk images" category to avoid crowding specific categories.

Problematic category moves by NeverDoING

revision 70081813 by 200.3.222.40

Shania Twain Portugal

Lordquinn (talk · contribs)

User:189.70.92.232

Please check suspect contributions from an user

Rename requests of unknown IP address holders

Ottava Rima

Block query

User:Juicybnana

Navigation menu

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:32, 26 April 2012

User:Mattbuck

User:JBarta and File:Biographies of living persons.jpg

User:Tarc

Magideleon

Block review of user:Thekohser

Independent review by a bureaucrat requested

Possible account with an intent of impersonation

inappropriate username Josestalin9 (talk · contribs)

Mike letto (talk · contribs)

Creation of Wrong Category by SpacemanSpiff

Creation of "bulk images" category to avoid crowding specific categories.

Problematic category moves by NeverDoING

revision 70081813 by 200.3.222.40

Shania Twain Portugal

Lordquinn (talk · contribs)

User:189.70.92.232

Please check suspect contributions from an user

Rename requests of unknown IP address holders

Ottava Rima

Block query

User:Juicybnana

Navigation menu

Search