This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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 user's last block before this incident was in 2011. In this incident, in response to one DR hotly contested by the user, a spiralling series of reactions made a bit of a mess. The mess merited a block, but given the block history and the size of the mess, not that long a one as the 1-month block dished out. In closing this incident, I've taken into account that one of the more serious claims, that the user accused another of racism, is not borne out by a careful reading of the statement in question, and the overreaction in removing talkpage access and protecting the user talk page (blocked users often blow off steam there; they shouldn't be unduly punished for it). I've reduced the block to time served, and left the user a note. Rd232 (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Since a routine closure of a deletion request that resulted in the deletion of a single file he had uploaded, Tomascastelazo (talk·contribs) has engaged in harassing and POINTy behavior, failure to assume good faith, and personal attacks; including, for example:
POINTy re-uploading of the image - out of COM:SCOPE and same copyvio concern (see new DR)
Retaliatory nominations (a la Pieter Kuiper) of images uploaded by 1Veertje, the admin who flagged Tomascastelazo's image: "Take the gallery of 1Veertje for example, full of Out of Scope images that should be deleted" [9]
Support a block for at least 1 month, as his 3 earlier shorter blocks didn't have any learning effect. Such an amount of drama and aggression willfully created for getting 1 (one) file deleted is incredible and injustifiable, especially from a longterm user. Most of us, including admins, got a few of their uploads deleted due to an overlooked copyright problem or being oos. But only Tomascastelazo seems to be so special that he's entitled to create a big drama and to throw around unjust accusations and insults. --Túrelio (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I consider this administrative harrassment from Эlcobbola considering that from language that he used in censoring one of the images I uploaded in good faith he used the term "patent nonsense" when referring to my reasons for keeping the image, thus establishing the anymosity present. Эlcobbola obviously took the time to research my participation here, yet he fails to note that I upload files with educational value and of good technical quality and that I basically keep to myself; and I respond only when I consider censorship acts outside good faith or common sense. Эlcobbola takes a lot of liberty to accuse me of wrongdoing, yet he judges my vocabulary and feels offended by my language, which if any of you take the time to read the dictionary definitions, you would have to accept on the correct use of the terms I use. Take for example his claim that my nominations have "spurious merit." I challennge anyone to look at the images and evaluate them agains deletion policy, specifically Out of Scope. Anyone out of the blue can come out and nominate and delete my images "spuriously" yet I am not afforded the courtesy to nominate for deletion under legitimate policy. His recent nominations for deletion of my images are nothing but retaliation I believe, for there is no reason to delete images that address a real social phenomena which is censorship (and before anyone goes off the handle, read the definition of censorship) as well as sarcasm and parody. I remind all of you that this is an encyclopedic endeavor, open to all ideas, whether we like them or not. I consider myself a good faith contributor (see my images) some of which have found their way to National Geographic and several textbooks, museums, magazines and numerous articles. I believe in this project and yet I also see that it is plagued with intolerant individuals who erect themselves into authorities on a power trip. I´ve been a photographer for close to 40 years, with a long academic career and participation in the art world in my country. I take censorship very seriously and take offence in this harrassment (racism?).--Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Tomas purports to have a considered, solid grasp of the English language ("if any of you take the time to read the dictionary definitions" [13]). If you actually believe that by "unlawful" and "legal?" he merely meant out of process, I have a bridge to sell you. Эlcobbolatalk16:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have to Oppose indef blocking, it's TOO GOOD for the likes of you. BOIL him in oil, draw and quarter him, sell him timeshare, ask him to call customer service on the telephone, air strike his ass into the stone age. Commons is NO PLACE FOR HUMOUR. We all take ourselves far too seriously here, and you have to get with the program. Humour is a serious health hazard to your colleagues, when the innocents stumble across pictures like that it causes stabbing sinus pain and inter-cranial haemorrhaging. Like the guy on CON-AIR says, levity causes Pain. You need to be more respectful of your co-workers inability to tolerate this crap. Penyulap ☏17:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Penyulap, your hyperbole and desperate attempts at being funny are not a very productive contribution here. This drama created around one deletion request is both out of proportions and unjustified. Of course the licensing policy at commons can be a source of frustration. I sincerely doubt that any user has a comprehensive grasp of international copyright law and free licenses. So just try to see the DR system as a collaborative approach to making sure that our images comply with the project goals in terms of licensing. This may all be sone kind of joke to you, but at the end of the day we are making a promise to our reusers, the promise that they may freely use our images just the way that our licensing information states. You mak think that licensing details and copyright laws are stupid. But throwing a fit and whining about it does not change the legal situation we are in. --Dschwen (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it 'desperate' I'd prefer 'natural' and it's not the licensing that I make fun of, I take THAT seriously. People have different methods to cope with stress. Throwing overboard everyone who is not the same or deals with stress in a different manner to you doesn't really help. As for the image, I've already made a serious considered comment on the DR page. Some people get funny, some get mellow, some get nasty, some get frustrated or exasperated, whatever, lets just get back to work. Penyulap ☏17:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Penyulap, being born in the DDR, you're correct that I don't find being called a censor humorous. To use that term so cavalierly, petulantly, and inappropriately shows astounding ignorance and does a great injustice to those who are genuinely censored. Nor do I find humor in being called a racist twice [14][15]; once on this very page. [16] Who here really needs to be respectful? Эlcobbolatalk17:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
That is a fair statement, and properly supported with diffs, Tomascastelazo, why would you say that, can you show us where the racism was ? I know the hounding of humour is a serious problem, polandball on the village pump was quite a strange phenomenon not easily explained, people might confuse things. But tell us, why would you say that ? Penyulap ☏17:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
elcobbola, do you think you've been focusing on images by Tomascastelazo deliberately in DR discussions ? he seems to think so. Penyulap ☏18:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, the claims of 'legal threats' and useless DR noms are exaggerated, the DR's have sufficient merit, there was no legal threat. Tomascastelazo may misunderstand the motivations of the actions the people involved, but they're not helping steer him towards docs, they're helping inflame or even create the situation. Both parties are in the wrong, but the exaggerated claims made here shows where the driving force fuelling the dispute lays. Penyulap ☏18:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I have only closed one DR related to Tomascastelazo. Subsequent to that closure -- and only because of that closure -- I have nominated two of his images because they are directly related to that closure. In total: 1 closure; 2 nominations (of essentially the same image). Tomas is welcome to provide diffs to the contrary. You'll note I've not commented in any DR Tomas has opened, nor nominated otherquestionableimages in his stream.
"[B]ut the exaggerated claims made here shows where the driving force fuelling the dispute lays" is, frankly, an unlettered comment. By default, the diffs I provided reflect Tomascastelazo's behavior before any post here (i.e., his comments were not a result of being enflammed by this discussion). He is likewise welcome to provide diffs where I've made "exaggerated claims" prior to posting here. Outside of accusations of racism -- which have not been explained, struck, or apologized for -- indeed none of Tomascastelazo's individual comments, on their own, are worth escalating. The point, which you seem to miss, is what they suggest taken in total. Эlcobbolatalk19:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I am the one saying you're making "exaggerated claims" as far as veiled legal threats go. He hasn't threatened to sue anyone and don't bother trying to convince me he has. What I see is you've taken the small problem and embellished the living crap out of it to the point where it's pretty damn hard for him to say sorry, because you've added too much extra crap on top of the original. I'd say the proper solution is for you all to go your separate ways, I don't see asking you to apologise for the legal threat or anything else you hyped up as likely to produce results, so whats the point asking him to apologise either. Just live and let live. safe in the knowledge that as a person with a sense of humour, he'll no doubt be hunted down and killed like the rest of us comedians (me included no doubt). Just have your say about the image, not the person, in the DR if you haven't already, and then give him lots of space. Penyulap ☏19:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Well Dschwen is now claiming that the picture of Barnstar Sam is causing him physical pain, is that correct Dschwen ? if that is the case I'll be the first to support a move to eradicate all humour from commons, it would be terrible if we were responsible for people being in pain because of pictures, can you describe the pain ? is it in the sinus area ? a headache ? and I'm quite serious here.
(QA) the answer to your edit summary question is no, I'm not trying to physically attack you with an image of uncle sam. Penyulap ☏18:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Come on Penyulap, that is an easily falsifiable lie. Nowhere was the word physical mentioned. So please stop your clowning it is distracting from the discussion. --Dschwen (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
It's the first thing I think of when someone says 'pain' I guess it depends on the person, some are afflicted with physical illness, others with heartache, I guess it's word association. I did kind of picture you looking at Uncle Sam, and the contention between his super serious look on his face and his flashing barnstar hat and it was like 'does not compute' 'does not compute' and then your nose stared bleeding or something, but I do have a wild imagination. Anyhow, I'm very pleased you're not in and physical pain. Now, lets get back to taking ourselves very very seriously because were all terrifically important. Penyulap ☏19:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll try to resume: the reason for Tomascastelazo's last block was disruptive behaviour when he opened some DR nominations (see [17]) as personal revenge for some other, probably not personally motivated DR (see [18]). Currently we see a couple of similar "pointy" deletion requests ([19][20]) and some evil accusations including nothing less than racism ([21]). All in all a revenge campaign in the same style as it was before the last block, with harassment and personal attacks. So, due to the same repeated pattern of disruptive behaviour, I hereby suggest a block for 2 weeks now, as well as progressive blocks (1 - 3 - 6 - 12 months - indef) in any future case of similar disruptiveness. I'm going to wait a while if there's no objection by any admin colleague previously uninvolved in this discussion, and then to execute the block. --A.Savin21:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Support a last-opportunity block for at least 1 month. Nothing has changed for him, in five years!!! See here (translation: Censorship And which is the reason, if existing, why you intent to delete an image I created? It smells to me like censorship). And only because of this. --Ecemamltalk to me/habla conmigo21:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to block User:Tomascastelazo for 1 month now. User blocks shouldn't be primarely for punishment, so I'm willing to shorten if he apologises for personal attacks listed above and approves to close both DR speedily as withdrawn. --A.Savin23:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Support (Two weeks). I endorse Dschwen's comment of 17:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC). Tomascastelazo's 14 March DR nominations (see above) are disruptive. I'm dubious that the "racism" comment is blockable, but it is not in keeping with the advice of COM:MELLOW. While it is a pity that the result of the 2013 deletion discussion is inconsistent with the 2011 result, such is bound to occur. Moreover, should our understanding of copyright law change, COM:UNDEL may be used restore images that were improperly deleted. Walter Siegmund(talk)23:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose such a long block. While Tomas' behaviour might well be considered as disruptive, I urge you not to make a mountain out of every molehill. One should consider the character of individual contributors. Tomas has always been direct and a bit harsh in his comments as I personally may testify but one should take his outings with a grain of salt an not immediately retaliate with a long block. I find some of the admins here currently a bit too trigger-happy. B.p.00:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Support. Two weeks would be the better block length (his last block was one week, the two week block before that was quickly lifted). This is not about comments that are a bit harsh. The block is justified as a safeguard against binding volunteer time with discussions around pointy actions. Thomas is a long time contributor and he should know better not to fight against windmills like that. --Dschwen (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Support User:Tomascastelazo behaviour has been very poor and needs to be stopped. I Would've blocked him for 1 month, the block doesn't have too last that period of time, User:Tomascastelazo can appeal the block, and the unblock would likely have conditions attached to it. Bidgee (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
As I said, I'm open for discussion if Tomascastelazo will perceive that both DR by him and the recent comments on censorship were counterproductive. He's able to comment on his talk page, for which I'm going to notify him via e-mail. --A.Savin09:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose as per Bp, and I'll add that this is the most disappointing admin decision I have seen on commons in the short time I've been working here. I would absolutely expect it from en.wiki, like Ex-arb Elen's famous comment on my talkpage, "Disperse the crowds" I feel the same "us and them" right here. A ceasefire just isn't good enough, it had to be all swept aside for this. Penyulap ☏16:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Support For any length of time, perhaps an indef until Tomascastelazo is prepared to recognize what the problems are here in an unblock request. I find the allegation of racism of particular concern, and after reading the paragraph in question, the reaction here of using the excuse that this had context appears quite insufficient, either Tomascastelazo can demonstrate that Elcobbola is a racist and can bring that evidence to this noticeboard for action to be taken against Elcobbola, or via OTRS if it is so ghastly it cannot be repeated, or the allegation should be withdrawn, and preferably apologised for. As a side note, Penyulap has been diverting this thread, perhaps Admins on AN should consider at what point this should be considered disruptive and worth its own non-humorous discussion. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The following paragraph, part of an exchange, puts into context the use of the term racism, no accusation was made, but it was an example of the unbalanced attitude demonstrated by the involved admin where he can dish out insults and using his own words, “pejorative” statements. So his words and adjectives, because his admin status, are “articulate” and “truthful” and “objective” in opposition to the words used by someone who questions the validity of his opinions, where his words are disruptive, insults and the like.
"Just as you qualify the use of my legitimate vocabulary as pejorative, assigning a negative connotation to legitimate issues and my motives, I could then express the notion that your censoring acts are harassment and driven by racism. I see no legitimate reason as to why you nominated this image for deletion given that it is a legitimate artwork expresses by way of parody the social phenomena of censorship." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.191.6.140 (talk • contribs)
You shouldn't write here anonymously, as this is what is being called a block evasion. If you have something to state, you should do it on your talk page, although after your recent comments there I don't believe anymore that any comprehension can be expected. --A.Savin19:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Seems they fail to understand what they have done wrong or just being completely ignorant. I've revoked the access for them to comment while the block is in place, if they start via email, that will also be revoked and the block extended (which IMO should've happened when they by-passed the block via an IP). Bidgee (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
After receiving an email from Tomascastelazo asking me to read his talk page, I've rollbacked and protected his talk page. I urge to decide whether this user has to be expelled or not. --Ecemamltalk to me/habla conmigo14:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you could provoke a bit more? Put more oil on the fire in stead of on the waves? And be surprised at the reaction? Then you could expel whoever! Shame on all of you! B.p.14:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hoping that such a respected, well known photographer will "never come back again under his recent name" ignores the issue of attribution and amounts to a ban considering the provocation here, and the Innocent prisoner's dilemma which the target has enough integrity to understand and is being clearly used against him, if you are going to demand a person apologises for actions he did not do, such as make legal threats, that is unacceptable, it filters liars into the project and truthful people out. At the same time ignoring completely the personal attacks that the false accusations represent is admin-backed abuse to the eyes of many. This is a poor showing to public eyes.
"never come back again under his recent name", this is the name of the photographer, Tomas Castelazo, creating arbitrary conditions such as the artist may only sockpuppet in order to contribute is not acceptable under any circumstances. Penyulap ☏02:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin who has some regard for the whole community be kind enough to consider the consensus here and formulate a less partisan approach. Penyulap ☏17:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I think trying to explain the problems created here, or pointing out the objections, or how to make a more balanced decision is probably wasting my breath if there is no-one listening, and that may well be the case. Penyulap ☏19:10, 22 March 2013 (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.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I don't agree with Rd232 (talk·contribs) regarding the views in the above closing, including the view of the removal of the talk page but I don't disagree with the unblock, we can only hope that Tomascastelazo (talk·contribs) acts in more of a civil manner in future. This discussion below is going no where and is more an likely going to reignite the drama we had. Time to move on. Bidgee (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
As appalling a close as the partisan block itself. A block was required to be sure, however this is not simply ignoring the personal attacks from the other side, this is by any passers-by view admin backed provocation and admin backed personal attacks, a more perfectly one sided case there could not be. Not a single word of critique of the other side of the story in the action or in the close. Penyulap ☏19:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
There is certainly criticism and blame-sharing embedded in the close; however I do not see the value in spending another 10,000 words deconstructing "he said, she said, he did, she did". Apparently you don't either, since you had ample opportunity to do this at a point when it might have affected the block, but didn't. Now, frankly I'm more interested in Tomas' reaction than yours, so let's wait for that. Rd232 (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Wtf is that supposed to be ? an insult ? there is a difference between me not talking and you being completely unaware of it. Are you capable of seeing the comments and opposes of several users here ? Are you capable of seeing any comments I made prior to the block, seriously ? wtf ? I "DIDN'T" you say ? Didn't ?? are you reading what you are writing or you have become so accustomed to ignoring people that you can't actually see their comments in the discussion ? Penyulap ☏20:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I read the entire thread, including your comments, which were largely irrelevant or unhelpful, and certainly did not attempt to describe in detail the series of events in a way that would clarify where blame lies for different parts of the series. PS not for the first time in the last couple of days, I see your comments and think you really need a wikibreak. Please tone it down, you're verging on the disruptive. This is a pity, since just today it was your comment here which prompted me to review this incident, and a thread you started at COM:VP that prompted me to redraft Commons:Watermarks. So you certainly have contributions to make - but it would be good if you would tone it down and maybe be a bit less pessimistic. (Seriously, I think you might need a wikibreak.) cheers, Rd232 (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC) PS Just to be clear - no, there was no insult. Rd232 (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Well I am on the lookout for people who CAN'THEARTHAT and equate IDON'TLIKEYOU to disruption. The US-culture way to solve small personal differences with handguns doesn't work very well across the rest of the English speaking world, so efforts like this one don't help commons and do help alternative projects to spring up and flourish. More people graduated college last year in india than the US, they speak English and often look for places they can work online. This isn't one of them and this is why. Ditto Asia, ditto Europe (read the caption). Hindustanilanguage is too quite and kind to tell you where you're going wrong. He simply opposes and you simply ignore him. People quietly stay away from these projects upon seeing it. Now I'll be kind and generous and give you the last word you so must have. Penyulap ☏04:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, blame it all on the Americans. I don't think the British are big fans of people screaming "I don't like you" at each other. In fact, from what I've heard, not banning people who are rude and in other people's faces tends to be aspect of some varieties of American culture, like the culture surrounding the Linux kernel and other open source projects, and it's been cited as driving women and Asians away from those projects, since they haven't been socialized to handle such an environment. Personally, I tend to stay away from projects that some hostile abusive person running around not listening to anyone and nothing will be done about them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry? What have to do the nationality with Tomascastelazo behaviour? I pointed out to the first "incidents" with this user, several years ago. The same behaviour pattern (basically that questioning any of his uploads is censorship) and, sorry to say, all the people involved there were native Spanish-speaking guys. --Ecemamltalk to me/habla conmigo10:45, 23 March 2013 (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.
Socking again to by-pass his block, adding to his years long obsessive campaign to make Commons a hostile environment by using DRs. See 95.200.146.121. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes Pieter Kuiper can raise valid DRs, this was never in doubt, and was the main reason it took more than a year of his problematic behaviour before he was indef blocked. This is not an reason to overlook the long, long obvious pattern of disruptive behaviour you can see at User talk:Fæ/Pieter Kuiper, the many past requests for admin action on this noticeboard[23] and the many repeated attempts at good faith reconciliation on his user talk page. Pieter has yet to appeal his block, and appears actively unwilling to address the reasons for his block, hence his preference for socking to by-pass his block. Before you take on the case for his defence, I suggest you review the background carefully, and think through the aspect of Blocking policy that deals with those who make Commons a hostile environment for other contributors they choose target and hound over a period of years. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
picking one at random from that sub-page of yours, this is the first, I can't see the problem there, what was wrong with it ? Penyulap ☏07:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
next one at random is this which also seems fine, is this guy blocked because you made a long list of DR's he has started which seem successful too, which you didn't like ? surely I must did deeper and see it isn't so. Penyulap ☏07:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
another slam dunk delete can you help me here, is this list entirely made up of successful deletion requests he has made that you didn't like and other people agreed with him ? can you point me to something, like, actually wrong here ? Penyulap ☏07:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I am not going to rake over 3 years of DRs one at a time, it is too painful thanks, as I said above in my first words in this thread "Yes Pieter Kuiper can raise valid DRs, this was never in doubt". It is the pattern of behaviour that matters here, and not about what I "didn't like", I am not the one blocked, or the one doing the blocking. Please read the background provided and the conclusions that many other contributors in good standing came to on this case. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Painful? I'm so sorry about that, just seemed like if you had this sub-page thing where you collected all this information on a particular user and spent so very much time on that particular user that you'd know about that particular user. I mean, if you don't like to talk about that particular user, then why keep all this collated information especially when it seems completely benign when examined, is it for appearance sakes ? so you can do to an admin what you do to me and say "Please read the background provided and [blah blah blah] so it's all TLDR and they block anyway because they take your word for it ?
I think if you are going to spend so very much time on this user and collecting information in what could be compared to an obsession, then the idea that it's too painful to talk about is a rather dubious claim, and sounds more like a brush-off response to a reasonable question. Penyulap ☏07:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Wiki archives are public. As you want to get knowledge of previous decisions, I would recommend to browse the Commons AN archives. Yes, it could be a lot of pain to summarize 18 months of efforts to talk with Pieter, the dozens sections in AN to discuss the matter, the concilliation efforts, the community decision to block him.
If you want to get a knowledge of the situation, please provide the effort and search by yourself the archives, without asking the links. Archives are public.
If in the process, you want to organize them, curate them, this would be a nice addition.
True, and there is little need to point to pages of links to perfectly ok DR discussions either, it does little but create an impression that there is evidence 'buried somewhere' amongst it.
Generally it's a lot faster and easier to address the cause of the problem, and the fastest way to that is to ask both parties for their say. Still, you can try to live in a utopia where blocks work and require no further effort, and DDOS's don't take us all to that wikipedia is not working page. As for me, I prefer to simply ask for a 25 words or less starting point from each side and work from there. People who don't have a case to stand on are usually the ones who try everything to prevent an examination of their side. Like pointing to some TLDR page, or the X-files cryptic 'the truth is out there' or it's in the archives. It could be a perfectly true and reasonable statement to say it's out there somewhere, but it's not the fastest way to a solution.
I'd like to hear from Pieter Kuiper about this, sometimes blocked people don't talk to me either, and that's often because they have no case either. Still, you can play this 'cops and robbers' game with blocks that you figure are a solution and good luck to you all, clearly it is not working because he is still having an effect, but maybe the same not-working strategy will come to work eventually. Penyulap ☏11:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Herby has a point for unblocking the IP - When PK changes the IP too frequently, you cannot simply block the IP and sit back in a relaxed mood. Plz note a similar case in terms of disruptive behaviour where I was told regarding IP blocking: "Unfortunately that's not possible. He uses IPs from a very busy range with lots of legit users in there too." - Please revoke the IP block. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC).
The IP block is proper, and should be left in place for a few days at least, if someone is blocked, they are blocked, and INeverCry has done the correct thing.
Still, while years of collateral damage is fun and games for some or obsession for others, a mature examination of the actual problem, if there is anyone willing to take about it, may be best for the project. Penyulap ☏11:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I think you have completely missed the long history of disruptive behavior by Pieter Kuiper. It is certainly true that he made some valuable contributions to our process. He had a wonderful ability to sniff out problems with copyright. When he was feeling cooperative, he could be easy to work with. That made it very difficult for us to block him, because many of us, including me, were willing to put up with a great deal of disruption to keep an active contributor here. On the other side of things, though, he had absolutely no patience for those who disagreed with him and no willingness to acknowledge that he was not correct all of the time.
He enjoyed being disruptive and at one point posted a "Wall of Shame" which listed decisions made by many experienced editors (including me) with which he disagreed. These were all decisions that were generally accepted by the community. The Wall of Shame shredded editors in no uncertain terms.
As for "mature examination", because of his valuable contributions, his case got far more attention than another user might have received. I don't remember exactly, but I think he was blocked for varying periods six or eight times before he finally was blocked indefinitely. I don't think you will find much interest among those who lived through his time here in any reopening of the tens of thousands of words of discussion he caused. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the summary, that's what I was after.
As for the rest of his behaviour except for the smart part, that does describe a great many people. When I think of starting websites, especially ones like this project, I figure the worst punishment would be banishment to en.wikipedia. If he wasn't smart I'd make him an arb over there :)
Well, I'll be happy to chat with him, maybe his grievances are easier to solve, or at least put a finger on than Fæ's wall of crap subpage of alleged wrongs, which, seriously I can't see it. I looked at a few, and all I can see is someone who gets up Fæ's nose at worst (not hard to do). What springs to mind is another case of where any two people argue, some people just flip a coin and shoot one of them. Like Tomascastelazo's case above. Not a good strategy because you lose several contributors, those who see Tomascastelazo get shot for example, OR you just get an intelligent dissenter who can keep you people tied up all day long, more than ever because they have Zero editing to keep them busy. Still what do people from the culture of the the US know about dispute solving? guns with your neighbours, the only country to use nuclear weapons, half the children in Iraq born with deformities, and they bring those (lack of) skills here. My block on en.wiki killed four contributors that I can think of off the top of my head and severely crippled several more, and that's just those who I saw and are today. Jag, Andre, Pesky, and so on, impossible to cover up everything no matter what is done, people will keep seeing it and similar things as long as such bad blocks occur. Thing is, you don't build a community by shooting or blocking people. Spending all the effort on cops and robbers stops people coming here because they don't want to be near any of it. Still, not my ball of wax if people want to what is it 'make the project a hostile environment' with their endless games. Whatever. But if people want help solving the problem rather than keeping it running ad-nausea then I'll be happy to help find the solution. Something more realistic than pretending blocks can ever work. Penyulap ☏16:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
My appeal is not with regard to PK's block-revoking - I appeal only IP block revocation as one of the sysops expressed the counterproductiveness of a long-term IP block in this very section. Similarly, I've cited the case of non-blocking of sockpuppeteer Goldduck58 in this very forum and I got the reply that "Unfortunately that's not possible. He uses IPs from a very busy range with lots of legit users in there too."
How about immediate IP blocks on Pieter Kuiper wherever and whenever he pops up. If they're short, then they're not affecting other ISP users – look at the contribs history: whatever the DHCP server is doing, it's not sharing PK's IP address with other editors in any overlapping timeframe that is causing a problem, at least not one that is evident from previous history. Maybe he's sharing ISP with other innocent users, but there's no indication that he's sharing IP addresses with them at any problem level.
In the worst case, PK will then begin to reset his IP connection as fast as he's blocked and will morph IP. So we block again, and again – this is the price of it (although the blocks can then become short). If he does morph fast enough to cause trouble for his ISP's customers, then that's an issue where an ISP customer is deliberately causing disruption for other customers, something that they're perfectly capable of then resolving for themselves. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Thank you very much Nataev for taking the time to fill this permissions, it's very bureaucratic I know, but at least it's well documented. No actions need to be taken now.--PierreSelim (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
This user has been removing "no permission" tags from files with uncertain copyright status. I'll like admin intervention in this case, since I don't want to get into a reverting war. Other images uploaded by this user can also have copyright issues. Jespinos (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I requested to delete the photos because I'm not willing to translate the permission I have. (It's in Russian.) They have been deleted. Nataev (talk) 07:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I could have. I just couldn't see back then how one can be asked to provide evidence of permission even for his own files. Moreover, the guy who flagged my photos deleted a photo of an honors board at my high school! A photo of an honors board! I mean, really? This is simply outrageous! Some things here on Commons border on the ridiculous. I had taken the photo myself. Also, one of the photos on the board was my own photo! I mean, who holds the rights to an honors board in a high school in Kyrgyzstan? The cleaning lady? The janitor? I mean, come on! It would help to use some common sense here on Commons. You know what I mean?Nataev (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC) P.s. Sleep tight!
Adilov told me that he has sent an E-mail to OTRS. When will I find out whether the E-mail has been processed? Nataev (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
There has been a simmering edit war on File:Flag of Republic of Cochinchina.svg, most noticeably by User:Kim-Long07 and User:Giangnam007, both of which are socks of one user and therefore permanently blocked. The edit war has re-surfaced where Duykien keeps reverting to the version with white stripes that was preferred by the confirmed socks. Without any sources provided or a consensus formed, I have been trying to maintain the file in it's original state without the white stripes, but Duykien keeps reverting to the one with white. It is possible this is yet another sock, however even if it isn't the user should be warned to stop edit warring. Fry1989eh?23:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Warned: I'll keep an eye on the file and take further action if necessary. For other admins, it looks like they are socks: in both [24] and [25], while the file links them together. —Mono15:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, upon reviewing those responses I determined that the user was likely abusing multiple accounts. In addition, the response to my request for a discussion was "it's true" and it must have white stripes. The user proceeded to revert the flag image, continuing the edit war which I had hoped to prevent/end. However, if you believe the user should be unblocked I am happy to reverse it as the sockpuppeteering is just suspicion and assume good faith could be extended further. I would also support any unblock request provided the user is willing to stop reverting and discuss. (The page history of that file was deleted by another admin so it is no longer fully visible) —Mono17:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I've seconded your stand on Duykien's talk page. Let's hope good sense will prevail and both edit-warring and blocks are not needed in this context. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC).
Waiting for user response. Others can unblock if they see fit (consider this a consultation with the blocking admin per COM:BLOCK) if I'm not around. —Mono18:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Over the past couple of days I've interacted with a user who seems determined to ignore copyright issues. He has reuploaded a number of copyright violations which have been deleted by various admins (deleted contribs here). Currently he insists on reuploading a book cover which has been deleted a number of times. My postings to him are here mostly and his views are expressed here. He has again uploaded the book cover however having been the one dealing with him recently I am reluctant to block him yet again though I think it is probably appropriate. Maybe someone else can take a look. Thanks --Herbytalk thyme18:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I've blocked the acct for 1 week, as I think this is a pretty plain case of uploading unfree files after warnings. I've declined the earlier unblock request and suggested the user review policy. I also reverted a removal of DR from a map file. INeverCry18:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I too have had problems with this user. He nominated several files (1, 2} for deletion based on perceived insults to Syria, and when they were kept he uploaded a similar file with a "reverse insult" as retaliation. When I nominated it, he attacked me several times calling me a supporter of Israel, and has uploaded several more images that are out of scope. Fry1989eh?20:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Listen Up Fry, I didn't call you an Israeli supporter , You are the one who called me that , i only said Every thing for Israel And meaning Wikimedia , As you are the one who first attacked, the files i uploaded wasn't retaliation , i saw that the nomationed files doen't mean insult to you so i thought that this file is the same thing goes , as in en wikipedia they delete it, The other files that you claim no scope are A Historical Files, Stop lying.178.61.35.10320:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm just wondering if you discussed the user's claim that the author is the user's grandfather. Issues around inheritance of copyright are complex, and additionally a book cover is probably not covered by the author's copyright - but if this wasn't addressed it would certainly have contributed to the user's frustration. Rd232 (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Category redirects should not be deleted if they are useful, as this breaks linkage for other projects and non-Wikimedia projects (that's distinct from creating them to cover synonyms pre-emptively).
In the case of this particular category, I believe that the redirect is useful as the category existed at that location for well over a year and may plausibly be linked to both inside or, outside Wikimedia. The harm to categorising users in this case would be minimal as all "Church interiors*" categories are being deprecated in favour of "Interiors of churches of*".
The reason that was an empty category, as opposed to a valid redirect, is because you deleted it (as part of executing a move). It would have been better for all if it had been converted to a category redirect. The reason for my actions is because it is not "a completely useless redirect" - it has been in place for >1 year and it is realistic to expect that someone may be linking to that page. Clearly my recent actions could have been done by bot, but it would not be necessary if the deprecation had handled in a better manner in in the first place.
The "redirect" mentioned here, is no different to all the other redirects I created at the same time. There was a typo in it, but the creator's intent was clear. It would be like deleting a file as no-license if the uploader added {{cc-by-sa} instead of {{Cc-by-sa}} - its not helpful nor is it not a friendly action.
One thing that is clearly wrong here is the current situation (which has been described as a perpetual cold war) where no rationale to whether to put in place a redirect or not: I doubt anyone, whatever their opinion on what should be done, believes that if you have two almost identical redirects, that one only of those should be deleted.
That means either this redirect, and all the similar redirects are created at the same time, are eligible for deletion, or all should be kept. The correct venue for that discussion is COM:DEL (or possibly an RFC as part of a larger issue regarding category redirects in general). I am perfectly willing to abide with community consensus on this matter.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Its quite simple; much less than 0,5 % of the moved categories are recreated as a redirect, mainly by people that don't understand the reason why on most wikipedias category redirects are forbidden or very much restricted. A clickable deletion edit summary works as good as a clickable redirect and stimulates the people to correct the link. At least two bots are perfectly capable of picking up the category in the clickable deletion edit summary. --Foroa (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The reason the 99.5% of moved categories are deleted is that is what the tools do, designed for users such as yourself who want the tools to behave like that. That indicate whether that is right or wrong (all it is is a self-fulfilling prophecy). Category redirects have their purpose, and its probable on Commons that the community will want them for rather more purposes than on any language WP. A clickable deletion edit summary is much worse than a clickable redirect. For a start, {{Category redirect}} can be internationalised - while an edit summary can't be. I'd suggest the way forward here is an RFC to determine what uses the Commons community (not you and not me) thinks are acceptable uses for category redirects on Commons.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
At the Dutch Wikipedia the work of User:Menke has drawn attention. It appears there are multiple problems here, which involve the large-scale re-use of historical material from magazines, newspapers or books without labelling the re-used texts as such. She usually cited the source of the material, but as something she studied, and completely failed to mention she is not the author. This leads to problems with :
Public Domain material, which is not indicated as being in the Public Domain;
Licensed material (CC BY 3.0), with the conditions of the license not being met;
At this stage the exact proportions of the problem are unknown, but certainly it is not small.
She has also uploaded historical pictorial material to Commons (over two thousand pictures) and these prove to have licensing problems, as well. For almost all material indications of the source are vague (to non-existent). Upon a closer check at least some pictures are copyrighted material. It proves that many pictures have been cropped by Menke to 'conveniently' delete the maker's name (and then presenting it as maker unknown). As an example, a lot of pictures uploaded by Menke were scanned from the pages of the Dutch magazine "De Prins der geïllustreerde bladen" (published from 1901 to 1948), as can be verified in This Archive. This magazine used the work of several professional photographers; obviously these do not all have a date of death before 1 January 1943. Some of the older material (say, pre-1880) is certain to be without copyright problems, but at present there is no telling how big the problems are. A volunteer from the Dutch Wikipedia (user:Gouwenaar) has scouted the problem, establishing that there is a problem (the detected pictures that have been proven to be in violation have now been deleted), but, most likely, that is the end of the participation from the Dutch Wikipedia, leaving it up to a volunteer (or volunteers) from Commons?
I've combined these two sections sorry! I saw the remark on Fry's page and looked over the contributions, which perfectly described to me some minor naughtiness that needed attention, in particular, removing the deletion discussion templates and so on in a manner that indicated this person has experience being naughty. :D Penyulap ☏18:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
As an extension of the above AN/U, GhiathArodaki is using the linked IP to evade his current block and attack me, this time accusing me of lying. He now claims he never called me a supporter of Israel, when he clearly did not just once but twice, and even acknowledged it because he gave an apology. Not only has he now retracted the acknowledgement that he has said it, and the apology by proxy, he is trying to say I actually am the one who accused him of being a supporter of Israel. All I did was nominate his upload for deletion because it was a very clear retaliatory upload. Fry1989eh? 18:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
OK Fry, first i said i didn't say you Israeli supporter , and if you claim that i didnn't say double time , but you are the one who called me that , lie more so you could have an army help you , great jo using this way , return to the dispute and read it again.GhiathArodaki (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The IP was blocked yesterday for 24 hours. The blocking admin was already aware of the connection between the two accounts; see User talk:Herbythyme#GhiathArodaki. I will inform them of this thread. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I want to report to you as an administrators, the constant edit warring that makes the user EeuHP on the file Nicolas Maduro in Brasilia.jpg. The user uploads changes that destroy the quality of the file, example he changes RGB and HSL levels of the image, deteriorates its quality.
He wants that his changes on the file are those shown in the wikipedia article at all costs (and acknowledged it explicitly). He has uploaded several versions of the same image that have been deleted for being smallness file versions to March 11. I invite you to compare the color quality of the file uploaded at(March 11) and the uploaded by the user (that is the actual).
Realizing that his miniatures versions were deleted, began to untie the edit war on the file Nicolas Maduro in Brasilia.jpg.
The user says that do not know very well the rules of the community, but he shows no interest for reads nor accepts advices.
The user is shown rude, arrogant and to make matters worse he's mulish when I make a claim about it and try to tell him to read the rules of the Wikimedia community about the fairness of the editions. Also when I attempt to instruct him in the rules of the community. He has taken advantage of a mistake I made (edit my talk page which I repent) to blackmail me.
I have not dared to edit the file nor make corrections once more, I prefer to be cautious and to await your review and your view about the case.
If a user contributions destroy the quality of a file must be reversed, for example just for spite altering the RGB and HSL levels that resulting in the reddening of the image tone. These contributions are unnecessary because they are not needed and cause damage
Clearly, the user does not understand or respect the impartiality of contributions. Obviously he opposes that any user improve his contributions when be necessary.
Mistakenly he call "oppose an version" to the improvements that any user can make to a contribution made by him. He does not accept that anyone to contribute to the contributions made by him (this violates exceedingly one of the most essential and basic rules of our community.
He also dares to remove templates and nominations that other users make to his contributions, without allow an administrator user (or an appropriate user for the case) to review and decide.
As you can review the history of the following files:
Note again that the user wants that his changes on the file are those shown in the wikipedia article at all costs violating multiple rules of the community.
I already spoke with he before referring the case to you, and as you can see the user is very stubborn (with due respect) and he not pay attention to the suggestions and wants to impose its will over all. Therefore I was obliged to take the case before you.
I trust that your contribution will the best for the good of our beloved community.
My english is very bad, but I explain the situation and my reasons for deleting the requests.
When I created the two photos of Bersani, I ignored the method for upload a new versions. Bersani.JPG is used in four articles in two wikipedias. Pier Luigi Bersani Agrigento 3BCS.JPG is not used. And Coronades03 propose to delete the first and I think that (if one must be wiped out of obligation, should be the second photo).
Benedicto XVI en Berlín, 2011.jpg was uploaded in 21/03/13 and the "original" photo ([File:Papst Benedikt XVI in Berlin 2011.jpg]) was uploaded in 29/03/13. I don't understand the accusation of plagiarism and this is the reason for deleting the request of elimination.
PD:My relationship with Coronades03 is not friendly. He accuses me of being arrogant and rude, but he said to me "blackmailer", "maker of unnecessary changes", "stubborn" ...
He accused me of wanting to impose my view. Why? Because I removed a modification made by he and put a change mine. Well. The same situation occurred in es.wikipedia (in the article "Nicolás Maduro"). I changed a picture of open-mouthed Maduro (made in Coronades03) and put the first version of the current picture. There was an edit war between him and me. An administrator said that my version is better. Soon after, Coronades03 changed the photo and created his own version (one version that, in my opinion, is too long and narrow).
If I modify, I'm an arrogant seeking to impose my opinion without reason. If he changes, he is a committed user who wants to improve photos.--EeuHP (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
A 'history split' is what you want to ask for. Or simply upload the new cropped image separately. File:Nicolas Maduro in Brasilia.jpg is a cropped image already, so there is no need to argue over it's size, just make more.
Don't remove templates, don't remove nominations, they must stay there until the discussion have been closed.
I suspect that some of the resizing is something that you can do, if we help you to find the right help pages, they aren't easy to find. The pages will tell you how to create thumbnails that are the correct size for the articles you want. If you can show me the problems you have on other wikis where the images are not fitting the way you want them to, I can show you the code to use. Penyulap ☏23:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
With the google translator, I've only been able to understand a part of your text, Penyulap.
I removed the claims because I thought that the petitions were wrong, but if the rules say that despite all should follow, I apologize for having withdrawn.
The Maduro's photo of Coronades03 is not bad, but I think that is necessary a version more wider and less long. I can uploaded this version apart?--EeuHP (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
This is no problem, google translate is a friend to everyone :)
It is no problem that you removed the template once. Today you learn. Don't worry. Next time, follow the link on the template. Go to the deletion discussion, and tell everyone your ideas. It is no problem.
Coronades03, there is a joke on commons. When the admin decides to 'preserve the characteristics' always they do this wrong. They make the wrong choice. This is tradition. This is a commons joke. :D
An admin will look at the file, and they will choose the wrong one for you :D I won't be the one to do it. You can do it yourself, just upload another file, use a different filename.
I suggest the easy idea. Don't decide the colour. Just use the first one. Change it to the first version of the file. Make new files for new colours. On the local wiki, ask about the colour on a public noticeboard if you want another opinion. Penyulap ☏00:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
User will not stop edit warring on the files TVE 1, TVE 2 and TVE 24, uploading a raster image over what are SVG images. Please block or warn. If the second user is a sock, the files may also need protection. Fry1989eh?16:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
This user tries to get his images removed that he uploaded with irrevocable free licenses. Please deny all these invalid speedy deletion request until the user presents an explanation for his behaviour or at least opens a mass DR. I already warned him and restored some images but I ask others to keep an eye on this user as well. --Denniss (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
seems a bit pointless to open a mass DR when you've already told him it will probably fail, in a message pointing out that it WILL fail, and threatening to block him too. Penyulap ☏09:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Please actually read what I had written there, user will be blocked if he continues with the invalid speedy DR and a DR will fail without proper explanation/deletion reason as the free license is given and can't be revoked. A user changing his mind is not a reason for delete (unless it's a personal image (i.e showing him or other identifyable people)). --Denniss (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
You're note on the User's talkpage IS perfectly correct, and IS perfectly civil. It is also going to fail because from a new users point of view, which I can also see, it is a threatening message, and twice being told do not bother with a deletion discussion. I'm NOT saying your viewpoint is wrong Denniss, you are perfectly correct, but your viewpoint is not the only viewpoint in that conversation, the viewpoint of the new user needs to be taken into account as well. (Yes I know their account is not new, but their experience with commons appears limited, they've only made a few edits and all have been in file-space so far.)
Your note is polite, it is correct, it is perfect in every single way until you put yourself into the new user's shoes, that's all, once you do that, it takes on a different light. New users always think admins breath fire and shit lightning. :) Penyulap ☏13:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I've closed the deletion discussion as keep. So long as Mulag doesn't realise how to remove them, they'll stay here. I can't see that Mulag would be happy about it though. Penyulap ☏10:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Mulag won't be possibly happy. But what he shouldn't be happy about is his misunderstanding of the CC license conditions. On the other hand, there's no reason for this community to create policies about deletion upon uploader request at any time. But it would need some larger consensus that a mere deletion request discussion. --Ecemamltalk to me/habla conmigo13:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Look2See1's talk page is virtually nothing except objections from numerous editors who have observed his many problematic edits. This was precisely the reason for his block in January, but he's kept right on going despite the objections; he now responds to them, but only to say that the block was needless, that I'm abusing him, and that I'm the one causing problems and should thus be blocked. On top of that, he's making reckless edits; see File:ABANDONED CAR IN JAMAICA BAY - NARA - 547839.tif and File:ABANDONED ICE CREAM WAGON AT BROAD CHANNEL IN JAMAICA BAY - NARA - 547927.tif, where he blanked all content categories in the process of adding a meta category. This issue has been going on for many months, and he's shown no signs of changing, so I believe that a block is needed to stop the continued disruption and nose-thumbing at everyone else. Nyttend (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
seems a good editor who gets along well with those who engage him in conversation. I see no problem here that needs intervention. Just put in a little sincere effort to talk with him, or be more specific with your request. Penyulap ☏07:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Someone has manipulated the code in this file - when the PLAY button is clicked a text box appears in the player that says "9-11 was an inside job". How to remove it? - 24.218.242.15921:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I cropped this file back in 2011 and it has been left that way to 2 and 1/2 years, becoming the accepted version. User:Maxxl2 reverted the file just yesterday claiming I did a bad crop, which obviously was not true. User:Maxxl2 has a history of making lies and false accusations against me. In any case, I reverted the image back to the version that it has been accepted as for 2 and 1/2 years. Then Leyo arrogantly enters the field to revert the file, protect it, and accuse me of vandalism. When I went to his talk page to ask how he thinks my reverting the file to it's long-standing edition meets the definition of "vandalism", I was faced with further arrogance, not only doubling down on calling it vandalism, but also edit warring, and ordering me to stop cropping images made by others who "know what they're doing". This is rude, over-bearing, disproportionate and ridiculous. The file was not under an edit war, it was not being vandalized, there is absolutely no reason to validate protecting it, and attacking someone calling them a vandal when they have done no such thing. Fry1989eh?19:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
enters the field is surely not appropriate. This logo is one of the thousands of files I moved from de.wikipedia to Commons.
When I became aware of the edit war and reverted the file to the original version. However, I should have written something like edit war, inappropriate crop (against the intention of the vector graphist/original uploader or alike.
Fry1989 has full-cropped the background in several logos before and he must be aware of the fact that this is not generally accepted, but he does not seem to care too much.
Let me reply to Leyo's last point. I DO care, I care enough that most images I crop I actually test first using File:Test.svg to make sure that nothing it lost or cut into by the crop. If something is, then I'll set the margins a bit farther apart creating a safe space. And it is infact accepted all the time, not just when I do it but when others crop images as well, and it was certainly accepted on this file for 2 & 1/2 years! This is the second time you've said what appears to be an attempted read into my state of mind, you also said this isn't the first time I've cropped things I think don't need to be there. You don't know what I think and it's incredibly condescending the way you're treating this entire thing. Even the way you responded "someone who walks on thin ice should 'watch it'", like just because you're an admin you're above scrutiny and valid anger when you have wrongfully accused someone of vandalism. Fry1989eh?20:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
(EC) The file description page is not protected. There is e.g. no description in English or any other additional language, but nobody cares. The edit war was just about the file itself. --Leyo20:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I considered it as an edit war enough for protecting against re-upload, but surely not enough for blocking the involved users.
@Fry: In the number system I know, the time span from October 2011 to March 2013 is 1.5 years, not 2.5 years. ;-) And again, I should have written a different comment when reverting the file to the original version. I apologize for that. --Leyo20:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
CommentCommons:Overwriting existing files seems to be the relevant guideline. Fry1989 overwrite of the original with his/her crop on 03:29, 16 October 2011 appears to be consistent with the guidance at that time, i.e., minor crop and removal of registered symbol.[26] The current guideline says "When in doubt, or to resolve inter-user conflicts, upload as a new file." That appears to apply in this instance. --Walter Siegmund(talk)21:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
COM:OVERWRITE is a stupid policy with contradictory interpretation and enforcement. Files get over-written all the time here, to change colours, correct something based on an official construction sheet, whatever number of reasons, and the only time COM:OVERWRITE ever seems to be brought up is when someone doesn't like the change. Fry1989eh?21:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like backpedaling to me, that's not what you said before about my crop practices. And I find it interesting that you would link two discussions started by Perhelion, when it's a known fact I have a problem with him, or should I say he has a problem with me. I don't go chasing him around, but he certainly seems to drop by with complaints about me. He has a serial contempt for Commons clearly stated on his user page, and attacks others who disagree with him all the time, notice in your second link he calls Kintetsbufalo a "blind follower of Fry". It's cute that he thinks I hold such sway over users here. Fry1989eh?22:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Fry1989, what Wsiegmund was pointing out, correct me if I'm wrong Wsiegmund, is that you were acting correctly because it was long before 'that silly policy' came along. You're just too worked up by people poking at you with sticks to think straight ! poor bugger. calm down before I have to slap you to your senses !
Leyo, in the past 12 months, Maxxl2 uploaded a new version, Fry disagreed, then you took sides by uploading and using your admin tools to lock the file to your version. You haven't discussed any of this on the talkpage. This is not appropriate use of admin tools, and this is not edit warring. Penyulap ☏21:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I am aware that Wsiegmund was stating that I was within the guidelines, and I am thankful, but I still hate the policy because of how it's used around here. And yes, I'm worked up, who wouldn't be when an arrogant rude admin instead of addressing concerns just replies with what is essentially a threat: "You're on thin ice, so you better watch your tongue". Fry1989eh?22:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Leyo, I note that you continue to edit and that's fine, and I don't think that this incident is enough that I'd suggest taking the tools away, however if you don't unlock the file, that is a problem. Penyulap ☏22:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Both the revert to the original version and the protection were admin actions. I am aware that I should have used a revert comment such as restoring original version or alike. This practice might not be a common in en.wikipedia, but that is not of relevance here. --Leyo07:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I endorse Ecemaml's summary. Thank you. I think Fry1989 is well-advised to heed the policies and guidelines of Commons, e.g., to upload a new version of a file under new filename. Fry1989 may think his/her changes are minor and improvements, but this discussion suggests that opinion may not be shared by others. --Walter Siegmund(talk)15:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
The appropriate place for everyone to express their opinions is the talkpage of the file. If a user disagrees with a change that someone else made, and changes it back, then the expectation that Fry or anyone else should be using Extra Sensory Perception to 'simply know somehow' that people who don't say a word disagree, is an unreasonable expectation.
This is the purpose of the talkpage, so that people do not choke ANU with requests to dispose of anyone who dares not guess their every unspoken desire correctly. If you have an opinion on the file, please put it in the appropriate place, which is, (drumroll please) that file's talkpage. Penyulap ☏16:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
That's my favourite too, where I propose an IB and nobody listens to olde Penyulap. Now it's just wall-o-crap-diffs warring. (not meaning you though)
Now attention all you Lazy admins !!! stop being so Lazy ! sit up straight, look alive ! put that joint out ! leave that goat alone, there is work to be done !! Crap that needs deletion ! stuff with the wrong names that need slightly less wrong names from a particular point of view but were probably not too bad in the first place honestly I think if you take the time to have a look, and other stuff too. !! Snap ! Snap ! get to work ! Penyulap ☏14:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
well, that is a good example, 'sitting in latin' is only half of a sentence, latin class, latin lectures, latin mass are examples of the other half, or can't it be sitting somewhere real like sitting in London or sitting in Paris, rather than sitting in latin. latin America ? or can it be sitting in Armenian or spanish ? or is latin something the zookeeper has to go and clean up 'Bobo has been sitting in latin again'. There are so many things to ponder that are more worthy of our attention than fixating upon people we don't like and just listing all the pointless ways we don't like them,. We should put the latin talk on that file's talkpage and the fixation, which is a form of harassment, onto umm, where does it go again ? man, that's a tuff question,... ummm,.. oh! put it on a sub-page in userspace. A shrine to someone you claim to despise. I just don't get that, why people spend so much time, effort and userspace on people they claim they're not fixated upon. I much prefer not being able to recall their names, and not giving them any thought at all.. what I guess I'm trying to say is 'not thinking works for Penyulap' yes, that's it. Penyulap ☏18:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
wait a sec, that says "Something in latin sitting on a stump" not "something sitting in latin on a stump". See ? that's why I can't be trusted moving files, I'm hopeless with such matters. Penyulap ☏18:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Ecemaml, you like to quote me posting 'Lazy admins ignoring this isn't going to make it go away, it will only delay the problem'. It was true! I came here about a problem I was having, and all the admins here ignored it until it got archived. If you damn people did your job, which is to deal with and mediate problems raised here whether or not you like the users user involved, I never would have said it. Instead, the problem keeps getting ignored and pushed back until it grows and grows. You also seem to like to defend Maxx12, despite the fact he is a proven liar, and over-writes images with completely unrelated edit summaries. Tell me, how does a "code purge" completely change an image like that? The only reason Maxx12 reverted my crop of the FIFA logo is to stir up trouble, there was absolutely nothing wrong with my crop.
Now, do you consider my crop of File:FIFA Logo(2010).svg, which has stood it's ground as accepted and established for over a year, vandalism? If yes, you have a very broad interpretation of the term. If not, then I had absolutely every right to go to Leyo's talk page and ask him why he called it vandalism when it clearly isn't. And let's get one other thing clear, I didn't hound him, I was quite polite, I said "Excuse me, but under what assumption do you presume to call my crop of the image, which has stood it's ground for 2 years, vandalism?". Perhaps a little snooty, but a valid question indeed. The very first response I got was "oh, your crop was innappropriate, it's edit warring, you asked for it, don't crop other peoples things because they know what they're doing", which reeked of attitude and false terms. That's when I get bitchy, you talk to me with that attitude, you're gonna get it right back. I don't have to give you a damn textual blowjob just because you're an admin, you people make mistakes too and in this case, Leyo certainly did. It was not a case of vandalism, it was not a case of edit warring, it most certainly didn't need file protection, when some files have been edit warred on with dozens of revisions and still don't get that treatment! This was an over-bearing admin with a bad attitude taking sides and gingerly throwing around terms that don't apply within a mile. That's what you're defending. Fry1989eh?18:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Fry, it doesn't help to bring up things that have been dealt with. It was said, and it's as good as it gets from the admin that the summary could have been better. There's not much use rehashing it. Nor is there any use having people follow Fry like around rehashing ad-nausea the same crap from last time, and linking to their last whinge as yet another reason for their current whinge.
The best thing to do in this situation is to put an interaction ban between the stone throwers and the person who says owch. Commons is not therapy and allowing bullying until it reaches the point of flipping a coin and shooting one contributor is not as good for the project as separating the parties, who have had more than sufficient time to air their grievances in painfully verbose detail, and letting them go their separate and productive ways on a project that is surely large enough to need their work.
As a responsible action, an interaction ban would allow both contributors to continue properly, simply allowing the dramaz to be continuously generated by people who get sick satisfaction until someone is thrown overboard, leaving the culprits to look for someone else is not appropriate. Penyulap ☏19:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I seem to remember asking about one between myself and Maxx12, and that was ignored, just like everything else. If Ecemaml wants to bring up my interactions with that liar and prop him up like a saint and a victim, I'm gonna point things out, including the fact that Maxx12 did exactly what I'm being accused of, OVER-WRITING FILES. And unlike my over-writes, which in the case of this image changed NOTHING except removing extra free space around the image, Maxx12 COMPLETELY changed an image from how it was, under the false edit summary claim of "code purge". Yes, he's such a victim and I'm such the mean hounding bully. Fry1989eh?19:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Are there any critical reasons why an interaction ban shouldn't be put in place at least as a temporary measure ? Penyulap ☏19:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I dont agree. I dont know when and where by coindidence i will fall into another file problem like the badly cropped FIFA 2010 and may be forced to refrain from repair. I am sick and tired to be called a liar and vandal by a user here when all evidence available show that his accusations are unfounded and false. I have been quiet for weeks because i didnt want to stir up this affair again, continue with my business and last but not least i believed that the facts (of the Savoy problem) where obvious and judgement would be easy. Those who are interested may read my notes and decide for themselves wether it is justified to blame me a liar and vandal day by day. If i am the liar and the vandal such a ban would be inappropiate. In that case other measures have to be taken. It is up to the admins to act accordingly and ban the vandal and liar. --maxxl2 - talk19:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
You are a liar! You were given ample chance and never proved a single accusation you made against me, each one of them was false and based on assumptions of my state of mind and intentions like you're some mind reader. You called me a thief, you told people I was trying to pass other peoples' works off as my own, and you have repeated these lies ad nauseum even after the issue was corrected to your satisfaction. Fry1989eh?20:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
And I'm so sick of my crop being called "vandalism". If my crop, which changed nothing about the image except removing some extra empty space around it is vandalism, then what you did to this image is massive vandalism. Fry1989eh?20:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
(upload-conflict)::::As far as the Tampon-image is concerned there was a discussion in the de:wiki and i tried to help with an improved image. Beeing not familiar with the commons-rules for derivative work at the time, i made the mistake you are pointing at. I am sorry for that one and only action of such a kind. I have no problem to admit that. --maxxl2 - talk21:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Just two issues:
This history clearly shows that it took you three days to recognize Katepanomegas' authorship (and you didn't do it in the proper way). Claiming other people's work is yours can be described in many ways (civil ones are preferred). It was Turelio the one that properly did the attribution (stating that yours was a derivative work) and even then you kept on edit warring (I won't enter into this, this or this, but I can do it if you wish... BTW, they include comments such as Piss off or I will have yoru IP blocked for vandalism. Do you understand? No more warnings, Bye bye, your block request is going through... for sure, none of the file talk pages includes any comment from your side).
If you're so interested in having an interaction ban with Maxxl2, you could start by applying it on your side. If years Maxxl2 overwrites a file you uploaded two years ago, you've got the Village pump to ask for a reversion if needed. Instead, you chose to edit war (as usual), with the usual derogatory comment.
Ecemaml, 'stone throwers' is plural, and there is no need for you to be somehow exempt from an IB self imposed or otherwise, your additional comment, it is quite clear to me is just trying to get yet another response out of Fry. Be professional enough to see that you're more than involved enough as it is without handing out more threats. You're comments like "[...]his usual disdain against the commons policies whenever they don't support his stances, see above the mention to 'this silly policy' or my favorite 'Lazy admin[....]" show where you stand in this. Penyulap ☏21:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Ecemaml, I have provided probably 3000 images to Commons after you count all the flags, flag maps, road signs, coats of arms, blah blah blah. They're all attributed in one way or another, the New Zealand road signs are painstakingly attribued to the New Zealand Transport Authority, various coats of arms are attributed the the files they originally came from, everything I have added to Commons is in one way or another! The ONLY thing I did differently this time with the Savoy coats of arms when I uploaded them was use UploadWizard instead of DerivativeFX (which automatically applied derivative info), and I used the same license as on the original files which was Katepanomegas own custom attribution license. It is VERY OBVIOUS that it is not in my nature to steal things and claim them as my own, and only a fool, or someone who doesn't know me at all but is very quick to judge, would think that just because it didn't say in the file infobox "this image was taken from...", that I was attempting to do so this time. I even instantly refuted the accusation the very first time it was laid upon me, and every time since. I also made efforts to add clearer attributions after the complaints were raised, my way, but those weren't accepted and both an IP and Maxx12 tried to force how they thought it should be done. So you need to read a little deeper in your research, before you try and accuse me of any wrong-doing in that matter, and if you are in any way trying to suggest that I did attempt to pass them off as my own material, well quite frankly you can eat shit for all I care. You don't know me when it comes to attribution any more than Maxx12, I have never stolen ANYTHING! Fry1989eh?22:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
As a curious onlooker that stumbled onto this nonsense, I have three questions based on what I read...
1) Does anyone involved feel like a complete fool fighting this much over a simple crop?
2) Who made Leyo an admin and does anyone feel foolish about that?
3) How is Penyulap all over everywhere at once and is anyone actually paying any attention to him?
+1. The discussion has degenerated to the "eat shit" level, so perhaps the participants have had enough fun knocking chunks off each other. Either block the parties or collapse the discussion. Administrator noticeboards should be places for wise counsel and advice on interpreting policy, not circuses for gladiator fights. I suggest comments making this a hostile environment should be at a minimum collapsed on sight, along with the many inflammatory or possibly "amusing" posts from Penyulap over the last few weeks, which appear to do little other than throw gas on the fire and make those with grievances feel nothing but more grief.
BTW, Fry, thanks for the 55,000+ contributions to this project. Take it from someone who has been there and back, stay mellow, that path works best for any high volume contributor and is always worth the hassle in the long run. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Fæ, thank you. I get very little thanks for the contributions I've made here, and it means a lot. However, I will not allow myself to be called a thief over and over and over by someone (maxx12) who doesn't know me but wants to pretend they can read my mind and intentions, and then have an admin (Ecemaml) of all people back that accusation up and protect the false accuser. If there is one line I will never allow to be crossed here unanswered, it is someone calling me a thief. I have invested 4 years of my life into this place, I don't ask for thanks, I don't ask for friends, I just ask for respect. If I'm not respected by a user, I will not respect them, and the way Ecemaml has treated me today I do not respect him, adminship be damned. Fry1989eh?02:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
@Fry1989: "I will never allow to be crossed here unanswered" ... a common vow of young men and fools. A word to the wise... some things (and some people) are best left unanswered. – JBarta (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I am repeatedly misunderstood and accused and attacked here. Perhelion comes to my talk page with "you're always cropping or editing or doing something!" (to paraphrase), Maxx12 goes on a crusade of calling me a thief just because I uploaded four images and didn't attribute them the way he thinks I should have, Leyo tells me to stop croping things because of how I "think" they should be...and on and on and on. I spend between 4-8 hours a day here, every day, for four years. Everything I've done is for the benefit of this project. I don't need "thank yous", I just need people to stop making assumptions of my intentions and accuse me of vandalism and all this bullshit I've dealt with. No, I'm not a mellow person when attacked, but does that justify the attacks in the first place? Do they get a free pass just because I blow up afterwards? What a wonderful place, I swear I'm a masochist to stay here in spite of it. Fry1989eh?03:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Agreement just about reached between the parties to try avoiding each other without enforcement by a formal interaction ban. Rd232 (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
This really is the last straw. From the very beginning, this user has claimed to be able to read my mind and know my intentions, and accused me of stealing someone else's work and claiming it's mine. Even after the four images were changed to be attributed in a manner that was satisfactory to Maxx12, he continued to repeat to people I'm a thief, and this page he has created is only a continuation of these attacks on my character and bullying. I want him to not be allowed to have anything to do with me, or to say anything about me, for a period of 6 months. This would be mutual. Fry1989eh?23:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't mind helping formulate a workable IB solution that doesn't involve landmines, loopholes and technicalities, but it would need to be something Maxx12 would also like to work towards. It would make it easier for both of you to live with, rather than a simple arbitrary 'anything to shut them up' solution from the community. Penyulap ☏03:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
As i stated already once before, i see no need for an IB.
(Copy from my statement on Commons:Deletion requests/User:Maxxl2/notes)
As i am a senior person you will allow me a longer reaction time. I am not accustomed to spontaneous action when it comes to interpersonal problems. Also my limited knowledge of the English language hinders me to react within hours to avoid misunderstanding when translating from German.
The dispute here started with a spontaneous intervention from my side when i saw that the correct edit of an IP changed the source and authorship in accordance with the lincence rules of the edited file of Katepanemogas. I better wouldnt have kept quiet and watched the glooming editwar. That was my only mistake i admit immediately.-
I got annoid when i then realized, that Fry1989 reverted this edit and threatened the IP and called him "vandal". Then i inestigated Fry1989 contributions and saw that he was a highly frequent, skilled and valuable member of commons. In the hope and intention not to disturb his activities on commons, i posted an angry and dissapointed message on his en:wiki talk page. Having seen his positive contributions done before, i asked about his way of contribution in the future.
Even my second posting on en:wiki was just the request to state the proper licence and authorship.
From then on the process wasnt in my hands and went wrong totally because a war break out.
Nowhere i ever called Fry1989 a thief or accused him of stealing.
After the first discussion on ANU i refrained from editing files Fry1989 had touched and ignored every mentioning the conflict i didnt wanted to grow.
When i applied for filemover right it was opposed by reference to this conflict what i didnt understood and was almost ready to withdraw this request. And i kept quiet for four weekas hoping the fire would burn down.
Incidently beeing busy on another FIFA image file i saw the defective FIFA logo thumbnail on the de:wiki and reverted the cropping not mentioning who was the editor before.
From then on a second war broke out which i didnt intended but had to realize that i was still called a liar and vandal.
To stand the debate i compiled the notes subpage for the only purpose to ask several trustful members for there assessment whether this timeline was correct, factual and non inflamatory to make it he base of consideration how to apprtoach the glowing conflict.
This list just only shows the facts of a conflict i didnt start and hoped to avoid. It also contains my basic questions concerning my participation.
As i never had a conflict of such a kind before i am not familiar of how and when reactions from my side are expected on commons, i prefer to sit back and consider before i start to write.
I wish i would have never followed my first anger and surprise when i saw that an experienced and esteemed user like Fry1989 reverted the IPs first edit and expressed his threat. Since then it was an absolute waste of time and effort of so many people of good faith and high skills that could be better invested in the tasks of commons.
Sorry - folks, i'll keep quiet and will never touch that subject again and i dont need any admin action like an IB. (Sorry for my inadaquate English, to). --maxxl2 - talk12:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Do not worry, we all have misunderstandings sometimes. If Fry agrees, I hope we can close the discussion and forget the whole thing. If everyone can work to avoid mentioning the past or 'crying wolf' saying they'll stop, we can look forward to working better together in future. Penyulap ☏12:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Nothing but crying wolf. Maxxl2 refuses to understand, or feigns not to understand, what he is doing wrong. There is no hope that he will either follow the dispute resolution process expected by the community or cease and desist. Penyulap ☏13:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
@Penyulap - dont you think it would be helpful to ask some other admin to take over as you are already involved in a controversal discussion you started on another page parallely which may possibly keep you away from an inpartial position? Thanks for your attention and help so far. --maxxl2 - talk14:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm offering advice and guidance, not performing admin actions, which I don't do as I am not an admin. This noticeboard is for everyone to offer their input and help if they can, however, sometimes admins are so busy with better things to do they don't have time to chat to people. They'd pretty much just 'flip a coin and block someone', or both offenders, depending on their culture. Right now, nobody cares anymore about this silliness because you two are evenly matched with your inane name-calling.
To be involved, you have to be offering a great deal of opinion as well as using admin tools in the same case. Something I wouldn't do even if I was an admin, unless all parties were in agreement. Penyulap ☏14:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
User:Maxxl2/notes has now been deleted at the user's own request. This, along with Maxxl2's lengthy comment above, is hopefully an opportunity for peace to break out. Let's either try and move on and let bygones be bygones, or identify remaining obstacles to that happening. Rd232 (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I still want one. I have a right to request it. I don't want anything to do with this bully and I don't want him to have anything to do with me. Fry1989eh?18:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
unrelated discussion
(inserting a sub-heading to separate the diversion from topic -peny)
Where has he accused you of being a "thief" or "stealing"? I agree people shouldn't do that but I don't see those claims on the page you linked. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Fry, is that possible to make you understand that this sentence ("Even after the four images were changed to be attributed in a manner that was satisfactory to Maxx12") is untrue, as a) Maxx12 was not involved in the attribution edit war; and b) even if he was involved, he was right as you hadn't done the right attribution?
To sum up, you took the work of a fellow member of the community and breached the terms of the original work's license. File:Great coat of arms of the king of italy (1890-1946).svg was licensed under CC-BY-SA. According to them, you should have kept the same license ("If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one"), something that you did; and properly attribute the result of your derivative work ("You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)", something that you didn't (therefore claiming it was your work). It took you three days to acknowledge the attribution and only after a user edited the file information. It was not Maxx12 the one that asked for anything weird (he's not even involved in the edit war), but the licensing terms that you breached. I don't know whether Maxx12 has called you a 'thief' (which is definitely uncivil and shouldn't be accepted), but pretending that a work by other guy is yours is not acceptable (and yes, "There is also debate on whether copyright should be considered a property right or a moral right"). --Ecemamltalk to me/habla conmigo08:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ecemaml, I am happy that you are correctly highlighting Fry's mistakes against Licensing, which must be taken seriously and learned from, Fry would do well to acknowledge that mistake and affirm they will do better in the future. This is the second time I have noted you complaining that taking 3 days to respond was inadequate to make an acknowledgement in this case. Could you provide a little context so that others can better understand why you find 3 days too long for a proper response from a contributor? It seems slightly odd to castigate a user for being tardy, so long as they put things right within a reasonable time-frame (which in my experience on Commons might be weeks rather than days - it being no coincidence that DRs are supposed to run for 7 days).
Fry, interaction bans don't seem to be used frequently on this project. If you offer to make a firm commitment to avoid interacting with Maxx12 yourself, starting now, then it would be perfectly reasonable to ask an admin (or others) if they would help mediate if Maxx12 continues to act in a way that appears to require your interaction. This may seem a little one-way, but serves equally well without the admin hassle of an interaction ban, and would probably appear as a determined effort on your part to take the initiative to follow a mellow path without needing a threat of a block to make it happen. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
(Penyulap putting on his best imitation of Fry's voice) "I want him to not be allowed to have anything to do with me, or to say anything about me, for a period of 6 months. This would be mutual." (cough)
Seriously did you miss that part or are you just fishing for one sided pledges that you can quote later. Maxx12 is the one you should be asking to make a comment to start with, let alone a commitment. Penyulap ☏09:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Psychonaut, the very first thing he ever said to me was an assumption and accusation of thievery, and he has repeated that in various forms since that time. He created the page I listed in my initial statement of request for an IB as "documentation" to support his theory that I intended to steal these images.
ecemaml, I give up with you, you don't understand the facts to save your life and continue to defend Maxx12. He was in fact involved in the attribution dispute alongside an IP address, and after the files were attributed in a manner that Maxx12 found satisfatory, he still did not stop claiming I tried to steal the images. He's repeated it for two months and it's untrue. Fry1989eh?18:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The simplest of facts
It is a fact that I have provided (emphasis on "provided" as opposed to "created") several thousand images to Commons in various subjects, before I uploaded the four Savoy coats of arms that caused this problem. They are all attributed in some way or another. The New Zealand road signs for example, were painstakingly attributed to the Transport Agency. If I wanted to steal things, I could have tried to pass those road signs off as my own and most people wouldn't have known the difference. However, I didn't do that. My actions regarding uploads, whatever else you think about me, have shown a character that is not a thief. Nobody here, including Maxx12, has ever been able to explain what is so special about these four images that would make me want to steal them and claim them as my own. Why these four? Why are they so special? If I'm such a thief, why didn't I do it to any of the many many other files I have uploaded over the years I've been here? It's because I didn't intend to steal them and claim them as my own. I used UploadWizard instead of DerivativeFX, and it was an accident that they weren't attributed the way some people think they should have been. Yes I fought the changes in licensing and attribution that was forced on the images by an IP. Why? Because it was insulting, the IP also instantly accused me of thievery as well, and it was so insulting that I fought back. That doesn't prove I had an intent to steal them, or claim them as my own. This is fact. I'm not a thief, and my character proves that. Fry1989eh?19:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Look, you use this comment of Maxxl2's as evidence of a problem that needs solving, but all that really shows is that though Maxxl2's English is good enough for communication, it's flawed enough that allowances should certainly be made. Since he's made a gesture by deleting the page, and said above Nowhere i ever called Fry1989 a thief or accused him of stealing. (which if you disagree with you can consider a retraction, perhaps), I really think we should let this miscommunication go. Neither of you wants to interact with the other, and I don't think that needs formalising at this point (which can cause problems of its own). I accept your explanation about these files, Maxxl2 now seems to, and if anyone else doesn't that's obviously a separate issue. So I would suggest that you and Maxxl2 try and avoid each other (I'm sure both of you can find intermediaries if necessary) and see how that goes. Rd232 (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I use that comment as evidence of his instant assumption and accusation, because it was the very first time this user had ever contacted me, and from the very begining instead of asking me if I did this on purpose, he assumed and accused it of being on purpose. Since then, he has repeated multiple times that I did this and that to take another user's images, and by not attributing them properly, claim them as my own. That is calling me a thief. Now, you consider the deletion of his "documentation" as a sign that this is over? I'm willing to take a leap of faith because you have been a trustworthy and helpful admin to me. However, if I ever see him repeat these accusations again, I will be back here in an instant, and I will not let up until action is taken. Fry1989eh?21:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, thank you. I think it's worth giving peace a chance. He jumped to a conclusion, and I don't think he'll do that again, especially as both of you want to avoid future interaction. Rd232 (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The Penyulap show
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.
Post count: 8:Penyulap, 4:Fæ, 2:Maxx12, 1:Fry1989, 1:Psychonaut, 1:Ecemaml
I have been observing Penyulap having fun on AN and AN/U over the last few weeks. Their contributions seem intended to inflame issues rather than resolving them and to hijack discussion to make these more about Penyulap and their personal Wikimedia hobby-horses than anyone else. In the ongoing dispute between Fry and Maxx, the major contributor here and at the related DR page is Penyulap, more than the two parties this is supposed to be about.
Do any administrators have a view on where to draw the line, or should we start retitling every thread that is obviously being kept going by Penyulap, to include Penyulap as a named party for potential administrator action? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, G. Coronades and EeuHP was a lot of fun, they came to this noticeboard looking for help, why deprive them of the assistance they seek ? I was the only one who had time to help them, and it was totally freaking awesome, made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, I can't tell you how much fun that was Fæ, words fail me.
Finding Look2See1 was fun as well. Giving a great contributor who has made over 100,000 fantastic edits was brilliant ! I love giving Barnstars to people who help others and work on the common good. I really enjoyed too, just immensely. I was glad I came to AN/U to help.
Don't you just love helping people Fæ, isn't it the best feeling in the whole wide world, makes you feel euphoric and wonderful doesn't it. Penyulap ☏15:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Woohoo, I'm in the lead, I like your little tally Fæ, can I get an extra helpful point for putting it into a *nice* table ? that would bring my helpfulness score to 9 instead of 8, but maybe that's cheating. Penyulap ☏15:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Penyulap has made some helpful comments, as well as some unhelpful or irrelevant ones. It would be great if he could exercise a bit more judgement about what will be actually helpful to a discussion, particularly when getting involved in a dispute between others. As a general guide, if you can't offer a solution or ask specific questions that help clarify a situation, then it's probably better to wait and see how the discussion develops. Rd232 (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I like the statistical analysis so much I made another one, it helps make the whole section sexier I think, so people don't fall asleep, I wouldn't want that. I like the idea that I make at least 'some unhelpful and irrelevant comments', I put most of my efforts into that department and make lame excuses about it like 'I'm learning' it's good to see my efforts are not in vain. As for the 'helpful comments' I can't prove conclusively that they were not deliberate, I'll have to leave that to the experts. Penyulap ☏17:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
With this edit you inserted your table into Fae's comment. I can see why you wanted the two tables together, but I'm sure you know how bad it is to attribute comments to another editor. I've moved the table down to just above your comment. Rd232 (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove by linking some constructive contributions of yours under the heading "trolling discussions started by Penyulap", apparently in response to my comment asking that you exercise a bit more judgement about what will be actually helpful to a discussion. Rd232 (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I might have been clouding the issue of 'I talk too much' with something along the lines of 'well talking can be a good thing'. I didn't mean to attribute that sexy statistical table to the complainant in this discussion, just seemed like the top was a nice place to put it, although I have to say, I like it better further down because it keeps viewers interested in the goings-on between the start of the show and the commercial break. The 'trolling by Penyulap' just gave it that extra hype it needed, I mean I felt sorry for him cause the whole 'let's get Penny' war-cry was like turning into a flop in the ratings department, this is a really weak section, no diffs, pol or anything at all really, and I just want to sex it up a bit.
I know, why don't we all play 'wall-o-crap' ? That's a popular game he's sure to like, my turn first. I've compiled a list of 1,500 misdeeds on a subpage here and as you can clearly see, there is a pattern to all of that {Penyulap nods convincingly} it's time someone took action I say ! So some inattentive admin, just trust whatever I say, and block him !
There, how did I do ? I think I should have put more stress into the 1,500, like saying 'one and a half thousand', wait, (booming voice) 'THOUSAND'. (cough) You know, I think we would probably be able to make more useful comments if we had some direction to the discussion. So far the only real meat in this discussion turns out to be my hype. I don't mind of course, I can talk all day but I get the feeling this is about as useful as any of his time-waster discussions. (determined tone) But at least it has sex appeal, thanks to me !
Hmm, I don't feel comfortable being a party to another time-waster by Fae. I can't think of a good way to spruce up the conversation with any actual real misdeed, I can't think of anything. Nearest I can get is when I was upset about people trying to hound other contributors off the project and I mis-read your comments Rd232, I think it was you who did the close. I was steamed about that whole episode, but I struck some of my comments. Hey maybe there is enough so you can block me anyway ? will you do that ? I need a break so I can concentrate on learning website programming really. It's all this drawing that keeps me tied up. Do you know anyone who does self-imposed blocks ? I mean, lets face it, we ain't never going to get a decent block from anything Fae puts up, maybe that cause I'm a good read and it's hard for sleepy admins to skip the tldr. shrug. I dunno. Penyulap ☏19:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Penyulap has done for me what almost nobody else here does; point out the hypocrisies and ironies and contradictions in the way my stance is evaluated as opposed to that of the other user, when I am in a dispute. He does it in a very colourful way, and I appreciate the effort, even if it looks like a sideshow at times. Fry1989eh?19:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Please TRASH all the files i put in the commons area i don't know how to "tag" them for deletion--grantwmiller
i don't "get" your site software. Wikibook of source code dangerous and inappropriate.
Please delete all my uploads. I do know how to "sign" this...grantwmiller
--Grantwmiller (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
This user is engaging in hounding after his several blocks. Not only has he hounded my talk page twice in the last 24 hours, after a little research I find he has also done so on Fastily's talk page, and edited the AN/U archive page to include more hounding of me. He thinks I have it out for him just because I nominated some of his files for deletion, won't let it go, and clearly is going to push this as far as it can go. He also insists that he never said I was a supporter of Israel and that I'm lying about it, when he very clearly inferred that, and even later apologized for the inference. Please deal with it. Fry1989eh?
I gotta say Fry, after watching you for the last couple days... you are the cause of most of your problems. All this thrashing about and playing the noisy victim seems to be the real problem here. If you could simply learn to just shut up once in a while, you'd be surprised how much of your troubles with other users would simply evaporate. – JBarta (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Jbarta, it takes two to tango, and people learn as time goes on. A lot of people leave the project because they don't get used to the trolling fast enough, I can't see how blaming them is a better solution than working towards a better environment for us all. Penyulap ☏21:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I've been around long enough to know that 90% of the problems between people could be solved immediately, and even prevented, if people would simply shut the hell up. There is no tango and action doesn't always have to required of both parties. One party can effectively end the issue... usually the noisiest one. – JBarta (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me Jbarta, but do you have any understanding of what this is? The user nominated some files for deletion that he found insulting to Syria. I and several others voted to keep the files in the DRs, saying that perceived insults to a country are not a reason for deletion. When the user saw they were kept, he comes to my page of all places, and says "oh, if insults aren't a reason, then I'm gonna upload this!". It was a very obvious retaliation upload, and I nominated it for that reason. And then he says "oh yes, everything for Israel, that's how you're gonna make it". Politics aside, he's the one making this personal, and going to my talk page taunting me, hounding others for deleting things, and editing archive pages. Don't you dare for one second blame this one me without understanding it. I have not made this personal, I do not follow him around and go to his talk page and say things like "this is how you're gonna make it" and "you wanna report me? do it before time runs out!", he is the one doing this, and it's stupid. Fry1989eh?21:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hm, well in no particular order:
you forgot to notify him of this thread (I've done that)
I don't see hounding of Fastily, who apparently deleted some of his files
Editing the archive isn't appropriate, but fixing it by restoring the relevant thread to COM:AN/U so it's "live" again is not necessarily going to be helpful, so never mind
The communication between you two is broken; the user's level of English doesn't help, and again, as a native speaker, some allowances and additional patience would not go amiss.
All I did was vote for some files to stay because the reasoning for nominating them was flawed. He then uploaded a retaliation file with a "reverse insult", and I nominated it for that reason. Since then, he's made this personal and hounded me. It's not my fault, I just did what I do on a daily basis, vote in DRs, and nominate files I think should be deleted. There are disputes that are my fault, but unless Jbarta is suggesting that every time a user votes in a DR or nominates a file, they have to accept potential fallout like this, it's not my fault this time. Fry1989eh?21:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I appreciate that it looks like you've done nothing wrong here and that most likely the issue is Ghaith not understanding how things work here. Let's not give up quite yet on fixing that. Rd232 (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest that Fry's behavior has inflamed the dispute and all this thrashing about and moaning about being "hounded" is just a little overblown. Again, I say Fry is as much a part of the problems I've seen of him in the last couple days as any other party. Until he realizes this and owns up to it, the disputes, accompanied by more thrashing and moaning, are likely to continue. – JBarta (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
"Hounding" can be an emotive term, and it's arguable whether it really fits here. But that aside, what exactly would you have Fry have done differently, and/or do now? Rd232 (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
For starters he can stop deleting the other guy's comments from his talk page and basically telling him to get lost. He can stop responding to every dispute as if the other guy is trying to cut off his toes. From here, he can simply drop this particular issue and move on to other, more constructive things. – JBarta (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I have no obligation to keep anybody's comments on my talk page, least of all ones that don't add anything positive but are only there to hound me, from a user that I haven't had anything to do with outside of a couple DRs and one talk page discussion. "Moving on" is what I have been trying to do, I haven't talked to this user, I haven't done anything with him for at least a week (because he's been blocked for that long), and don't have any interest in future interactions. He is the one who keeps coming to my talk page and bothering me about an issue he can't let go of. Fry1989eh?23:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
When you delete someone's comments like that, it does nothing but inflame the other person. It serves no useful purpose but make you feel powerful for the moment and all you're doing is inviting more BS. Then when more BS inevitably comes, you complain about it. I told you a short while back that not every slight needs to be responded to and a wise man knows when to just let something go. You'll have more luck with that than this nonsense you're doing now. – JBarta (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe for one second you would just "ignore" it, if a user who has a bone to pick kept coming to your page and inserting comments about his issue against your will, and didn't get the hint that yes, I want him to "get lost". I have nothing to do with this user outside of a handful of DRs and one talk page discussion that was very brief. He needs to let it go, and somehow you wanna blame me. Fry1989eh?23:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleting comments from your talk page is allowed, but rarely helpful. Talk is cheap, and so is user talk page space. Rd232 (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
So how many times does it take before this is dealt with? Does he have to do it 10 times? 50 times? I don't have anything to do with him, like I said all I did was vote in some DRs he initiated, and my vote was the same as others. Chipmunkdavis said the same thing, Anonmoos said the same thing, even Sinnamon who also doesn't like me, said the same thing. He could have chosen anyone to respond to, but he chose me. How is that my fault? Fry1989eh?00:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Well how about waiting for him to respond here. I've already asked him to stay away from your talk page whilst this is under discussion. Rd232 (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi , what i have done as it was said , i nominated 4 files for deletion , fry voted keep , and said insulting is not a reason for deletion , so i told him as he said , uploading my file , fry thought it is a revenge or something , so he nominated for deletion , and meaning wikimedia i said "every thing for israel" , from this point he started to attack me with a bad way , and not talking good to me , i answered him and told him to talk good , while he still attacks me , anyway , i ignored him by stopping the dispute as i didn't want any problems , so i said sorry as not an apogoly , just for ending the truple and discussing why i said that , after days , i uploaded some files that are related to syria , he is the one who nominated them for deleting , i ignored that in the first time , but he did it again , i told him this may be a revenge because you are deleting my files , he answered no , i believed him , actually i was trying to be nice with him , but , after one of the nominated files was resulted keep , he nominated it again for deletion , doesn't seem that deleting every thing related to syria a revenge for the dispute — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.61.35.103 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
−
I Told him that , but when i got reported he jumps to the report telling them what happened , this was the first time , he is allowed to tell his former problem with me in the report , but lying to win the report is not a good way , the second time i was reported , he jumped again , i answered him again , but with a harder answer , i posted it on the archive and the talk page of him , he delete it , claiming that i'm the one who is hounding him , i responded for that , he treated me that he will report me , i told him report before the time runs , that what happened , as you see after the dispute , he is the one who is hounding me , i was trying to be nice , actually claiming that i responded him only because i'm hounding him isn't a big deal , i'm free to respond anyone or not , as the two related files for syria , first i thought they were insulting , but then it was discussed why they are not , the first file was meant to be for syria in 50s , and the second meant to combine what is happening in syria , so i understood that178.61.35.10305:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
This isn't really helpful. Either provide specifics on what you're accusing Fry of, preferably (if you can manage it) with links to where those things happened or were said, or just apologise for your accusations, and recognise that everyone here needs to act in good faith, and generally does. Then if there are any specific issues with particular files to be discussed, we can address those (maybe on your user talk page, rather than here). Also, please remember to log in before commenting. Thanks, Rd232 (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
PS Please try to break up your paragraphs into complete sentences with full stops. This stream-of-consciousness kind of writing is quite hard to digest. Rd232 (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
In all fairness, I'd like to see how well you write Arabic (assuming that's his native language). GhiathArodaki, just express yourself the best you can and we'll digest it just fine. – JBarta (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
In all fairness, writing that stream-of-consciousness as well as he does he should be capable of making complete sentences. Rd232 (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
mmm, you make it sound, hmmm, all that thrashing and moaning, the way it sounds is kind of, well,.. hey say that thrashing moaning part again for me... Penyulap ☏23:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I also agree with JBarta; in fact, several weeks ago already I observed that Fry1989 seemed to be actively aggravating his relationship with GhiathArodaki. Fry1989, please listen to JBarta's advice. Sometimes the best course of action when you feel someone is attacking, hounding, or retaliating against you is not to respond in kind, or even to respond at all (including deleting their comments). Just let it be; in most cases they'll realize they're not getting anywhere and either moderate their approach or give up and go away. If they really were in the wrong, then it will be obvious to everyone else; there's no need to spend so much effort vindicating yourself. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
GhiathArodaki, forgetting to log in one time is not normally treated as using a sockpuppet account. This would normally only become an issue if this appeared to be circumventing a block, or an attempt to manipulate consensus. If you wish for the IP address to be removed from public view to protect your privacy (anyone can now work out your Country of residence and ISP), please send an email to an admin and explain you made an error. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that the user and the IP were the same, I would not have thought there was anyone who needed to be told. I stand corrected. Fæ, for your benefit, yes, I know it's the same person and I'm sure most other editors do too. I'm indicating the editor is probably not what they appear to be at first glance. I don't elaborate in public on that very much, as it assists would-be sockers to improve their skills.
also, spa can mean, and did when I wrote, 'single purpose account' if you examine their overall purpose, to see what their intentions are, it's rather telling.
It has been an enourmously long time since IP's meant anything to anyone with the least bit of technical savvy. I find IP's to be pointless as people who don't take precautions when using them generally don't care less about being caught in the first place, so other methods are suited to tracking.
In the end, nothing is secret on the Internet at all, if you know the right people OR the right methods. Penyulap ☏14:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
GhiathArodaki, I'm not lying, I'm describing what has happened from how I saw it. You never actually told me personally that you meant "all of wikipedia" instead of just me, and you even apologized to me for saying it which suggested that you did mean it about me. What else am I supposed to assume? Also, strangely, you accused me of calling you that. Where did I ever say that about you? Just let it go, and let me go. I don't have it out for you, but I won't be quiet if you keep coming to my page and trying to re-hash the issue that I don't care about anymore. Fry1989eh?18:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't apologized to you , i said that to end the dispute , Yes i meant wikimedia , i didn't mention you , read it again , i read what did you wrote wrong , you didn't called israeli supporter but a man who doesn't know his country history , my langauge isn't english , for that i read it wrong , but you lied when you said i said an israeli supporter double time , actaully the word israeli supporter wasn't said by me , i didn't mention that word ever, i'm the one who want it to go away , i ignored the dispute by ending it with a fake apogoly , just to be far from problemsGhiathArodaki (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Discussion seems to have reached a positive conclusion with specific commitments from the two parties of "I won't be actively involved in the review of any work by Tomascastelazo" and "Ecemaml need not to worry about me harrassing him". Nothing here requiring action unless either party makes the mistake of back-pedalling, in which case this discussion is a handy reference in the archive to decide if action is needed. Fæ (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I want and interaction ban with Ecemaml.
I´ve had several run ins with this individual and I´ve pointed out several actions that are unbecoming an administrator. He was permanently expelled and blocked as an admin from Spanish wikipedia #[[27]]. The reasons for his repeated block and expulsion shed a lot of light on his pattern of abuse as an administrator #[[28]].
One thing is to be blocked for disruptive behaviour, but another is to be blocked as an administrator, forever. He was.
The confrontations that I had with Ecemaml contributed to me being blocked, and I believed he even blocked me at one time.
I think that prior conduct in other wikipedias should be taken into account before granting admin powers here.
I definitely do not want to be judged nor sentenced nor associated in any discussions with someone with these prior behaviours, especially when I have been affected by his actions. His recent closure of a file where I was somehow related is just another example of his questionable behaviour. The exercise of good judgement should have told him to stay clear. Luckily, his desicion was quickly reversed.
Tom, I don't care about what anyone has done elsewhere, and I don't like it being brought up here.
What I know of this whole thing is I stumbled across Tom, I think it was here actually, seemed to be as irritable as he is irritating and both of those in small measure. So I look at his work and contributions and see he's well liked and un-fucking-believably talented, I like that.
stuff I thought was ok on his pages is being deleted, which is in my face on my talkpage, and by the time his BARNSTAR is getting deleted, I'm like and I'm looking at his blocklog and page protections in a new light and seeing things like this which make me think, hey, this admin is getting way-too involved, I mean if you're waiting for an apology from someone, then deleting their awards while you wait seems like maybe not the best strategy to pass the time. I'm thinking deleting someone's awards is just pretty fucked up right there. Penyulap ☏22:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
If you can't show some/any Commons related behaviour, I'll be closing this discussion since you're bring issues from another Wiki to Commons. What ever happens/ed on es.wiki stays there. Bidgee (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
True enough, what happens off commons stays off commons, and if you can't be bothered to read the comments and diffs that relate to commons then I'll be happy to re-open the discussion so it can take it's natural course. Penyulap ☏00:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The best bit is the bee in the bonnet bit but bearing in mind I have no bee in my bonnet bugging me because it's someone I hardly know except from this whole Tomas thing, then how does that make any sense ?
I expect somewhere I must have crossed paths with Ecemaml, but I don't recall, and I certainly do not recall ever being upset with them outside of this Tomas episode. So I beg the bee be better examined please, can you tell me from whence the bee has arrived ? Penyulap ☏00:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Bidgee, not only did I get tired of pointing out Ecemamls abusive behaviour, I got blocked! The truth is that no one really bothered to check the issues I pointed out, so I looked for evidence of misbehaviour in other wikies. Wikiedia is after all a project with many components and Commons is part of the whole thing. Ecemaml acts outside policy and procedures with impunity and I had several run ins with him, so in order to maintain the peace an interaction ban is not too much to ask. His behaviour in other wikis cannot be ignored, on the contrary, it shoud be taken into consideration, and it should have been taken into consideration when he was nominated for admin status. People carry their ways wherever they go, and here it is no different. I am not tryinng to pick a fight with Ecemaml, on the contrary, I want to avoid one, and that is the reason I request an interaction ban. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
You've got to show diffs (relating to Commons and not Wikipedia) to prove the allegations you're making. Sorry but what happened on the Spanish Wikipedia has no bearing here. Bidgee (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Again, the reason I request the interaction ban is because no admin has acted on Ecemaml´s behaviour when I pointed out violations and harassment. So what´s the point of hasshing over old stuff if when I did it nobody bothered to do anything about it? The solution to avoid future problems is simply an interaction ban. Is that too much to ask? Just have a look at his actions, any of them, as an admin and evaluate them against stated policy. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
If you're not going to support your allegations and waste our time, I'll be closing this topic at approximately 21:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC). Bidgee (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
What is happening at 21:32? Does this mean that you expect nobody else to close this topic before then? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Any other Admin is free to close it at anytime, I'm just giving Tomascastelazo (talk·contribs) a maximum 24 hours (though I thought that having the time would give him more of the time I'm giving him) to back-up his allegations. Bidgee (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
You don't need an interaction ban. Just don't interact with him. Don't mention him at noticeboards, don't import disputes from other wikis to Commons, and try to avoid him. If his conduct is as problematic as you say, he will continue with his alleged vendetta and there'll be plenty of evidence, but I'd say it's far more likely he'll reciprocate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I suppose, TC just wishes to have Ecemaml administratively banned from any contact with him - not vice versa... --A.Savin10:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Though an administrator must be free to continue and follow through on any necessary valid administrative action, it would seem foolish for an administrator to use the tools to take new actions for a user who has made recent allegations about them, even woolly ones. Other administrators are about, and can make a sensible call on any new issue that happens to be directly about TC. Of course, it would be sensible if TC were seen to do the courteous thing and avoid poking the bear too often, particularly if the pointy stick only exists off Commons. --Fæ (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
well if Tom is too exhausted from raising the alarm that would make some sense, as he's been in the middle of it for so long. I don't know if it's a bee in my bonnet or a bug up my butt-butt but Bidgee boo-boos by saying I don't have one. I have one or the other, not a big one at all, can't say I care about it other than I think it's something that appears to have been going on for a while. Good idea to close the thread, but can we make it at exactly 20:58:45 please, it has to fit with my busy schedule of having little to do. I'll make a nice brief note here done properly and I'll make sure to invite Ecemaml to comment on his interactions with Tom in this case, seems the best way to clear things up and work out what is going wrong, oh I see Bidgee has for this one, I had thought Tom was too exhausted to do it, thanks Bidgee. User problems does seem to be the place to get my butt examined for bugs and bees, unless I ask Fæ for a more creative choice of venue, better not though, this is a zerious matter. Penyulap ☏16:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, sorry for the late response. I was warned yesterday very late and fortunatelly real-life also exists :-) I have to recognize as well that I don't feel comfortable with this kind of issues. My English is not that good to provide an accurate exposition of what I mean. Anyway, I'll try.
First of all I'd like to admit that I've made a lot of mistakes in all the wikipedia projects. Most of them happened years ago, but anyway I don't feel proud of them. However, I can't see how such mistakes are relevant in the complaints filed by Tomás Castelazo. Here you have the record of the accounts I've blocked. Here the files I've deleted. I don't have much more attributions as admin. Feel free to analyze them or any of the deletion requests I've closed. I might have made mistakes, but I don't think you can find any really questionable (especially considering what Tomascastelazo labels as 'a pattern of abuse as an administrator').
However, I do have something to say about Tomascastelazo. It's of course my opinion, but nevertheless I do think is supported on facts. Tomás is a superb photographer and we should be very proud of counting on his contributions. However, he seems to be a person with a very high opinion of himself. Fine. But the problem is that it seems to translate into an absolute refusal to comply to our policies whenever they don't support his statements. His favourite is labelling as censorship any attemp of delete any of his contributions (either on the grounds of derivative work or out of scope). Fine also, everybody has the right to free speech (regardless of how ridiculous what you say could be). The problem comes when (and that's a personal opinion) going from words to deeds. Sometimes, he starts POINTy deletion request just after he's been denied an absurd vandalism report. Other times, he tries to intimidate admins that do not agree with him by resorting to xenophobic remarks (see for instance here; I find it really insulting to identify a fellow Russian member of the community as Stalin...). He tried the same with me, but it didn't work. So, he resorted to abuse allegations, that weren't supported. As it didn't worked, he decided that he wanted to become a reviewer of new images and started with... my uploads (fine, as I can't see any problem in my uploads being widely scrutinized). Next, it came sort of warning threating with analyzing my recent uploads. Finally, it came yet another try. It's not only that he did an extensive investigation about me (bringing here the links to some hate blogs that I have targetted me), trying to export conflicts from other projects to here. The most serious action has been however here, attempting to reopen a conflict in the Spanish Wikipedia. Having said all this, I'd dare to label Tomascastelazo actions as continious harrassment. And therefore, I do support an interaction ban. But from him.
On the other hand, I won't be actively involved in the review of any work by Tomascastelazo. But sorry, unless you decide otherwise I won't step back if another incident caused by Tomascastelazo pops up in the village pump. Best regards --Ecemamltalk to me/habla conmigo21:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, much talk about motives, derived from mind reading capabilities, so here are a few examples of our run ins…
Once upon a time, I uploaded this image, #[[29]], which was met with a deletion request, here: #[[30]] Before this, I had never had a run in with anybody, and my first comment questioning the nomination is what set everything off.
Ecemaml, God knows why, got in the argument questioning the keep of the administration, see here: #[[31]].
Not happy with the image being kept, he then contacted an admin about one of my images that made it to POTY. This admin was a judge in the committee, so a message to him is suspicious, giving the appearance to want to influence an ongoing process. See here: #[[32]].
Now, he apparently had an ongoing conversation with this admin, who was in the process of losing his admin status, and asked him if I had anything to do with that situation, which of course I had nothing to do. This is important because it shows an “interest” on what I may be doing, see here: #[[33]]
He then proceeded to contact the POTY committee, in what appears to be an attempt to influence an ongoing process, when the proper thing to do was to initiate a DR. Why did he not do that? Why go around canvassing? See here: #[[34]]
Finally, he made the DR here #[[35]] (BTW the image was kept)
But he also canvassed other users #[[36]], and here #[[37]]
And this also generated an interesting exchange between Boricuaeddie and Ecemaml, but Ecemaml´s tracks are hidden, but not Boricuaeddie´s. It would have been interesting to se what Ecemaml was saying in order to elicit this conversation. #[[38]]
The rest is history… I nominated several of his images for copyvio´s, which he had to delete, but not before labeling my nomination as “usual retaliatory behavior.” The fact is that motive is irrelevant, but adherence to the policies is, and it is also important that admins be squeakly clean about their uploads, for they cannot delete copyvios of other users and incur in copyright violatiions themselves. It is like a cop issuing speeding tickets to others and break the law themselves by speeding with impunity.
I nominated other images and he closed the DRs outside procedure, and at the same time, insulting me for nominating the images, while ignoring both the merit itself and the procedure of the discussion. See here #[[39]]. Again, motives are irrelevant, merits are the issue. An admin cannot (well, should not) act outside policies and procedures. If that is allowed, this place is condemned for failure. Reminds me of a George Carlin joke that said: Why do dogs lick their balls? A: Because they can. Same here. Why do admins break the rules? Because they can.
I pointed this out before but admins just refuse to acknowledge irregular behavior by other admins, and ganging up on dissenters. I am told not to bring Spanish wiki issues here, but due to the deaf ears, I see no other choice but to establish the character of this person in this wiki world.
What if what he is bringing here are the same traits that expelled him from Spanish wiki? I certainly did not initiate contact with this individual and he seems to go the extra mile to sow venom.
So this is why I do not trust Ecemaml (and more), and this is why I respectfully request an interaction ban. He has not, in my opinion, shown impartiality. He canvasses for support, prods others and instigates for my block.
And then I ask myself, Is this really worth it? I like to contribute, but not at the expense of wasting my time with clowns.
His comments above that I "seem to be a person with a very high opinion of myself" is patronizing, an insult, and it sheds light on his true opinion and disdain. Or what, because he is an admin he is right as to his judgement of my personality? This is a sad double standard. Is anybody going to call him on that? If I express my opinion about someone, I am disruptive and deserve to be blocked, but what about this? Is this out of line? He starts by acknoowleging my as a good photographer, but then he attacks, old technique.
Ecemaml need not to worry about me harrassing him, I have much better things to do, I never started any actions, he did.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I have to observe that this is a remarkably crap close by Fæ of a discussion. According to a machine count there are over 700 words in the last comment posted, I find it hard to believe he read all that and the dozen references and typed out a close in 8 minutes flat, then again, I could be wrong.
I think if you can't be bothered reading a discussion, you should at least leave the close to someone who can, I don't think this is unreasonable. Penyulap ☏00:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The close seems fine to me. The key points by both sides of specific voluntary actions in relation to each other are highlighted. Those voluntary actions should be given a chance, and further debate about why they're needed isn't necessary. Rd232 (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Penyulap, the key fact is that you posted "700 words". I only scanned your comment, I did not follow the links, it was not relevant to my rationale to close, in fact as other observers have pointed out, despite the length of the analysis it is unclear what value it adds here. You might consider the reasonable expectation that most comments in a discussion thread on this noticeboard should normally be from the parties or from a moderating administrator. When your comments keep on outnumbering everyone else, the community is eventually going to see you as the problem, and it is likely to appear that your posts are intentionally hijacking the thread for the LOLz and fuelling wikidramah, rather than for any benefit to the parties or to restore a collegiate atmosphere. --Fæ (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Interaction ban and allegations
While I agree to an immediate interaction ban, there are unresolved issues that should not be discarded and need to be addressed, for the interaction ban is a partial solution to a wider problem and should be annalized by third parties. Regards, --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
What was above was a voluntary agreement to leave each other alone, rather than an interaction ban (IB) that would be enforced by an administrator. Admins are reluctant to agree to IBs when more mellow solutions are available. I'm not an admin, so nothing I say here is binding or can result in any action by me, however I have been around.
I seriously recommend you walk away and take a break. I doubt that continuing to berate Ecemaml for what you see as poor or uncivil behaviour will get very far, as this noticeboard is specifically to request administrator intervention, and I just don't see enough hard evidence for a block or the basis of a desysop vote. This is not because Ecemaml is part of a cabal, or that admins are closing ranks and not taking you seriously, there just would have to be hard evidence and a sustained campaign of making this project a hostile environment. Commons is the sort of place where there are some obsessive, rude and possibly slightly crazy contributors, but so long as they contribute to the aims of this project they are given an awful lot of grace - some of them actually end up being administrators and sometimes what we might see as rude, uncivil or obsessive can often be down to the highly international nature of this project, meaning that we can have massive cultural differences, and the way we use English might be very different indeed.
Right now, if you walk away, then there are jolly good reasons for Ecemaml to steer clear in the future. Were I in your shoes I'd settle for that, and the gentlemanly commitment to it made above. If Ecemaml pursues you and appears to be deliberately making this project a hostile environment, well, that would not only be unlikely and incredibly stupid, but rapidly become obvious to everyone else. I'm stepping back from this myself now, as I'm not going to enter into a discussion of the ins and outs, this is just my tuppence with the hope of closing this down; feel free to ignore me if you think I don't "get it", and want to choose a different path. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
First, I doubt that you read my post in such a short time, for I never called for Ecemaml´s block or desysop. I was asked for evidence for the need for an interaction ban and that is what I provided. So to close the discussion without addressing the deep issues and the acknowledgement of the community of possible administrator abuse of power, after being unjustly blocked and ostrasized leaves me unsatisfied. Ecemaml´s post is a crudely disguised personal attack once you get to the meat of the post. I would very much would like for people to read it and follow the links and decide for themselves. What he has done to me is exactly the same things he did to other people and that merited his permanent expulsion from spanish wikipedia. Adminitrator harrassment. And now he claims that it is I the one who harrasses! I never initiate interactions with him! I just call him on his misbehaviour! He definitely is no example of congruency. He tries to delete legitimate images on copyvio grounds or out of scope images, yet he loads tons annd tons of irrelevant out of scope and copyvio images! Just visit his gallery!!!! Do not take my word!!!! Go see!!! And this is the guy who calls for my permanent block??? A sick joke!!! And no, I am not going to bring those examples, mine is enough, and it s happening here. But anyway, that is the way uncomfotable issues are managed here. Close the discussion, sweep it under the rug, block the user... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to use interaction bans until voluntary efforts have been shown not to work, and it seems you and Ecemaml have both agreed above to make those efforts. Additionally, I don't think an interaction ban is appropriate when one of the parties is an admin. We expect admins to behave responsibly, and one who genuinely needs a formal interaction ban isn't fit to be an admin. So I would suggest seeing how it goes, and if further problems arise, raise the issue again. You could also contribute to the section below if you think a good case can be made now that a desysop discussion should be started now. Rd232 (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I have never initiated interactions with Ecemaml, so as far as my side is concerned, I do not need to be told not to interact with him, it´s not even low priority for me. It is Ecemaml or his cohorts that I am concerned with. Evidence of Ecemaml canvassing against me is clearly established in my previous post. The history is there. Ecemaml´s behaviour needs to be examined. Look at his post above and weed out the personal attacks, by innuendo he calls me egocentric, labels my legitimate concers about vandalism absurd, claims I harrass him, and in general invalidates my opinion as a user and contributor. He closes DRs that I initiate alluding to negative motives on my part, even having to delete the images I nominate but at the same time insults in the closing statement. Is this the behaviour of an administrator? I have pointed out clearly, referencing with stated common´s policy his violations, pointing specifically to the events and the policy or procedure. So here we have an administrator who violates policy at will, who canvasses against me because he has a personal vendetta and calls for my indefinite block, who lacks moral authority for even nominating someone else´s images for copyvios or out of scope just because of the simple fact that he himself loads tons and tons (spam) of out of scope and copyvios. Please go look at his gallery! So given the history and his past, heck yes, I want an interaction ban! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but that doesn't change my opinion. Either (a) try to get Ecemaml desysopped now or (b) wait and see if further problems arise, and if they do, try to get him desysopped then. I would also say, having said to Ecemaml not to take some of the things you said while blocked too seriously, that you should try not to read too much into Ecemaml's remarks. Basically, actions matter more, and if those actions merit desysopping, we should discuss that, and if they don't, we should see if Ecemaml's declaration that he won't do anything else in relation to you administratively solves the problem between you two. If you persist in asking for an interaction ban immediately, fine, I'll let someone else give a second admin opinion, but that's my view. Rd232 (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
From my side, I can't just but reassure my willingness not to have anything to do with Tomascastelazo images. I don't think so much wikidrama is useful for anyone. On the other hand, I'd be glad to know about those "tons and tons (spam) of out of scope and copyvios" that I've uploaded. I've always uploaded material in good faith and, as I can make mistakes, I can't see any problem in deleting anything that could be deemed as a violation of commons policies (although being frank I don't know where Tomascastelazo takes from such a "tons and tons" figure). Best regards --Ecemamltalk to me/habla conmigo06:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC) PS: my gallery is here, although I've also uploaded some hundreds pictures through Magnus' bot
Well, I´ve looked through tons and tons of images in his gallery that are repetitive, unused, of bad quality, of dubious educational value, result of uploading through a bot just because they have free licences. The bot does not distinguish value or usefulness, it just uploads. Good faith? Ok, but what does good faith have to do with usefulness or EV? Besides, just the fact that an image has a free licence in another site does not mean it is Commons compliant, how about personality rights, for example? Or perhaps copyvios due to derivative works? Uploading hundreds and hundreds of photographs through a bot without a human selection process just fills needed space. On careful analysis any reasonable person would find very little EV or images within scope. I´ve only added this comment because Ecemaml wanted to know about my opinion... See for yourself. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
It's fair to raise quality and COM:PEOPLE issues with mass imports, yes. But this is a general issue (plenty of people do it), and it should be discussed in general terms (eg at COM:VP). Rd232 (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
That is my friend the irony of this, this admin zeroes in and cherry picks some of my images, and nominates them for deletion while at the same time he uploads hundreds of images that could be deleted under his own criteria to delete mine (in fact, he deleted some of his uploaded images I nominated as violating policy, not without, of course, insuting me in his closing statement, but ironically acknowledging the merits). I think that before he goes on a deletion spree of other people´s contributions and own work (not somebody elses) he should first select the material he uploads (for statistical reasons?) and make sure it is Common´s compliant. You see, it is hard, given the fact that I contribute in good faith, to have someone without moral authority in this regard delete the material I wish to contribute in good faith. Call it wikidrama, but as the saying goes "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." I know where I stand on copyrights, and wanting, like many, that this project succeeds. Or what, don´t you think there is an infitrated troll here and there? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I will be happy to compare notes on the use and usefulness of the body of my work uploaded here, of my own pictures, that have found its way to National Geographic #[[40]], award winning documentaries #[[41]], book covers, scientific articles, literary publications,etc., to your bot uploads, or even your own works, which I have not found buried under tons and tons of bot uploaded somebody-else´s work. Even your ex-president José María Aznar received (ironically) a picture that you nominated for deletion!!! The image: #[[42]] was of curse kept. Aznar receiving a signed photograph: #[[43]]. There are many more photographs that I have uploaded that have won interesting recognition, but I reserve redundancy here, lest you think I think of myself as too important, as you have said. So my dear Ecemaml, talk to me coming from substance, not from bot-generated statistics. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
This is hilarious, the first picture that Ecemaml puts into a long list with the title "I do think that scope and usefulness is always debatable, and therefore anyone'd like to know how useful for any encyclopaedic content are "
...and then the very first one he puts onto that list of supposedly crap images by Tom is a featured picture. Oh my God. Not Ecemaml's day today. Penyulap ☏18:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's featured because it's more gorgeous than any photo has a right to be. But there is often a trade-off between artistry and educational value, so I can see Ecemaml's point with that one. I struggle to imagine what Wikipedia article it could usefully illustrate, for instance. Rd232 (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
ha! I often quietly smirk at all the great art on commons that has 'no article to go in' because people fail to see if you throw out and hound away all the 'professional', 'qualified' artists who have 'actually studied art' in a formal setting, just who on Earth is going to write any of the articles ? Hello ? One plus One equals what ? A bully or two want to hound me off en.wiki and next thing you know on the front page of that project you've got 90,000 people seeing space ships described as station modules, and the space station modules all mixed up, and the editors remaining can't even count solar panels for crying out loud. I'm seeing a pattern here. Penyulap ☏20:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
This conversation seems to have become a competition about who has it bigger (I assume there's a similar expression to this in Mexico) :-P Taking seriously, I found last Tomas' remarks really clarifying. I see his point, but I'm afraid he refuses to see mine. You see, it's possibly a case of "cultural" clash between two different cultural values. I come from the wikipedia projects. For them in general and, especially for those projects without local uploads, commons is nothing more (and nothing less) that the media repository. The place where the graphical content of the wikipedia articles is stored. Where you access when you need something to illustrate the content (paraphrasing to Penyulap, many times it's extremely hard to describe anything using plain text). Moreover, I, and millions as me, believe in that mantra of Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. In such a way, we contribute to commons uploading material that can be regarded as encyclopaedic and, contribute to the paramount mission of commons: that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all (you'll notice that no mention to artistic merit is included there; it does not exclude it, but it does not require it).
Tomas, on the other hand, is fully integrated in the commons subculture (I'm not using en:subculture in a pejorative way). A culture that has grown up independently of the wikipedia projects and gives much value to said artistic merit (in some cases, even if an image own a remarkable artistic merit, it is hardly usable in a wikipedia article). I assume, from that point of view, how intolerable it is for you, being an artist, someone questioning really good pictures (and I'm not being ironic) with those "petty" arguments of scope or even copyright. And that's what make Tomas speak sometimes in an abrasive (and unnecessary) manner, or engage in personal remarks instead of simply refuting the arguments used... From my side, I have to sincerely apologize for the unnecessary remarks I included in Commons:Deletion requests/File:IE Serrano II.jpg or Commons:Deletion requests/File:Het Hele Westland.JPG (I mean, the closure of the request was perfectly correct, but the way to express it should haven't been offensive). I forget a very basis untold rule of commons: Two wrongs make a right. And again, I sincerely apologize, because I don't think this situation is good for any of us.
With regard to the "interaction ban" I'll clarify what I meant: I won't nominate for deletion any of your pictures. I won't either close any deletion request in which you're involved. But if I think I can add arguments to an ongoing nomination, I'll take part in the nominations as any other commons citizen, with the same remarks that I've mentioned above (respect and focus on the arguments). In that sense, I've crossed out my comment in here for the sake of not inflaming this discussion (however, I do think the argument provided was perfectly valid).
I don't know whether my statements meet your expectations. I'd like but I can't do more. The ball is in your roof. Best regards --Ecemamltalk to me/habla conmigo06:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC) PS: BTW, I do find File:Mickey mouseless balloon festival.jpg useful (possibly the first of your "protest pictures") and, by last time, I'll take part in the handling of one of your pictures (Penyulap has breached COM:OVERWRITE, so I'll ask him to upload it under another name)
I'm thinking that overwrite wasn't invented to prevent collaborative efforts. In the GFX lab it's pretty meaningless as people just ask to overwrite the original to dispense with the delete and rename and so on. I can't see Tom having any kind of problem with me overwriting his file, and if he does I'll be quite pleased if he lets fly with verbal abuse in my direction. (Sigh) I never get targeted by the 'best in the business' in that department. Old AndyTheGrump on en.wiki was famous for verbal barrages, and never aimed one at me. (sigh) I miss him. I really miss out on verbal barrages by the most skilful people, but I invite my friends to let fly. Penyulap ☏07:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I just went to Tom's talkpage and was about to write a note to ask him to revert if he like the former image, or let me know if he wants separate images or whatever, and I realise that it is a completely pointless act. A waste of time. An annoyance to the both of us. Tom and I get along the same way I get along with lots of people on commons and if he doesn't like it, he'd just change it, he doesn't need to ask me first, nor I him, we have a proper co-operative working relationship, so I can't see the point, because he'd just revert on the assumption I'd be fine with it and that is correct. Hmm. I think commons works best this way. Penyulap ☏07:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
It has become clear that all commenters see Liliana-60's accusations against Denniss as completely unfounded. The dispute about the template-DR doesn't require admin interaction. --Túrelio (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
This user is clearly abusing his administrator privileges because he hates me and wants to get rid of me. I've been requesting {{PD-Finland}} for deletion on the grounds that it is clearly redundant to {{PD-old-70}} and {{Anonymous-EU}}. Similar deletion requests have been successfully performed (see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Norway and Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Germany), only in this case User:Denniss decides to stand against me, by saying that this template is used (which is a reason to deprecate the template, but not to outright keep it) and claiming that it is not redundant (a blatant lie, everything in this template is redundant to the others I listed, there is no difference whatsoever, he is only saying that because he hates me and wants to get rid of me).
Now, after the second deletion request, he completely protected {{PD-Finland}}, {{PD-Finland/doc}}, {{PD-Finland/lang}}, {{PD-Finland/en}} and {{PD-Finland/layout}}, as an apparent means to prevent me from requesting deletion again. First of all, because he is involved in the dispute, he should not actually use the admin tools. Second of all, protecting the whole template with all subtemplates is a completely inappropriate measure, violating the Commons:Protection policy because there is no reason for protection whatsoever; it means that no one will ever be able to translate the template to any other languages than English. I hope that someone will tell him that his actions are wrong and that he reconsider his measures. A Commons admin should act as a responsible person, and not violate policy just to get rid of one person he hates. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
From the personal experience I can tell you that just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't mean that this person "hates" you. I do feel that in this case protection was uncalled for, but that's not the same thing as actively hating the nominator. Sinnamon Girl(talk)15:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Liliana, I just met you 30 seconds ago and I already hate you too. No, I'm kidding... but still... you'd be well advised to simply present the facts of the dispute without the bit about hating you and wanting to get rid of you. Even if it's true, it does noting but cast you in a bad light. – JBarta (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
There's no call on the basis of what you've described to make claims about Denniss "hating" you and the like. The template was wrongly deleted (even if it is actually redundant, it should be deprecated, like eg {{PD-UK}}), and it is normal for license templates to be fully protected, and not unusual for doc pages of prominent templates to be semi-protected (as here). If you want to deprecate PD-Finland, fine, but rather than starting a new DR, open a thread at COM:VPC and discuss whether and how to do it. DR is not the best way to handle this, because deletion should not be the objective, and because admins not paying enough attention may delete a license template in use by hundreds of files :( Rd232 (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I did that before with some templates like {{PD-Ireland}}. But, well I guess it's too late to deprecate the template now, is it? Seeing as 1. it's protected and 2. Denniss likely has that page on his watchlist to revert any and all edits that happen. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
You can edit protected pages via {{Edit request}}. But anyway, why not start a COM:VPC discussion? And can you please drop the paranoia about Denniss, if you're not going to try and justify it. Rd232 (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Liliana, templates that are used in a LOT of places are more likely to get some 'paranoia' in the protection department, that's just because it can do a lot of damage if something goes wrong. If he was protecting a particular image, or something that is not used in more than a few dozen articles or on a few dozen pages that may be a problem. You can work out if Dennis is just doing his job or being nasty by discussing the merits of the argument about the template with other people first. There is the copyright noticeboard, where amongst nonsense comments you may find meaningful comments, or, faster and easier is to ask someone who uses the template, or maybe made the template, or does deletions all day long. They'd probably know the exact reason you're looking for about this template. Being polite to those strangers who give you insightful comments is key. There are plenty of stupid 'I hate you' comments and so on to be ignored, but the people who know are absolute gems. If there are a few that are saying it's redundant, just open a discussion on the template talkpage and ask them to comment there, or (help me out here guys, is there a templates for discussion board? or better place than the) village pump. If there are some of the people in the know who are suggesting it's redundant, it would be changed, but if all you find is a simple reasonable explanation of why it is still needed even though it appears redundant we can write that on the documentation page so the template doesn't look so silly. Penyulap ☏21:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Analysis of possible long term abuse
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I think it's worthwhile putting up a summary of the interactions I've found after a bit of looking. I went looking for the start of why you'd delete someone's Barnstar, and I was amazed at how far back this goes. I don't even know if I've found the start of it or not.
The deletion discussion is so totally TLDR, what I found was in the middle Ecemaml is very upset that Tom uses the words "censorship" and "Inquisition" for some reason Ecemaml considers them to be personal attacks, that being the case, Ecemaml should seek some advice about Tom calling him a censor and inquisitor, because it seems there are sides to that argument. Monty python Vs what I sense is a cultural dislike of the terms. Though, censor isn't a rude word, it's a job, and we have them on wiki too. See here is the hint of a cultural thing:
"[...]I thought to remove your umpteenth mention to censorship, Inquisition (those nice guys who happened to burn people alive) and so on you use whenever someone dares to nominate one of your nice pictures for deletion (see here or here). You've been repeatedly warned avoid using personal attacks[...]" Ecemaml knows what Ecemaml is talking about regards burning, but this history is not apparent to many others, including Tom it would seem. Dodo seems to share the same cultural background as Ecemaml, using the "something-I-don't-like-codeword 'disruption'"
"By the way: the censorship/inquisition tale is badly worn out theses days. How many times does Tomascastelazo think he can disrupt Commons before got blocked again? --Dodo 08:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)"
Another nom by Ecemaml, this time with better apparent merit at first glance, but still keep as an outcome. Dodo and Ecemaml are once again going at it with claims that they are under attack from Tom, who seems pretty laid back but uses the word 'inquisition' to describe the failed deletion based upon one item on a table full of items as a problem. The princesses on the bag in the front corner. Good choice of words for someone on the American / Asian / African continent, but apparently a problem for our Spanish friends and co-workers. The comments and plea to the closing admin towards the end are interesting reading too.
The W:Spanish Inquisition was a bad thing, and W:The Spanish Inquisition (Monty Python) was a good thing, and the dictionary definition seems to be the sole use of the words by Tomas. The manner in which Dodo and Ecemaml have brought the matter of their cultural sensitivity to Tomas's attention has been so contentious that it comes as no surprise that he should do them no favours except to try to inform them about the standard usage of the term. To his credit however, he doesn't actually tease them and doesn't bring up the sketch. Actually I haven't seen it mentioned before I did just then, maybe I'm one of the only python fans here (sorry I'll shut up now)
This one here, well there are TWO things with it, one, it got DR nommed by Ecemaml, after I put it on Tomas's userpage. That was because I went to put it on Tomas's talkpage but I found the whole commons community had been locked out. I asked Ecemaml and he unlocked the talkpage, so that was ok. I don't know what he locked it for, though the image was nommed for scope and no EV. Later the cabal agreed the image was OK. The image was made only for Tom, but has found it's way into wiki humour and I guess I can see that too when I think about it.
Then there is this image, which far too many people enjoy far too much, you should all be ashamed, especially geo-tagging it for peeping toms. It was only made for Tom, as the description shows. So after there are these failures to delete anything of toms after much discussion on talkpages, [this happens] and Ecemaml deletes it himself after what looks for all the world like a keep discussion to me.
So to Ecemaml's statement "[...] I don't think you can find any really questionable [...]" I think it is possible, I haven't looked at everything, and I'm seeing a culturally based intolerance of two words leading to misuse of admin tools. I'm also seeing a picture of two flies I wish I never made. Penyulap ☏00:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Penyulap, what are you trying to prove? Of the five above mentioned pictures, I didn't even participate in one of them and, in fact, I just closed two of them (one of them opened by myself, as finally the proper legal argumentation was provided). So... what's going on? And yes, it's interesting to see this again (possibly the long row of verbal abuse, personal remarks, mentions to censorship and the like... reminds you that some things never change) In fact, the picture was extremely nice and everything was that simple as clarifying that, unlike other places, FoP applied to temporal exhibitions in museums in Mexico... but why explaining that when you can create a wikidrama (such as this one)? For instance, [[:File:Mexican curious 02.jpg|this also fantastic picture was removed on the same grounds, and not by me. --Ecemamltalk to me/habla conmigo06:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC) PS: if you feel that 93.132.80.30, feel free to ask for a CU verification.
Comment - the evidence above doesn't seem to amount to very much, on a quick examination at least. It's also not clear what the point is of putting it here. If there is some intention to argue for a desysop, so that there's enough support for that idea to open a desysop request (Commons:Administrators/De-adminship), then say so, with a short summary of the argument and supporting evidence within a {{Collapse top}} / {{Collapse bottom}} box. If there is some other intention, please explain. Rd232 (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Double voting in admin election on commons
This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Ecemaml has brought up the subject of 'feel free to ask for a CU verification', which I don't have authorisation for. However, something that everyone can see for themselves is this double voting in an admin election for Anna on commons.
Linking the two accounts, Ecemaml has apparently signed out from one account, and signed into the other, on a different tab of his browser. This whilst resigning a comment where he'd used the Imagen code from another wiki. Imagen doesn't work on commons. When he fixes the code, resigns the message and states in the edit summary 're-signing' he forgot that he had signed into an alternate account.
I would think that without any further CU, that this is quite enough to open a de-adminship discussion. If such a discussion occurs, strict attention should be paid to the 'voting', in light of the information presented here, and also Ecemaml's original RfA on commons.
For a discussion to take place, there needs to be agreement that there is sufficient merit for said discussion to take place, rather than it's just a typical 'oh Denniss hates me cause he deleted my image and I'm starting a de-adminship discussion as a result' sort of thing, no offence to the editors involved in that discussion. Penyulap ☏05:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
This vote was, er, 8 years ago. As evidence, this lacks being prompt. Not saying it should be dismissed out of hand, but you might want to work out when Ecemaml became an admin and if there were any relevant declarations made at the time. We do have admins that started off as vandals, if the slate was wiped clean at some point, it seems fair to leave these problems in the past under a de-facto norm of limitations; particularly if transgressive behaviour was 8 years in the past or this was a simple oversight of some sort. Having sock accounts is not actually a major crime on Commons, even if some administrators treat it as such, so long as they are not actively being misused against policy (which may or may not have been the case 8 years ago, that has yet to be demonstrated). --Fæ (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I first saw this today, so it cannot be any more 'prompt' than that. Exactly what is the cut-off period after which betraying the community becomes perfectly acceptable to you Fæ ? Penyulap ☏07:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
The now-unused User:Miguel A. Monjas states it's a dual account, presumably for Ecemaml and someone else. If both of these accounts were used from the same computer, then edits intended to be made with one account may be made by the other. The other vote is that of the other user. It looks very far from 'betrayal' to me –moogsi (blah) 09:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't mean the "story" is false; and presumably the same thing was said via email in response to that October 2005 question about the RFA vote. In any case both before and after the RFA vote, the Monjas account is almost entirely limited to uploads and some gallery-making. Whatever you think about the RFA vote, it is an isolated incident for this secondary account. The question arising is "are there any other related accounts knocking about?" Rd232 (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
So I can use my bot account to double vote, or do I need to use a separate undeclared sock for it to be ok ? This is fascinating, so long as you get away with it long enough, it's ok by Fæ, so long as you're just caught red handed a few times, it's ok by Rd232, is there any reason at all I shouldn't go into business selling admin accounts on ebay ? anyone ? Penyulap ☏10:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
After your intensive scrutiny i have a question: is it correct to say now that beside the possible misbehaviour in his first 6 month of his 8 year membership there are no other serious mistakes made by Ecemal? --maxxl2 - talk10:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for responding with your usual level of understatement - most helpful. Policing of secondary accounts is difficult, and one of those difficulties is that sometimes there are odd situations like the one claimed. If it's true, is there any fundamental reason Ecemaml's partner shouldn't be allowed an RFA vote? Proving or disproving it is difficult, but we can say that nothing much else worth talking about happened with that secondary account. Which is exactly why I finished with the question about other accounts. Because if you disbelieve the story, the obvious thing would be for other account(s) to be created, especially after the October 2005 question was raised. Don't miss the wood for the trees, please. Rd232 (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
To Whom It May Concern. EsWikis administrator Ecemaml [44] was expelled out of Spanish Wikipedia due to a double voting policy violation. Ecemamml denied everything, but when cornered by evidence (and after other user who denounced the fact was blocked for disruptive behaviour), argued that ShonenBat -his puppet- was a companion at his office. Only some months after the expusion, Ecemaml admited that Shonenbat was no other than himself! This Ecemaml-Miguel A. Monjas-partners-friends-same ip-same pc business is strikingly similar to the Ecemaml-Shonenbat affair. "...of his 8 year membership there are no other serious mistakes made by Ecemal" Not known, but shadow of doubt hangs over certain behaviors.--2.136.122.2913:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Hm. For the record, and no expressing any other opinion on the issue.
He used the same cover up on eswiki, where he was found guilty of double voting on 4 admin candidacies and 4 arbcom candidacies over the years (with third account), as well as creating attack-vandal sockpuppets (this as recent as 2011) (Pa tí la perra gorda, akin to "go fuck yourself", ¡¡during his desysop-voting process!! (during which, I have to mention, I defended him strongly since then I believed in him) )
Hope this helps clearing the issue of uncertainty that accounts are linked.
I really suggest asking Ecemaml about the link. I'm pretty sure he will in good faith confirm it, after all, these are were judgement mistakes (as he admitted on eswiki). -- Magister Mathematicae14:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
These relevations pose interesting philosophical challenges to the moral sphere of this project. Almost like a poster child case.
In the real world the issues of promptness, mode of interaction (vandalism), clearing the slate and statue of limitations have particular ways to be dealt with.
Criminal or other type of punishable behavior may have statue of limitations, but in the absence of a codified statue of limitations, the transgression is alive and punishable the moment that the behavior is discovered or the culprit caught, this makes the claim of promptness irrelevant. However, passage of time and the lack of repetitive behavior or other mitigating circumstances may be taken into account in the punishing stage.
People should be afforded the opportunity to clean the slate in their lives, but this can only be done after an act of contrition, not just by being astute or hiding the original sin, for there is no redemption for the individual, no acknowledgement of having lived outside the norm, no taking conscience of having betrayed the public trust. This is a philosophical/psychological issue, for a transgressor always lives with the preoccupation of being found out, taking away (maybe) vital energy and integrity of her/his task.
As far as people starting as vandals, yes, a lot of security consultants, for example, start off as hackers. But these hackers do not go from hackers to high paid security consultants. There is a transition period that involves acknowledgement and restitution for the damages caused, and I suppose many other conditions in between. Reform is possible, but if there is no contrition, a personal act, an acknowledgement of having betrayed the public trust, there is no internal personal reform.
This personal reform is important because adminship requires personal integrity and being accountable due to the public trust placed on them. Public trust in this environment is a key element for the long term success of the project. There are a lot of implied yet unwritten values and expectations of people in places of responsibility. Every culture has a very similar value system that allows it to operate and a way to deal with deviant and correctional behaviours and here it is no different. In rudimentary societies it may be the council of elders, for example, in modern governments it is the body of laws and societal values universally accepted and practiced.
This particular case raises interesting questions and for what I can see, postures.
IF the claims are true, which in my opinion are, supported by the evidence, several issues and questions emerge.
First, an unpunished behavior runs the risk of being repeated. Since there is no acknowledgement on the part of the person in question, we could think that he has not engaged in that behavior again out of personal conviction, but we as community cannot be sure. It could also be that he has become more astute and covers his tracks, and thus that is why he has not been found out after 8 years. It could be that the transgressor, after two proven events, simply learned better stealth tactics.
Second, if he indeed participated in double voting, what could keep him from triple, cuatruple or more multiple voting? What other behaviours does the person in question incurs in that we as community, who need to trust the administrators integrity, impartiality and competence, violate the implicit trust placed on him? We just don´t know!
If he wants to clean the slate, he has to come clean publicly! Can we trust his silence on the original transgression?
So before we come out with excuses to minimize the importance of the event, which basically resides on breaching the public trust and engaging in unethical and wiki-illegal practices of double voting, I think that the user in question, given the seriousness of the allegations and evidence, should offer an explanation to the community at large, and take this opportunity to really clean the slate, if that is what he wants to do. Otherwise, suspicion on every administrator act will shadow him. Do we want this? I don´t.
That's why I said above ask Ecemaml and give him the chance to admit his dishonesty (and meanwhile, in case any more issues or sockpuppets like this exist, declare them instead of waiting for they to raise its ugly head later). -- Magister Mathematicae15:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Are we discussing here events that happen 8 years ago? I think that unless there is some evidence of this was happening in last year or two than there is not much to talk about. --Jarekt (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Don't waste your time any more. Here you have it. I don't have to tolerate this witch hunt and this harassment by repeatedly exposition of personal information (links included). I haven't asked for oversight removal because I didn't think this level of harassment would be tolerated, but here you have it. I have much better things to do in my life as to bear all this. Enjoy. --Ecemamltalk to me/habla conmigo16:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I've been reviewing my uploads. It's the first time I've done it. Counting only years 2013 and 2005 it accounts for more that 2,000. I've been reviewing my actions as admin. I've found many judgement mistakes, but not any bad faith abuse. I've thinking about this issue again and again and, after talking to other fellow admins, I've realized that I'm doing a good job and that something that happened eight years ago and a bunch of external conflicts that are being persistently brought to commons are not a real reason to resign. I'll take an adminbreak for a couple of months (good luck to the guys with the Mobile/Web stuff). Sorry for any inconvenience and my sincere apologize to everyone. I didn't intend to create this mess. Best regards --Ecemamltalk to me/habla conmigo23:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
A private chat with "other fellow admins" won't clear up this mess. For your own sake, remember: closing a dirty wound is a guarantee for a long and painful process. --81.36.183.12401:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I've undone the closure of this thread as Ecemaml removed his request of resignation. I did this simply for the reason that the rationale for my closure is now void. But I ask everyone here to respect the privacy of Ecemaml. Please focus, if necessary, on the contributions of Ecemaml at Commons and not on his real-life identity and connections to his real life. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I have re-closed this. I hope it is plainly obvious to absolutely everyone that continuing to hound any user about an issue with personal privacy implications from 8 years ago is using Commons for a disruptive and offensive witch-hunting campaign. This thread on AN/U amounts to a form of vindictive trolling that our community of trusted users should never tolerate or encourage. There is in no way enough here to raise a de-adminship discussion.
There are lessons here that our community should avoid similar disruptive discussions that may end up losing us valuable contributors in the future, and the witch-hunters are clearly seen for what they are.
Thank you to Ecemaml for reconsidering their unnecessary knee-jerk resignation, and instead taking the option of a sensible mellow break from the burden of admin duties. I apologise for the stress you have been put under here, and any distress the invasive attention of stale matters from such a ridiculously long time ago may have caused.
Re-opened discussion, per AFBorchert, per 81.36.183.124, per Magister Mathematicae, per JKadavoor Jee, per Tomas, and would like to say that off-commons activities are not the focus of the discussion. I don't think I'd be going out on a limb to say it's generally unwelcome.
Further, if people have vague accusations about behaviour of any individual(s), please be specific enough so that your concerns may be addressed, and if there is a Commons:Statute of limitations for newly identified problems, please create a redirect. Penyulap ☏07:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
No action is required, this concerns something that happened 8 years ago and not yesterday. Stop the witch hunting as it's getting you and the community no where. Bidgee (talk) 07:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.