Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 37

User:Badbuu1000

A predictable sockpuppet of User:Sridhar1000. Systematically duplicating files, reuploading bad quality images, uploading images with misleading and/or wrong names etc.. Please see Category:Sockpuppets of Sridhar1000 also.--Praveen:talk 18:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Blocked INeverCry 02:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Giggette

Hi,

Giggette is POV pushing an undocumented map everywhere on Commons and a lot of Wikipedias, using brute force such as :

1. systematic reverts (on Commons, on CA, and on a lot of other Wikipedias)
2. no answer to the arguments explaining why :
   1. the map pushed by Giggette is an invalid SVG file according to http://validator.w3.org
   2. it was not created by any graphic lab, but by Keepscases alone (see original upload on january 10th, 2010)
   3. it's not supported by any specialized (thus, reliable) source, and therefore it's superseded by this valid svg map supported by a lot of reliable sources.

(More links to come)

El Comandante (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Over and over again El Comandante?. There are many discusions about it and they were already closed, see:

1.- Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism/Archive 6#Giggette

2.- Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism/Archive 6#Aztec Empire (orthographic projection)

3.- File talk:Aztec Empire ME (orthographic projection).svg

4.- File talk:Aztec Empire (orthographic projection).svg.

(More links to come). --Giggette (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

That's kind-of what commons is for, to store crap you push onto other wiki's, and what's worse is the usual excuse people give 'it's the local wiki's problem' so I think people here won't be fussed about it, not much. As for the image being crap, well, most are in one way of another, it's no big deal, so long as at least someone finds it useful. As to the sources, this is so simple, would someone please history split this file ? and then you'll have a file each, and can put your own version into articles wherever you like, discussing sources with the locals on whichever wiki you like. Some wikis see things differently to other wikis, and form their own consensus, this is normal, like in the USA they'll say they won the Vietnam war, but in vietnam, people would say the USA got it's ass kicked and ruined the environment, that sort of things. So you need two files, and discussions at the local wikis. Penyulap ☏ 22:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I have separated the image into two different, that each one use the one he like.

• File:Viceroyalty of New Spain Location 1819 (without Philippines).png Previous version
• File:Viceroyalty of New Spain Location 1819 (without Philippines) 2.png New version

Please, finish the edit war and complaints. Everyone who wants to use the image can choose the one you want. --Alan ^(talk) 12:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Closed. Valid solution offered by Penyulap. Please, stop edits war.

• El Comandante use and continue with File:Viceroyalty of New Spain Location 1819 (without Philippines).png
• Giggette use and continue with File:Viceroyalty of New Spain Location 1819 (without Philippines) 2.png

More info about this issue: Related (closed diff) + My user talk. --Alan ^(talk) 12:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I never talked about that map, but about this one, which is a split version of this file : a clear evidence that both Penyulap and Alan didn't read anything about the conflict and all the discussions.

Secondly, I'm beginning to understand what most admins want on Commons : no scandal, even if someone is exhausted by a dishonnest user that doesn't want to concede anything (not even about the technical validity of a SVG file), and absolutely no other work than the technical one. OK, so let POV pushers publish anything, like SVG files that are not valid with a template saying it's a valid one, like images not created by them but claiming they are the author and that they created it as graphists working for a Wikipedia graphic lab, like undocumented maps pretending they are not superseded by very well documented ones. You know what? You are more responsible than these POV pushers of the problems that they spark off on all Wikipedias, because you are just too lazy to take your responsibilities and really do the work you chosed to accept!

El Comandante (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right El Comandante, I think a lot of editors, admins and non admins alike love the sound of "no scandal".

I apologise to you and the closing admin that I didn't specify a particular file for splitting, Please make a list of files that are the subject of the dispute and we shall split every last one of them for everyone's peace of mind.

It's true, some admins don't take sides in disputes about POV pushing, it's terrible, they are falling down on the job, taking sides and pushing viewpoints is laid out somewhere or other, I can't find the policy page that says so right at this moment, but I am sure it's hidden in the old testament or the archives somewhere or other, I'll keep up searching for it while everyone goes about their business. No, but seriously, sorry about the file mix-up, and yeah, sometimes you do need a friend or someone to take an interest when it is just two editors arguing, if I have time, I don't mind helping with a third opinion on a matter if that helps.

Don't worry about POV pushers, they are everywhere, everyone has a POV to push and their own opinions. Just have to get people to play nice and not argue is all, while they go about their business of pushing their POV elsewhere. Sounds strange, but that's pretty much the idea. Penyulap ☏ 22:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, don't worry, be happy, peace, man, let's smoke and forget anything! If the reliability of a lot of Wikipedia articles is damaged by a bunch of stupid erroneous maps, and if Commons users can't be informed that an erroneous map has been superseded by a very reliable one, it's not your problem, right? Why admins can't take their reposnibility here, to avoid a lot of conflicts on a lot of Wikipedias? Why can't we reach a consensus here, at least for obvious cases like this one? El Comandante (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Commons is not Wikipedia. If the reliability of Wikipedia articles is damaged just because somebody has uploaded a file to the repository of free educational media, then it says a lot about the policy at that particular Wikipedia. Do they have some sort of revue of what files they use in articles? If not, then why do they not take some sort of responsibility for the articles? Commons images do not show up in the article unless they are explicitly added there. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, Mesoamerica is a little known subject outside of its own geographical area. Secondly, Giggette replaced Sémhur's map by this erroneous undocumented map in a lot of Wikipedias, even those with very few users. These two reasons explain why the map will stay until I can make me understand by local users on each Wikipedia. Just because you let some POV pushers like Giggette do whatever they want here, even pretend that an invalid SVG map is a valid one, even that a map created and uploaded by someone else was created by them, even that an undocumented map is as reliable as a contradictory map supported by a lot of recent, specialized and famous sources. It's an incredible loss of time and energy. El Comandante (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

 Comment Firstly, Sémhur replaced Keepscases's map for being clear. --Giggette (talk) 05:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

In principle I agree with you. I do not think that Wikipedia should be treated any differently than any other external project when we decide on the value of the image. In principle if the image is of poor quality and somebody wants to use it in the article it should be uploaded to the local Wikipedia not here. However, currently Commons is overrun by people who want to delete 90% or more of the media, and many of these people are admins, they already every so often test the ground by deleting something without any regard for the policy and see if somebody notices. If we were to remove "If the media is in use then it stays" rule at this moment, it would be a disaster. Think about it from the perspective of settling on the lesser of two evils, today we run the risk of having some images in the repository which are not really educational, but if we give in to deletionists we will lose whole categories of images. Right now you have difficulty in convincing other local Wikipedias to use the correct image rather than a faulty one, but if what you propose were to come true, you'd constantly run the risk of an admin just deleting the image that is being used on the Wikipedia that you have convined. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand your concern, by I don't agree. Few maps are really well documented by reliable sources clearly identified. That's why I can't believe Sémhur's map would run the risk to be deleted by anyone, unlike Keepscases' map. El Comandante (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

So we should ruin the whole project just for this one map? Can you guarantee that other educational files will be kept as well? Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

El Comandante, there are different points of view about maps, and different ideas about sources and documents. Maps don't need sources to exist on commons, they do need sources, generally, to exist on other wikis. Commons is not the place to decide who is right and who is wrong. Japan and China fight over some disputed islands, so does Korea. Many Chinese speaking editors will want maps that show the islands are part of China, many Japanese shall want maps showing the islands as part of Japan. The function of commons is to provide BOTH maps, ALL maps, every kind of map in every language and from every point of view. What's worse is that if a particular map, with an exotic point of view doesn't already exist, we'll make it for you as soon as you ask. There is a whole sub-section of the Graphics lab called Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop just to create more arguments maps. Luckily, those arguments maps are not used/don't take place on commons, they belong on the talkpages of the articles on the other projects, so please don't ask us to decide which maps are correct or incorrect, because we're just not that bright. Really. I think I drew a belly-button locator map once which was far too complex for people here to get their head around and it had to be deleted. Let's keep things simple. Lots of maps is easy, choosing one map is umpossible! Penyulap ☏ 05:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Waltersteiger (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) - shoe photos

Hi. An admin or experienced user should have a look at this user's import. He uploads picture of creator shoes. He may be (connected to) the shoe creator (Walter Steiger), but the photographs are taken by agencies or other persons. I tagged some of them as copyvios, but maybe something could be done through OTRS, if Steiger has acquired copyright over these pictures. --Eusebius (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Túrelio is there. --Eusebius (talk) 12:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Defranoux

Defranoux (talk · contribs) has been commendably contributing a large number of high-quality photographs of medallions. From what I can tell all of these are tagged as "own work" and CC-licensed, though it seems this applies only to the photographs, not to the medallions themselves, many of which are recent enough that they are probably still under copyright by their creators. (It's unlikely that Defranoux himself (or herself) could be the artist who created all these medallions: they were created from the 1930s onwards, and have widely differing styles.) I am sure the user was acting in good faith in uploading these images, but it will be necessary for all of them to be reviewed, and to delete the ones which cannot be identified as being freely licensed or in the public domain. Examples of some potentially problematic images:

• File:Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, médaille.jpg and File:Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, revers de la médaille.jpg (1980)
• File:La vie conjugale, le film, Jacques Charrier.jpg (1962)
• File:Richard T. CRANE Chicago AV.jpg (1930)

I've notified the user on his talk page and asked if he can help identify the original sources of the medallions. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

photos hidden

i have come across a number of photos that have become hidden as a previous version of an image that was uploaded at the same time. for example, there is a hidden photo [1] in File:James Miller House.jpg. it has happened to me as well, but i cannot recall which ones at the moment. Fungus Guy (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The image is not hidden but missing as a result of Bugzilla: 39615. MKFI (talk) 06:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Or if you mean that the present image is different than an older version it is a case of Commons:Overwriting existing files. MKFI (talk) 06:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Rahul Bott

Hi, personally I had repeatedly problems with the behaviour of User:Rahul Bott, beginning in ~April 2013 with her/his 'forced search' for personal 'discussions' regarding p.e. the renaming of India-related – my 'main' tasks within Wikimedia Commons since ~2009 – categories, India-related categorization details etc., so I honestly began to 'refuse' every 'discussion' because I felt personaly 'bothered' by that kind of 'forced' personal contacts.

That kind of 'behaviour' imho 'escalated' as I started a deletion request regarding (I guessed so) a maybe copyright protected upload by User:Rahul Bott, resulting in imho continuously reverts, scrupulously 'watching' of (nearly) every edit that may have affected 'her/his' uploads related to India-related content, and following that deletion request p.e. please see also File talk:'Schloss' in Uster, Ansicht von der Talackerstrasse 2012-11-14 13-28-32.JPG, an upload from my side.

As for June 11, 2013, 18:19, there are seven imho baseless reverts, so that i'm tired to bear that kind of bevouviour.

Please mediate, for further details please see p.e. Special:Contributions/Rahul_Bott as of June 11, 2013. Thank you and best regards, Roland 18:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Roland for informing me of this discussion at my talk page. There is a huge communication problem with Roland although very clearly he is doing an overall good job here at Commons. But, he does not like to engage in discussions, vigorously erases any messages posted on his talk page, has been asked by many other editors too not to do so but simply chooses not to pay heed to any of them. He has been categorizing many of my India-related uploads wrongly. There is no "personal contact" being sought here. He makes changes, I request discussion, he refuses to discuss, what option am I left with? This has happened over and over and over again :-(

Let me clarify that I have no absolutely no problems with him nominating 6 of my images for deletion. He can go ahead and nominate as many more as he wishes to. What matters is that he was shown to be wrong in all 6 of those DRs. He has no idea of Indian copyright laws and bases sentences on "maybe" just like he sub-categorizes certain images to be images of Delhi while there is no such information with us about them. Read the comments from two admins at File talk:'Schloss' in Uster, Ansicht von der Talackerstrasse 2012-11-14 13-28-32.JPG to make the conclusion for yourself. Thanks and regards, Rahul Bott (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Shikku27316

Could someone remind him that Talk:Linguistic flags is not his personal playground? He keeps wiping the talk page, and acting as if editing a public talk page is personal harassment.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

And no, I didn't notify him. He already thinks I'm personally harassing him.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Primož_Trubar_Church_in_Ljubljana_1850.jpg

Could someone clean up a mess i have already made, please? I see completely white picture. --Irena Plahuta (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The original image file as uploaded by User:Sporti was in CMYK format, not RGB format, which can cause a number of problems. If you want, I can convert it to RGB. Note that for cropping JPEG images it's generally greatly preferred to crop "losslessly" with a tool such as JPEGCROP (however, I don't think that such tools generally work on CMYK images)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation and the advice. Someone else has already managed to crop the photo, but thanks.--Irena Plahuta (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Puppet

GelpgimLa22 is clearly a puppet of the permanently blocked Gelpgim22. This account is used to avoid the sanction. 213.141.236.133 14:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The identity seems to be true. However, his talkpage suggests that his upload behaviour has improved. --Túrelio (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Huzaifakhanwla: Sockpuppet/copyvio only account

All contributions by Huzaifakhanwla (talk · contribs) are copyright violations (Indian TV show screenshots falsely tagged as own work). Could an administrator please delete the images?

The user is almost certainly a sockpuppet of Noormohammed satya (talk · contribs), who is banned on the English Wikipedia for copyright violations and sockpuppetry, and who has been blocked in the past here for copyright violations. See en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Noormohammed satya for evidence. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Uploads nuked, except one. --Túrelio (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion request

Can someone delete all images uploaded by Ahiteshb (talk · contribs). I've tagged about five copyvios so far, all image exifs are different from each other showing at least 10 different cameras! A couple of them have watermarks too, no point in searching for sources for the remaining uploads as there's an extremely high likelihood that all are copyvios. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Checked, all images displayed on a simple search with Google. Thanks. --Alan ^(talk) 15:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Your help is requested

Kindly see my talk page here. I have been continuously harassed here. Please see [2] and [3] also. If the users like Sitush and Fastily can delete my files without any consensus what's the use of my contribution to wiki commons. Since most of you are the administrator here, your intervention is immediately required. Thanks for the trouble. Krantmlverma (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Read Commons:Deletion policy, all messages in your talk page are right. --Alan ^(talk) 15:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Fastily is not the best admin that we have here, but in this case we (the community) need to weight the need for AGF against the possibility that the media that you upload is copyright violation. Looking at your talk page I can see that it was not only Fastily who has been warning you about copyright issues, and it is unfair for you to claim that it is some sort of harassment. I also do not understand your claim about several cameras; are you saying that you own several cameras and that some of them produce very low resolution images with no metadata? Why do you use them when you have infinitely better ones? I feel that it is very unlikely that you are telling the truth about the copyright status of your uploads. If it is true that you wish to make this project better by contributing, please continue to do so, but make sure that your contributions are in line with COM:L, all other uploads actually hurt the project and do not help. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy to support any undeletion request you might have if you can provide appropriate evidence of being the copyright holder of an image. I see many images in your two years of uploads to Commons, but none so far has been kept [4]. This is not a campaign by one rogue administrator, but many people have been raising deletion requests on your uploads due to their genuine concerns about copyright problems. Having been generally monitoring mobile uploads for some time, I am aware that some mobile phone cameras do not add any EXIF data to the file, which is a real problem for verification; if this was the issue with File:Krant addressing wci mumbai1584.jpg, or any similar file, I suggest you email as per the instructions at COM:OTRS, precisely as you were advised when these were marked as requiring evidence of permission. As a website, Commons has to be seen to be working to protect the rights of copyright holders, to achieve this there is sometimes no substitute for requiring evidence either by an externally published release, or by verifiable email with a release statement (i.e. an email from your work or professional address). You can request undeletions at Undeletion requests. You should recognize that your track record here is worrying, I recommend you take some time out to consider the advice at Licensing. --Fæ (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Kindly see once again here and read the remarks of Dharmadhyaksha who is also an image reviewer on wiki commons Another example is here and here also where Veertje Madam, who is an administrator on wiki commons, had decided to keep the image even then it was deleted. Moreover on my talk page so many images were deliberately deleted by these biased users in spite of fulfilling their every requirement on the respective images. I participated in Wiki Conference India 2011 at Mumbai. I uploaded that image also but it was deleted. There were so many wikipedians who were helping each other in getting their snaps from the respective user's mobile cameras. Some volunteer also helped me there. But when I uploaded the image here it was deleted. Since I am a research scholar so I have plenty of rare photographs and writings of Indian revolutionaries. When I uploaded them so many quarries were put up on my talk page as well as on the respected image's talk page. When I tried to explain it, the next day the images were deleted. Sorry! there are plenty of examples here, but useless to quote them all. I am running in 66th year of my age. I did not conceal my entity anywhere even then the biased users, to whom I do not know to which group or community they belong to, deleted my valuable images. They have also conspired to get me blocked from the en.wiki and hi.wiki. Since I am helpless I can not fight alone with these young guys, I leave this upto you gentlemen to decide what should be the solution here. For your kind attention I am giving you another link here. Kindly go through and see what injustice has been done unto me. With these few clarifications I am here to put forth my utter grievance and experience with this great organization. Krantmlverma (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Dr.'Krant'M.L.Verma ^{(talk•Email)}

In the light of a track record of past problems on copyright spanning years, I believe you have been offered good advice. Please email a release statement from a verifiable email account (such as a professional one rather than a yahoo, hotmail or gmail account) to permissions-commonswikimedia.org. A release statement you can easily cut and paste is provided at COM:OTRS. This should take only a few minutes of your time, after which any of the images you supply a valid release statement for can be undeleted. This is likely to be a lot less of your volunteer time than you have spent editing this noticeboard. I am leaving a note for 1Veertje, as they may be able to help you with any email. --Fæ (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You may have writings and photographs of people, but that does not mean you have the legal right to upload them if you aren't the original creator of them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't deside to keep his pictures. I desided to not make a judgement in the matter. I've been really bussy with WLM in the Netherlands, and didn't have the time/energy to look into Krantmlverma question. That he posted it on my talk page was only due to the alphabetical order of administrators here on commons. He stated somewhere that his son had made some picture, which would make him not the owner of the copyright. --Vera (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to clarify the background here. As suitable advice has been given encouraging Krantmlverma to use the most appropriate procedure, and considering the long history of copyright problems and what appear to have been unverifiable or false claims, I consider this thread closed with Krantmlverma free to act on the advice should they ever wish to. --Fæ (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

GhiathArodaki‎

GhiathArodaki‎ (talk · contribs) recently changed File:State Religions Globally.png, File:State Religions.png, File:Secularmap.PNG, and File:Map of state religions.svg to indicate that that Islam is the state religion of Syria, Sudan, and Palestine. However, none of their constitutions actually establish a state religion. I pointed this out to the user and reverted the changes. I asked him to refrain from reinserting the claim unless it could be supported by a reliable source. [5] However, he's gone ahead and reintroduced his claims without backing them up. [6] Judging from his past and current contributions (e.g., Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dump islamic iran.png), it doesn't look like this person is here to build a repository of free educational images, but rather to promote his particular political and religious views. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Bravo , Go ahead , I told you syria is an islamic country you islam racism , because the president is muslim , so set down away and let your lies calm down, ok foreign .GhiathArodaki (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The religion of a head of state does not necessarily imply that state has a religion. The US for instance has religious presidents yet is constitutionally prohibited from the establishment of a state religion. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I Know that , I'm not the one who said that the religion of the state is the religion of the president , it's our friend who reported me , go and read my talk page , GhiathArodaki (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Confessionalism (i.e., ensuring that offices are filled by a certain distribution of religious adherents) is not the same as establishing a state religion in the sense used by the articles containing these maps. There are many countries which reserve a certain portion of seats in the legislature, or certain political offices, to members of certain religions, but you'll note they're absent from such maps unless the constitution also formally establishes a state religion. I already explained this to you (in somewhat less detail, but with reference to primary sources) on your talk page, but it seems you're not interested in the actual purpose of these maps. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The :de-Artikel about state religion lists Sudan as having Islam as state religion. So, at least for Sudan your claim is less proven than you put it. --Túrelio (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The claim in the German article isn't sourced. You can read the Sudanese constitution for yourself to see that the very first clause of the very first section of the very first page defines Sudan as a pluralistic state. This claim appears also in the preamble and several times throughout the constitution, so it's not exactly easy to overlook. But that's not really the point of this report—unlike you, who are making an effort to discuss the claims and find sources, GhiathArodaki is edit warring (and abusing the deletions process, and uploading propagandistic images, and violating copyright) to advance an agenda. And as far as I can tell that's all he's ever done here. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Honestly I think GhiathArodaki‎'s time here is over. He nominates images for deletion based on perceived insults to Islam or national pride or whatever other trivial reason. He calls people racist when we oppose anything he doesn't like. He makes inappropriate edits. He uploads "counter-files" as revenge. He makes things political by accusing others of being against countries, and all for Israel. He doesn't understand the principles of Commons at all, and doesn't belong here. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

A simple table of assertions as to the state religion for each country in question would probably make this easy to understand. A high quality official source for each country, in such a list or table, might avoid punitive action that would only pause the dispute? These can then be added the image descriptions to avoid doubt in the future. Psychonaut has referred to sources being quoted, but I have not spotted where these are, so perhaps as there would be so few needed, they could be reproduced here?

GhiathArodaki, your track record of deletions does not look good, and you need to avoid any apparent allegation of racism, unless you can supply hard and explicit evidence, or this is likely to be treated as a hostile personal attack. Through consensus building you may succeed in changing the status quo, if you can provide some authoritative independent sources to back up your argument. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources appear to be listed at File:Map_of_state_religions.svg. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

This mainly uses the CIA world factbook, which shows under the People and Society/Religions sections:

• Syria - Islam - "Sunni Muslim (Islam - official) 74%
• Sudan - no official state religion - "Sunni Muslim, small Christian minority"
• Palestine - not listed, and the map above just refers to an op-ed piece quoting Barack Obama as a source.

Personally, I would not accept single-sourcing to the CIA as neutral. The CIA reports to the US Government and has a duty to support US interests, in practice and in fact, under the direction of the President of the United States. --Fæ (talk) 06:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me be the first to say that the CIA can kiss our arses. Penyulap ☏ 06:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You're not the first person to say that, but enjoy your extraordinary rendition. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not always possible to find sources for a negative claim. While the Sudanese constitution very expressly stresses the pluralistic nature of the state ("We the people of Sudan, … mindful of religious, racial, ethnic and cultural diversity… further committed to … deepening of religious tolerance… do hereby adopt this Constitution.", "The Republic of Sudan… is a multi-religious country.", "The Sudan is an all embracing homeland where religions and cultures are sources of strength, harmony, and inspiration.", "The Constitution is predicated upon and guided by the following principles: …religions, beliefs, traditions, and customs are the source of moral strength and inspiration for the Sudanese people", "The state shall respect the religious rights to worship or assemble in connection with any religion or belief", etc.), other states, such as Syria, simply omit all mention of an established religion from their laws. There's no one part of the Syrian or Palestinian constitutions one can quote to prove that they have no established religion, because they are entirely silent on the matter. The onus is on the person making the positive claim to furnish the proof. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

that all happens on the local wiki. Thinking is not really a 'thing' on commons. references and points of view are usually for other wikis, if someone wants it for their userpage, it's easier to just let them. There is more than enough misbehaviour of another nature to act upon, that is the thing to bring up. Penyulap ☏ 08:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Psychonaut, you created this thread with the statement "none of their constitutions actually establish a state religion", specifically listing Syria, Sudan, and Palestine. As you made this claim as part of requesting administrator action against another contributor, I agree than it was up to you to demonstrate it. For Syria, your assertion appears a direct contradiction of the CIA World Fact Book, which states that Islam is the "official" religion of the state. I may expect more than a single source to prove this point, but you cannot doubt the existence or validity of the CIA World Fact Book. --Fæ (talk) 10:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I raised this report to discuss the issue of GhiathArodaki's behaviour in general, not the specific content issue I cited as an example. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clearer at the outset. But in response to your query, you will find well-referenced material addressing the secular character of the Syrian state, and the various constitutional and other legal concessions made to Muslim interests, at en:Freedom of religion in Syria. (The Wikipedia article and its references address the 1973 constitution, but the religious clauses were not changed in the 2012 amendments.) Other sources not used in the Wikipedia article but which unequivocally attest to Syrian secularism include:

• A. R. Kelidar, "Religion and state in Syria", Asian Affairs Vol. 5 No. 1, 1974 ("The new document, however, unlike previous ones and the Constitutions of other Arab States, does not state that Islam is the State religion…")
• T. Stahnke and R. Blitt, "The Religion-State Relationship and the Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief: A Comparative Textual Analysis of the Constitutions of Predominantly Muslim Countries", Georgetown Journal of International Law, Vol. 36, 2005 ("This practice of declaring Islamic law as a basis for legislation also occurs in countries such as Syria and Sudan, which do not have a declared state religion.")
• R. J. Mouawad. "Syria and Iraq – Repression: Disappearing Christians of the Middle East". Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2001. ("The Ba'th regime, which came to power in Syria in 1963, has an essentially secular orientation… in conformity with the party's secular ideology, it does not recognize Islam as the official religion of the state.")
• M. H. Kerr. "Hafiz Asad and the Changing Patterns of Syrian Politics". International Journal, Vol. 28 No. 4, 1973. ("The issue, as on several previous occasions during the 1960s, was the 'godlessness' of the Baath, this time signified in the failure of the constitution to mention Islam as the established religion…")

The CIA World Factbook appears to have interpreted Article 3 as establishing a state religion, though this doesn't appear to be a view shared by independent scholarly sources. Nor does it appear to be an interpretation consistent with their characterization of similar countries, such as Lebanon, which also provides for implementation of sharia law and installation of a Muslim head of government. In any case, I don't think GhiathArodaki intended to rely on, or was even aware of, the CIA World Factbook; I asked him to present his sources and he refused to even discuss the matter. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing in good quality sources to support the discussion. I agree that the CIA WFB appears a doubtful single source. On Wikimedia Commons, the criteria for images should be educational benefit rather than how "correct" it is, with the understanding that verifiable context is essential for re-users to understand the limitations, potential bias, or propaganda basis of a particular image, this is especially true for maps. There is an issue here of terms such as "Islamic country" being conflated with "state religion" or "official religion". It may well be that a map showing countries where Islamic religions are followed by a majority of the population are as equally valid for educational use, as those that show countries where Islamic religions are the state religion as defined in the constitution. I recommend that where any map is contested, that the context and sources are added to the description and where this is highly contentious, that the map is put up for a Deletion request to either establish the context and the DR can stand as a record of consensus, or with the outcome that it is deleted on the basis that the image is out of scope, as context cannot be determined, and consequently it can be judged to be misleading, rather than educate even when used as part of a comparison of political maps, or to represent a documented fringe view.

With regard to this thread, I suggest it may benefit from separating complaints about GhiathArodaki's behaviour in interacting with other contributors from the issue of providing context for map images. --Fæ (talk) 12:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that GhiathArodaki has been blocked indefinitely on English Wikipedia for his battefield mentality, constant POV pushing and edit warring, name calling and threats. More-over, when reported to the Admin's Noticeboard for edit warring, he taunted them with "And more is coming if you don't block me , hurry quick". Fry1989 ^eh? 01:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You're as likely to find someone who hasn't been indef blocked on en.wiki as you are to find someone who appreciates you bringing it up.

FWIW, I've been examining GhiathArodaki's contributions globally, and I see numerous and consistent signs that GhiathArodaki is more likely to be a native speaker of one of the English dialects than, say, an arabic dialect. As a general rule in my experience, where an editor is feigning in this manner, the account is for the sole purpose of harassment. Penyulap ☏ 03:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes perhaps , but more important is why and how recent. This user is not only completely unapologetic, but instead takes it to the next level by taunting Admins and calling others racist because they don't allow him to push his POV. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

well, there is plenty here on commons, actually right here in this conversation. Still, I think we should help you to be happy Fry, by letting you hand out your verbal beating rather than giving a block. I think they are no match for you ;) Penyulap ☏ 05:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It is my belief that this can be solved amicably if all sides are respected. I asked Ghiath to calm down last night, and haven't seen anything bad since. I agree their DRs are somewhat misguided, but we get that from time to time, and all that is needed is a little education. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

He hasn't done anything bad since because he hasn't done any editing. When I was looking at his contributions I was thinking this one is a GAMER. Not editing is a common tactic to avoid being blocked in the ass. Hands up anyone who doesn't know this,... anyone ? Not editing and editing properly aren't the same thing, and it doesn't fool me. Penyulap ☏ 13:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap, you have made an inflammatory allegation of gaming against another contributor, please either substantiate your allegation with evidence which may support an administrator action in line with Blocking policy or strike it. Your allegation is inflammatory and a personal attack, because of the abusive "blocked in the ass" with the bad faith "doesn't fool me" comment, which appears to be included to wind up Ghiath and create a deliberately hostile environment for them on Commons, probably to try and get an equally inappropriate response to your trolling of this noticeboard. A minority of administrators may find your schoolboy antics good for the lolz, however over many months your behaviour is blatantly inappropriate, and persistently disruptive to a collegial discussion of issues that contributors bring here for considered review. --Fæ (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Fæ, Fæ, Fæ, how can you say I'm not nice ? I try and help you. Remember when I remind you not to close discussions without reading them ? well, you're not reading the discussion before making a long and embarrassing comment which indicates clearly you haven't read this one either. This is the third time I've reminded you about reading things, isn't that nice of me ? As for GAMING being a bad word, you didn't seem to mind when I said it at your second unsuccessful RfA. I only say what is fair, and I'm actually rather diplomatic, I didn't come out and say that you're "[...] pathologically drawn to creating controversy and conflict.-- KTo288" now did I ? even though I can't argue with such a true and fair summary, I wouldn't say that because I care for your feelings Fæ. I really do, now can we be fwends ? Penyulap ☏ 14:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap , Be respectful in your words , i don't care either if you block me or deleted my uploads , Fry , not because we have got a dispute you want to do anything to get away , my last contributions in wikimedia were good , i had put some historical pictures , and plus , i nominate things that could make problems , i don't think you'll like an insult for your religion do you ? , or your country ? , and a religion insult means a big problem and battles in wikimedia , and i said i prefer deleting all things that insult all the religions , do you know why i did these battles in wikipedia english ? , because the tried to threat me and insult me , there is no respect to anybody there , they see there opinion right and my opinion is wrong , and they don't talk or try to know what is the problem , and again fry you say that i uploaded the picture of revolution flag with the david stars as a revenge , while not , i uploaded it because i saw that there is no problem to upload pictures like this , and yes , what do you call what did Psychonaut said about islam , or do about islam ? , don't you call it racism ? , i'm trying to be a nice man here and help build up the wiki , but every body here thinks i'm making revenge or battles , because the see there opinions right , anyways if you want me to go i'm very happy to do so , because i want my head to be clear and i'm not ready to waste my time in problems and writing , so do what ever you want .GhiathArodaki (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap -- I would strongly tend to doubt whether he's a native English speaker... AnonMoos (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

That's ok, not everyone is good at everything. For example, scams usually work, illusions usually fool people. These things aren't supposed to be easily spotted by the masses, and the perpetrators won't tell you either. There are people who spend their entire lives making a career out of fooling and deceiving people, knowing every trick in the book. If you're not good at it, you can't put food on the table. Thing is, these people aren't all bad. Penyulap's are much loved by the community and are better trained and have better instincts. I am happy and will, and have, pointed out what and where, and pinpointed the reasons why I think what I think about this editor. I'm happy to give further information to a trustworthy neutral admin, not that you need any of this, I mean, who needs to prove much at all when they have resumed editing without addressing this. Shrug. whatever. Penyulap ☏ 16:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not that strong in speaking english , and it's not a Flaw .GhiathArodaki (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

We welcome those who are not fluent in English, as well as those who are. We encourage our users to place bableboxes on their user pages. Many find that they help to improve communication among users. Some prefer the text equivalent, instead. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

GhiathArodaki, if you don't want to be here in such a racist, islamophobic, pro-Israel, battleground environment, then go. We shouldn't have to make you leave if it is so horrible here. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Biting by User:Denniss

Please refer to User talk:ClaretAsh#Vandalism is not appreciated in regards to good faith efforts by myself to remove images I mistakenly uploaded when I was still contributing and the bad faith response from User:Denniss. ClaretAsh (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Next time, please use a more friendly reason in DRs. :) JKadavoor Jee 11:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Amen to that. Penyulap ☏ 12:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

klick Denniss has done nothing wrong. "I no longer want my photos listed on this website."- is a invalid reason. Regards--Steinsplitter (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You lack any sense of humor; learn from Pen. JKadavoor Jee 12:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Imagine you want to go shopping, you walk outside, and wow, you meet Jim Carrey walking down the street and he does something funny, you laugh and continue. At the bus stop there are two Jim Carreys who make your sides hurt and the bus driver and conductor are both Jim Carrey along with all the passengers, at the store, the shop assistants play with your shopping and make jokes. I'm thinking commons, like real life, should legislate that there is one and only one Jim Carrey or Penyulap. They are a necessary evil in society we can't do without, but by God, one is enough.

actually, maybe sometime we can make a template to use that explains the licensing without giving the loud and clear F&#^ off message. That may help. Otherwise, we piss off the wrong person and we'll have more websites set up to criticise wikipedia in general, I don't think poor fae could take it. The long list of boards criticising wiki is long enough as it is.

maybe just a little bit like me, as if I was chopped into little pieces and everyone had a piece of me? argh! Penyulap ☏ 12:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

klick--Steinsplitter (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Good faith efforts? Every bit as good faith as his closes. It is inappropriate to renominate a file for deletion right after an admin has closed it. He could have been nicer, but I'm amazed at how many people come in with stuff like "I'm a former user and I no longer have faith in Wikimedia's values. I thus wish to disassociate myself from Commons and have my uploads removed." (admittedly, that's a fairly nice way of saying it) and then expect everybody to be extremely friendly about it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

There are many reasons for a valuable contributor to quit Wikimedia; and the most legitimate reason may he tired with the politics here, or had been kicked by a rude admin. And it is quite natural that he fell guilty because nobody care his feelings; even though all his previous works are used by them without any shame. So chances for an angry response like the stated deletion request above; which is a minor fault worth a gentle ignore. It is not good to kick the ass of our sacred cows. JKadavoor Jee 02:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Gay conservative

I don't know if this is the correct venue (I edit en.wiki), but Gay conservative (talk · contribs) is edit-warring in the file File:World homosexuality laws.svg. I warned/told him/her about this edit war at en.wiki but s/he has no intentions to stop, just seems s/he is interpreting en:DOMA-releated recent events on his/her own. Tbhotch™ 22:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't waste your time arguing with this "new user":

• 11:01, 14 June 2013 Rschen7754 (talk | contribs) blocked CentrumZero (talk | contribs)
• 01:58, 15 June 2013 User account Gay conservative (talk | contribs) was created

Try starting an sockpuppetry investigation at enwiki: en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Latitude0116. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for a week, will be indeffed if sock or continues warring after block. --Denniss (talk) 07:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

User:BurgererSF

I am really sick of the edit warring this user continues in the file I uploaded (the last instance). Since they developed a nice habit of deleting comments from their talk page without otherwise reacting on them, I take the issue here. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The initial uploder of this file (Ymblanter) can revert my editions and I cannot revert my own editions? give me a break!!! BurgererSF (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I think a history split of the file is a good idea. Penyulap ☏ 19:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done (history split)--Steinsplitter (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Penyulap. File:Stöwer Titanic.jpg had similar issues without needing admin. The projects that use the file can decide which version is better for articles. This thread can probably be closed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I was talking about the edit-warring in the description of the file, not about the edit-warring in reuploading another version (which stopped some time ago).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you please remove all my editions from this file? They are not relevant and are permanently restored. I don't know what kind of problems Ymblanter has, I am not waging any edit-war! BurgererSF (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Well thankfully, and per tradition, we have the {wrong version} in the articles :D So now the other projects look nice and dull. Please continue not edit warring and all shall be peachy.

• 
• 

Penyulap ☏ 09:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but can you please remove my editions as requested above? I suppose the rationale is clear. BurgererSF (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, but I don't understand your request, do you mean the image, or the description ? perhaps you mean parts of the description. I think it is understood that because of the history split, you should be able to describe File:Kossak Józef Piłsudski on Kasztanka.jpg as you wish to,you're the restoration artist aren't you? I would expect that if the merits of the two images are discussed on the local wikis that your restoration would be more popular. That's just my guesses. Penyulap ☏ 10:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Mohammed alkhater

Vandalism-only account. The user only engages in reverting files to historical versions without explanations, some times reverting files over 10 times. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

that one just looks like an edit-war with the slow cache. Penyulap ☏ 16:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware, however the user had reverted about a dozen files back to historical versions that sometimes date back years. User gives no explanations for the reverts, and has no uploads or other productive edits. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

well, if it is just 1 to 1 with no talkies, just revert em right back. Penyulap ☏ 17:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I've warned the user. You happy now? Fry1989 ^eh? 18:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

User is continuing to edit war and revert files without proper explanations after warning. Please block and revdel all these useless and disruptive reverts. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Engaging in personal attacks as well. As infantile as the language is, it's still an attack. The user clearly has no intention of constructive editing, they should be blocked indefinitely. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this one seems to be here just to shit you Fry, that's true. I think the only other thing to do is to 'find a third' on some file or the other, put it on a talkpage, and I figure either they will behave because they are someone's sock and would rather just hang about to annoy you by being unblockable, or clearly go over the line and could be blocked. So I guess there is the 'labour' of putting it on the talkpage with a 3rd and then it's done. The other thing is if someone follows what the two of you do and gives an opinion, I could do that a bit, my opinion won't be consistent of course, but at least you'd have a 3rd. Penyulap ☏ 19:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

actually, looking at this one, there are a number of mistakes they've made with their 'efforts'. A block would be quite defensible. You could notify them too, about this discussion, so they can come and let everyone enjoy their antics. Penyulap ☏ 19:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You should have seen it from the beginning, it was obvious this wasn't going to be a constructive user and it's only purpose is to disrupt Commons. Instead you made me do this song an dance with the troll. Block the user, and block any socks that show a similar pattern, it's that simple and be done with it. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done. VOA-blocked. INeverCry 19:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Penyulap ☏ 20:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

user:77.46.241.17

This user and his socks (Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Operahome1) keep on removing valid warnings from image he/she uploaded. Moros y Cristianos 07:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Ottava Rima

• Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Commons_talk:Project_scope/Update_2013/Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose#Proposal_2:_Actively_curate_educationally_distinct_content
• User_talk:Fæ#Personal_attacks
• User_talk:Alison#Fae - includes the statement with regard to my motivation: "It is obvious that a handful of people are trying to use Commons to get attention, money, or some other benefit that is outside the purview of this community. It is obvious that they will make whatever nasty comments and threats to ensure that they can continue."
• Ottava Rima's first edit to commons on this account was 1 Sep 2008. 4 years, 10 months ago. I approximated this to 5 years. Special:Contributions/Ottava_Rima
• Ottava Rima's uploads I estimated at 90 by checking the log, discounting crops and minor edits rather than new uploads. On a more careful recount, I now estimate this to be 99. Special:ListFiles/Ottava_Rima

Ottava Rima has disrupted the consensus building policy discussion through series of disruptive comments against darkweasel94, MichaelMaggs, Mattbuck, Jmabel, Simonxag and myself on the above discussion page. After he complained on my talk page, I encouraged him to raise his accusations on AN/U, however the last last accusation against me was lying when these facts can be found in his contribution logs, and now has crossed the line with blatantly false claims that I have smeared him as homophobic.

I request prompt administrator action in line with COM:BP as he is creating a hostile environment for other contributors and disrupting a policy discussion intended to form a consensus. --Fæ (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

There have already been people ([12]) who stated that they need to put up the images for recognition elsewhere, which is self promotion. And the topic is at the top: "Do we need a rule allowing us to keep images that are uploaded for advertising or self-promotion if they are nevertheless educational? (That is probably the unwritten practice at present)" It is even in one of the proposals. If you aren't trying to make it so Commons can be used for self-promotion, why are you fighting against the clarification to make it clear that the ban on self-promotion is staying? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not "encouraged him to raise his accusations" but a clear, nasty threat after it was pointed out that he was very, very wrong in his claims about my contribution. I was not the only one who pointed that out [13]. Fae lies about how many images I uploaded, and, when asked to correct it, he threatens blocks. What a civil and wonderful way of acting. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Fae's smear of homophonia "You might be able to stop all those many colourful gay pride uploads by re-educating us LGBT die-hards." As someone who has an Featured Article on an LGBT topic, such smears are really inappropriate and he knows it. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

As pointed out here, djvus are sets that contain many images, and when you put them on Wikisource they expand to fill many pages. They are not "one image". Additionally, it is obvious my activity began in 2009. Regardless, none of it matters because the amount of images you upload is not how you "win" an argument, especially when so many uploads by others are bot/script uploads taken from other places. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I am collapsing this as the discussion has degenerated to a mutual back-stabbing session and an invitation to re-open all sorts of old and irrelevant arguments. If you wish to comment on the above issue, please do so below, but keep the discussion focused. Thanks. Any complaints about other editors should be started in a new section, so that we can keep the discussions of each editor's behaviour clearly separate. I apologize to those editors who have already commented sensibly here and whose comments have been swept up in the maelstrom. Please comment again below if you wish--MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts) Let's stay with the relevant facts. You have repeatedly accused various people, without checking your facts, of uploading "vanity images" that aren't good for anything but "self-promotion". If you really believe that certain images uploaded by those other participants are out of scope, by all means do nominate them for deletion - but on that particular policy page, "off-topic" is the most harmless adjective I can find. All else, such as how many images you have uploaded, seems irrelevant to a complaint about your behavior. Personally I don't care if you're blocked; I'm perfectly capable of ignoring what you write, and I don't intend to get more involved in this dispute. darkweasel94 17:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC) The topic of the discussion is prohibiting self-promotion and vanity images. Unless you are going to say that the topic shouldn't be discussed because it doesn't happen, then you have no argument. This is about Commons scope. It is not off topic to discuss the topic. Your statement is ridiculous and it seems like you didn't even know what the topic of the discussion was. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC) I warned Ottava earlier this week for trolling Fae in the discussions. I see no upside to Ottava's participation on Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Your claims of trolling were specifically prohibited from the discussion and completely inappropriate. You knew that, and you also knew that your claims were false. Then, when your statements against me were challenged, you had to admit I was right [14]. You jumped the gun and put your foot in your mouth. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC) That diff is not me saying you are not a troll, because you are a troll. I made that statement and I stand by it. I further contend you well know you are a troll. I call for the previous indef block to be reinstated. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Sigh, the period between the sentences denotes that they are separate ideas. You have shown advance proficiency in English to know that the two sentences are separate. The "then" shows that the two sentences are temporarily separated. The use of plural in "statements" denotes that you could not associate the sentence with the previous idea solely. Your statement above is dissemblance to ignore that you had to admit that you were wrong. That admittance is strong evidence that your first accusations were inappropriate. Your dissemblance above is your attempt to continue to do that. These are not appropriate actions of an administrator and you know it. Your rude behavior here, on IRC, and the rest and your constant attempts to intimidate people like the above has been pointed out by a lot of people for a point time as unacceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC) To paraphrase what I said at Commons talk:Project scope/Update 2013/Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose#Proposal_2: Actively curate educationally distinct content, if there is anything approaching consensus that my description of my work as "pretty serious photo-documentation" constitutes vanity, or if Commons decides that thoroughly documenting things like parades (e.g. Category:Summer Solstice Parade 2013) or museums (e.g. Category:Blackman House Museum) is excessive/self-promoting and that Commons only wants a handful of images of such things, and hence my efforts at (yes I'll say it again) pretty serious photo-documentation are unwelcome at Commons, then I will find another outlet for my work. I can't say I have no problem with that, but I'd accept it. I joined this project largely because I thought my own photographic goals were/are congruent with those of the project, and the fact that I was made an administrator suggests that there was general consensus that they were. However, Commons has the prerogative to change its goals. In the discussion of possible new changes, I was pretty surprised to have this user attack my work as an example of "vanity" work that largely needs to be removed. In particular, I stand by my statement that sometimes individual photos that are not important in and of themselves may be important as part of a set, and that generally such sets should be left intact, and I don't think there is any "vanity" or "self-promotion" in that view. You can see the discussion in more detail on the page in question. I don't want Ottava Rima blocked or banned, but I would support a sanction that requires him to have some proportion of uploads or constructive edits in File: or Category: space relative to his remarks in policy discussions and deletion discussions, and/or to have him assigned a mentor (including one who agrees with his substantive policy views) who could work with him on how to express those views without egregiously insulting individual contributors right and left. - Jmabel ! talk 17:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC) "Heck, I doubt that 50% of my contributions to the Commons that are currently used in Wikipedia clearly fit these explicit criteria." Your quote. It is obvious that merely uploading images does not make them quality or useful by your own admission. I could run a script/bot like everyone else and flickrwash tons of images. That doesn't give me more right. I've already uploaded over a 1000 images. There isn't a minimum requirement to participate, but if there was I clearly met it. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC) The remark of mine that you quote was a criticism of the criteria. My point was that they are so restrictive that many of the images actively in use don't meet them. For example, Wikipedia almost certainly uses over 300 pictures I took in people's biographical articles and uses somewhere over 1000 images of buildings in lists of buildings with registered historical status, and probably over half of those would not meet the criteria that were being proposed. Please don't rip my remarks from context and make them say something other than what they meant. - Jmabel ! talk 18:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Yes, I know. And that was my point - we fundamentally disagree on the criteria that exists on what images are appropriate or not. I feel that if something does not meet the criteria that Fae proposed [15] (ironic, right? Because he has been attacking me for what he was proposed) then the only reason to keep them is for the vanity of the uploader. I don't think the uploader's vanity should be any concern - any image should be deleted if unusable or replaced if there is a better version. It doesn't matter whose name is attached to the image at the bottom of the page. After all, I have many images that were taken from en.wikipedia and uploaded on Commons without my name attached to it (and they wont appear in the user upload window). We do not need 100 images of the same subject, especially when only a limited number of images could be usable on an article page. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Such a restriction is unworkable and unreasonable. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC) "Such a restriction" meaning the one I proposed? People have been assigned mentors here before. - Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC) On a sidenote, the unblock in May 2012 was subject to Ottava being banned from COM:AN and subpages, and I have not found anywhere where that prohibition has been reviewed since. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Blocked from bringing up others on AN. You know that. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC) ...No, it clearly says "banned from editing COM:AN and its subpages" - Commons:Editing restrictions. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC) If the discussion here is of Ottava Rima's conduct, then Ottava Rima has to be allowed to participate. - Jmabel ! talk 18:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC) I agree, I was commenting more that Ottava is under an editing restriction already. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Sigh, the intent and the purpose was to keep me from creating topics on other people or arguing on topics of other people per "drama." It was proposed by AFBorchert along those lines and if you think that he wouldn't agree with me defending myself here, then go ping him on his user page. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC) I confirm this. We try to apply common sense here at Commons. This thread was not opened by Ottava Rima but about him and it appears only natural that he is permitted to defend himself here. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Just for the records: diff by Ottava Rima to my user talk page. I don't think that this message needs a response, given that it totally misses my point, but perhaps people discussing here or admins deciding it care about that. darkweasel94 19:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC) As I pointed out, you cannot claim I was off topic when, by definition, my discussion was the very topic. Such statements are incivil and need to be fixed. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC) God, the best idea here it to take the restriction about making AN complaints against other people OFF Ottava Riam and putting it ON Fae. This is yet another 'Fae doesn't like someone' mega-mess-drama-fest. Fae refuses to take back his attack and clearly belittles contributions to commons. I quote Fae "Could someone please give Ottava Rima a barnstar to show the community appreciates the value of his 90 images uploaded to Commons over the last 5 years? I am sure they have high value compared to my 90,000 uploads which he probably feels "spam up the place" anyway." -Fae, Who is giving every small contributor the big 'fuck off' for not setting scripts running before wandering away from the computer. I'm not saying vacuumming up all the crap out there isn't a good idea, don't we all love searching through a vacuum cleaner bag to find the things of value. Problem here is Fae loves dishing shit out, but can't take it, and after his 'efforts' to calm things down, (by outright refusing to take back his personal attacks) it's everyone else's responsibility to clean up the shit he starts ? Well fuck that for a joke. How about other people judge if there is a problem that needs admin attention, rather than Fae bring every little drama that he has blown out of all proportion here for our attention. 95% less workload and drama right there, because just ask fae, most editors are 'against' him, and most websites on the Internet are set up to be 'against' him, I'd wonder if birds tweeting in the sky are 'against' him too. It's like a faulty car alarm, people are not trying to steal the car, the alarm is just completely frikkin broken. I don't like the idea of 'silencing' anyone, even if they are a car alarm, but restrictions are the kind of thing that fae supports himself, so I can't see any problem with it. Penyulap ☏ 19:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Question; Why was Ottava Rima unblocked after all that effort to get rid of their disruptive unrelenting behaviour? Fry1989 eh? 19:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC) here is the link it was more than a year ago, and looked like a whole lot of 'some other project' and 'me too' rather than any actual problem. I'm not saying there is or is not a problem, but seriously, where is the big deal here ? Fae picked a fight and can't handle it. Looks like they're evenly matched to me. Common sense would be for Fae to stop refusing to retract his remarks and for them both to get along better. *sigh* but it's always a call to flip a coin and shoot someone, like on en.wiki. Doesn't work here I find. Penyulap ☏ 20:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Penyulap, your message seems more like a personal attack than anything I've seen from Fae; Fae certainly didn't make conjectures about people believing everybody is against them, or similarly irrelevant things. Whether it was necessary to bring this to the noticeboard, I'm not sure either, but let's please not derail this to make it a discussion about Fae instead of Ottava Rima? darkweasel94 19:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC) If it was any other editor than Fae, I'd be suggesting that they stop deliberately inflaming the situation, but for Fae, that seems to be absolutely compulsory. So to suggest 'settling down' is just wasting my breath. Penyulap ☏ 20:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC) When things are brought to AN, all parties are discussed. Fae actually did make conjectures, such as his insinuations that I am homophobic in his first response to me. He went on the offensive because I agreed with a proposal. Remember, I was the one being attacked, not the other way around. I only supported our current policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC) English is not my first language. Does "LGBT die-hards" mean "people who are LGBT", or "people who are interested in LGBT subjects"? darkweasel94 20:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Mostly the second one, lgbt people in my experience are not all crazy, or 'die hards', they're as 'normal' as the rest of us, whatever that means. Penyulap ☏ 21:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC) In that case, there was no accusation of homophobia. darkweasel94 21:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Re-read it. He is claiming that I do not consider LGBT topics as equally valid as any other topic. He did not say parades, or groups of people, or the rest, but brought up sexuality in a topic that had no connection to sexuality. With my history of writing a FA on an LGBT topic and also fighting to have non-sexuality rated topics pruned (flower images - I argued to have many deleted in the past for being non-educational), such comments were highly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC) So would it be about right to say that Fae is fighting with you, and starts "playing the gay card", even though you have a demonstrated history of being OK with gay issues (or maybe some proficiency). like that ? Penyulap ☏ 21:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Inflammatory cartoon apparently intended to offensively compare this discussion to accusations of anti-Semitism removed. --Fæ (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC) [Inserting here for lack of a better place] I concur with Penyulap's assessment. — Scott • talk 14:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC) The cartoon is intended to assist people who may not have an excellent understanding of English to grasp the subtle concepts being discussed. The concept of the Cry-wolf.png cartoon is 'playing the (insert name of minority) card' where a person who is dishonest about the intentions of others is using minority status to attack an innocent person. If there is a cartoon out there that shows 'playing the gay card' to attack someone fine, I haven't seen it, and anti-semitism is pretty universally understood. 'Playing the gay card' is totally unknown in many places because the LGBT community is mistreated or suppressed. So for someone who doesn't understand the concept of calling someone you disagree with homophobic, they'd grasp the concept in the cartoon in a hurry and just need to substitute 'gay' for 'Jewish'. I'm not calling you or anyone else anything to do with semite/anti-semitism or even suggesting that Palestinians have the right to exist on the face of the earth. I'm just giving a 2-second perfect analogy of 'playing the gay card' to people who would not otherwise understand. I did not raise the topic myself, you raised the topic yourself in your opening statement saying Ottava Rima "has crossed the line with blatantly false claims that I have smeared him as homophobic." I didn't try to explain this concept until after I became aware that some of our colleagues may have difficulty understanding the language used. Penyulap ☏ 02:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Fae removed the image again Perhaps you can attempt to articulate your concerns with the image Fae, rather than becoming even more vague than your last removal. 'trolling' appears to simply mean something you don't like in this case. "Inflammatory" well, if you are concerned that your latest ten page time-waster thread is going down in flames, you could always withdraw it. Just sayin' Penyulap ☏ 15:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Penyulap -- I don't particularly understand what this user dispute is about, and I'm not sure whether it would be worth expend much effort to try to understand it, but your invocation of image File:Cry-wolf.png is quite unfortunate, since this image is by notorious hatemongering racist bigot Carlos Latuff, who inserted irrelevant side-curls into this cartoon for the specific purpose of showing his generalized contempt and hatred for the Jewish religion and people. For people who know something about the subject, whatever political point he was attempting to make is strongly overwhelmed by the hateful message of the side-curls (Latuff seems to be unable to refrain from adding similar bigoted and racist touches to a number of his "cartoons"[sic])... AnonMoos (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC) I don't know what are 'side-curls', I'll ask you on your talkpage as it would be off topic. The irony of the matter amuses me greatly, the proposal where I say Fae pretty much spontaneously combusted in opposition and calling for unilateral closure is EXACTLY the policy we would need and use to remove this or any other image. Fae refered to this image as 'offensive' when he removed it. (I see, use, and know only the educational content. The rest is foreign to me.) Penyulap ☏ 02:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC) This is a diversion. Ottava Rima has made a blatantly false allegation that I accused him of being homophobic. No amount of fancy reinterpretation and logic chopping of my words can supply a diff to make that false allegation a true one. Of course I repeatedly used cases of LGBT culture and the LGBT free media collective project as before discussion even started on MichaelMagg's proposal, I made that method explicitly clear at Commons_talk:Project_scope/Update_2013#Initial (nearly 2 weeks ago), and I used LGBT examples as cases in discussion with several people on the same page. Ottava Rima is claiming that using this as a benchmark is an assertion of homophobia, complete and utter rubbish. As I stated at the outset, Ottava Rima has made a "series of disruptive comments against darkweasel94, MichaelMaggs, Mattbuck, Jmabel, Simonxag and myself", this disruptive false allegation he has made against me of calling him homophobic, is just one of a series of ad hominem disruptive attacks against other contributors that should be considered here. --Fæ (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC) 'disruptive' means whatever you want it to mean, which in your case is something close to nothing most all of the time, but can you provide some actual diffs, for each so we can see the 'meat' and judge for ourselves. So diffs (From Fae) please for: darkweasel94, (darkweasel94 pointed to something(/nothing) in their next comment below this one) MichaelMaggs placeholder Mattbuck placeholder Jmabel placeholder Simonxag placeholder and yourself (darkweasel94 pointed to something(/nothing) in their next comment below this one) Penyulap ☏ 22:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC) '(inserted note) I apologise profusely (primarily to Jmabel), I am not asking anyone for diffs except the person who is asking admins for their intervention, that is, Fae. He is asking for action, Fae has made the statement " As I stated at the outset, Ottava Rima has made a "series of disruptive comments against darkweasel94, MichaelMaggs, Mattbuck, Jmabel, Simonxag and myself"," I am asking for more information on that. I apologise for the misunderstanding I have created here. I am asking Fae, not anyone else. Sorry. Penyulap ☏ 03:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Penyulap, what diffs are you asking me to provide? I can't provide diffs that demonstrate that I haven't said anything abusive or disruptive, because that would consist of the full log of my edits. Or are you asking for diffs that illustrate Ottava Rima's tone and why some would find it objectionable? For that: [16], pretty much the whole edit: he accuses me of "vanity" and says "It is obvious from your statement that you are being inappropriate and using Commons to promote yourself," because I said "I do pretty serious photo-documentation" and goes on to say "You can't claim to be objective and seeking the best interest of Commons while simultaneously making such statements." Let me state here: extreme humility or false modesty is not a requirement to participate in this project, and I don't believe that categorizing my work as "pretty serious" is some kind of wild excessive boast. [17]: "I could easily spam up the place with thousands of useless images which I try to sell to newspapers or magazines to get my name out there" with the clear implication that I and others are doing precisely that. I find it absurd that he suggest that images being picked up from Commons by newspapers or magazines are "useless" and insulting that he effectively characterizes putting my work out for free commercial reproduction (as Commons insists) is somehow a gambit to get paid. Believe me, if I wanted to make much money off of my photography, the last thing I would do is offer it under CC-BY-SA rather than CC-BY-SA-NC. [18]: "You have done whatever you can to be nasty and disruptive in this chat because you know your images are not within policy..." (addressed at Fæ). OK? This is not an effort to be comprehensive about his tone, these are just examples I was able to find in 10 minutes. If anyone wants to see, for contrast, the tone of my own remarks in this discussion, see this diff. - Jmabel ! talk 02:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC) oh, I am so sorry Jmabel ! i did not mean to ask you, I am sorry. I asked Fae to provide diffs for his statement, he is asking for admin intervention, he should state why. I am sorry, I see the ambiguity in my request, I apologise. You should not need to do any of this work as you are not requesting any intervention. Penyulap ☏ 03:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC) "Ottava Rima has made a blatantly false allegation that I accused him of being homophobic." Then why did you mention LGBT issues in such an incredibly hostile and defensive way? You were the one that introduced it, and the implication was that I was focusing on the LGBT community. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC) well, Fae's bots are running bloating up the server with the same images he uploaded yesterday. (The watermarks are being cropped up a day later, so that it ups the edit count I guess, why upload once when you can upload twice) I guess asking for diffs to back his claims is a lost cause so I marked the list with placeholders, you know, 'if ever'. Maybe if the bots are running bloating up the servers that means he's wandered off or is watching tv, who knows, asking for diffs to support his claims is a lost cause. I'm guessing even 'wall-o-crap' ain't going to happen today. Penyulap ☏ 00:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC) I don't think either Ottava or Fae has been nice to one another. But I do not see "disruption" as normally construed, nor do I see grounds for a block. If you want some kind of mutual interaction restriction, perhaps that is appropriate, but I'd really rather you both just be nice to one those you disagree with. --99of9 (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) On my talk page (permalink) I have provided diffs at least for accusations against Fae and myself of uploading "too many" images. I didn't click through the entire history however, and didn't include comments that weren't related to "uploading too much". darkweasel94 22:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC) I've looked at all 9 diffs on that page, they all follow the same direction, Ottava is suggesting quality of images is more important than quantity of images. There's probably frank language on both sides, I didn't see anything that stands out. Thing is, the discussion is about changing commons scope isn't it, so that is the right place and the right time to be pushing quantity or quality or whatever you like. Just because someone doesn't agree with Fae doesn't mean he needs it to be escalated into an admin action. When I made a proposal that we shouldn't use commons to deliberately offend absolutely everyone Fae pretty much spontaneously combusted before my eyes but that didn't need immediate admin intervention, maybe Fae can do that instead of another 10 page time-wasting thread about someone he doesn't agree with, sure, it kind of makes a mess of the page, but at least it's somewhat contained. Penyulap ☏ 22:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Perhaps I am misunderstanding Ottava Rima, because it is sometimes hard to get the point of invective-laden writing, but he certainly seems to be accusing several of us as doing work counter to Commons existing goals and policy, not simply counter to a proposed policy. If he's simply talking about the proposed policy, then the invective is far more out of line: then he's attacking us for conforming to current policy. - Jmabel ! talk 03:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC) I think I understand you perfect now. Yes, I suggest you should threaten to go on conforming to current policy and carry out your threats. I haven't noticed Ottava Rima wasting admin time playing wall-o-crap saying 'please block (name) look at all of these perfectly ok contributions meant to troll me.' Yes, it may be annoying to some people to know that there are people who disagree with them, but that's ok. If it is all talk, especially in the right venues and conforming to policy, it's cool. If we do not talk when we disagree, we cannot come closer to understanding each other and finding common ground. Just you tell 'em you're going to go on flagrantly conforming to the rules so there. Poke out your tongue like this 8P too. Penyulap ☏ 03:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC) "to be accusing several of us as doing work counter to Commons existing goals and policy" Actually, you accused yourselves. I agreed with the policy tweak to close off admin not following policy. You and others put up examples of how your images would be in violation. I never bothered to check, nor do I care about the particulars. I only responded based on your own claims being correct. If you feel that you are violating policy, I am not one who thinks policy needs to be rewritten to allow your behavior to continue. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)  Comment This ia a useless excercise. Somebody who not jokingly claims that historians wont ever look at commons because commons hosts selfies is so far out there that she should be ingored. Period. Btw how do historians know that commons hosts selfies? I guess the great seer Ottava Rima has enlightened them. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC) I made the statement to point out the logical flaw in the previous statement. The whole point was that we cannot predict the future, and that speculation on the future is equally silly regardless of the extreme. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC) This is not a speculation exercice. This is a statement that as we can't see the future, and as we can't know what the topics interests of future historians, to have a broad comprehensive multimedia fund will provide a better sources fund than if we select what we think of interest. On the other hand, your idea to prune content would be such an seer exercice... --Dereckson (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC) All claims about "future historians" are, by definition, speculation. That was my original point. Pruning content, however, is not about speculation - it is about cutting the cruft. The idea of being "editors" is to excise the unnecessary. Quality over quantity. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC) An aside This probably is not the best page for this aside, but I can't think where better to put it, since it is sparked by the discussion above. Ottava Rima seems to be characterizing as "self-promotion" the fact that I use Commons to make my photos available for reuse. I am under the impression that that is one of the purposes of Commons, and that having images picked up from here for use by magazines, newspapers, books, etc. is entirely congruent with Commons' goals. As I understand it, Commons' disparagement of self-promotion relates to things like taking lots of pictures of yourself and your associates, promoting your own business through Commons, etc. I'm pretty sure I have understood correctly, but I suppose there is a possibility that I have been laboring under a serious misunderstanding and Ottava Rima is correct about this, and I should consider withdrawing from such active participation in Commons (which could have been suggested civilly without such terms as "vanity," but that's another matter). Ottava Rima, am I correctly characterizing the basis of your accusation of "self-promotion"? And, anyone else, am I perhaps the one with a serious misunderstanding of how Commons is supposed to work? - Jmabel ! talk 02:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC) I don't think anyone knows how it works. I see people get blocked for uploading breathtaking quality work because it is watermarked in a modest way. I think everyone has their own idea of what it should be, it's just if things get totally out of hand. Like, it's fine for Ottava Rima to call you a self-promoter, and the best way to counter that accusation is to respond 'and I'm proud of it'. I guess maybe it's like one of those colourful parachutes that kids play with, we all have a hold on part of it, we all pull in our own direction, it's just we have to be careful not to rip a hole in it. That's all. Penyulap ☏ 03:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC) "the fact that I use Commons to make my photos available for reuse" You made it sound like you upload them to Commons then start trying to get them to appear wherever possible with some sort of pay in return. That seems akin to saying that Wikipedia is a platform for you to sell your work on, say, helping a firm write encyclopedia pages to promote Gibraltar. A lot of users at the WMF take offense at the idea of using the WMF wikis as a way to make you money. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Yes, and many people take offence at the way that WMF wastes the money we earn for them. They spend $40,000 for useless luxury junket to hong kong for 9 people, saying that they can't communicate and discuss things on the Internet like you and I can. They not happy with us, we not happy with them. Penyulap ☏ 04:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Ottava Rima, if I were particularly after "pay in return," why on earth would I be publishing my work through a site (Commons) that requires me to offer a free license? That accusation is simply bizarre. (That said, I do expect reusers to conform to the license terms, most notably attribution. If people use my work without attributing it, and especially if they claim it as their own and won't respond to a request to credit it accurately, that is a violation of copyright law. I am not placing my work in the public domain by uploading it here, nor does Commons require that I do so.) - Jmabel ! talk 04:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC) I'll say it one last time, and clearly. Ottava Rima insulted and disparaged me on the page in question and has come close to doing the same here. But I really don't want to be drawn into a further argument. I thought I'd already walked away from the argument when someone else decided it was worth bringing to AN:U, and I decided to weigh in. I've said my piece here and I'm done. - Jmabel ! talk 05:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC) "why on earth would I be publishing my work through a site (Commons) that requires me to offer a free license" I know, right? But the Gilbraltar case proves that you can make a lot of money helping people get the views that come from the WMF's placement in Google hits. There is also consulting, publicity, etc. You were the one that brought up that you were using Commons to get your work elsewhere, not I. I only took your statement as factual. Are you saying that you aren't profiting in some capacity on offline sites because of your work on Commons? Because, if so, you should strike your previous comment suggesting that you are. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Ottava Rima, I thought I was done here, but since you are asking a direct question, people (including me) do not get paid when their images are used under a free license. As for consulting and publicity, since I work in software for a living, photography is not exactly relevant publicity. I know very little about "the Gilbraltar case" and you don't provide a link, but from what I understand they were promoting Gibraltar tourism with photos of Gibraltar. Do you honestly think I profit from promoting the broad range of topics I photograph? Again, the accusation is bizarre. - Jmabel ! talk 16:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC) There is no "link" to the Gilbraltar matter. There are thousands of links. Many, many people have figured out how to make money off of WMF, including Commons. Merely saying that images are freely licensed here does not mean that you cannot make money. You stated yourself that you use the images you upload here to get into various papers. It wouldn't take a lot of imagination to figure out how to profit once you get in a lot of papers. And promotional is promotional. Commons isn't for promotional. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC) I'm trying to walk away from this, but you keep lying about me here on AN:U. I never said I "use the images you upload here to get into various papers." I said that various papers reuse my work from Commons. I said that to illustrate that my images here are not some sort of personal vanity merely because they are not all used in Wikipedia. Commons is not only a repository for Wikipedia: part of the purpose here is to make these images available, and the fact that a good number of my images have been picked up by newspapers, magazines, documentary filmmakers, etc. is illustrates that they are useful, even if not always to Wikipedia. I started out merely annoyed, but now I am livid. Above I said I don't want Ottava Rima banned or blocked, but I've changed my mind. I would be happy to see him banned or blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 18:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Jmabel, you used the above statements in response to a discussion on self-promotion and selling items. Thus, you made the connection between your action and the conversation, not I. This was pointed out, and you failed to make any sort of correction. Instead, you throw up anger as a defense. You have yet to admit that you used yourself as an example inappropriately. Either you are connected to it or you aren't, and if you aren't connected to the action, then all of your posts about yourself were meaningless and out of place. You can't have it both ways. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC) If your going to make claims about something someone said, you won't cause as much trouble if you use 'quote marks' the way I do when you cut and paste, and provide links or diffs. Otherwise, either one of you may not notice that you've subtly changed what was said and it ends up a misquote. Here is an example "You stated yourself that you use the images you upload here to get into various papers." That could use some "marks" so we can find it, or a diff, otherwise it may change the meaning of a previous statement, from noticing where a persons work goes, to the reason they provide the work instead. Penyulap ☏ 19:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Gibraltarpedia is a project by the Government of Gibraltar, a British Overseas Territory in the South end of the Iberian Peninsula, to improve coverage of Gibraltar-related topics on Wikipedia.[1] scope of the project. The project created divisions in the en.wiki community because it was very successful at creating good quality content for the project, there was so much content that it dominated the front page of en.wiki for some time. Some were pleased because the encyclopedia was expanded, some saw it as a conflict of interest that damaged the wiki name. extra link. I personally saw the funny side of it in this request ;D In the end, it doesn't matter, the foundation has more money than it knows to do with, and there was a lot of good content made, big deal over nothing, but a lovely topic to argue about until the end of time. Penyulap ☏ 18:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Penyulap's use of Cry-wolf.png cartoon as a personal attack Re: File:Cry-wolf.png a political cartoon by Carlos Latuff, intentionally controversial for its anti-Semitic intent and anti-Semitic motifs. I strongly and formally object to Penyulap's inappropriate and offensive repeated insertion of an anti-Semitic cartoon in the above discussion despite my clear objection to this being highly offensive to many contributors. This is blatant trolling, intended to inflame discussion and disrupt any consensus building on this noticeboard. I am openly Jewish and openly gay. I, and others, take Penyulap's drawing parallels between Ottava Rima's false allegations about accusations of homophobia and a cartoon about anti-Semitism as deliberately and maliciously both general defamation against Jewish and LGBT contributors to this project. It is a highly abusive direct personal attack intended to create a hostile environment and drive me and others away from making contributions here. This cartoon may be used on Commons in context, just as we expect appropriate use of explicit sexual material or material that may be unlawful in some countries, use of an anti-Semitic cartoon for harassment or defamation runs directly counter to The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. websites Terms of Use. I request that Penyulap is, again, barred from contributing to Administrator noticeboards, or all noticeboards for a month or longer while there is a risk that they will abuse contributors in this way. This will give them the opportunity to acknowledge their behaviour is unacceptable for Wikimedia Commons and they are required to make a firm commitment to change their approach of using "jokes" as a poorly veiled means of harassing other contributors, if they wish to contribute positively to creating content in a cooperative and collegial manner for this project. --Fæ (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC) I think Penyulap is in general behaving in a derailing and unconstructive manner in the above discussion, making it about "Fae just wants to fight" or even "how the WMF spends money" rather than the actual topic of the discussion; the particular cartoon is only one instance of that behavior. Since he was recently under an editing restriction for the same behavior, I think the restriction proposed by Fae is not an exaggeration. For voting template fans:  Support darkweasel94 11:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Dang, we really need a template that says Yummy Penyulap ☏ 12:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)  Oppose – I tired of seeing yet another episode of Fæ's endless quest to silence Penyulap every time I visit COM:AN or any of its subpages. Penyulap isn't motivated by racism. Penyulap should be free to state his or her opinion. Opinions and sometimes even the truth end up being offensive to some people. I've asked for a second opinion from a contributor that I respect and showed me the ropes at Wikidata. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Since you mentioned me, I'll just note that I've responded on my talk page, for anyone interested. Normally I avoid getting involved in drama on projects where I haven't established myself as a helpful contributor, but since I was specifically sought out in this case, I've thrown in my two cents. Y'all can make what you'd like of them. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 12:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Support. I strongly beg to differ to Michaeldsuarez opinion: Wikimedia Commons is an inclusive place, seeking to create a working collaborative environment. This is not a place to harass people on racist basis. Penyulap is free to state his opinions: he can open a personal web site or a blog for this purpose. But on Wikimedia Commons, we have clearly to say "No racist discourse will be tolerated." and create an harrassment-free workplace. --Dereckson (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC) I don't believe that Penyulap is harassing people, and I don't believe that Penyulap is doing it on a racist basis. Penyulap is compassionate about the welfare of his or her Commons colleagues, who Penyulap calls his friends: [19], [20]. I believe that Penyulap is merely trying to push his or her point across. I don't believe that Penyulap is harassing Fæ. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC) "As I stated at the outset, Ottava Rima has made a "series of disruptive comments against darkweasel94, MichaelMaggs, Mattbuck, Jmabel, Simonxag and myself", this disruptive false allegation he has made against me of calling him homophobic, is just one of a series of ad hominem disruptive attacks against other contributors that should be considered here. --Fæ (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)" 'should be considered here' well, we don't need diffs for these accusations because Lord Fae has spoken. darkweasel94, MichaelMaggs Mattbuck Jmabel Simonxag and yourself Fae, stop avoiding the question and answer the frikkin question rather than epic failing to create even more dramaz. Give some diffs to back up your claims. Sure, dumping a stinking turd of a ten page dramafest onto the ANU about ottava in the hope that ottava's natural charm alone would do what you were completely unable to do, that is, provide a reason for a block, seemed to have a chance, I mean it worked after the fact for Jmabel, but now you've gone and done another turd just to cause more dramas to avoid diffing your accusations. Could you be more transparent ? I mean seriously, is there a guide dog for a blind man out there somewhere that can't see this lame epic fail. Every admin on commons needs a red flashing rotating light like on a firetruck on top of their computer labelled 'someone disagrees with Fae' because really fae, that's why they are all here. Just for you Fae. So as much as some people love your turds and call them chocolate fae, how about a diff or 6 for the rest of us. Penyulap ☏ 12:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Yummy YUK this is not chocolate Eww Blah, PAH pth ptht oh, custom templates for the 'don't look at my complete lack of diffs, look at Peny, look at Peny !!' misdirection FAIL thread. Penyulap ☏ 12:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Penyulap, you have said that you want the diffs you request from nobody else than Fae. Can you explain your motivation? I can think of only one, namely trolling and not actually being interested in constructive dispute resolution. But perhaps there's another one? darkweasel94 12:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC) I'm sorry, did I suggest that because Fae is making the complaint against Ottava that he should at least provide diffs for his claim of a "series of disruptive comments against darkweasel94, MichaelMaggs, Mattbuck, Jmabel, Simonxag and myself" ? I'm sorry, what was I thinking, no, we should all run around like Peons for lord Fae at worst, like if we are stupid enough to question his edicts, or simply take his decree for what it is, ...gospel. Penyulap ☏ 13:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC) I change the title of the ten page turd thread to something more neutral. It's illegal in Florida to host images like that on the server isn't it ? I've made a proposal to remove ALL images that can be used to attack minorities here (permalink), and the Primary opposition is coming from Fae, who WANTS such images. He's not just opposed it, he's been calling for the whole proposal to be closed unilaterally. Penyulap ☏ 13:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Well, in a move that reminds me of someone doing a fart in an elevator and then leaving, Fae put an inactive template on his talkpage. I don't see that lasting a fortnight, then again I don't think diffs for his claims will ever be forthcoming. Penyulap ☏ 13:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Diffs for disruptive comments against Fae and myself have already been provided. Here's one where he calls a polite request by MichaelMaggs a "passive aggressive incivil comment". Here's one where he accuses Jmabel of "vanity" and "self-promotion". I admittedly didn't find anything comparably disruptive for mattbuck and Simonxag. You happy now, or should I have emailed those to Fae so he can post them?! Perhaps you'll now stop your trolling and we can start constructively discussing Ottava Rima's behavior. darkweasel94 14:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)  Comment Fæ, don't be ridiculous. That cartoon is quite clearly attacking a particular practice of political calumny, not the Jewish people generally, and would therefore be entirely appropriate to invoke against people making false accusations. Ironically, your characterization of Penyulap as engaging in defamation is exactly the sort of behaviour the cartoon is satirizing. Of all the disruptive activity Penyulap engages in surely you could have come up with something more topic ban-worthy than this. If and when you do so I'll be happy to support your proposal. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)  Comment This cartoon is antisemitic because it does not represent the reality. This is a real image. It is a shame that commons tolerate antisemitic cartoons and that they are not even placed in the category antisemitic images. Kooritza (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC) So this is how a discussion about a user accusing others of "uploading too much" turns into a discussion about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Congratulations. *facepalm* Also, the image is placed in the category "Antisemitism", and it is totally in scope because it was made by a notable artist whose works we want to illustrate, whatever you may think about these works. darkweasel94 16:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Sure the hateful cartoon is placed in the category "Antisemitism" because it makes fun of Jews who complain about antisemitism. This cartoon and other hate by latuff should be placed in the category Antisemitic pictures, if you are capable of understanding the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.199.88.97 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC) (UTC) You know, I really am tired of people calling Carlos Latuff's works anti-semitic. You people do realize that "semitic" applies to Arabs as well? There's a big difference between being Anti-Israel and Anti-all jews. You can support Israel, not support Israel or whatever else but calling people who are critical of Israel "anti-semitic" is incredibly disingenuous. Fry1989 eh? 16:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Unfortunately for you, that's one of the shallowest and most ineffectual tiresome stale old rhetorical maneuvers there is. To start with, the words "Semites" or "Semitic" are in fact rarely used at all in modern accurate scholarly terminology to refer to people -- except to refer to certain ancient tribesmen, or as an informal (but not entirely accurate) shorthand to refer speakers of Semitic languages. Otherwise, the word "Semites" itself has extremely little ascertainable valid meaning when referring to modern peoples (except in the eyes of a few old-fashioned allegedly "scientific" bigots, who still believe in the idea of unchanging archetypes of the Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean, and Semitic so-called "races"). Though it is true that the term "antisemitic" is not in fact strictly etymologically correct (since Jews are hardly the only group with a historical connection to Semitic languages and/or their early speakers), that's because of this word's specific origins -- since "Semites"=Jews was one of a whole series of mock-grandiose pseudo-elevated (but really slightly condescending) terms which were used in the late Victorian period to refer to various ethnic/religious groups that were felt by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants to be somewhat alien to themselves -- such as "Celestials" used to refer to Chinese, "Romans" for Italians, "Sons of Erin" for Irish, and a number of others. During that period, the term "Jew-hating" was a little too harsh to be used in mixed company when Podsnap's innocent Young Person was present, so that "anti-Semitism" (originally coined by non-Jewish Jew-hater Wilhelm Marr in 1879) was accepted as a genteel polite euphemism for drawing-room use. However, at this point the above is all pretty much water under the bridge, since the word "antisemitism" has obtained a fixed and established meaning over the last 120 years of usage in the English language, from the Dreyfus struggle through the Holocaust to General Assembly resolution 3379 of 1975. If you want to coin a word for hatred of Arabs, then by all means please do so -- there are plenty of theoretically valid possibilities, such as "Arabophobia", "Misaraby", "anti-Arabism", etc. etc. But please don't try to redefine the accepted term for hatred of Jews, because the problem of hatred of Jews is not the same as the problem of hatred of Arabs. The old tired stale rhetorical line that Arabs can't hate Jews because Arabs are "Semites" themselves is not only factually false, but hardly any thoughtful and well-informed person believes it -- so pulling it out again really does nothing to convince anyone of anything at this point. As for File:Cry-wolf.png, if Latuff had left off the side-curls, then it would have been an anti-Israeli and/or anti-Israeli settler cartoon -- but of course, Latuff couldn't refrain from adding his trademark Latuff spiteful malicious hatemongering touch, and so indulged himself in adding the side-curls in order to make his bigoted racist contempt for everything and everyone Jewish crystal clear to everyone in the know... AnonMoos (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC) @Fry1989, And I am really tiered of people who do not know the history, and do not understand what they are talking about. Of course latuff cartoons are antisemitic and it precisely why he won the second prize in The International Holocaust Denial Cartoon Competition in Iran, and it is precisely why his cartoon is listed on the page #64 in the appendix C ("Examples of Denial") of this report by the Simon Wiesenthal Center. I hope you're not going to deny Simon Wiesenthal Center's authority in deciding what is and what is not antisemitic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.32.47 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC) (UTC)  Comment Without getting into whether or not this, that, or something else entirely is/isn't antisemitic/etc., it's pretty clear that the cartoon was used as an attack on Fae's particular line of argument, rather than being "personal". In fact there's probably a reasonable case for saying "rinse, lather, repeat" when describing this particular subthread about that particular usage of the cartoon, but it would probably be a bit to subtle for some tastes. --SB_Johnny talk 17:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Call it whatever you want, you can be against Israel and not hate jews. And people have a right to express their views regarding Israel without being falsely called "Anti-semitic" when they aren't. Latuff's cartoons express the fact that the majority of the time when one points out facts about Israel which are undesirable, such as war crimes which are undeniable, they will be called "anti-semitic" as a way of shutting them up. You don't like Israel, you must hate all jews. It's the most childish and shallow way of dealing with the issue out there. Don't even pretend to try and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, that I don't understand the history, when I do very well. People like Norman Finklestein, a man who is jewish himself and whose parents were in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising but yet is critical of Israel's actions, even gets called "anit-semitic". It's the ultimate cry of the desperate to shut up any valid criticism of the fact that Israel has violated international law on countless occasions. Cry wolf all you want, people are waking up to the bullshit and Latuff's cartoons point it out precisely. Fry1989 eh? 17:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC) I'm having a hard time seeing how this is in any way a response to my comment... --SB_Johnny talk 17:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC) I am not even saying you are antisemitic. I am saying you do not know the history and do not understand what you're talking about. Who are you, Fry1989, to declare that that Israel committed undeniable war crimes? Colonel Richard Kemp UN Human Rights Council has an absolutely different opinion:"The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over 100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid virtually into your enemy's hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks." And Finklestein, well he is a Self-hating Jew. There are quite a few of self-hating Jews around the world, including Israel. 198.199.68.100 18:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC) I understand the history very very well. You think that because I'm not a supporter of Israel, it's because I can't have possibly educated myself about the history surrounding the issue, and I just don't like Israel because I'm uneducated about the specifics? War crimes are war crimes, I don't care what excuse you use. You think people can't possibly understand what the Israelis are dealing with? That we can't have any sympathy for jews and what they went through? Any oppressed people can understand. And calling Norman Finklestein a self-hating jew?? So I guess any jew that doesn't support Israel is really just a self-hating jew. Again, the cry of the desperate to shut up any actual discussion of what Israel is doing. It's a childish over-simplification used by those who want to such up any criticism, no matter how valid it is. That shit doesn't work with me, and it doesn't work with a lot of people. As for who am I, I should be asking you that, since you're hiding behind an anonymous IP address. Fry1989 eh? 19:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC) First I was thinking fae's time-wasting thread needed more aliens, then I was thinking, no, what it needs is more cupcakes!, then it hit me in a sudden epiphany, why not both ?!?!?!?! Penyulap ☏ 18:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)  Oppose - I do not agree with the photo, nor do I agree with images used for attack. However, my opinion was outnumbered by a community that kept both an image that I felt attacked Jimbo and a Polandball image that mocked another user. I am opposing because there would be a double standard if something were to take place. We either stop all the images attacking others or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC) So it would be a double standard if we stored an image on the servers that we weren't happy about certain uses on a discussion thread. Gotcha.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears rather partisan to look so very closely at one editors behaviour while overlooking another's entirely. Penyulap ☏ 23:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the suggestion was to keep this section focussed on the original topic, while still allowing people to raise other editors' behaviour in new sections if they wish. I agree with MM that the discussion had devolved into general discord, so trying to restart the discussion with some ground rules seems reasonable to me. --Avenue (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Answering one merit-less complaint by forcing people to make counter-complaints is no more a solution than saying two wrongs make a right. The point of the close was an attempt to turn 'no action needed' into an escalation. This is hardly the pulse of the community. The escalation will be a flop and reflect badly on the bureaucrat corps. Penyulap ☏ 00:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

MichaelMaggs

Anyone else find it odd that Michael is acting as if he is uninvolved in the matter? It is obvious that the community rejected the above as being meritless and an attempt to silence opposition. Then he takes it to the next level for what reason? Commons has definitely become utterly dysfunctional. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I do think that collapsing a section in a 'claytons' discussion close, or trying to prevent Fae's frivolity from being examined, as evidenced by the comment 'Any complaints about other editors should be started in a new section' is inappropriate.

I didn't know how involved MichaelMaggs is in all of this, and thought to go looking, but then I notice there is no need, he is NAMED in Fae's original complaint {bold added}

'Ottava Rima has disrupted the consensus building policy discussion through series of disruptive comments against darkweasel94, MichaelMaggs, Mattbuck, Jmabel, Simonxag and myself on the above discussion page.'

I think it is poor for appearances that MichaelMaggs states "A bureaucrat has sought community opinions on this issue." and, as he doesn't even sign his own name to it, he is clearly acting solely in the position of 'a bureaucrat', after all, he's not calling himself "MichaelMaggs", he's calling himself 'a bureaucrat'. This is not appropriate, this is involved.

I think MichaelMaggs should have his say like everyone else, as an editor who is involved, please do, maybe we can get one more of the missing diffs. Closing the discussion, or any bureaucratic process should be left to someone who is not named as a party to the complaint. There are lots of active bureaucrats and plenty of editors who can make an uninvolved close of this discussion. Penyulap ☏ 00:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, I regret that you felt it appropriate to make a variety of allegations including 'breach of trust' on my talk page. Your recent editing pattern has been to attack anyone who has differed from you, and you will have to excuse me if I decline to engage on that basis.

Penyulap, I appreciate your comments are made with good will, and I believe that we both agree that discussions here need to become much more mellow. My concern was to achieve that by asking editors to focus on the point at issue, and to provide a calmer environment for another bureaucrat to close the discussion in due course. On involvement, the unasked inclusion of a bureaucrat's or an editor's name in a complaint does not in my view by that very fact make that person 'involved'. My sole contribution to the initial debate was this, and on that basis I cannot agree with your suggestion that I am 'involved' in any way which would make my re-focussing of the discussion inappropriate. I have not commented so far on Fae's edits as no-one has opened an AN/U complaint about them, but for what it's worth I think that both editors have gone far beyond the limits of normal courteous conversation. I do see your point about not signing the header box, and I have now done that. My purpose in making the box generic was that I have in mind encouraging the re-use of that box and a separate opinions page in all contentious User Problem discussions, with a view to keeping things much more closely on track and dissuading editors from attacking eachother rather than actually commenting on the issues. If the issues raised by the complainant are without foundation it should be possible for a bureaucrat to move to a close rapidly and without drama, which cannot happen when editors immediately pile in and start a free-for-all. This is a trial of a new general-purpose approach to this type of problem, which I hope may meet with the community's approval - but we shall see. In any event, let's aim to keep each individual complaint short, focused, and closed without drama. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

mere re-labelling your escalation adds a flavour of dishonesty to the escalation. If it were me, I'd remove the page and have someone who is not clearly named in the complaint create the page. You've already demonstrated a clear inability to judge community opinion on the matter, I wouldn't be adding involvement to it, even if you paint it up with dishonesty. As for all those horrid rascals 'piling in' for a 'free-for-all', that's called the commons community, and that thing there doing is called a consensus. I'd say you're a bit out-of-touch. Penyulap ☏ 10:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe that MichaelMaggs made the right decision by using the reset button. I don't believe that any good would've came out of the collapsed discussion and its tangential discussions. I believe that MichaelMaggs deescalated the conflict rather than escalated it. Fæ is on vacation; let this be a time of peace between the both of you. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

How is it the "right decision" to add an additional power to bureaucrats when they clearly lack it? How is it right to create something that is obviously out of process? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Some conflicts can only be resolved by taking bold actions. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

@Michaeldsuarez, Hehe, reset button.

@general Well, I'd look at it as trying to push a big rock uphill. The rock-solid consensus was that the whole complaint was a time-wasting exercise of no merit. Sure, push it uphill, I can see how it can be done, but you want to have a firm footing for such an exercise, lest the rock rolls back over you when it comes down the hill. I could be wrong, but that's how it looks to me, the thread here had gone down in flames first, then it kind of hit the mountainside and skipped along the ground the way you generally only see in rocks skipping across the water, that was the whole 'play the gay card' followed by 'play the jew card' which Psychonaut knocked out of the ballpark with one swing. I'm not saying it's the most EPIC fail thread of Fae's ever, I haven't been around that long to know, but it's certainly the best fail I've seen yet. Putting it on life support or doing necromancy, hmm, well, Hey, I change my mind, Why not !!! Let's do it, I've got to see this one, if it can actually work, it'll be the spectacle of the century. So bring on the list of surprise witnesses, each more surprising than the last. Penyulap ☏ 13:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Michael, you need to stop. You have done a lot to harass others and take actions that are very unacceptable, especially with regards to Encyclopedia Dramatica. Your encouraging blatant rule violations and abuse is poor form. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ottava, people on commons are for the most part not interested in things that happen off-commons. You should not bring up things that have nothing to do with commons, otherwise, how can you complain if people do the same to you?. For that the second sentence, what you are referring to, I would think it is the involvement of MichaelMaggs, would that be correct ? Penyulap ☏ 14:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ottava wants to continue one of our past arguments:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michaeldsuarez&oldid=98867049#You_need_to_revert
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ottava_Rima&oldid=99654487#RE:_You_need_to_revert

During Fæ's second RfA, Ottava made near-baseless accusations of sockpuppetry against Sinnamon. I saw Ottava's accusation as an off-topic argument that didn't add anything of value to the discussion of whether Fæ was ready have sysop tools, so I hatted the discussion so that the discussion would remain focused on the RfA's subject (Fæ). Ottava responding by threatening to "request action be taken against you [me]". Basically, I tried to do what MichaelMaggs did, and Ottava reacted in the same way.

I haven't harassed anyone. I'm not "encouraging blatant rule violations and abuse"; I'm encouraging a less heated means to solving problems. What's truly "poor form" here is how Ottava is attempting to reopen old wounds by dragging Encyclopedia Dramatica into this discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Near baseless? I asked for clarification because they appeared to be claiming a history that was not obvious from their edits. Using different accounts on different Wikis, for instance, is not "sock puppetry." However, your phrasing it and inflaming the situation is your traditional behavior. Why is it that you have a long history of harassing Fae and appear in all of these discussions? You were banned at en.wikipedia for it, yet you keep involving yourself in the topic of it. You should be topic banned from all things Fae related. Add: ArbCom made it clear that Michael harassed Fae, so his attempt to claim that I am making up the accusation is blatantly false and deceptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ottava, bringing up off-commons stuff is unwelcome generally on commons, don't expect my continuing assistance if you just want to cause trouble. I wouldn't call this place a pack of wolves, but I'll definitely leave you to these toothless hounds so they can lick you to death. Please, "a long history of harassing Fae" according to Fae, probably applies to everyone on this short list of editors, according to what a reasonable person would consider harassment, it's a lot shorter, and according to consensus, fewer still. Michaeldsuarez is welcome on commons and is in good standing. Penyulap ☏ 17:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Your words:

Actually, it is, because the user practically admitted that they are a sock puppet of an established account. We need to be sure that there are no duplicate votes, and I believe a CU is warranted here. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Now you're making accusations of "inflaming the situation is your traditional behavior". I don't believe that's true. I don't have "a long history of harassing Fæ". I don't believe that ArbCom came to the right conclusions. I don't "appear in all of these discussion." I have the noticeboards watchlisted. I participate in discussions about silencing and censoring users such as Penyulap. I avoided participating in this discussion until Fæ proposed restrictions against Penyulap. Now you wish to censor me and prevent me from stating my opinions. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Michael, you broke a threaded discussion, caused formatting problems, and are doing all of this to twist words without cause. Furthermore, when people claim that they have editing history that they don't, that is obviously concerning. Everyone knows that, which means you know that. Your objections are meritless and disruptive. You went after others for having sock puppets in a very inappropriate way. Unlike you, I made my thoughts clear on Wiki in a civil manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It isn't my fault that the WMF abandoned their "LiquidThreads" project. I used Template:Outdent because the thread was being pushed nearer and nearer into the margins of the page. Soon, there would've been two or three characters per line. Sinnamon didn't claim to have any enwiki editing history. Why are you claiming that "I know that"? You don't understand my thoughts or motivations. You're making up my thoughts and motivations. Fæ is right. Your accusations need to end. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

" Sinnamon didn't claim to have any enwiki editing history." Really? Sinnamon didn't respond to my direct question. You did. It is clear that I asked: "Are you suggesting that you have your own problems on en.wikipedia?" They said they wanted to be like Fae, and expressed that Fae was able to leave their problems behind and have a clean go at Commons. That is something that really looked like what the user could have done. It isn't hard to infer that, especially with the user only editing on Commons, having edits in areas that are not common and adding categories on first edit that looks suspicious at best. You've accused Fae of sock puppetry on your other site for far, far less. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

When I'm involved in finding sockpuppets, I usually produce a long list of evidence:

• en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pickbothmanlol/Archive#27_January_2012
• meta:User:Michaeldsuarez/Sockpuppetry

You don't have anything but hunches concerning Sinnamon. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been instrumental in revealing hundreds of sock puppets on en.wikipedia and elsewhere, and was fundamental in the take down of major sock masters like Poetlister. I didn't accomplish any of that by creating harassing pages on encyclopedia dramatica, or following them to other sites after I got banned for harassing them on one. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

"to attack anyone who has differed from you" Not even close. It is, instead, people who differ from me who attacked me. I posted my opinions and was met with hostility. Even your own responses were way too hostile. Then, your attempt to characterize discussion that is meant to be back and forth as a problem is really, really bad form. Bureaucrats are supposed to encourage all parties to discuss all issues, but, instead, you are trying to stifle discussion about our scope for what reason? You are not acting like a bureaucrat, which is just evidence that your judgment was compromised from the beginning when you first attacked me. This is a clear example of incivility and hostility. Saying that 400 images on a topic is too much is not "incivil" and is common sense. Many people have made the same claim. MichaelMaggs knows that there are many people who have stated the same thing, yet frames my comment in such a way to poison the conversation. SB Johnny even interprets Michael's proposal as saying exactly the same kind of thing my statement said, except that my statement had numbers instead of generalities. It is obvious that Michael and my statements were the same, but Michael agreed with who was saying it. That isn't fair. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ottava, calm down, remember what I said about the game controller? it's not their turn to play with your emotions ok? now take that controller back.

What is plain to see here is the whole complaint had no basis and was itself a troll, to try to take advantage of Ottava's, shall we say, 'natural charm ;) ' to make up for a lack of merit. Dragging this on, baiting Ottava is open entrapment. Your arguing with him in the hope that he'll get so upset that he'll do something that merits action. That is NOT ACCEPTABLE on commons. You don't torment someone in the hope to block them, you let them go about their way editing in the hope that they'll do something blockable, and that's only if you don't like them. What any leader of the community should do is hope that they go about their business and avoid conflict entirely. Penyulap ☏ 13:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Michaeldsuarez

Can he finally be topic banned from all things Fae related? His posts above, and related incidents dealing with Fae hae been just to stir up more trouble. He was banned from en.wikipedia for harassing Fae, and it is hard to see any of his interactions here as appropriate. It is hard to have a discussion when Michael keeps jumping in and does whatever he can to cause everyone distress. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Please provide diffs for the comments you find inappropriate. darkweasel94 17:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Michael created a page devoted to outing, harassing, and attacking Fae. He has edited just about every Fae related topic on Commons following that ban. Michael likes to rehash old Fae related topics, such as Fae's last RfA. This post is just him bringing it up again, and the fact that he was warned by myself among others to stop causing problems on Fae related pages. The ArbCom decision is enough that people should be wary of letting Michael anywhere near Fae, and I am sure Fae would agree. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

[21] and [22] is a good example where Michael either does not understand how his "innocuous" editing around Fae is not wanted, or he does and is truly doing it to harass. Fae's removal and ignoring him is evidence that he feels as I do that Michael is just butting into these discussions because he knows his proximity will make it difficult for Fae to want to be around. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

{facepalm} I just about give up on this whole load of bullshit. Seriously Ottava, you have a little flaw with your mouth that gets you into trouble, and you don't recognise when people are trying to help you, that's all, forgivable on any day of the week. Attacking Michaelsuarez for off-commons stuff ? quoting a en.wiki ban ? Fae got banned on en.wiki for harassing everyone there, who cares ? You're using the same invalid arguments that are used against you, which only serves to shoot yourself in the foot.

I think the problem here is that Ottava gives people like MichaelMaggs such a 'bo**r' for getting him blocked that he just can't be patient and let nature take it's course, misuses the position, and that makes a disgrace of commons. Though, it's hard to blame you for MichaelMagg's misbehaviour. Any sensible person would wait 5 minutes until something proper comes up, rather than trolling to get what they want. You lot are far from sensible, and as for understanding the differing cultures between commons and en.wiki, {sigh} Penyulap ☏ 17:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You say that MichaelMaggs is misbehaving, yet defend MichaelSuarez for his attempt to claim that Maggs is doing 100% the right thing when it is clear there is no policy ground for it? I think you need to realize that Suarez is trying to stir the pot and do so because he has a long negative history with Fae. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Fae has a long negative history with everyone else, something that Michaelsuarez doesn't have. Sure, two people can argue, where the talent for arguing lies will show up in just how long a list of people are 'harassing' you. I don't see Michaelsuarez kicking off ANU threads on a weekly basis setting off the 'Someone doesn't agree with Fae again' red flashing sirens. I don't see him causing the perpetual and never-ending time-wasting threads like this one, so I can't see how Michaelsuarez can be the problem. Penyulap ☏ 18:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

oh, and let's not forget ducking out of the elevator leaving everyone trapped inside. Such a good analogy. Penyulap ☏ 18:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Michaelsuarez does have a long negative history with me, as I have called him out on his problematic interactions with Fae for quite a long time now. While I may disagree with Fae on philosophical matters, I have always defended Fae from attacks by Michael and others because such tactics are really inappropriate and do not help Commons. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that what you're saying is true. I don't recall you ever arguing against me prior to May 2013: [23], [24]. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That is blatant dissembling, and it is obvious from other websites that we've had a long history of negative interaction. You bashed me many times on Wikipediocracy, for instance. Everyone also knows that I am adamantly opposed to any sexualized attacks on others, which ArbCom made clear that your actions were such because of the subject matter you pursued to attack him. You crossed a major line, and every time you make any kind of formatting change around him, poke at his files, or the rest, you know you are getting in his face and continuing the harm. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You're speaking nonsense. I don't have a long history of negative interactions with you. I don't recall ever bashing you on Wikipediocracy. You're making stuff up. You claim to know what I'm thinking, and now you're rewriting history. How about you start providing links to me bashing you on Wikipediocracy? You won't because the bashing doesn't exist. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You are splitting discussions again with formatting, and if you don't understand how that is disruptive then I really don't know what to say to you. Furthermore, you already cited statements from months before. There are other interactions that go back further. Fae's second RfA was not the first time I stated that your actions around him were inappropriate. Additionally, I am not a user on Wikipediocracy so I cannot search it for the exact thread, but you attacked my posts over at Wikipedia Review and called me crazy before. Here is an example on Commons of you attacking my WR statements. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I already explained my use of "Template:Outdent". It isn't disruptive. I haven't posted any negative comments about you at Wikipediocracy. I never called you crazy. This is pretty much the only time I've ever criticized your Wikipedia Review activities. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The google search doesn't work that well. I tried to find pages that way and it decides to focus on other hits without giving ones that are current. Regardless, it doesn't really matter. I made my displeasure regarding your editing on Fae related matters many times, and I explained why I feel that such is not proper. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You ought to acknowledge that you don't have any evidence about me allegedly bashing you on Wikipediocracy and withdraw your accusation as a result. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Really? So memory is not enough? So you can hide things on a forum or delete things at ED, and no one can say anything? What a fun game you play, especially when you are critical of others doing the same. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently banned from Wikipediocracy. They won't do any favors for me, and I wouldn't request mass censorship of those forums anyway. My personal information is on ED, and I placed that information there myself. I'm not going to censor ED just to save myself. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

In November 2011 (over 19 months ago), I created an Encyclopedia Dramatica article on Fæ, but I don't consider this to be harassment. Of the material in the current version of the ED article, I contributed the least: the text was mostly written by other people. Fæ is a Trustee of a charities, and I feel that the people deserve to know about his Commons and enwiki activities insteas of hiding behind a pseudonym and behind people who delete content at his request. I'm not fond of sockpuppetry and dishonesty, and I felt that Fæ was engaged in both. Am I not allowed to criticize Fæ during his RfA? Shouldn't everyone be allowed? RfA's is about gathering opinions. Bias is expected and allowed. Everyone expressing a !vote is biased. In addition, you brought up Encyclopedia Dramatica first. My comment was a response to your accusation against me. I don't harass people. I'm not trying to not it difficult for Fæ to be around. I'm trying to protect users such as Penyulap from being silenced or banned, and I participated in the RfA in order prevent sysop tools from ending up in the wrong hands. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

"but I don't consider this to be harassment" And that is the problem. It is harassment, and you are the only one who couldn't see that. Either you are so unaware of your actions that you don't understand what you are doing, or you are fully aware and you are doing it to cause problems. The solution to both is to keep you from any topic about Fae, started by Fae, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Fæ accused Penyulap of "harassment" and creating "hostile environments", yet you're not proposing restrictions on Penyulap. Fæ considers many things to be harassment, and Penyulap and I disagree with Fæ's beliefs on what constitutes harassment. In fact, Fæ uses the term "hostile environment" everywhere, even against you, Ottava. I don't trust Fæ's opinion on harassment and neither should you. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Honestly some days I think he just forgets that it's called 'commons' and calls it 'hostile environment' out of habit, which is a laughable when you realise he is opposed to new policy that seeks to put an end to offensive images. A non-hostile environment full of offensive images ? hello oxymoron.

I am absolutely against trolling and offensive images, and staunchly and consistently defend people against it, as you cannot help but have noticed in my defending you ottava, but even I can understand that if a person seeks out a PUBLIC position such as being the PUBLIC face of wikimedia UK was it ? then that defines a public figure, whose job it is to talk to the press. That is the job. That is what you get paid for. Someone wants to know something, and they ring up the foundation and it's your job as a public figure to answer the phone and make public statements on behalf of the organisation because you seeked out and applied for the job and take the money for doing the job. If the media comments on you, well Durr, if they didn't you should GET FIRED for NOT DOING YOUR JOB. What part of this is hard to understand ? Put up a billboard beside the traffic and then blame people for looking at it ? be reasonable. Penyulap ☏ 18:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, none of the links you give shows any kind of abusive comment towards Fae. One shows Michaeldsuarez asking why Fae deleted something from his user talk page - that is a valid question. One is a diff by Fae (the mentioned removal), so by definition it cannot count against Michaeldsuarez. And one does not address Fae in any way, it only talks about something that happened in Fae's RfA. I absolutely do not care what happened or was decided on enwiki; if you want to propose a Commons topic ban, you should show violations of Commons policies on Commons. darkweasel94 18:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Darkweasel, ask Fae if he thinks that the comments and actions by Michael were harassing or not. If you don't understand how any kind of interaction with someone who caused you grave harassment in the past is a continuing of harassment, then you won't ever understand. I have worked with a lot of women who were victimized, and it is standard that even the presence of an abuser will cause them grave emotional discomfort. Michael knows that any interaction will cause Fae problems, and the formatting issues and other things where Michael doesn't belong in any regards are just a blatant way for him to cause Fae harm. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Darkweasel, think of it this way - Pietr was banned because he harassed people by constantly going after users for copyright infringment after he got into major disputes with them. It didn't matter if he was right or wrong (he was about 60% right), it was his action that he chose to make to cause emotional harm. Anyone is able to file, make corrections, or the rest, so there is no excuse for someone involved in a negative dispute in one area to do it in the other. It is a standard tactic to disrupt and bring stress to individuals. It is a warring tactic, not a discussion tactic. It is common and base behavior, not civilized behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Can you please stop saying, "Michael knows"? You don't know what I know. It's wrong for you to assume what I know. Please stop making such accusations. Fæ and others are telling you the same thing: stop making accusations. You don't know what goes on in other people's heads, so stop acting as if you do. I haven't harassed Fæ. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If we start topic banning people merely because their mere presence might make somebody uncomfortable (or because some third party claims so), I don't know what will be next, and I don't want to know. darkweasel94 21:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Pietr was already banned under that. Others have been proposed to be banned because of it. I am merely stating that an interaction ban is overdue, not a full ban. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Michael, are you claiming that you don't know right from wrong? And the second link shows "puzzlement" over Fae not playing the game, which is obvious that his response is not one of pleasure. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

What's "right" and what's "wrong" is different for different people. Some people believe abortions are wrong. Some people believe that every sperm is sacred. Some image believe that drawing images of prophets is wrong. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Violation of unblock conditions

Although Ottava is permitted to defend himself, I believe that Ottava violated his unblock conditions by going on the offensive against me yesterday. I defended MichaelMaggs, and Ottava reacted by reopening year-old wounds by dragging Encyclopedia Dramatica into the discussion and then creating a a subsection about me. Ottava has also proposed topic-banning me. I believe that this is a clear violation of Ottava's unblock conditions. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Agree darkweasel94 13:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

[25] and [26] are Michael canvassing other people and trying to drag them into the above discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not canvassing. Are you afraid of two people possibly entering the discussion? Sinnamon was a victim of your accusations and I mentioned him or her in subsections above. Sinnamon has a right to know about a discussion centered around you and your inappropriate accusations against others, especially when he or she is mentioned in it. PinkAmpersand is a user that I trust and respect. He's both Jewish and gay, so I wanted to hear his thoughts on the matter. I told everyone in the discussion that I contacted PinkAmpersand and why I contacted him. In addition, I tried to put the advice that PinkAmpersand gave me to good use (note: I'm not responsible for that thread's heading). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Stop. Just stop. It is clear that neither were directly involved. You brought up old matters and someone completely unrelated for no reason. You always do this. You are so incredibly unaware of your actions. No wonder Fae left! If you can't understand how your actions cause harm to other people, then that is a serious matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Matters from May 2013 are not "old". I don't "always do this". You're the one bring up issues (i.e. Encyclopedia Dramatica) that are nearly a year old. I didn't cause Fæ to leave. Fæ is on vacation and is hopefully enjoying it. Fæ left that notice before I entered the discussion. I didn't cause Fæ to go on a vocation. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You are still banned at en.wiki for your interactions and actions towards Fae. You have absolutely no justification to be in this thread, and it is harassing to both myself and the original poster. Your lack of clue and awareness is really troubling. And fyi, Fae left this discussion, but not Commons, which was what I was stating. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That link clearly shows a long list of bot or bot-like revisions and uploads. Fæ is on vacation. Now you're accusing me of harassing you. I'm not harassing either of you. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• On offense? To ask that you not be allowed in such discussions as Fae's above because you harassed Fae? Really? Why is it that you keep insisting to be where ever he is? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't try to be everywhere that Fæ is. I try to be everywhere that I need to be, and it happens that Fæ is an advocate of censoring and silencing users such as Penyulap. I'll protect what needs to be protected regardless of whether Fæ is there or not. As I keep saying, I'm not here to harass Fæ. You're not allowed to start threads on others at COM:AN/U, yet you did anyway. That's your offense. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
    • You hounded him off wiki, and now you are doing the same thing to me. What is your ultimate desire? To be the only user left on Commons? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
      • We don't have a Commons page on en:Wikipedia:The Last Word, do we? darkweasel94 15:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Don't make such inappropriate comments like that. I have the right to respond to an accusation. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Sorry, but I see a lot of you attacking me. That's the problem. Due to your restrictions, you're not supposed to go on the offensive against others. Try sticking to defending yourself. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
            • Michael, I am not at your user page. I am not at images you created. I am not at an RfA about you. I am not in topics about you. You are the aggressor against both myself and Fae. You cannot go on a rampage, act completely incivil and nasty, and pretend to be a victim after you hurt others. Do you have no ability to understand the results of your action or how you hurt people? Are you that devoid of empathy that you have absolutely no clue of the horrible affects your treatment has on other people? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
              • Let's get some facts straight: I didn't transform this discussion into a discussion about me; you transformed this discussion into a discussion about me. Fæ sought to restrict Penyulap, and I decided to defend Penyulap against Fæ. MichaelMaggs later closed the discussions in order to start the discussions anew in a calmer environment, and you complain. I then decide to defend MichaelMaggs. You react by dragging Encyclopedia Dramatica into the discussion and creating a subsection about me; thus, transforming a discussion about you into a discussion about me. I'm not "on a rampage". I'm not behaving "completely incivil and nasty". I'm not hurting others. I'm not the "aggressor" here. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I didn't hound Fæ off-wiki. I criticized Fæ on a forum dedicated to Wikimedia criticism. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

STOP

This is over. I will block any of the 3 main perpetrators of the above sections that comment again on this thread. Let the administrators do their jobs. Pleclown (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Has continued with [27] now. --Nemo 08:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Iifar has supplanted me by voting for me

User:Iifar has supplanted me by voting for me.

español:Yo he hecho un comentario en QIC. El comentario está precedido por la secuencia {{comment}}. User:Iifar ha transformado mis palabras, vehementes palabras, en un voto, como demuestro en este enlace con la clara intención de ganar ventaja y quizás tener justificación plena para que la imagen pudiese ser puesta por él en discusión.

Solicito que sea bloqueado al menos por dos horas: No todo vale. Solamente yo puedo decidir si mis palabras son o no voto.--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 00:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Mi voto no es coincidente con el voto que el ha supuesto para mí, por lo cual he tenido que borrar su edición, soportando vergüenza--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 00:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how he is trying to gain the upper hand here. You left a comment as well as the "Promotion" template, so it would have been promoted already if he didn't place it in discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to to tell you, but at first view you presented yourselves in a way to as be an important admin of commons occupying every discussion possible. But what i have learned over weeks and month is, that you only strive to gain public attention of any kind regardless what the subject is to be different and talk a lot. Those are ASAIK typical criterias for a troll. If you want to be respected, please reduce your comments to those items and extend which are really constructive for the scope of the project. If you totally dislike the present status of commons, just leave the project and refrain from commenting every item you seem to have stage to present yourselves. --Maxxl2 - talk 13:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Um... this is the administrators' noticeboard, where people make posts expecting to receive a reply from an administrator. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Withdrawn --Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 07:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

user causing problems

Hello. On this page, [28] we can see that some people are changing the image despite not being allowed to do so under copyright. The individuals do not think that the image is right - and are therefore changing the image to their liking. But they are not allowed to do that under the copyright licensing. Can someone intervene? On an online forum this user ceha is boasting how he's doing what is right, to the great liking of his own ethnic kin. (Lilic (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)).

Uhm - that image is licensed under three licenses, all of which permit modification. If they did not, we would have to delete the image, because all images here must be legally allowed to be modified. So there is no copyright violation here, just possibly a content dispute, but you don't seem to have tried to discuss it with the other user. Please do that before posting here. darkweasel94 19:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

As I understand, the image in question may not be changed. There are permissions for another image to be uploaded as long as the original author is appropriately attributed, but one may not change the original image. I have uploaded many maps - if this is true that anyone may upload an image over my map then I think I will have to remove all those maps. Posting an image based off my map that attributes me, well, okay, but posting right over what I or someone else has posted is just wrong. (Lilic (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)).

I have discussed this with the user on a public online forum. He is an arrogant and rude, and has a long history of uploading images that violate copyright. He feels that he is correct and could not care less about this problem. He prefers to edit war, and I am not interested in edit waring on the image page, so I would prefer for someone to intervene to stop his bad actions. (Lilic (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)).

Please give a link to where you discussed it, otherwise nobody will be able to form an objective opinion. From a copyright point of view, there is no difference between uploading over your existing work and uploading under a new file name, because there is no obligation for Commons to host any particular version or to host it under any particular file name. There is however a Commons guideline concerning this. This case seems like a controversial or contested change, so each version should indeed be uploaded under separate file names. I will inform Ceha about this discussion so they can defend themself. darkweasel94 21:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi! As can be seen from file history http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DemoBIH2006a.png all of my changes are sourced, and file is under licence which enables changes. Moreover, Lilic changes in areas of Uskoplje, Novi Travnik, Mostar and Fojnica bear no similarity to first version of map. He also changed some municipal borders to wrong status (as can be seen at http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B0:Srpska.pdf and http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datoteka:Zepce_nova.JPG ).−

As for mine previous discussion with user Lilic it can be found http://www.forum.hr/showthread.php?t=279549&highlight=wikiceha&page=461 (if you understand Croatian) my nick on that forum is Wikiceha, and he is known as MyIronLung. Due to his behavior and wording on that forum, he will probably be banned there... --Čeha (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there anything that would prevent uploading both versions under different file names and letting individual projects decide which map is right? I don't understand Croatian and Google Translate doesn't produce a result that I can understand, but in general, since both sides seem to think their version is right, that seems to be what COM:OVERWRITE and COM:NPOV requires. darkweasel94 23:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem originates from the fact that Ceha had tampered with the original image that Varjacic has uploaded. I do not have a personal version of this map - instead I have uploaded what I thought was the original version, but Varjacic says that that is not the original version and that he no longer has an original version, but he will try to find it. The point is that Ceha has changed a map that he had no business changing. It is prohibited to change other people's maps under such licensing - it is allowed for him to upload another image file but not to rewrite the original file.

Ceha however is well known for being a very problematic user. Therefore I do not think that it is fair to bring him in to any discussions. Just for example, we notice that he has put an area called glamoc on this map as having less serbs in the version on January 11th, but then on January 18th changed it to the original, only to now again return it to the one that shows fewer serbs. For a long time on the internet he has been promoting some croatian nationalistic POV, it is high time that this stops. Again, my only intention here is to promote respect for people's works. I do not feel that it is right for him to change my stuff or anyone's stuff without permission as long as licensing is as such. Also, I upload most of my maps in ways that one can not tamper with them - I do this because I have seen that ceha likes to change maps to his liking. I feel that the administration should persecute individuals who go about doing such stuff.

Also, do not make the mistake to try to discuss how accurate a map is with him. He'll bog you down until you die or until he dies. Case in point: [29] , and that's not even the entire discussion. The problem there was which map to use. The two could not come to any agreement, numerous people came to try to help resolve that dispute. It was 100% obvious that the map that Ceha was promoting was more flawed, less accurate, and simply a bullshit map. But Ceha did not want to agree and his map stayed until it got deleted for copyright violation. Hence, trying to debate with him is a complete waste of time, he'll take you around on an endless journey. This is why I am not bothering to address accuracy, and instead focus on user rights. If he is allowed to change one person's map then that sets a precedent for anyone to change any of my maps. I would be extremely displeased to see people changing my uploads. Don't let that happen admins, make the right choice, prohibit this user from his ethnically motivated image overwriting. (Lilic (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)).

It is not prohibited to change maps under the licensing. That is not an acceptable restriction for a license of a work on Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

darkweasel94, I have just seen your link [30], and it clearly talks about "Controversial or contested changes". According to your link therefore, these controversial changes may not be imposed on this map. I suggest that we wait for Varjacic to get back as to weather or not he can find his original image. In the meantime please consider persecuting Ceha for violating overwrite code. (Lilic (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)).

Nobody should be persecuting anyone. If you're asking for us to prosecute him, Commons tries to use less coercive methods.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

That map was here (under this licensing) for a long time. Now, out of nowhere, comes Lilic and starts to talk about persecuting me and my work. If he thinks there are problems with this map, he should upload his own personal work under different name and use it for his purposes (although it is highly incorect). --Čeha (talk) 07:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

p.s. Controversial changes? I changed few municipal borders (which is all sourced) and changed majority in few municipalities. In Mostar and NTravnik from relative to absolute (from plurality to majority), and in Glamoč, Fojnica and Uskoplje from majority higher than 66% to majority lower than that (but stil absolute, higher than 50%). It seems to me that user Lilic is on a witch hunt. --Čeha (talk) 07:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

If we are having a discussion about these changes here, then obviously they are controversial or contested, by definition. Can't one of you be the cleverer and give in by just uploading under another file name? Lilic, it is still not true that there is a license violation here; please also read COM:OWN. darkweasel94 10:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

If you look entire history of the map in last 5 years, you can see there was never nothing like the changes that Lilic proposes. So it was good for 5 years and all the users (which used it on various wikis), but now one user (Lilic) has found something that all other users missed and it's contraversial? It doesn't make sense... I don't see any reasons why this map should change in proposed way. Current map also has "more" accurate municipal grid... If user Lilic has some suggestions that everybody missed, or some of his own personal research, than he should upload his map under some other name, isn't that regular protocol? --Čeha (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

p.s. As for headline, user Lilic accused me to be the one making problems. His link shows discusion in which he and banned user Laz17 went on a wild goose chase and basicly wasted my time. I wouldn't like that thing to repeat here to... Map licensing are good, and everything before Lilic changes was done "by the book"... Is there anything more I could add? --Čeha (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

That wild goose chase was simply you not wanting to cooperate. Everyone involved in the discussion agreed that your map was horrible in comparison to the other one. You did not want to agree and poor LAz17 was foolish enough to try to get you to admit that - though an admin said that you two should come to an agreement, perhaps because he assumed that you had good intentions, which you did not. (Lilic (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)).

This is going way too offtrack in Ceha's typical style of undermining any meaningful discussion.

Admins - darkweasel has linked COM:OVERWRITE and COM:NPOV. According to those, what Ceha is doing is not permitted. He may not over-write files like this. Also, as for giving in that would mean that anyone can take one of my fine maps that i made and simply take over it by overwriting anything over it. I think it's bad to set such a precedent. (Lilic (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)).

Look, you accused me of making problems and as "proof" added my discusion with user which was latter banned (I think one of the reasons for that was his behaviour in that discussion). Please, be real, don't make (or invent, or accuse others) for problems (which are more or less of your deasign...). --Čeha (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

As for other things, changes are documented and are basicly the same as map which you reverted (and I returned). --Čeha (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to ask you what on that map goes against NPOV rules or OEF rules? What is so contested in that map? Please explain... --Čeha (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to bother to take the time to discuss the accuracy of the map. I am not interested in an endless discussion- just for example, you dragged varjarcic, a guy who has much respect on wikipedia and elsehwere, into some stupid nonsencial discussion on that forum because you thought you were right but in the end were not. This discussion here is clearly and solely about copyright, and as that one earlier guy posted, if it is even being discussed here it is clearly controversial. You do not have the right to over-write that image. (Lilic (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)).

Lilic, it is still not true that this is in any way related to copyright. It is related to COM:OVERWRITE. darkweasel94 17:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

He should quote why it is controversial overwrite. Lilic is a very problematic user and he tends to make up. His last statment is an obvious lie (which can be checked on that forum). --Čeha (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

As discussed http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:DemoBIH2006a.png#Solution on I puted new map http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DemoBiH2006MunPrecise.png.png on condition that map on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DemoBIH2006a.png stays unchanged (original map uploaded on commons). There are realy no big differences between those two maps, mine is just a little bit more preicse. User Lilic can upload his version on the commons on some other name. --Čeha (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Closure of this discussion undone by Mattbuck. Don't you have anyone to advise you about non-admin closures Matt ? There seems to be a lot of 'green' newbie-style admins here lately, but you've been here a while haven't you ? Penyulap ☏ 21:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

This problem is not solved, hence it's not yet time to close it. Some more writing has been posted on a couple other locations though. (Lilic (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)).

Possible sockpuppet 'Someone not using his real name'

User:Lq12

Lq12 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

This user is confirmed sockpuppet of indefblocked Shes192, see ru:Википедия:Проверка участников/176.192.183.249. Please block user Lq12. — Stas1995 (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

user:Cons'Tanza Este'Fanya

Please nuke contributions of Cons'Tanza Este'Fanya (talk · contribs). All uploads are copyvios. Moros y Cristianos 05:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Moros y Cristianos 05:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

What's Commons policy on sockpuppetry?

Wikipedia editor under a different name here. I got into a conflict with a particularly disruptive user over there, and when he got blocked he came back under a sock account. I have just today noticed that both his original account and his sock account have been simultaneously active on this project.

No specific details yet, as I'm more curious as to whether these problems are taken as seriously here as on Wikipedia.

Cheers!

The Poetry Saint (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Unlike the English Wikipedia we don't have WP:SOCK, though as long as its (both accounts) disclosed on the user pages and isn't used to disrupt the project (COM:BP [See Abusing multiple accounts]), we don't generally block. But if they're using it to disrupt the project (Commons) and you have a strong case, I suggest creating a COM:RFCU. Bidgee (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Is using multiple accounts on Commons in order to facilitate sockpuppetry on our sister projects considered disruptive / abusive? That might be what The Poetry Saint is talking about. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure about how disruptive the main account is on Commons (no previous blocks), and the sock account has made almost no edits on here. There's no real risk of the person using multiple accounts here in order to facilitate socking on Wikipedia, since after the investigation it wouldn't take much evidence to get his next sock blocked. I was mostly just curious. Cheers! The Poetry Saint (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

 Comment No need for more policy on this, if it's a block evasion it's covered by Commons:Blocking policy. --PierreSelim (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh wait. I missed Bidgee's point about disclosure: the user appears to be continuing to claim being a separate person. Might as well bring this to the user's attention, and perhaps block the secondary account in the meantime. The Poetry Saint (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, BP only refers to misuse of accounts. There is no policy based requirement for disclosure of alternative accounts when there is no misuse or block evasion. --Fæ (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Behaviour of User:Penyulap

I just implemented automatic archiving through User:SpBot in the GraphicLab following this discussion. You'll notice Penyulap was already influencing the discussion in a non-constructive way at this point while there was clear consensus from all other editors who commented. My attempt to sort out a workable solution with Penyulap was unsuccessful (he immediately deleted the section from his talk page).

Therefore I decided to do as another user suggested and just implemented the automatic archival in a meaningful way without trying to further take Penyulap into account. I therefore also replaced {{Resolved}} templates with the analogous {{Section resolved}} which is recognized by User:SpBot to automatically archive sections marked with this template.

Direct result: Reverts by Penyulyap ([31], [32]) which prevent the bot from doing his work and personal attacks on my talk page, without even an attempt of objective discussion from Penyulyap's side.

I'm fed up with Penyulap blocking my work – most probably because of personal issues he has with me. It's impossible to talk to him so I see no other way as to bring this up here. --Patrick87 (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

If you or anyone else has a dumb-ass idea like archiving a section long before other artists have had the opportunity to add their own version, then sign your own name to it. DON'T USE MY NAME FOR DUMB-ASS IDEAS. If you're too embarrassed to use your own signature, just use a sockpuppet account like User:PrematureArchiver or User:ICantHearAThing. This is the THIRD time I've had to formally warn you this month DO NOT ALTER MY COMMENTS. Penyulap ☏ 04:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

As stated before and to make this also clear to everybody who reads this: I did not change any comments of Penyulap, I only replaced {{resolved|1=~~~~}} with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} so the bot works correctly. Of course I kept the signatures intact (everything else would in fact have been a dumb-ass idea). The only thing that Penyulap might be talking about is that I added his signature in one or two cases where he put the {{resolved}} template but actually did miss to sign himself (what he is blaming me now in a very unfriendly manner). I made totally sure to put the correct signature however, by searching the version history for when and by whom the template was applied. --Patrick87 (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Off topic and not helpful to the issue at hand. Bidgee (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Pen, you are lucky; only your comment is edited. Some prefer to edit my name, attribution and even licensing without asking me. What a wonderful world! JKadavoor Jee 05:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Ah, yes, I've had people argue about the description of something I made and uploaded. After all, who knows better how an artist should describe their art than someone else ?. These people need those big black permanent markers and a trip to the local library or book-store so they can get it out of their systems. I don't mind so much if my friends change my comments because at least when they do it it's FUNNY. but hey, maybe I'm mistaken about all this. Maybe on some unconscious level I really do want the section archived but I'm in denial about it. {pause} Naah! I should go vandalise someone's talkpage or something. Say, {nonchalant innocent tone} are you still travelling ? Penyulap ☏ 06:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC) I wish if I can travel as far as away from Commons. I wish if I've wings! JKadavoor Jee 06:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Penyulap ☏ 06:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC) In regards to your signature, I think there are stranger signatures out there, and there is a lot of that whole 'commons is broken' going around. I think it's a phase to be going through, people change their signatures a lot and I figure you'd be bored with it in a month. Actually, on that subject, I think if you or I change our sig to something like JKadavoor Jee 07:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC) or Penyulap 07:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC) it may cause problems, people might follow us around, saying "You're NOT Zorro, and You're NOT Catwoman!" actually, I've often thought to change my sig to something like Penyulap 07:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC) what do you think ? or should I ask Patrick87 ?, you know, to be polite, as he seems to like using my signature on a regular basis for his remarks and all, it's only fair I should show more consideration. Penyulap ☏ 07:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked Penyulap for 3 days for being a troll. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Despite the trolling I'd be happy I you can advise me whether my edits reverted by Penyulap could be considered controversial in any form. I'd be willing to fix it accordingly, but personally I don't see any problems with my edits. I want this to be fixed since currently my efforts to implement automatic archival were a waste of time. When I'm not allowed to tag resolved requests with a template the bot is recognizing it won't do a thing. This was not the intention. --Patrick87 (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll go on and mark the sections as resolved putting my signature there. I see no necessity for this but maybe Penyulap stops trolling then. --Patrick87 (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• To add to this notice, despite his block, Penyulap keeps attacking me personally on his talk page (see [33] and [34] – calling me dope and trying to make me look bad to everyone who is willing to listen. These actions are insulting! --Patrick87 (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap has every right to vent for being blocked for such a stupid reason. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

An because he thinks the admins weren't fair he should be allowed to insult me? Sorry but I hope you answered to the wrong comment... --Patrick87 (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

No I most certainly did not. You may have meant well, but there are people who do not appreciate you tampering with their edits or signatures, no matter how good the reason. If Penyulap is upset about you doing that, he has every right to undo it. Mattbuck has been over-reactive, as he has been in the past, willing to overlook inconvenient complaints in an attempt to trivialize them. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Further: Why are you peeping on his talk page? In a block time; that is the only place he can communicate with the admin or his customers (I think he is graphic illustrator/photo editor; so he has to deal with his existing clients.) JKadavoor Jee 17:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Did talk pages just become private? If you believe it or not, there was a time I tried to discuss the changes I made with Penyulap (I wrote that in the first comment) – and I think it is good practice to put a users talk page on ones watch list when adding a section so one doesn't miss his/her answers. So it occurred I couldn't overlook his hostilities against me. Anyway were getting off-topic again loosing the goal of my request out of sight (as it seems to be often the case in discussions here on AN in which Penyulap is part of or taking part in). So maybe the trolling punishment wasn't that unwarranted after all?

Either way, if you want to discuss mattbuck's discussion, please do so in a new section and not here where I'm actually trying to get the Graphics Lab incident sorted out (instead of getting it further heated up and spiced with meta discussion as we're currently doing). Please focus on content! --Patrick87 (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The topic is you edited in' another user's signature without their permission, and as good as your intentions might be they didn't like it. Now they are blocked. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not, this would be another topic. The topic is that I exchanged (in my opinion) totally equivalent templates (therefore not changing any meaning) which Penyulyap objected. Instead of sorting this out and get a workable solution for both parties he reverted me, refused any constructive discussion and instead insulted me. So this section has at most two topics:

1. How do we get the controversial edits sorted out (if necessary at all, nobody else voiced any concerns with those edits so far).
2. Will Penyulap get away with destructive editing which goes against every principle of Wikipedia? As you noticed (if you looked at the diffs) I also cleaned up many other things despite the two templates like removing unnecessary comments, surplus whitespace, broken links, etc. Instead of improving upon my edits in a reasonable way, I was blindly reverted! --Patrick87 (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• I can't believe how often the graphists are here complaining about each other. I can see only a few remaining at the labs and the rest doing custom work from their talk pages. Would I be reverted if I started listing names of those talk pages at the top of the graphics pages? You seem to bring far too many trivial matters to the drama boards. Most can be solved by a history split of files or a new 'Graphics Lab II'. You can all pick sides and stay in your own labs then. If that doesn't work then create Lab III, IV, V.....--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap explained some things to me via Email. Penyulap prefers to not archiving "resolved" requests right away. Penyulap has observed that other artists have made additional improvements and adjustments to requests after being marked resolved. According to Penyulap, having a bot archiving resolved threads right away would rob artists of taking notice of and contributing additional work to the request.

Penyulap also doesn't like how Patrick87 is using Penyulap's signature. Penyulap doesn't approve of Patrick87's usage of "Template:Section_resolved", so he or she doesn't like how Patrick87 is attaching Penyulap's signature to Patrick87's "Template:Section_resolved" as if Penyulap were the one using the template to begin with. Penyulap would prefer for Patrick87 to use Patrick87's own signature with "Template:Section_resolved". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Which, mind you, doesn't stop him from jacking a discussing when he feels like it and begin rude when someone reverts it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Unlike jacking someone's signature, which this is all about. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Half of Michaeldsuarez's summary above is about the moving of the discussion, so that's clearly not what it's all about from Penyulap's perspective.

Actually, Penyulap would probably apply "I don't give a rats ass what you dream up in regards to what you think I'm thinking, you've never once got it right." to me, too, so how I am supposed to know what this is all about from Penylap's perspective? Since that was originally targeted at Patrick87, I think Penyulap made it clear that it's not reasonable to expect Patrick87 to understand why Penyulap's upset, since Penyulap doesn't think Patrick87 understands, nor wishes to put the effort into helping him understand. Which gets to part of what this is all about from Patrick87's side, as far as I can tell, is that Penylap shows no interest in actually communicating with Patrick87.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Prosfilaes, perhaps you'd like to read this. Penyulap ☏ 10:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I must say that I have had problems to understand Penyulap's contributions in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 42#Category:Avion isn't for airplanes. It seems to me that there are more self-manifestation than objective contribution to commons. --Createaccount 10:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Prosfilaes, in regards to your comment about 'jacking a discussion' and my comment saying {facepalm} after you undid my work which Jarekt and Tuválkin support, someone else had to go and re-do it. Penyulap ☏ 22:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)