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

Shortcut: COM:AN/U

Note

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

There have already been people ([1]) 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)[reply]

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 [2]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [3]. You jumped the gun and put your foot in your mouth. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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 [4] (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)[reply]

Such a restriction is unworkable and unreasonable. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Such a restriction" meaning the one I proposed? People have been assigned mentors here before. - Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Blocked from bringing up others on AN. You know that. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...No, it clearly says "banned from editing COM:AN and its subpages" - Commons:Editing restrictions. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree, I was commenting more that Ottava is under an editing restriction already. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In that case, there was no accusation of homophobia. darkweasel94 21:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Inflammatory cartoon apparently intended to offensively compare this discussion to accusations of anti-Semitism removed. --Fæ (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• [Inserting here for lack of a better place] I concur with Penyulap's assessment. — Scott • talk 14:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

'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:

1. darkweasel94, (darkweasel94 pointed to something(/nothing) in their next comment below this one)
2. MichaelMaggs placeholder
3. Mattbuck placeholder
4. Jmabel placeholder
5. Simonxag placeholder
6. 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, 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)[reply]

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:

• [5], 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.
• [6]: "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.
• [7]: "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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Dang, we really need a template that says Yummy Penyulap ☏ 12:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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: [8], [9]. 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)[reply]

"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)"[reply]

'should be considered here' well, we don't need diffs for these accusations because Lord Fae has spoken.

1. darkweasel94,
2. MichaelMaggs
3. Mattbuck
4. Jmabel
5. Simonxag
6. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

•  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]