Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 34

User:Tomascastelazo

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

The user's last block before this incident was in 2011. In this incident, in response to one DR hotly contested by the user, a spiralling series of reactions made a bit of a mess. The mess merited a block, but given the block history and the size of the mess, not that long a one as the 1-month block dished out. In closing this incident, I've taken into account that one of the more serious claims, that the user accused another of racism, is not borne out by a careful reading of the statement in question, and the overreaction in removing talkpage access and protecting the user talk page (blocked users often blow off steam there; they shouldn't be unduly punished for it). I've reduced the block to time served, and left the user a note. Rd232 (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Since a routine closure of a deletion request that resulted in the deletion of a single file he had uploaded, Tomascastelazo (talk · contribs) has engaged in harassing and POINTy behavior, failure to assume good faith, and personal attacks; including, for example:

• Censorship: [1] [2] [3] (and many more)
• Accustations of collusion: [4] [5]
• Accusations of vandalism: [6]
• Veiled legal threats: "Unlawful" [7] "Legal?" [8]
• POINTy re-uploading of the image - out of COM:SCOPE and same copyvio concern (see new DR)
• Retaliatory nominations (a la Pieter Kuiper) of images uploaded by 1Veertje, the admin who flagged Tomascastelazo's image: "Take the gallery of 1Veertje for example, full of Out of Scope images that should be deleted" [9]
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:HBS-Craeyenhout 05.JPG‎ - spurious merit
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Het Hele Westland.JPG‎ - spurious merit

Most concerning, however, is this:

• Accusation of racism: "your censoring acts are harassment and driven by racism" (emphasis added) [10]

• Afraid to put the whole context of my comment? Partial representation is misleading and dishoonest. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Tomascastelazo has previously been blocked three times on the Commons for "Intimidating behaviour/harassment" and "repeated ad hominem attacks after warnings". Эlcobbola _talk 15:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

 Support a block for at least 1 month, as his 3 earlier shorter blocks didn't have any learning effect. Such an amount of drama and aggression willfully created for getting 1 (one) file deleted is incredible and injustifiable, especially from a longterm user. Most of us, including admins, got a few of their uploads deleted due to an overlooked copyright problem or being oos. But only Tomascastelazo seems to be so special that he's entitled to create a big drama and to throw around unjust accusations and insults. --Túrelio (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I consider this administrative harrassment from Эlcobbola considering that from language that he used in censoring one of the images I uploaded in good faith he used the term "patent nonsense" when referring to my reasons for keeping the image, thus establishing the anymosity present. Эlcobbola obviously took the time to research my participation here, yet he fails to note that I upload files with educational value and of good technical quality and that I basically keep to myself; and I respond only when I consider censorship acts outside good faith or common sense. Эlcobbola takes a lot of liberty to accuse me of wrongdoing, yet he judges my vocabulary and feels offended by my language, which if any of you take the time to read the dictionary definitions, you would have to accept on the correct use of the terms I use. Take for example his claim that my nominations have "spurious merit." I challennge anyone to look at the images and evaluate them agains deletion policy, specifically Out of Scope. Anyone out of the blue can come out and nominate and delete my images "spuriously" yet I am not afforded the courtesy to nominate for deletion under legitimate policy. His recent nominations for deletion of my images are nothing but retaliation I believe, for there is no reason to delete images that address a real social phenomena which is censorship (and before anyone goes off the handle, read the definition of censorship) as well as sarcasm and parody. I remind all of you that this is an encyclopedic endeavor, open to all ideas, whether we like them or not. I consider myself a good faith contributor (see my images) some of which have found their way to National Geographic and several textbooks, museums, magazines and numerous articles. I believe in this project and yet I also see that it is plagued with intolerant individuals who erect themselves into authorities on a power trip. I´ve been a photographer for close to 40 years, with a long academic career and participation in the art world in my country. I take censorship very seriously and take offence in this harrassment (racism?).--Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

"Veiled legal threats: "Unlawful" [11] "Legal?" [12]" not a legal threat, and that was made clear are the rest of the accusations as bad as this ? Penyulap ☏ 16:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, see for yourself! :) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Tomas purports to have a considered, solid grasp of the English language ("if any of you take the time to read the dictionary definitions" [13]). If you actually believe that by "unlawful" and "legal?" he merely meant out of process, I have a bridge to sell you. Эlcobbola _talk 16:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You

have to take yourself much more seriously if you're to fit in on commons. Much more, in fact, more until it hurts. -pen

OMFG I found the cause of this dilemma, someone has a sense of humour.

Sorry, but I have to  Oppose indef blocking, it's TOO GOOD for the likes of you. BOIL him in oil, draw and quarter him, sell him timeshare, ask him to call customer service on the telephone, air strike his ass into the stone age. Commons is NO PLACE FOR HUMOUR. We all take ourselves far too seriously here, and you have to get with the program. Humour is a serious health hazard to your colleagues, when the innocents stumble across pictures like that it causes stabbing sinus pain and inter-cranial haemorrhaging. Like the guy on CON-AIR says, levity causes Pain. You need to be more respectful of your co-workers inability to tolerate this crap. Penyulap ☏ 17:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap, your hyperbole and desperate attempts at being funny are not a very productive contribution here. This drama created around one deletion request is both out of proportions and unjustified. Of course the licensing policy at commons can be a source of frustration. I sincerely doubt that any user has a comprehensive grasp of international copyright law and free licenses. So just try to see the DR system as a collaborative approach to making sure that our images comply with the project goals in terms of licensing. This may all be sone kind of joke to you, but at the end of the day we are making a promise to our reusers, the promise that they may freely use our images just the way that our licensing information states. You mak think that licensing details and copyright laws are stupid. But throwing a fit and whining about it does not change the legal situation we are in. --Dschwen (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it 'desperate' I'd prefer 'natural' and it's not the licensing that I make fun of, I take THAT seriously. People have different methods to cope with stress. Throwing overboard everyone who is not the same or deals with stress in a different manner to you doesn't really help. As for the image, I've already made a serious considered comment on the DR page. Some people get funny, some get mellow, some get nasty, some get frustrated or exasperated, whatever, lets just get back to work. Penyulap ☏ 17:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap, being born in the DDR, you're correct that I don't find being called a censor humorous. To use that term so cavalierly, petulantly, and inappropriately shows astounding ignorance and does a great injustice to those who are genuinely censored. Nor do I find humor in being called a racist twice [14] [15]; once on this very page. [16] Who here really needs to be respectful? Эlcobbola _talk 17:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That is a fair statement, and properly supported with diffs, Tomascastelazo, why would you say that, can you show us where the racism was ? I know the hounding of humour is a serious problem, polandball on the village pump was quite a strange phenomenon not easily explained, people might confuse things. But tell us, why would you say that ? Penyulap ☏ 17:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

elcobbola, do you think you've been focusing on images by Tomascastelazo deliberately in DR discussions ? he seems to think so. Penyulap ☏ 18:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, the claims of 'legal threats' and useless DR noms are exaggerated, the DR's have sufficient merit, there was no legal threat. Tomascastelazo may misunderstand the motivations of the actions the people involved, but they're not helping steer him towards docs, they're helping inflame or even create the situation. Both parties are in the wrong, but the exaggerated claims made here shows where the driving force fuelling the dispute lays. Penyulap ☏ 18:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I have only closed one DR related to Tomascastelazo. Subsequent to that closure -- and only because of that closure -- I have nominated two of his images because they are directly related to that closure. In total: 1 closure; 2 nominations (of essentially the same image). Tomas is welcome to provide diffs to the contrary. You'll note I've not commented in any DR Tomas has opened, nor nominated other questionable images in his stream.

"[B]ut the exaggerated claims made here shows where the driving force fuelling the dispute lays" is, frankly, an unlettered comment. By default, the diffs I provided reflect Tomascastelazo's behavior before any post here (i.e., his comments were not a result of being enflammed by this discussion). He is likewise welcome to provide diffs where I've made "exaggerated claims" prior to posting here. Outside of accusations of racism -- which have not been explained, struck, or apologized for -- indeed none of Tomascastelazo's individual comments, on their own, are worth escalating. The point, which you seem to miss, is what they suggest taken in total. Эlcobbola _talk 19:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I am the one saying you're making "exaggerated claims" as far as veiled legal threats go. He hasn't threatened to sue anyone and don't bother trying to convince me he has. What I see is you've taken the small problem and embellished the living crap out of it to the point where it's pretty damn hard for him to say sorry, because you've added too much extra crap on top of the original. I'd say the proper solution is for you all to go your separate ways, I don't see asking you to apologise for the legal threat or anything else you hyped up as likely to produce results, so whats the point asking him to apologise either. Just live and let live. safe in the knowledge that as a person with a sense of humour, he'll no doubt be hunted down and killed like the rest of us comedians (me included no doubt). Just have your say about the image, not the person, in the DR if you haven't already, and then give him lots of space. Penyulap ☏ 19:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Well Dschwen is now claiming that the picture of Barnstar Sam is causing him physical pain, is that correct Dschwen ? if that is the case I'll be the first to support a move to eradicate all humour from commons, it would be terrible if we were responsible for people being in pain because of pictures, can you describe the pain ? is it in the sinus area ? a headache ? and I'm quite serious here.

(Q A) the answer to your edit summary question is no, I'm not trying to physically attack you with an image of uncle sam. Penyulap ☏ 18:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Come on Penyulap, that is an easily falsifiable lie. Nowhere was the word physical mentioned. So please stop your clowning it is distracting from the discussion. --Dschwen (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It's the first thing I think of when someone says 'pain' I guess it depends on the person, some are afflicted with physical illness, others with heartache, I guess it's word association. I did kind of picture you looking at Uncle Sam, and the contention between his super serious look on his face and his flashing barnstar hat and it was like 'does not compute' 'does not compute' and then your nose stared bleeding or something, but I do have a wild imagination. Anyhow, I'm very pleased you're not in and physical pain. Now, lets get back to taking ourselves very very seriously because were all terrifically important. Penyulap ☏ 19:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where your obsession with self-importance is coming from. --Dschwen (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

it's a quote Penyulap ☏ 20:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

WOAH! look out ! more pain, on whatever level you experience it. Penyulap ☏ 20:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Is that who you're aspiring to be as funny as? --Dschwen (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to resume: the reason for Tomascastelazo's last block was disruptive behaviour when he opened some DR nominations (see [17]) as personal revenge for some other, probably not personally motivated DR (see [18]). Currently we see a couple of similar "pointy" deletion requests ([19] [20]) and some evil accusations including nothing less than racism ([21]). All in all a revenge campaign in the same style as it was before the last block, with harassment and personal attacks. So, due to the same repeated pattern of disruptive behaviour, I hereby suggest a block for 2 weeks now, as well as progressive blocks (1 - 3 - 6 - 12 months - indef) in any future case of similar disruptiveness. I'm going to wait a while if there's no objection by any admin colleague previously uninvolved in this discussion, and then to execute the block. --A.Savin 21:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

 Support a last-opportunity block for at least 1 month. Nothing has changed for him, in five years!!! See here (translation: Censorship And which is the reason, if existing, why you intent to delete an image I created? It smells to me like censorship). And only because of this. --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 21:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for translation. Indeed, that seems a real long-time pattern of abusive accusations. --A.Savin 23:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to block User:Tomascastelazo for 1 month now. User blocks shouldn't be primarely for punishment, so I'm willing to shorten if he apologises for personal attacks listed above and approves to close both DR speedily as withdrawn. --A.Savin 23:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Support (Two weeks). I endorse Dschwen's comment of 17:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC). Tomascastelazo's 14 March DR nominations (see above) are disruptive. I'm dubious that the "racism" comment is blockable, but it is not in keeping with the advice of COM:MELLOW. While it is a pity that the result of the 2013 deletion discussion is inconsistent with the 2011 result, such is bound to occur. Moreover, should our understanding of copyright law change, COM:UNDEL may be used restore images that were improperly deleted. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose such a long block. While Tomas' behaviour might well be considered as disruptive, I urge you not to make a mountain out of every molehill. One should consider the character of individual contributors. Tomas has always been direct and a bit harsh in his comments as I personally may testify but one should take his outings with a grain of salt an not immediately retaliate with a long block. I find some of the admins here currently a bit too trigger-happy.  B.p. 00:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support. Two weeks would be the better block length (his last block was one week, the two week block before that was quickly lifted). This is not about comments that are a bit harsh. The block is justified as a safeguard against binding volunteer time with discussions around pointy actions. Thomas is a long time contributor and he should know better not to fight against windmills like that. --Dschwen (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support User:Tomascastelazo behaviour has been very poor and needs to be stopped. I Would've blocked him for 1 month, the block doesn't have too last that period of time, User:Tomascastelazo can appeal the block, and the unblock would likely have conditions attached to it. Bidgee (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose as per B.p.. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC).

As I said, I'm open for discussion if Tomascastelazo will perceive that both DR by him and the recent comments on censorship were counterproductive. He's able to comment on his talk page, for which I'm going to notify him via e-mail. --A.Savin 09:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose as per Bp, and I'll add that this is the most disappointing admin decision I have seen on commons in the short time I've been working here. I would absolutely expect it from en.wiki, like Ex-arb Elen's famous comment on my talkpage, "Disperse the crowds" I feel the same "us and them" right here. A ceasefire just isn't good enough, it had to be all swept aside for this. Penyulap ☏ 16:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Support For any length of time, perhaps an indef until Tomascastelazo is prepared to recognize what the problems are here in an unblock request. I find the allegation of racism of particular concern, and after reading the paragraph in question, the reaction here of using the excuse that this had context appears quite insufficient, either Tomascastelazo can demonstrate that Elcobbola is a racist and can bring that evidence to this noticeboard for action to be taken against Elcobbola, or via OTRS if it is so ghastly it cannot be repeated, or the allegation should be withdrawn, and preferably apologised for. As a side note, Penyulap has been diverting this thread, perhaps Admins on AN should consider at what point this should be considered disruptive and worth its own non-humorous discussion. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The following paragraph, part of an exchange, puts into context the use of the term racism, no accusation was made, but it was an example of the unbalanced attitude demonstrated by the involved admin where he can dish out insults and using his own words, “pejorative” statements. So his words and adjectives, because his admin status, are “articulate” and “truthful” and “objective” in opposition to the words used by someone who questions the validity of his opinions, where his words are disruptive, insults and the like.

"Just as you qualify the use of my legitimate vocabulary as pejorative, assigning a negative connotation to legitimate issues and my motives, I could then express the notion that your censoring acts are harassment and driven by racism. I see no legitimate reason as to why you nominated this image for deletion given that it is a legitimate artwork expresses by way of parody the social phenomena of censorship." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.191.6.140 (talk • contribs)

You shouldn't write here anonymously, as this is what is being called a block evasion. If you have something to state, you should do it on your talk page, although after your recent comments there I don't believe anymore that any comprehension can be expected. --A.Savin 19:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI: nothing has changed. --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 23:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, you're right. See also further rampage on his talk page: straight comparison of myself with Stalin and Beria [22] (one could consider it an evil offense if it wasn't that ridiculous...), Spanish inquisition within you (ditto), wiki gulag; coward, corrupt, and abusive people; corrupt administrators etc. - actually, I'd advise Tomascastelazo to never come back again under his recent name: with the above accusations he has destroyed his account completely, with or without an indefblock. --A.Savin 10:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems they fail to understand what they have done wrong or just being completely ignorant. I've revoked the access for them to comment while the block is in place, if they start via email, that will also be revoked and the block extended (which IMO should've happened when they by-passed the block via an IP). Bidgee (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

After receiving an email from Tomascastelazo asking me to read his talk page, I've rollbacked and protected his talk page. I urge to decide whether this user has to be expelled or not. --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 14:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe you could provoke a bit more? Put more oil on the fire in stead of on the waves? And be surprised at the reaction? Then you could expel whoever! Shame on all of you!  B.p. 14:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose per B.p. JKadavoor Jee 15:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

arbitrary break (Tomascastelazo)

Hoping that such a respected, well known photographer will "never come back again under his recent name" ignores the issue of attribution and amounts to a ban considering the provocation here, and the Innocent prisoner's dilemma which the target has enough integrity to understand and is being clearly used against him, if you are going to demand a person apologises for actions he did not do, such as make legal threats, that is unacceptable, it filters liars into the project and truthful people out. At the same time ignoring completely the personal attacks that the false accusations represent is admin-backed abuse to the eyes of many. This is a poor showing to public eyes.

"never come back again under his recent name", this is the name of the photographer, Tomas Castelazo, creating arbitrary conditions such as the artist may only sockpuppet in order to contribute is not acceptable under any circumstances. Penyulap ☏ 02:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Would an admin who has some regard for the whole community be kind enough to consider the consensus here and formulate a less partisan approach. Penyulap ☏ 17:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Which consensus are you referring to, BTW? --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 18:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I think trying to explain the problems created here, or pointing out the objections, or how to make a more balanced decision is probably wasting my breath if there is no-one listening, and that may well be the case. Penyulap ☏ 19:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

---

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

User:Duykien

There has been a simmering edit war on File:Flag of Republic of Cochinchina.svg, most noticeably by User:Kim-Long07 and User:Giangnam007, both of which are socks of one user and therefore permanently blocked. The edit war has re-surfaced where Duykien keeps reverting to the version with white stripes that was preferred by the confirmed socks. Without any sources provided or a consensus formed, I have been trying to maintain the file in it's original state without the white stripes, but Duykien keeps reverting to the one with white. It is possible this is yet another sock, however even if it isn't the user should be warned to stop edit warring. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Warned: I'll keep an eye on the file and take further action if necessary. For other admins, it looks like they are socks: in both [24] and [25], while the file links them together. —Mono 15:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Blocked for 3 days after warning and continued behavior. —Mono 16:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mono, as I see the history of this user's contribs, I find a response to my notification of this discussion and response to your message. The user uploaded File:Flag of Ly dynasty.svg and added categories to File:Flag of Ly dynasty.svg. ‎ Still, what was the immediate reason for blocking Duykien? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC).

Yes, upon reviewing those responses I determined that the user was likely abusing multiple accounts. In addition, the response to my request for a discussion was "it's true" and it must have white stripes. The user proceeded to revert the flag image, continuing the edit war which I had hoped to prevent/end. However, if you believe the user should be unblocked I am happy to reverse it as the sockpuppeteering is just suspicion and assume good faith could be extended further. I would also support any unblock request provided the user is willing to stop reverting and discuss. (The page history of that file was deleted by another admin so it is no longer fully visible) —Mono 17:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I've seconded your stand on Duykien's talk page. Let's hope good sense will prevail and both edit-warring and blocks are not needed in this context. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC).

• Waiting for user response. Others can unblock if they see fit (consider this a consultation with the blocking admin per COM:BLOCK) if I'm not around. —Mono 18:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User Carlos.bernal.lopez

It seems to me that user "Carlos.bernal.lopez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)" is the same one as Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 33#User:Cabex. He is like testing an uploading tool Category:Uploaded with AndromediaCommons. Can someone explain him how to test uploads without flooding Commons of nonsense and duplicate files? --V.Riullop (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I had notified him already 24 hours ago about the nondescriptive filename, but he has ignored it so far. --Túrelio (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I've left him a message in Spanish and removed some of the uploaded images. Let's wait and see. --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 09:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User disregarding copyright issues

Over the past couple of days I've interacted with a user who seems determined to ignore copyright issues. He has reuploaded a number of copyright violations which have been deleted by various admins (deleted contribs here). Currently he insists on reuploading a book cover which has been deleted a number of times. My postings to him are here mostly and his views are expressed here. He has again uploaded the book cover however having been the one dealing with him recently I am reluctant to block him yet again though I think it is probably appropriate. Maybe someone else can take a look. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the acct for 1 week, as I think this is a pretty plain case of uploading unfree files after warnings. I've declined the earlier unblock request and suggested the user review policy. I also reverted a removal of DR from a map file. INeverCry 18:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - another view when feeling "involved" is always good. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I too have had problems with this user. He nominated several files (1, 2} for deletion based on perceived insults to Syria, and when they were kept he uploaded a similar file with a "reverse insult" as retaliation. When I nominated it, he attacked me several times calling me a supporter of Israel, and has uploaded several more images that are out of scope. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Listen Up Fry, I didn't call you an Israeli supporter , You are the one who called me that , i only said Every thing for Israel And meaning Wikimedia , As you are the one who first attacked, the files i uploaded wasn't retaliation , i saw that the nomationed files doen't mean insult to you so i thought that this file is the same thing goes , as in en wikipedia they delete it, The other files that you claim no scope are A Historical Files, Stop lying.178.61.35.103 20:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if you discussed the user's claim that the author is the user's grandfather. Issues around inheritance of copyright are complex, and additionally a book cover is probably not covered by the author's copyright - but if this wasn't addressed it would certainly have contributed to the user's frustration. Rd232 (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Txdny994

User uploading the same content only hours after it was previously deleted. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedied the file, warned the user. —Mono 01:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Foroa

Foroa deleted the following category redirect that I created (Category:Church interiors in Greater Poland Voivodeship}, after I specifically asked him not to do so. See the thread at User talk:Foroa#Moving cats. There's probably some technical admin reverting in our recent history: As that was likely caused by Foroa clicking the auto-delete buttons on User:CommonsDelinker/commands, its unlikely to be an issue.

Category redirects should not be deleted if they are useful, as this breaks linkage for other projects and non-Wikimedia projects (that's distinct from creating them to cover synonyms pre-emptively).

In the case of this particular category, I believe that the redirect is useful as the category existed at that location for well over a year and may plausibly be linked to both inside or, outside Wikimedia. The harm to categorising users in this case would be minimal as all "Church interiors*" categories are being deprecated in favour of "Interiors of churches of*".

Note in this case I made a typo in the redirect - surely correct behaviour would be to fix it not delete it ;)--Nilfanion (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Church interiors in Greater Poland Voivodeship was empty and uncategorised. I spend a substantial part of my time in cleaning timely Special:UncategorizedCategories, Special:WantedCategories and Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories. So I will not spend a fraction longer than necessary to salvage a completely uselss category redirect such as Category:Church interiors in Greater Poland Voivodeship. It is not because other people prefer to spend their time on useless and even counterproductive categories, that we have to clean up their mess. Why not use a bot to autogenerate "church interiors in xxx]], plus Chinese and Russion versions for each possible hamlet ? --Foroa (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason that was an empty category, as opposed to a valid redirect, is because you deleted it (as part of executing a move). It would have been better for all if it had been converted to a category redirect. The reason for my actions is because it is not "a completely useless redirect" - it has been in place for >1 year and it is realistic to expect that someone may be linking to that page. Clearly my recent actions could have been done by bot, but it would not be necessary if the deprecation had handled in a better manner in in the first place.

The "redirect" mentioned here, is no different to all the other redirects I created at the same time. There was a typo in it, but the creator's intent was clear. It would be like deleting a file as no-license if the uploader added {{cc-by-sa} instead of {{Cc-by-sa}} - its not helpful nor is it not a friendly action.

One thing that is clearly wrong here is the current situation (which has been described as a perpetual cold war) where no rationale to whether to put in place a redirect or not: I doubt anyone, whatever their opinion on what should be done, believes that if you have two almost identical redirects, that one only of those should be deleted.

That means either this redirect, and all the similar redirects are created at the same time, are eligible for deletion, or all should be kept. The correct venue for that discussion is COM:DEL (or possibly an RFC as part of a larger issue regarding category redirects in general). I am perfectly willing to abide with community consensus on this matter.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Its quite simple; much less than 0,5 % of the moved categories are recreated as a redirect, mainly by people that don't understand the reason why on most wikipedias category redirects are forbidden or very much restricted. A clickable deletion edit summary works as good as a clickable redirect and stimulates the people to correct the link. At least two bots are perfectly capable of picking up the category in the clickable deletion edit summary. --Foroa (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason the 99.5% of moved categories are deleted is that is what the tools do, designed for users such as yourself who want the tools to behave like that. That indicate whether that is right or wrong (all it is is a self-fulfilling prophecy). Category redirects have their purpose, and its probable on Commons that the community will want them for rather more purposes than on any language WP. A clickable deletion edit summary is much worse than a clickable redirect. For a start, {{Category redirect}} can be internationalised - while an edit summary can't be. I'd suggest the way forward here is an RFC to determine what uses the Commons community (not you and not me) thinks are acceptable uses for category redirects on Commons.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Menke

At the Dutch Wikipedia the work of User:Menke has drawn attention. It appears there are multiple problems here, which involve the large-scale re-use of historical material from magazines, newspapers or books without labelling the re-used texts as such. She usually cited the source of the material, but as something she studied, and completely failed to mention she is not the author. This leads to problems with :

• Public Domain material, which is not indicated as being in the Public Domain;
• Licensed material (CC BY 3.0), with the conditions of the license not being met;
• Copyrighted material, out-and-out copyright violations.

At this stage the exact proportions of the problem are unknown, but certainly it is not small.

She has also uploaded historical pictorial material to Commons (over two thousand pictures) and these prove to have licensing problems, as well. For almost all material indications of the source are vague (to non-existent). Upon a closer check at least some pictures are copyrighted material. It proves that many pictures have been cropped by Menke to 'conveniently' delete the maker's name (and then presenting it as maker unknown). As an example, a lot of pictures uploaded by Menke were scanned from the pages of the Dutch magazine "De Prins der geïllustreerde bladen" (published from 1901 to 1948), as can be verified in This Archive. This magazine used the work of several professional photographers; obviously these do not all have a date of death before 1 January 1943. Some of the older material (say, pre-1880) is certain to be without copyright problems, but at present there is no telling how big the problems are. A volunteer from the Dutch Wikipedia (user:Gouwenaar) has scouted the problem, establishing that there is a problem (the detected pictures that have been proven to be in violation have now been deleted), but, most likely, that is the end of the participation from the Dutch Wikipedia, leaving it up to a volunteer (or volunteers) from Commons?

• see here for background on pictures
• from this dedicated page
• general background [All these pages in Dutch]

- Brya (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Issue raised in Commons:Deletion requests/File:ATM jEFF.jpg‎

Moved to AN Penyulap ☏ 17:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

someone naughty called User:GhiathArodaki evading block by using 178.61.35.103

Would someone consider a 2 day block for 178.61.35.103 (talk · contribs)

they are being, dare I use the catch-all phrase for it's actual purpose, 'disruptive' ?

removing no permission templates and so on from multiple files, that kind of mischief. Penyulap ☏ 18:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I've combined these two sections sorry! I saw the remark on Fry's page and looked over the contributions, which perfectly described to me some minor naughtiness that needed attention, in particular, removing the deletion discussion templates and so on in a manner that indicated this person has experience being naughty. :D Penyulap ☏ 18:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

As an extension of the above AN/U, GhiathArodaki is using the linked IP to evade his current block and attack me, this time accusing me of lying. He now claims he never called me a supporter of Israel, when he clearly did not just once but twice, and even acknowledged it because he gave an apology. Not only has he now retracted the acknowledgement that he has said it, and the apology by proxy, he is trying to say I actually am the one who accused him of being a supporter of Israel. All I did was nominate his upload for deletion because it was a very clear retaliatory upload. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC) OK Fry, first i said i didn't say you Israeli supporter , and if you claim that i didnn't say double time , but you are the one who called me that , lie more so you could have an army help you , great jo using this way , return to the dispute and read it again.GhiathArodaki (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC) The IP was blocked yesterday for 24 hours. The blocking admin was already aware of the connection between the two accounts; see User talk:Herbythyme#GhiathArodaki. I will inform them of this thread. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

User EeuHP (talk)

Dear friends.

I want to report to you as an administrators, the constant edit warring that makes the user EeuHP on the file Nicolas Maduro in Brasilia.jpg. The user uploads changes that destroy the quality of the file, example he changes RGB and HSL levels of the image, deteriorates its quality. He wants that his changes on the file are those shown in the wikipedia article at all costs (and acknowledged it explicitly). He has uploaded several versions of the same image that have been deleted for being smallness file versions to March 11. I invite you to compare the color quality of the file uploaded at(March 11) and the uploaded by the user (that is the actual). Realizing that his miniatures versions were deleted, began to untie the edit war on the file Nicolas Maduro in Brasilia.jpg. The user says that do not know very well the rules of the community, but he shows no interest for reads nor accepts advices. The user is shown rude, arrogant and to make matters worse he's mulish when I make a claim about it and try to tell him to read the rules of the Wikimedia community about the fairness of the editions. Also when I attempt to instruct him in the rules of the community. He has taken advantage of a mistake I made (edit my talk page which I repent) to blackmail me. I have not dared to edit the file nor make corrections once more, I prefer to be cautious and to await your review and your view about the case.

If a user contributions destroy the quality of a file must be reversed, for example just for spite altering the RGB and HSL levels that resulting in the reddening of the image tone. These contributions are unnecessary because they are not needed and cause damage Clearly, the user does not understand or respect the impartiality of contributions. Obviously he opposes that any user improve his contributions when be necessary. Mistakenly he call "oppose an version" to the improvements that any user can make to a contribution made by him. He does not accept that anyone to contribute to the contributions made by him (this violates exceedingly one of the most essential and basic rules of our community.

He also dares to remove templates and nominations that other users make to his contributions, without allow an administrator user (or an appropriate user for the case) to review and decide. As you can review the history of the following files:

• Bersani.JPG
• Benedicto XVI en Berlín, 2011.jpg

Note again that the user wants that his changes on the file are those shown in the wikipedia article at all costs violating multiple rules of the community.

I already spoke with he before referring the case to you, and as you can see the user is very stubborn (with due respect) and he not pay attention to the suggestions and wants to impose its will over all. Therefore I was obliged to take the case before you. I trust that your contribution will the best for the good of our beloved community.

--G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 23:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

My english is very bad, but I explain the situation and my reasons for deleting the requests.

• When I created the two photos of Bersani, I ignored the method for upload a new versions. Bersani.JPG is used in four articles in two wikipedias. Pier Luigi Bersani Agrigento 3BCS.JPG is not used. And Coronades03 propose to delete the first and I think that (if one must be wiped out of obligation, should be the second photo).

• Benedicto XVI en Berlín, 2011.jpg was uploaded in 21/03/13 and the "original" photo ([File:Papst Benedikt XVI in Berlin 2011.jpg]) was uploaded in 29/03/13. I don't understand the accusation of plagiarism and this is the reason for deleting the request of elimination.

PD:My relationship with Coronades03 is not friendly. He accuses me of being arrogant and rude, but he said to me "blackmailer", "maker of unnecessary changes", "stubborn" ...

He accused me of wanting to impose my view. Why? Because I removed a modification made by he and put a change mine. Well. The same situation occurred in es.wikipedia (in the article "Nicolás Maduro"). I changed a picture of open-mouthed Maduro (made in Coronades03) and put the first version of the current picture. There was an edit war between him and me. An administrator said that my version is better. Soon after, Coronades03 changed the photo and created his own version (one version that, in my opinion, is too long and narrow).

If I modify, I'm an arrogant seeking to impose my opinion without reason. If he changes, he is a committed user who wants to improve photos.--EeuHP (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

A 'history split' is what you want to ask for. Or simply upload the new cropped image separately. File:Nicolas Maduro in Brasilia.jpg is a cropped image already, so there is no need to argue over it's size, just make more.

Don't remove templates, don't remove nominations, they must stay there until the discussion have been closed.

I suspect that some of the resizing is something that you can do, if we help you to find the right help pages, they aren't easy to find. The pages will tell you how to create thumbnails that are the correct size for the articles you want. If you can show me the problems you have on other wikis where the images are not fitting the way you want them to, I can show you the code to use. Penyulap ☏ 23:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

With the google translator, I've only been able to understand a part of your text, Penyulap.

I removed the claims because I thought that the petitions were wrong, but if the rules say that despite all should follow, I apologize for having withdrawn.

The Maduro's photo of Coronades03 is not bad, but I think that is necessary a version more wider and less long. I can uploaded this version apart?--EeuHP (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

This is no problem, google translate is a friend to everyone :)

It is no problem that you removed the template once. Today you learn. Don't worry. Next time, follow the link on the template. Go to the deletion discussion, and tell everyone your ideas. It is no problem.

Yes, upload this version apart. This is good. Penyulap ☏ 00:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

And the subject of the file Nicolas Maduro in Brasilia.jpg, You suggest preserve the current characteristics of the color (RGB and HSL levels) or date March 11? --—G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 00:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I only asked a question, just in case.--EeuHP (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Coronades03, there is a joke on commons. When the admin decides to 'preserve the characteristics' always they do this wrong. They make the wrong choice. This is tradition. This is a commons joke. :D

An admin will look at the file, and they will choose the wrong one for you :D I won't be the one to do it. You can do it yourself, just upload another file, use a different filename.

I suggest the easy idea. Don't decide the colour. Just use the first one. Change it to the first version of the file. Make new files for new colours. On the local wiki, ask about the colour on a public noticeboard if you want another opinion. Penyulap ☏ 00:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks friends. The user EeuHP and I are coming to an agreement to work on the file. -—G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 02:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Imag93 (and possible sock User:Mnever97)

User will not stop edit warring on the files TVE 1, TVE 2 and TVE 24, uploading a raster image over what are SVG images. Please block or warn. If the second user is a sock, the files may also need protection. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

File pages cleaned, users warned. --Denniss (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Mulag

This user tries to get his images removed that he uploaded with irrevocable free licenses. Please deny all these invalid speedy deletion request until the user presents an explanation for his behaviour or at least opens a mass DR. I already warned him and restored some images but I ask others to keep an eye on this user as well. --Denniss (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

seems a bit pointless to open a mass DR when you've already told him it will probably fail, in a message pointing out that it WILL fail, and threatening to block him too. Penyulap ☏ 09:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've created Commons:Deletion requests/Some files uploaded by Mulag Penyulap ☏ 12:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Please actually read what I had written there, user will be blocked if he continues with the invalid speedy DR and a DR will fail without proper explanation/deletion reason as the free license is given and can't be revoked. A user changing his mind is not a reason for delete (unless it's a personal image (i.e showing him or other identifyable people)). --Denniss (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You're note on the User's talkpage IS perfectly correct, and IS perfectly civil. It is also going to fail because from a new users point of view, which I can also see, it is a threatening message, and twice being told do not bother with a deletion discussion. I'm NOT saying your viewpoint is wrong Denniss, you are perfectly correct, but your viewpoint is not the only viewpoint in that conversation, the viewpoint of the new user needs to be taken into account as well. (Yes I know their account is not new, but their experience with commons appears limited, they've only made a few edits and all have been in file-space so far.)

Your note is polite, it is correct, it is perfect in every single way until you put yourself into the new user's shoes, that's all, once you do that, it takes on a different light. New users always think admins breath fire and shit lightning. :) Penyulap ☏ 13:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've closed the deletion discussion as keep. So long as Mulag doesn't realise how to remove them, they'll stay here. I can't see that Mulag would be happy about it though. Penyulap ☏ 10:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Mulag won't be possibly happy. But what he shouldn't be happy about is his misunderstanding of the CC license conditions. On the other hand, there's no reason for this community to create policies about deletion upon uploader request at any time. But it would need some larger consensus that a mere deletion request discussion. --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 13:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Look2See1

Look2See1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Look2See1's talk page is virtually nothing except objections from numerous editors who have observed his many problematic edits. This was precisely the reason for his block in January, but he's kept right on going despite the objections; he now responds to them, but only to say that the block was needless, that I'm abusing him, and that I'm the one causing problems and should thus be blocked. On top of that, he's making reckless edits; see File:ABANDONED CAR IN JAMAICA BAY - NARA - 547839.tif and File:ABANDONED ICE CREAM WAGON AT BROAD CHANNEL IN JAMAICA BAY - NARA - 547927.tif, where he blanked all content categories in the process of adding a meta category. This issue has been going on for many months, and he's shown no signs of changing, so I believe that a block is needed to stop the continued disruption and nose-thumbing at everyone else. Nyttend (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

seems a good editor who gets along well with those who engage him in conversation. I see no problem here that needs intervention. Just put in a little sincere effort to talk with him, or be more specific with your request. Penyulap ☏ 07:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Those are not "reckless edits". Category:NARA TIF images with categorized JPGs is clear in its intended usage, it's been widely used by multiple editors (including myself), and Look2See1 (eventually) answered questions about this category before (search "NARA" on their talk). Mrwojo (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Julia sound.ogg

File:Julia sound.ogg

Someone has manipulated the code in this file - when the PLAY button is clicked a text box appears in the player that says "9-11 was an inside job". How to remove it? - 24.218.242.159 21:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Spoke too soon. While investigating the "add subtitles" function I found the scurrilous text - and deleted it. - 24.218.242.159 21:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Токарева Анна

Токарева Анна (talk · contribs)

The user is systematically uploading copyrighted images as her own works. --Evil Russian (talk) 08:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

True, but his latest edits/uploads are from March 6th and are dealt with in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Токарева Анна. --Túrelio (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Trivia point -- if you can read the Cyrillic alphabet, the name is definitely feminine... AnonMoos (talk) 09:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)|

I guess it's Tokareva Anna? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC).

Yes. --Evil Russian (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I want an interaction ban with User:Maxxl2

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

Agreement just about reached between the parties to try avoiding each other without enforcement by a formal interaction ban. Rd232 (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

---

This really is the last straw. From the very beginning, this user has claimed to be able to read my mind and know my intentions, and accused me of stealing someone else's work and claiming it's mine. Even after the four images were changed to be attributed in a manner that was satisfactory to Maxx12, he continued to repeat to people I'm a thief, and this page he has created is only a continuation of these attacks on my character and bullying. I want him to not be allowed to have anything to do with me, or to say anything about me, for a period of 6 months. This would be mutual. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind helping formulate a workable IB solution that doesn't involve landmines, loopholes and technicalities, but it would need to be something Maxx12 would also like to work towards. It would make it easier for both of you to live with, rather than a simple arbitrary 'anything to shut them up' solution from the community. Penyulap ☏ 03:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

As i stated already once before, i see no need for an IB.

(Copy from my statement on Commons:Deletion requests/User:Maxxl2/notes)

As i am a senior person you will allow me a longer reaction time. I am not accustomed to spontaneous action when it comes to interpersonal problems. Also my limited knowledge of the English language hinders me to react within hours to avoid misunderstanding when translating from German.

The dispute here started with a spontaneous intervention from my side when i saw that the correct edit of an IP changed the source and authorship in accordance with the lincence rules of the edited file of Katepanemogas. I better wouldnt have kept quiet and watched the glooming editwar. That was my only mistake i admit immediately.-

I got annoid when i then realized, that Fry1989 reverted this edit and threatened the IP and called him "vandal". Then i inestigated Fry1989 contributions and saw that he was a highly frequent, skilled and valuable member of commons. In the hope and intention not to disturb his activities on commons, i posted an angry and dissapointed message on his en:wiki talk page. Having seen his positive contributions done before, i asked about his way of contribution in the future.

Even my second posting on en:wiki was just the request to state the proper licence and authorship.

From then on the process wasnt in my hands and went wrong totally because a war break out.

Nowhere i ever called Fry1989 a thief or accused him of stealing.

After the first discussion on ANU i refrained from editing files Fry1989 had touched and ignored every mentioning the conflict i didnt wanted to grow.

When i applied for filemover right it was opposed by reference to this conflict what i didnt understood and was almost ready to withdraw this request. And i kept quiet for four weekas hoping the fire would burn down.

Incidently beeing busy on another FIFA image file i saw the defective FIFA logo thumbnail on the de:wiki and reverted the cropping not mentioning who was the editor before.

From then on a second war broke out which i didnt intended but had to realize that i was still called a liar and vandal.

To stand the debate i compiled the notes subpage for the only purpose to ask several trustful members for there assessment whether this timeline was correct, factual and non inflamatory to make it he base of consideration how to apprtoach the glowing conflict.

This list just only shows the facts of a conflict i didnt start and hoped to avoid. It also contains my basic questions concerning my participation.

As i never had a conflict of such a kind before i am not familiar of how and when reactions from my side are expected on commons, i prefer to sit back and consider before i start to write.

I wish i would have never followed my first anger and surprise when i saw that an experienced and esteemed user like Fry1989 reverted the IPs first edit and expressed his threat. Since then it was an absolute waste of time and effort of so many people of good faith and high skills that could be better invested in the tasks of commons.

Sorry - folks, i'll keep quiet and will never touch that subject again and i dont need any admin action like an IB. (Sorry for my inadaquate English, to). --maxxl2 - talk 12:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Do not worry, we all have misunderstandings sometimes. If Fry agrees, I hope we can close the discussion and forget the whole thing. If everyone can work to avoid mentioning the past or 'crying wolf' saying they'll stop, we can look forward to working better together in future. Penyulap ☏ 12:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing but crying wolf. Maxxl2 refuses to understand, or feigns not to understand, what he is doing wrong. There is no hope that he will either follow the dispute resolution process expected by the community or cease and desist. Penyulap ☏ 13:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

@Penyulap - dont you think it would be helpful to ask some other admin to take over as you are already involved in a controversal discussion you started on another page parallely which may possibly keep you away from an inpartial position? Thanks for your attention and help so far. --maxxl2 - talk 14:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI, Penyulap is not an admin, neither am I. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm offering advice and guidance, not performing admin actions, which I don't do as I am not an admin. This noticeboard is for everyone to offer their input and help if they can, however, sometimes admins are so busy with better things to do they don't have time to chat to people. They'd pretty much just 'flip a coin and block someone', or both offenders, depending on their culture. Right now, nobody cares anymore about this silliness because you two are evenly matched with your inane name-calling.

To be involved, you have to be offering a great deal of opinion as well as using admin tools in the same case. Something I wouldn't do even if I was an admin, unless all parties were in agreement. Penyulap ☏ 14:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Maxxl2/notes has now been deleted at the user's own request. This, along with Maxxl2's lengthy comment above, is hopefully an opportunity for peace to break out. Let's either try and move on and let bygones be bygones, or identify remaining obstacles to that happening. Rd232 (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I still want one. I have a right to request it. I don't want anything to do with this bully and I don't want him to have anything to do with me. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

unrelated discussion

(inserting a sub-heading to separate the diversion from topic -peny)

Where has he accused you of being a "thief" or "stealing"? I agree people shouldn't do that but I don't see those claims on the page you linked. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Fry, is that possible to make you understand that this sentence ("Even after the four images were changed to be attributed in a manner that was satisfactory to Maxx12") is untrue, as a) Maxx12 was not involved in the attribution edit war; and b) even if he was involved, he was right as you hadn't done the right attribution?

To sum up, you took the work of a fellow member of the community and breached the terms of the original work's license. File:Great coat of arms of the king of italy (1890-1946).svg was licensed under CC-BY-SA. According to them, you should have kept the same license ("If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one"), something that you did; and properly attribute the result of your derivative work ("You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)", something that you didn't (therefore claiming it was your work). It took you three days to acknowledge the attribution and only after a user edited the file information. It was not Maxx12 the one that asked for anything weird (he's not even involved in the edit war), but the licensing terms that you breached. I don't know whether Maxx12 has called you a 'thief' (which is definitely uncivil and shouldn't be accepted), but pretending that a work by other guy is yours is not acceptable (and yes, "There is also debate on whether copyright should be considered a property right or a moral right"). --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 08:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ecemaml, I am happy that you are correctly highlighting Fry's mistakes against Licensing, which must be taken seriously and learned from, Fry would do well to acknowledge that mistake and affirm they will do better in the future. This is the second time I have noted you complaining that taking 3 days to respond was inadequate to make an acknowledgement in this case. Could you provide a little context so that others can better understand why you find 3 days too long for a proper response from a contributor? It seems slightly odd to castigate a user for being tardy, so long as they put things right within a reasonable time-frame (which in my experience on Commons might be weeks rather than days - it being no coincidence that DRs are supposed to run for 7 days).

Fry, interaction bans don't seem to be used frequently on this project. If you offer to make a firm commitment to avoid interacting with Maxx12 yourself, starting now, then it would be perfectly reasonable to ask an admin (or others) if they would help mediate if Maxx12 continues to act in a way that appears to require your interaction. This may seem a little one-way, but serves equally well without the admin hassle of an interaction ban, and would probably appear as a determined effort on your part to take the initiative to follow a mellow path without needing a threat of a block to make it happen. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

(Penyulap putting on his best imitation of Fry's voice) "I want him to not be allowed to have anything to do with me, or to say anything about me, for a period of 6 months. This would be mutual." (cough)

Seriously did you miss that part or are you just fishing for one sided pledges that you can quote later. Maxx12 is the one you should be asking to make a comment to start with, let alone a commitment. Penyulap ☏ 09:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not find your sarcastic notes either helpful or funny on AN. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh you're quite welcome. I do not find the subject of harassment to be a laughing matter. Penyulap ☏ 09:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh wait, your 'thanks' was sarcastic, wasn't it ? Penyulap ☏ 09:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Psychonaut, the very first thing he ever said to me was an assumption and accusation of thievery, and he has repeated that in various forms since that time. He created the page I listed in my initial statement of request for an IB as "documentation" to support his theory that I intended to steal these images.

ecemaml, I give up with you, you don't understand the facts to save your life and continue to defend Maxx12. He was in fact involved in the attribution dispute alongside an IP address, and after the files were attributed in a manner that Maxx12 found satisfatory, he still did not stop claiming I tried to steal the images. He's repeated it for two months and it's untrue. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The simplest of facts

It is a fact that I have provided (emphasis on "provided" as opposed to "created") several thousand images to Commons in various subjects, before I uploaded the four Savoy coats of arms that caused this problem. They are all attributed in some way or another. The New Zealand road signs for example, were painstakingly attributed to the Transport Agency. If I wanted to steal things, I could have tried to pass those road signs off as my own and most people wouldn't have known the difference. However, I didn't do that. My actions regarding uploads, whatever else you think about me, have shown a character that is not a thief. Nobody here, including Maxx12, has ever been able to explain what is so special about these four images that would make me want to steal them and claim them as my own. Why these four? Why are they so special? If I'm such a thief, why didn't I do it to any of the many many other files I have uploaded over the years I've been here? It's because I didn't intend to steal them and claim them as my own. I used UploadWizard instead of DerivativeFX, and it was an accident that they weren't attributed the way some people think they should have been. Yes I fought the changes in licensing and attribution that was forced on the images by an IP. Why? Because it was insulting, the IP also instantly accused me of thievery as well, and it was so insulting that I fought back. That doesn't prove I had an intent to steal them, or claim them as my own. This is fact. I'm not a thief, and my character proves that. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Look, you use this comment of Maxxl2's as evidence of a problem that needs solving, but all that really shows is that though Maxxl2's English is good enough for communication, it's flawed enough that allowances should certainly be made. Since he's made a gesture by deleting the page, and said above Nowhere i ever called Fry1989 a thief or accused him of stealing. (which if you disagree with you can consider a retraction, perhaps), I really think we should let this miscommunication go. Neither of you wants to interact with the other, and I don't think that needs formalising at this point (which can cause problems of its own). I accept your explanation about these files, Maxxl2 now seems to, and if anyone else doesn't that's obviously a separate issue. So I would suggest that you and Maxxl2 try and avoid each other (I'm sure both of you can find intermediaries if necessary) and see how that goes. Rd232 (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I use that comment as evidence of his instant assumption and accusation, because it was the very first time this user had ever contacted me, and from the very begining instead of asking me if I did this on purpose, he assumed and accused it of being on purpose. Since then, he has repeated multiple times that I did this and that to take another user's images, and by not attributing them properly, claim them as my own. That is calling me a thief. Now, you consider the deletion of his "documentation" as a sign that this is over? I'm willing to take a leap of faith because you have been a trustworthy and helpful admin to me. However, if I ever see him repeat these accusations again, I will be back here in an instant, and I will not let up until action is taken. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I think it's worth giving peace a chance. He jumped to a conclusion, and I don't think he'll do that again, especially as both of you want to avoid future interaction. Rd232 (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please TRASH all the files i put in the commons area i don't know how to "tag" them for deletion--grantwmiller

i don't "get" your site software. Wikibook of source code dangerous and inappropriate. Please delete all my uploads. I do know how to "sign" this...grantwmiller --Grantwmiller (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done --moogsi (blah) 17:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Pitu-20

Suspected sock puppet of User:Puni-100. Apparently, this sock was created for block evasion. This user likely also evaded a block of the account Charli340. Jespinos (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You might include Nino-100 (talk · contribs). What they all have in common is the repeated (not to say obsessive) upload of this image, which is (C)ARR on Flickr. --Túrelio (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

User:GhiathArodaki

This user is engaging in hounding after his several blocks. Not only has he hounded my talk page twice in the last 24 hours, after a little research I find he has also done so on Fastily's talk page, and edited the AN/U archive page to include more hounding of me. He thinks I have it out for him just because I nominated some of his files for deletion, won't let it go, and clearly is going to push this as far as it can go. He also insists that he never said I was a supporter of Israel and that I'm lying about it, when he very clearly inferred that, and even later apologized for the inference. Please deal with it. Fry1989 ^eh?

Now 3 times in the last 24 hours. THis is a problem user, this is not the place for him. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I gotta say Fry, after watching you for the last couple days... you are the cause of most of your problems. All this thrashing about and playing the noisy victim seems to be the real problem here. If you could simply learn to just shut up once in a while, you'd be surprised how much of your troubles with other users would simply evaporate. – JBarta (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Jbarta, it takes two to tango, and people learn as time goes on. A lot of people leave the project because they don't get used to the trolling fast enough, I can't see how blaming them is a better solution than working towards a better environment for us all. Penyulap ☏ 21:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been around long enough to know that 90% of the problems between people could be solved immediately, and even prevented, if people would simply shut the hell up. There is no tango and action doesn't always have to required of both parties. One party can effectively end the issue... usually the noisiest one. – JBarta (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me Jbarta, but do you have any understanding of what this is? The user nominated some files for deletion that he found insulting to Syria. I and several others voted to keep the files in the DRs, saying that perceived insults to a country are not a reason for deletion. When the user saw they were kept, he comes to my page of all places, and says "oh, if insults aren't a reason, then I'm gonna upload this!". It was a very obvious retaliation upload, and I nominated it for that reason. And then he says "oh yes, everything for Israel, that's how you're gonna make it". Politics aside, he's the one making this personal, and going to my talk page taunting me, hounding others for deleting things, and editing archive pages. Don't you dare for one second blame this one me without understanding it. I have not made this personal, I do not follow him around and go to his talk page and say things like "this is how you're gonna make it" and "you wanna report me? do it before time runs out!", he is the one doing this, and it's stupid. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hm, well in no particular order:

1. you forgot to notify him of this thread (I've done that)
2. I don't see hounding of Fastily, who apparently deleted some of his files
3. Editing the archive isn't appropriate, but fixing it by restoring the relevant thread to COM:AN/U so it's "live" again is not necessarily going to be helpful, so never mind
4. The communication between you two is broken; the user's level of English doesn't help, and again, as a native speaker, some allowances and additional patience would not go amiss.

I'll leave him a note to come here, and see if we can't stop this spiralling. Rd232 (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

All I did was vote for some files to stay because the reasoning for nominating them was flawed. He then uploaded a retaliation file with a "reverse insult", and I nominated it for that reason. Since then, he's made this personal and hounded me. It's not my fault, I just did what I do on a daily basis, vote in DRs, and nominate files I think should be deleted. There are disputes that are my fault, but unless Jbarta is suggesting that every time a user votes in a DR or nominates a file, they have to accept potential fallout like this, it's not my fault this time. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate that it looks like you've done nothing wrong here and that most likely the issue is Ghaith not understanding how things work here. Let's not give up quite yet on fixing that. Rd232 (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that Fry's behavior has inflamed the dispute and all this thrashing about and moaning about being "hounded" is just a little overblown. Again, I say Fry is as much a part of the problems I've seen of him in the last couple days as any other party. Until he realizes this and owns up to it, the disputes, accompanied by more thrashing and moaning, are likely to continue. – JBarta (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

"Hounding" can be an emotive term, and it's arguable whether it really fits here. But that aside, what exactly would you have Fry have done differently, and/or do now? Rd232 (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

For starters he can stop deleting the other guy's comments from his talk page and basically telling him to get lost. He can stop responding to every dispute as if the other guy is trying to cut off his toes. From here, he can simply drop this particular issue and move on to other, more constructive things. – JBarta (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no obligation to keep anybody's comments on my talk page, least of all ones that don't add anything positive but are only there to hound me, from a user that I haven't had anything to do with outside of a couple DRs and one talk page discussion. "Moving on" is what I have been trying to do, I haven't talked to this user, I haven't done anything with him for at least a week (because he's been blocked for that long), and don't have any interest in future interactions. He is the one who keeps coming to my talk page and bothering me about an issue he can't let go of. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

When you delete someone's comments like that, it does nothing but inflame the other person. It serves no useful purpose but make you feel powerful for the moment and all you're doing is inviting more BS. Then when more BS inevitably comes, you complain about it. I told you a short while back that not every slight needs to be responded to and a wise man knows when to just let something go. You'll have more luck with that than this nonsense you're doing now. – JBarta (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe for one second you would just "ignore" it, if a user who has a bone to pick kept coming to your page and inserting comments about his issue against your will, and didn't get the hint that yes, I want him to "get lost". I have nothing to do with this user outside of a handful of DRs and one talk page discussion that was very brief. He needs to let it go, and somehow you wanna blame me. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Deleting comments from your talk page is allowed, but rarely helpful. Talk is cheap, and so is user talk page space. Rd232 (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

So how many times does it take before this is dealt with? Does he have to do it 10 times? 50 times? I don't have anything to do with him, like I said all I did was vote in some DRs he initiated, and my vote was the same as others. Chipmunkdavis said the same thing, Anonmoos said the same thing, even Sinnamon who also doesn't like me, said the same thing. He could have chosen anyone to respond to, but he chose me. How is that my fault? Fry1989 ^eh? 00:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Well how about waiting for him to respond here. I've already asked him to stay away from your talk page whilst this is under discussion. Rd232 (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi , what i have done as it was said , i nominated 4 files for deletion , fry voted keep , and said insulting is not a reason for deletion , so i told him as he said , uploading my file , fry thought it is a revenge or something , so he nominated for deletion , and meaning wikimedia i said "every thing for israel" , from this point he started to attack me with a bad way , and not talking good to me , i answered him and told him to talk good , while he still attacks me , anyway , i ignored him by stopping the dispute as i didn't want any problems , so i said sorry as not an apogoly , just for ending the truple and discussing why i said that , after days , i uploaded some files that are related to syria , he is the one who nominated them for deleting , i ignored that in the first time , but he did it again , i told him this may be a revenge because you are deleting my files , he answered no , i believed him , actually i was trying to be nice with him , but , after one of the nominated files was resulted keep , he nominated it again for deletion , doesn't seem that deleting every thing related to syria a revenge for the dispute — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.61.35.103 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 5 April 2013‎ (UTC)

• I agree mostly with JBarta here. I expect more matured behavior from admins and other senior members. JKadavoor Jee 05:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

− I Told him that , but when i got reported he jumps to the report telling them what happened , this was the first time , he is allowed to tell his former problem with me in the report , but lying to win the report is not a good way , the second time i was reported , he jumped again , i answered him again , but with a harder answer , i posted it on the archive and the talk page of him , he delete it , claiming that i'm the one who is hounding him , i responded for that , he treated me that he will report me , i told him report before the time runs , that what happened , as you see after the dispute , he is the one who is hounding me , i was trying to be nice , actually claiming that i responded him only because i'm hounding him isn't a big deal , i'm free to respond anyone or not , as the two related files for syria , first i thought they were insulting , but then it was discussed why they are not , the first file was meant to be for syria in 50s , and the second meant to combine what is happening in syria , so i understood that178.61.35.103 05:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

This isn't really helpful. Either provide specifics on what you're accusing Fry of, preferably (if you can manage it) with links to where those things happened or were said, or just apologise for your accusations, and recognise that everyone here needs to act in good faith, and generally does. Then if there are any specific issues with particular files to be discussed, we can address those (maybe on your user talk page, rather than here). Also, please remember to log in before commenting. Thanks, Rd232 (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

PS Please try to break up your paragraphs into complete sentences with full stops. This stream-of-consciousness kind of writing is quite hard to digest. Rd232 (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

In all fairness, I'd like to see how well you write Arabic (assuming that's his native language). GhiathArodaki, just express yourself the best you can and we'll digest it just fine. – JBarta (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

In all fairness, writing that stream-of-consciousness as well as he does he should be capable of making complete sentences. Rd232 (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Enough. Rd232 (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

mmm, you make it sound, hmmm, all that thrashing and moaning, the way it sounds is kind of, well,.. hey say that thrashing moaning part again for me... Penyulap ☏ 23:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Thrashing and moaning... – JBarta (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC) crap, that was hopeless. I've lost the mood now. Penyulap ☏ 23:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Does that mean you'll stop posting endless amounts of nonsense around here and find something useful to do? – JBarta (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree mostly with JBarta here. I expect more matured behavior from admins and other senior members. JKadavoor Jee 05:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I also agree with JBarta; in fact, several weeks ago already I observed that Fry1989 seemed to be actively aggravating his relationship with GhiathArodaki. Fry1989, please listen to JBarta's advice. Sometimes the best course of action when you feel someone is attacking, hounding, or retaliating against you is not to respond in kind, or even to respond at all (including deleting their comments). Just let it be; in most cases they'll realize they're not getting anywhere and either moderate their approach or give up and go away. If they really were in the wrong, then it will be obvious to everyone else; there's no need to spend so much effort vindicating yourself. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

 Comment User:GhiathArodaki, User:178.61.35.103 SPA Penyulap ☏ 12:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

GhiathArodaki, forgetting to log in one time is not normally treated as using a sockpuppet account. This would normally only become an issue if this appeared to be circumventing a block, or an attempt to manipulate consensus. If you wish for the IP address to be removed from public view to protect your privacy (anyone can now work out your Country of residence and ISP), please send an email to an admin and explain you made an error. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that the user and the IP were the same, I would not have thought there was anyone who needed to be told. I stand corrected. Fæ, for your benefit, yes, I know it's the same person and I'm sure most other editors do too. I'm indicating the editor is probably not what they appear to be at first glance. I don't elaborate in public on that very much, as it assists would-be sockers to improve their skills.

also, spa can mean, and did when I wrote, 'single purpose account' if you examine their overall purpose, to see what their intentions are, it's rather telling.

It has been an enourmously long time since IP's meant anything to anyone with the least bit of technical savvy. I find IP's to be pointless as people who don't take precautions when using them generally don't care less about being caught in the first place, so other methods are suited to tracking.

In the end, nothing is secret on the Internet at all, if you know the right people OR the right methods. Penyulap ☏ 14:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

GhiathArodaki, I'm not lying, I'm describing what has happened from how I saw it. You never actually told me personally that you meant "all of wikipedia" instead of just me, and you even apologized to me for saying it which suggested that you did mean it about me. What else am I supposed to assume? Also, strangely, you accused me of calling you that. Where did I ever say that about you? Just let it go, and let me go. I don't have it out for you, but I won't be quiet if you keep coming to my page and trying to re-hash the issue that I don't care about anymore. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't apologized to you , i said that to end the dispute , Yes i meant wikimedia , i didn't mention you , read it again , i read what did you wrote wrong , you didn't called israeli supporter but a man who doesn't know his country history , my langauge isn't english , for that i read it wrong , but you lied when you said i said an israeli supporter double time , actaully the word israeli supporter wasn't said by me , i didn't mention that word ever, i'm the one who want it to go away , i ignored the dispute by ending it with a fake apogoly , just to be far from problemsGhiathArodaki (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

. Now what? Anyone? Rd232 (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

If you didn't mean it, you shouldn't have said it. That would have saved us all a tonne of frustration. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Interaction ban with Ecemaml

I have to observe that this is a remarkably crap close by Fæ of a discussion. According to a machine count there are over 700 words in the last comment posted, I find it hard to believe he read all that and the dozen references and typed out a close in 8 minutes flat, then again, I could be wrong.

I think if you can't be bothered reading a discussion, you should at least leave the close to someone who can, I don't think this is unreasonable. Penyulap ☏ 00:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The close seems fine to me. The key points by both sides of specific voluntary actions in relation to each other are highlighted. Those voluntary actions should be given a chance, and further debate about why they're needed isn't necessary. Rd232 (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap, the key fact is that you posted "700 words". I only scanned your comment, I did not follow the links, it was not relevant to my rationale to close, in fact as other observers have pointed out, despite the length of the analysis it is unclear what value it adds here. You might consider the reasonable expectation that most comments in a discussion thread on this noticeboard should normally be from the parties or from a moderating administrator. When your comments keep on outnumbering everyone else, the community is eventually going to see you as the problem, and it is likely to appear that your posts are intentionally hijacking the thread for the LOLz and fuelling wikidramah, rather than for any benefit to the parties or to restore a collegiate atmosphere. --Fæ (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Interaction ban and allegations

While I agree to an immediate interaction ban, there are unresolved issues that should not be discarded and need to be addressed, for the interaction ban is a partial solution to a wider problem and should be annalized by third parties. Regards, --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

What was above was a voluntary agreement to leave each other alone, rather than an interaction ban (IB) that would be enforced by an administrator. Admins are reluctant to agree to IBs when more mellow solutions are available. I'm not an admin, so nothing I say here is binding or can result in any action by me, however I have been around.

I seriously recommend you walk away and take a break. I doubt that continuing to berate Ecemaml for what you see as poor or uncivil behaviour will get very far, as this noticeboard is specifically to request administrator intervention, and I just don't see enough hard evidence for a block or the basis of a desysop vote. This is not because Ecemaml is part of a cabal, or that admins are closing ranks and not taking you seriously, there just would have to be hard evidence and a sustained campaign of making this project a hostile environment. Commons is the sort of place where there are some obsessive, rude and possibly slightly crazy contributors, but so long as they contribute to the aims of this project they are given an awful lot of grace - some of them actually end up being administrators and sometimes what we might see as rude, uncivil or obsessive can often be down to the highly international nature of this project, meaning that we can have massive cultural differences, and the way we use English might be very different indeed.

Right now, if you walk away, then there are jolly good reasons for Ecemaml to steer clear in the future. Were I in your shoes I'd settle for that, and the gentlemanly commitment to it made above. If Ecemaml pursues you and appears to be deliberately making this project a hostile environment, well, that would not only be unlikely and incredibly stupid, but rapidly become obvious to everyone else. I'm stepping back from this myself now, as I'm not going to enter into a discussion of the ins and outs, this is just my tuppence with the hope of closing this down; feel free to ignore me if you think I don't "get it", and want to choose a different path. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

First, I doubt that you read my post in such a short time, for I never called for Ecemaml´s block or desysop. I was asked for evidence for the need for an interaction ban and that is what I provided. So to close the discussion without addressing the deep issues and the acknowledgement of the community of possible administrator abuse of power, after being unjustly blocked and ostrasized leaves me unsatisfied. Ecemaml´s post is a crudely disguised personal attack once you get to the meat of the post. I would very much would like for people to read it and follow the links and decide for themselves. What he has done to me is exactly the same things he did to other people and that merited his permanent expulsion from spanish wikipedia. Adminitrator harrassment. And now he claims that it is I the one who harrasses! I never initiate interactions with him! I just call him on his misbehaviour! He definitely is no example of congruency. He tries to delete legitimate images on copyvio grounds or out of scope images, yet he loads tons annd tons of irrelevant out of scope and copyvio images! Just visit his gallery!!!! Do not take my word!!!! Go see!!! And this is the guy who calls for my permanent block??? A sick joke!!! And no, I am not going to bring those examples, mine is enough, and it s happening here. But anyway, that is the way uncomfotable issues are managed here. Close the discussion, sweep it under the rug, block the user... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I do want an administrator-enforced interaction ban. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to use interaction bans until voluntary efforts have been shown not to work, and it seems you and Ecemaml have both agreed above to make those efforts. Additionally, I don't think an interaction ban is appropriate when one of the parties is an admin. We expect admins to behave responsibly, and one who genuinely needs a formal interaction ban isn't fit to be an admin. So I would suggest seeing how it goes, and if further problems arise, raise the issue again. You could also contribute to the section below if you think a good case can be made now that a desysop discussion should be started now. Rd232 (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I have never initiated interactions with Ecemaml, so as far as my side is concerned, I do not need to be told not to interact with him, it´s not even low priority for me. It is Ecemaml or his cohorts that I am concerned with. Evidence of Ecemaml canvassing against me is clearly established in my previous post. The history is there. Ecemaml´s behaviour needs to be examined. Look at his post above and weed out the personal attacks, by innuendo he calls me egocentric, labels my legitimate concers about vandalism absurd, claims I harrass him, and in general invalidates my opinion as a user and contributor. He closes DRs that I initiate alluding to negative motives on my part, even having to delete the images I nominate but at the same time insults in the closing statement. Is this the behaviour of an administrator? I have pointed out clearly, referencing with stated common´s policy his violations, pointing specifically to the events and the policy or procedure. So here we have an administrator who violates policy at will, who canvasses against me because he has a personal vendetta and calls for my indefinite block, who lacks moral authority for even nominating someone else´s images for copyvios or out of scope just because of the simple fact that he himself loads tons and tons (spam) of out of scope and copyvios. Please go look at his gallery! So given the history and his past, heck yes, I want an interaction ban! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that doesn't change my opinion. Either (a) try to get Ecemaml desysopped now or (b) wait and see if further problems arise, and if they do, try to get him desysopped then. I would also say, having said to Ecemaml not to take some of the things you said while blocked too seriously, that you should try not to read too much into Ecemaml's remarks. Basically, actions matter more, and if those actions merit desysopping, we should discuss that, and if they don't, we should see if Ecemaml's declaration that he won't do anything else in relation to you administratively solves the problem between you two. If you persist in asking for an interaction ban immediately, fine, I'll let someone else give a second admin opinion, but that's my view. Rd232 (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

From my side, I can't just but reassure my willingness not to have anything to do with Tomascastelazo images. I don't think so much wikidrama is useful for anyone. On the other hand, I'd be glad to know about those "tons and tons (spam) of out of scope and copyvios" that I've uploaded. I've always uploaded material in good faith and, as I can make mistakes, I can't see any problem in deleting anything that could be deemed as a violation of commons policies (although being frank I don't know where Tomascastelazo takes from such a "tons and tons" figure). Best regards --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 06:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC) PS: my gallery is here, although I've also uploaded some hundreds pictures through Magnus' bot

Well, I´ve looked through tons and tons of images in his gallery that are repetitive, unused, of bad quality, of dubious educational value, result of uploading through a bot just because they have free licences. The bot does not distinguish value or usefulness, it just uploads. Good faith? Ok, but what does good faith have to do with usefulness or EV? Besides, just the fact that an image has a free licence in another site does not mean it is Commons compliant, how about personality rights, for example? Or perhaps copyvios due to derivative works? Uploading hundreds and hundreds of photographs through a bot without a human selection process just fills needed space. On careful analysis any reasonable person would find very little EV or images within scope. I´ve only added this comment because Ecemaml wanted to know about my opinion... See for yourself. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It's fair to raise quality and COM:PEOPLE issues with mass imports, yes. But this is a general issue (plenty of people do it), and it should be discussed in general terms (eg at COM:VP). Rd232 (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That is my friend the irony of this, this admin zeroes in and cherry picks some of my images, and nominates them for deletion while at the same time he uploads hundreds of images that could be deleted under his own criteria to delete mine (in fact, he deleted some of his uploaded images I nominated as violating policy, not without, of course, insuting me in his closing statement, but ironically acknowledging the merits). I think that before he goes on a deletion spree of other people´s contributions and own work (not somebody elses) he should first select the material he uploads (for statistical reasons?) and make sure it is Common´s compliant. You see, it is hard, given the fact that I contribute in good faith, to have someone without moral authority in this regard delete the material I wish to contribute in good faith. Call it wikidrama, but as the saying goes "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." I know where I stand on copyrights, and wanting, like many, that this project succeeds. Or what, don´t you think there is an infitrated troll here and there? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Tomás, just for your information: I didn't want to know your opinion. I just wanted you to point at specific examples of copyright or scope problems (there were tons of them, according to you). For your information also: I just use a bot for easing the upload task. I never do unsupervised uploads. I carefully pick up every set of images I upload and categorize them so that they can become useful. Being used or not in any other wikipedia project is not an issue in commons, as most of your pictures prove. Bad quality is not an issue provided that pictures have enough quality and there aren't other available media about a subject. I'd like to have quality portraits and amazing landscapes. However, as my main purpose is to illustrate wikipedia articles, I have to work with whatever file is available. I'd feel happy to remove bad quality files as new better ones have been provided to commons (I'd love to remove this picture, but I can't since it's the only available). I do think that scope and usefulness is always debatable, and therefore anyone'd like to know how useful for any encyclopaedic content are File:Falling rain in mexico.jpg (nice, but nothing than that), File:Hot air balloon ballon festival with censored characters.jpg, File:Censored thought.jpg, File:Coke and crap.jpg, File:Broken window large.jpg or File:Autoretrato 2.jpg. Possibly all of them are extremely useful (I don't know for what but I assume that a good faith writer could find them useful). I do known that there are always images that are slight variations of each other, but I prefer to leave the selection to the writer (we do have this and this, this and this, this and File:Adobe guadalupe winery.jpg, but none is thinking about removing one of them). Finally, personality rights, and consent, are definitely an issue. But not only about my uploads but about almost any upload (I assume that all the identifiable people that appears in this picture, this picture, this picture, this picture, this picture, this picture, this picture, this picture, this picture, this picture, this picture, this picture, this picture, this picture, this picture, this picture, this picture, this picture, this picture, this picture, this picture, this picture, this picture, this picture, this picture, this picture, this picture, this picture or this picture, are been asked for permission). Conclusions are obvious, aren't they? --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 16:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC) PS: fortunately, morality is not something that matters here (just policies) or than you can judge

I will be happy to compare notes on the use and usefulness of the body of my work uploaded here, of my own pictures, that have found its way to National Geographic #[[40]], award winning documentaries #[[41]], book covers, scientific articles, literary publications,etc., to your bot uploads, or even your own works, which I have not found buried under tons and tons of bot uploaded somebody-else´s work. Even your ex-president José María Aznar received (ironically) a picture that you nominated for deletion!!! The image: #[[42]] was of curse kept. Aznar receiving a signed photograph: #[[43]]. There are many more photographs that I have uploaded that have won interesting recognition, but I reserve redundancy here, lest you think I think of myself as too important, as you have said. So my dear Ecemaml, talk to me coming from substance, not from bot-generated statistics. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This is hilarious, the first picture that Ecemaml puts into a long list with the title "I do think that scope and usefulness is always debatable, and therefore anyone'd like to know how useful for any encyclopaedic content are "

...and then the very first one he puts onto that list of supposedly crap images by Tom is a featured picture. Oh my God. Not Ecemaml's day today. Penyulap ☏ 18:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's featured because it's more gorgeous than any photo has a right to be. But there is often a trade-off between artistry and educational value, so I can see Ecemaml's point with that one. I struggle to imagine what Wikipedia article it could usefully illustrate, for instance. Rd232 (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

ha! I often quietly smirk at all the great art on commons that has 'no article to go in' because people fail to see if you throw out and hound away all the 'professional', 'qualified' artists who have 'actually studied art' in a formal setting, just who on Earth is going to write any of the articles ? Hello ? One plus One equals what ? A bully or two want to hound me off en.wiki and next thing you know on the front page of that project you've got 90,000 people seeing space ships described as station modules, and the space station modules all mixed up, and the editors remaining can't even count solar panels for crying out loud. I'm seeing a pattern here. Penyulap ☏ 20:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This conversation seems to have become a competition about who has it bigger (I assume there's a similar expression to this in Mexico) :-P Taking seriously, I found last Tomas' remarks really clarifying. I see his point, but I'm afraid he refuses to see mine. You see, it's possibly a case of "cultural" clash between two different cultural values. I come from the wikipedia projects. For them in general and, especially for those projects without local uploads, commons is nothing more (and nothing less) that the media repository. The place where the graphical content of the wikipedia articles is stored. Where you access when you need something to illustrate the content (paraphrasing to Penyulap, many times it's extremely hard to describe anything using plain text). Moreover, I, and millions as me, believe in that mantra of Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. In such a way, we contribute to commons uploading material that can be regarded as encyclopaedic and, contribute to the paramount mission of commons: that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all (you'll notice that no mention to artistic merit is included there; it does not exclude it, but it does not require it).

Tomas, on the other hand, is fully integrated in the commons subculture (I'm not using en:subculture in a pejorative way). A culture that has grown up independently of the wikipedia projects and gives much value to said artistic merit (in some cases, even if an image own a remarkable artistic merit, it is hardly usable in a wikipedia article). I assume, from that point of view, how intolerable it is for you, being an artist, someone questioning really good pictures (and I'm not being ironic) with those "petty" arguments of scope or even copyright. And that's what make Tomas speak sometimes in an abrasive (and unnecessary) manner, or engage in personal remarks instead of simply refuting the arguments used... From my side, I have to sincerely apologize for the unnecessary remarks I included in Commons:Deletion requests/File:IE Serrano II.jpg or Commons:Deletion requests/File:Het Hele Westland.JPG (I mean, the closure of the request was perfectly correct, but the way to express it should haven't been offensive). I forget a very basis untold rule of commons: Two wrongs make a right. And again, I sincerely apologize, because I don't think this situation is good for any of us.

With regard to the "interaction ban" I'll clarify what I meant: I won't nominate for deletion any of your pictures. I won't either close any deletion request in which you're involved. But if I think I can add arguments to an ongoing nomination, I'll take part in the nominations as any other commons citizen, with the same remarks that I've mentioned above (respect and focus on the arguments). In that sense, I've crossed out my comment in here for the sake of not inflaming this discussion (however, I do think the argument provided was perfectly valid).

I don't know whether my statements meet your expectations. I'd like but I can't do more. The ball is in your roof. Best regards --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 06:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC) PS: BTW, I do find File:Mickey mouseless balloon festival.jpg useful (possibly the first of your "protest pictures") and, by last time, I'll take part in the handling of one of your pictures (Penyulap has breached COM:OVERWRITE, so I'll ask him to upload it under another name)

I'm thinking that overwrite wasn't invented to prevent collaborative efforts. In the GFX lab it's pretty meaningless as people just ask to overwrite the original to dispense with the delete and rename and so on. I can't see Tom having any kind of problem with me overwriting his file, and if he does I'll be quite pleased if he lets fly with verbal abuse in my direction. (Sigh) I never get targeted by the 'best in the business' in that department. Old AndyTheGrump on en.wiki was famous for verbal barrages, and never aimed one at me. (sigh) I miss him. I really miss out on verbal barrages by the most skilful people, but I invite my friends to let fly. Penyulap ☏ 07:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I just went to Tom's talkpage and was about to write a note to ask him to revert if he like the former image, or let me know if he wants separate images or whatever, and I realise that it is a completely pointless act. A waste of time. An annoyance to the both of us. Tom and I get along the same way I get along with lots of people on commons and if he doesn't like it, he'd just change it, he doesn't need to ask me first, nor I him, we have a proper co-operative working relationship, so I can't see the point, because he'd just revert on the assumption I'd be fine with it and that is correct. Hmm. I think commons works best this way. Penyulap ☏ 07:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Analysis of possible long term abuse

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

I think it's worthwhile putting up a summary of the interactions I've found after a bit of looking. I went looking for the start of why you'd delete someone's Barnstar, and I was amazed at how far back this goes. I don't even know if I've found the start of it or not.

So far the earliest thing I have found is this innocent ;) santa image which Dodo nominated for deletion in December 2007 for no clear reason 'scope?' and Ecemaml and Dodo don't like the keep idea either note.
I'm thinking that Dodo, and later Ecemaml, took offence far too easily at the words 'inquisition' and 'censorship'. Not everyone is a W:Monty Python fan, but the words don't seem out of place for a DR based on 'Scope' as a reason.

Tom's picture with a LOT of commons recognition which is up for picture of the year "Hola Eddie, como creo que perteneces al jurado o comité de la foto del año, quería plantearte el problema de Image:Catrinas 2.jpg antes de hacer nada que pueda interferir con el concurso." Ecemaml is discussing with a POTY committee/jury member what to do before interfering with the image's progress through the contest. Even though Boricuæddie and Tom don't get along he warns him to be careful with the image which is in use on 70 wikis and up for POTY This is followed very closely by Ecemaml asking about it again on the poty talkpage, and someone says about a possible DR that "Luckily the chance that this one will be closed before the end of the competition is zero ;) so off Ecemaml goes to launch the failed DR.

The deletion discussion is so totally TLDR, what I found was in the middle Ecemaml is very upset that Tom uses the words "censorship" and "Inquisition" for some reason Ecemaml considers them to be personal attacks, that being the case, Ecemaml should seek some advice about Tom calling him a censor and inquisitor, because it seems there are sides to that argument. Monty python Vs what I sense is a cultural dislike of the terms. Though, censor isn't a rude word, it's a job, and we have them on wiki too. See here is the hint of a cultural thing:

"[...]I thought to remove your umpteenth mention to censorship, Inquisition (those nice guys who happened to burn people alive) and so on you use whenever someone dares to nominate one of your nice pictures for deletion (see here or here). You've been repeatedly warned avoid using personal attacks[...]" Ecemaml knows what Ecemaml is talking about regards burning, but this history is not apparent to many others, including Tom it would seem. Dodo seems to share the same cultural background as Ecemaml, using the "something-I-don't-like-codeword 'disruption'"

"By the way: the censorship/inquisition tale is badly worn out theses days. How many times does Tomascastelazo think he can disrupt Commons before got blocked again? --Dodo 08:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)"

Another nom by Ecemaml, this time with better apparent merit at first glance, but still keep as an outcome. Dodo and Ecemaml are once again going at it with claims that they are under attack from Tom, who seems pretty laid back but uses the word 'inquisition' to describe the failed deletion based upon one item on a table full of items as a problem. The princesses on the bag in the front corner. Good choice of words for someone on the American / Asian / African continent, but apparently a problem for our Spanish friends and co-workers. The comments and plea to the closing admin towards the end are interesting reading too.

The W:Spanish Inquisition was a bad thing, and W:The Spanish Inquisition (Monty Python) was a good thing, and the dictionary definition seems to be the sole use of the words by Tomas. The manner in which Dodo and Ecemaml have brought the matter of their cultural sensitivity to Tomas's attention has been so contentious that it comes as no surprise that he should do them no favours except to try to inform them about the standard usage of the term. To his credit however, he doesn't actually tease them and doesn't bring up the sketch. Actually I haven't seen it mentioned before I did just then, maybe I'm one of the only python fans here (sorry I'll shut up now)

This one here, well there are TWO things with it, one, it got DR nommed by Ecemaml, after I put it on Tomas's userpage. That was because I went to put it on Tomas's talkpage but I found the whole commons community had been locked out. I asked Ecemaml and he unlocked the talkpage, so that was ok. I don't know what he locked it for, though the image was nommed for scope and no EV. Later the cabal agreed the image was OK. The image was made only for Tom, but has found it's way into wiki humour and I guess I can see that too when I think about it.

Then there is this image, which far too many people enjoy far too much, you should all be ashamed, especially geo-tagging it for peeping toms. It was only made for Tom, as the description shows. So after there are these failures to delete anything of toms after much discussion on talkpages, [this happens] and Ecemaml deletes it himself after what looks for all the world like a keep discussion to me.

So to Ecemaml's statement "[...] I don't think you can find any really questionable [...]" I think it is possible, I haven't looked at everything, and I'm seeing a culturally based intolerance of two words leading to misuse of admin tools. I'm also seeing a picture of two flies I wish I never made. Penyulap ☏ 00:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I never did find a successful deletion discussion for one of Tomas's images in my reading. Penyulap ☏ 01:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap, what are you trying to prove? Of the five above mentioned pictures, I didn't even participate in one of them and, in fact, I just closed two of them (one of them opened by myself, as finally the proper legal argumentation was provided). So... what's going on? And yes, it's interesting to see this again (possibly the long row of verbal abuse, personal remarks, mentions to censorship and the like... reminds you that some things never change) In fact, the picture was extremely nice and everything was that simple as clarifying that, unlike other places, FoP applied to temporal exhibitions in museums in Mexico... but why explaining that when you can create a wikidrama (such as this one)? For instance, [[:File:Mexican curious 02.jpg|this also fantastic picture was removed on the same grounds, and not by me. --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 06:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC) PS: if you feel that 93.132.80.30, feel free to ask for a CU verification.

 Comment - the evidence above doesn't seem to amount to very much, on a quick examination at least. It's also not clear what the point is of putting it here. If there is some intention to argue for a desysop, so that there's enough support for that idea to open a desysop request (Commons:Administrators/De-adminship), then say so, with a short summary of the argument and supporting evidence within a {{Collapse top}} / {{Collapse bottom}} box. If there is some other intention, please explain. Rd232 (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Double voting in admin election on commons

---

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