Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 3

< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard‎ | User problems
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to this page.

User:Riva72

I am not completely certain of the nature of the dispute, but Riva72's "artistic uploads" (as he puts them) does not seem to prompt such a long term block in my opinion. It seems to be a dispute leaking from pl.wiki.

Dispute involves the following images.

I was wondering the opinion of fellow admins.

-- Cat chi? 00:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen that "modification"? It's very "artistic" indeed, but this particular images are used in pl:Zamek w Podhorcach and other articles not for artism, but for information. This article was written mainly by Riva72, who put a dedication into it and engaged in edit war and useless deletion request when it was removed according to Wikipedia rules. He tried trolling and other disruptive activities later on pl:Wiki. That's why I'm sure that his reasons are false and this "artistic" modification of those photos are part of his revenge campaign. A.J. 06:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Images Image:Jm1.jpg and Image:Ulubiona2.jpg are not in this case: This are Ukrainian money and the may be copyright-protected. I've added other modified images to the above list. (One may wander, why Riva72 has suddenly become so strict about copyright... See: deletion request about works of his family). A.J. 06:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what his motives are for doing it if there's actually a copyright issue here. Anyway, I don't think a 1 year IP ban is appropriate for any case and afaik we don't block people for 3 months without a warning or a shorter ban first. Bans are preventative measures, not punitive. Yonatan talk 08:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, such long term bans should be discussed somewhere on commons so we have a record of the incident. If the issue is really as bad as you feel, we would most likely agree with you. In the absence of a discussion this thing only gets us confused. -- Cat chi? 10:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I actually reviewed the images. -- Cat chi? 10:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, so your objections are not abot "why" but "why so long" (especially WarX's)? If so, then please cancel these blockades, but please make it clear to Riva72, that his disruptive activities will cause strict response. I'm not any good negotiating with him: asked abut his reasons for one of his previous trolling action, he answered for sport, Ejdzej, for sport. Well, I have absolutely no sense of humour when it comes to sabotaging not only Polish Wikipedia, but also Commons and a couple of other projects "for sport". A.J. 19:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I canceled IP blockade. A.J. 12:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
My two objections are 1) What on earth is going on? 2) Why so long.
User asked to be allowed to nominate images he uploaded for deletion on my English Wikipedia talk page. I am not sure how to react. Opinions?
-- Cat chi? 20:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Eventually Riva72 revealed his true intentions: he does not want Polish Wikipedia to use this images. Why did it took sooo long? About: The article on the castle is also the place where the Commons user Ejdzej showed his ignorance in a spectacular way as far as architecture details are concerned (for which he was blushing for a few days..). He simply made a fool of himself. That is again the argument to hate Riva72. :) No, no, it's a reason to LIKE you! Without your article, a wrong ilustration in pl:Blanki put there by Dixi (one of Polish Wikipedia first users, well known and respected, but now retired) would haunt Wikipedia another 3 years! That's what you should be proud of, not making me a fool!
I admire Cool Cat's patience and cold blood. For me, once it's clear for everyone, that Riva72 was not blocked for "artistic" activity, my part here is finished. Good bye! A.J. 12:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Three years.. well, the ignorance of the Polish Wikipedians is, therefore, vast.. --213.199.192.60 13:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • To the user called Ejdzej: If you have read the article on the castle even before your voting in the favour of it (as I HAD POINTED TO YOU in the proper discussion) you would have never made the funny mistake...! :) So you cannot be treated seriously and arguments with you are the waste of time.. It means you voted in the favour of the article even without reading it.. No more comments on this part. I insist on providing English translations of the four pages linked above. --213.199.192.60 13:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    • How in all hells I could not make a mistake by reading article what was written THREE YEARS after that mistake was made (and again: not by me?). Call me ignorant, sure... And yes, I've read it and I expressed my highest opinion about it. It's realy a pity that such a good author is such a bad cooperator :( A.J. 14:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Have the user called Ejdzej read the caption to [1] available in the Polish article on the castle?. I do not wish to exchange ideas with you. I expressed my point clearly. --213.199.192.60 14:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC) The capture reads: Bastion i kurtyna.
        • To the user called Ejdzej: You are really a misleading person and not reliable what is a shame for the administrator.. as: Your upload of the [2] to the article on [3] was done on March 5,2007 - proof: [4]]. You voted to preserve the article on the castle in Podhorce on March 3, 2007 - proof: [5]

- no further comments - --213.199.192.60 15:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

            • That's all true. I also uploaded Image:Blanka Gloger.png captioned "Blanka z zamku podhereckiego" and used in this article version by pl:User:Dixi years before you became a Wikipedian. I was deceived by that and I admitted that as soon as I realised my mistake. Didn't I tell you about that? Well, being so focused on your article and dedication you may have missed that. I'm very happy that Wikipedia has one good article more and one serious error less, only at cost of me looking silly :) Cheers! A.J. 15:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool Cat, I am sorry I have to raise my voice in this discussion but what you have written above is only the half truth and may be misinterpreted. Therefore, I allow myself to copy-paste our discussion at the English Wikipedia. This discussion took place there because I was two-side blocked by the Commons users WarX and Ejdzej..

This present copy-paste action is also my answer to your question (objection) 1) What on earth is going on?.

  • == A 'rude' Riva72 ==

available at: [6]

Hello! I am sorry for disturbing you here at the English Wikipedia project but I was forced to do this by the Commons user WarX. He has completely blocked my access to the Commons with no sensible reason. I have to quote his reason written in Polish (sic!) which reads: papa Riva72, tylko kto cie teraz zrewertuje? I provide the translation here: 'ByeBye Riva72, who's gonna revert you now?'. In my opinion, he may have chosen Polish as not to be understood by the majority of the Commons users. I am not rude.. The actions of the Polish Wikipedians like WarX are rude. They are not the professionals. They 'do not like Riva72' euphemism :) and, as they cannot do otherwise, they 'revenge themselves' that way which is funny. Cool Cat, I ask you to unblock my access to the Commons (both ways).. I will not do any edits (if not forced to by crucial reasons..) and I will not upload any pictures to the Commons in the future. Tell me if it is possible to prohibit the Polish Wikipedia use the castle in Podhorce images.. It is important for the author of the photos and for me if they were not displayed with the Polish Wikipedia..

I have noticed this blockade by WarX while I was saving the following words at your Commons discussion page:

I have placed these two images to be deleted. I have placed the proper template as the deletion request. The templates were 'taken' (the revert action by odder) with no explanation given. I see this user action as irrational or vicious. The National Bank of Ukraine holds the copyrights to the coins issued by them and, therefore, to the coins images. The presence of these images in the Commons is the obvious 'copyvio' case. I was not aware of the fact that the coin images are copyrighted by law while uploading these photos to the Commons.

The photos in question: [7], [8].

--Riva72 00:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for these words and I thank you for understanding. Fortunately, I have this 'Riva 72' account at the English Wikipedia. Have a nice Sunday! --Riva72 00:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The war over the Castle in Podhorce began when I placed the following words under the article (which was written by me and edited only by me): The article is dedicated to Oksana, the lady who got me interested in the castle's history and who helped me to collect the resources and provided with photos of the castle. It was written in Polish nice and easy. I assumed it would be a nice accent to the article, a nice attribution to the author of the photos according to the licence provided. The dedication was an eyesore. Made people jealous? :) It was constantly removed. As far as I know no editor (publisher) removes the author's dedications because such action is a pure vandalism. Anyway, the history of the article and all discussions available there are very interesting.. Therefore, it is the most interesting and the most colourful article in the entire Polish Wikipedia section. :) The article on the castle is also the place where the Commons user Ejdzej showed his ignorance in a spectacular way as far as architecture details are concerned (for which he was blushing for a few days..). He simply made a fool of himself. That is again the argument to hate Riva72. :) The whole affair reminds me of Helen and the battle of Troy. :) You can read it and, therefore, judge yourself if Riva72 was trolling. There were none disruptive activities on the Polish Wikipedia on my part. :) Some Wikipedian administrators (mainly some Polish ones) are famous for 'closing mouths' of their discussion opponents in the forms of blockades when these "respectable" administrators run out of rational arguments. --Riva72 00:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC) + --Riva72 07:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  • [9] - the finest version
  • [10] - the clumsy and vandalised version
  • [11] - the discussion which is interesting
  • [12] - the discussion which is even more interesting
  • [13] - the discussion over the discussion
  • Unfortunately, the page with artistic images version cannot be displayed for your glance. :)

Anyway: Вінець ратних трудів — перемога, перемога — тріумф, тріумф — відпочинок or Owocem walki jest zwycięstwo, zwycięstwo prowadzi do chwały, chwała to zasłużony odpoczynek as was translated by me. The translated version is copyrighted. Do not repeat and share with friends! Do not distribute! --Riva72 05:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Added on April 3, 2007: In these circumstances I believe it is crucial that all the above mentioned Polish Wikipedia pages and discussions must be translated from Polish into English. --213.199.192.60 22:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC) (Riva72's IP address).

To be expessed precisely: They must be translated into English and these translations should appear here at this ANB discussion page as worth reading and as evidences of so called trolling. :) --213.199.192.60 07:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • == A question ==

available at: [14]

Hello! This is the last post for you from me both here and the Commons. I have this question: Can the author of the photo which is uploaded by her (or her representative) to the Commons under 'Creative Commons Attribution 2.5' licence prohibit one of the sections of the Wikipedia encyclopedia (the Polish Wikipedia section) to use the author's photo to illustrate an article available there? The author wants to inform about this in the permission section of the photo summary info box. I ask for a serious answer.. My question concerns the Podhorce castle images and the following note [15] which was reverted by the user called Ejdzej. Of course it may (maybe should) be shortened to the information that: The author of the photo prohibit the Polish Wikipedia to use her work which should be respected.. I consent to the three months blockade (which is still unjust) but we (the author and I who uploaded the pictures) still want to prohibit the Polish Wikipedia section to use the set of eight photos known as 'Caspod1-8.gif' to illustrate the seriously distorted article available at the Polish Wikipedia. For lots of other reasons, as well.. I would appreciate your answer. --Riva72 17:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There has been no such issue in the past of this nature... but as far as the license is concerned, by uploading it to commons you are to use a license like CC, GFDL, PD which allows anyone to use it for any purpose. So I do not believe prohibition of images can have any legal basis. Of course none of this has been challenged in court. -- Cat chi? 17:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Is it possible to stop being the Commons user (I mean a permanent profile removal) for personal reasons such as disapproval of the project and the feeling of serious repugnance to this project, to its ways (including these of conduct) and its ideology (to name just a few reasons)? I have started to have second thoughts concerning the Commons and the Wikipedia projects and I experience all the feelings mentioned. I would like to resign and ask you, the administrator, to remove my Commons profile with the condition that you remove all the photos and images (the coats of arms: [16] and [17]) uploaded by me, Riva72. I would appreciate your understanding and your respect for my decision would be welcomed. --Riva72 19:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
We do not have the technical means to remove accounts (removing an account would cause a number of problems). I could however delete your user page. I am sorry but I cannot remove other contribution including uploads and edits. -- Cat chi? 20:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Do not delete my Commons user page and my Commons discussion page under these circumstances.. Allow me to mark all my uploads with the deletion request templates and place at the deletion discussion page (mass deletion request) all my messages to you available here (I mean the ones called A 'rude' Riva72 and A request alongside your answers).. In my opinion it would be the best solution to the problem (if not the only as explained by you earlier) and let the majority of the Commons users speak their minds, express their opinions. It would also be the sign of the Commons (+ its administrators) respect towards me, Riva72 which I fully owe.. In my opinion, the Commons users like WarX and Ejdzej are not worth any respect.. It is my personal opinion to which I have rights and for which I cannot be blocked.. (I experienced blockades for my personal opinions and my gentle yet sharp answers in the past). --Riva72 20:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe throughout commons history no ones entire contribution was deleted per request. You are welcome to make such a nomination but I do not believe it would work. In any case, as much as I want to help you - I can't just act recklessly. I will post your request to the commons ANB discussion. -- Cat chi? 20:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
What does not mean that it cannot be done for the first time. I am not welcome to make such nominations because I was blocked by the user called Ejdzej for three months (for making pictures more artistic or adding the second version to them -name it as you wish). This action by him/her(?) is ridiculous and childish. He/she(?) even do not posted any message to me in this case. :) I ask you to unblock the Riva72's account immediately. I will be kind enough to post no message until (or maybe after as well) the commons ANB discussion is closed. I would appreciate if you provided me with the link to this Commons ANB discussion. I think the use of the future simple tense is a promise itself. :) Thank you. --Riva72 21:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I am well aware of your block. I cannot unblock people just because I feel like it. Weather I agree with you or not is irrelevant when it comes to me taking an administrative action as drastic as an unblock. The commons discussion is: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Riva72. -- Cat chi? 22:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Added on April 3, 2007 by me, Riva72, with the IP address: --213.199.192.60 22:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The other case of the deletion request was an unfortunate coincidence with the adventure called war over the castle in Podhorce which occurred at the Polish Wikipedia and not at the Commons.. The main issue to be solved now is mentioned in the chapter called A question which was mentioned above. --213.199.192.60 22:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing or altering other people's comments

The next person who removes or alters anybody else their comments will be blocked. Thank you for your understanding. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Riva72 asks you to place your comments here. --213.199.192.60 13:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I must repeat myself

The main issue to be solved now (and here) is mentioned in the chapter called A QUESTION which is available few lines above. --213.199.192.60 14:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Would it be enough when the blockade is canceled, so you could prepare deletion request? It's already solved then. Just don't try any tricks, OK? A.J. 15:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The blockade is over. Please make a good use of it. Goodbye! A.J. 16:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Instead of writting deletion request, Riva72 started to change CC license tags to NonDerivative version, which has "speedy delete" effect. WarX issued a blockade. I will not trust Riva72 again. A.J. 07:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
1 year seems ok to me. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Use mmm448

I had already called attention on the behaviour of User:Mmm448, because of his upload of unsourced and sometimes clearly copyrighted items. You will find trace of the affair in his talk page. He was blocked for one day.

I call now attention on this picture, which he signed as "made by himself", but which is actually taken from here: [18]

In his defense, I must note that (a) the upload was made much time before he got the admonishment; (b) his postings are rather akward, so that there is a very high possibility that he is simply messy and unknowing rather than knowingly cheating. However, although he is likely cheating "in good faith", it is evident:

  • he did not mark for removal the images not complying with Commons' policy;
  • furthermore, all images uploaded by him as "his own" need now to be checked for copyright, since this case of copyviol and false statement is patent.

Since I don't know how to behave with him, who is by now convinced I am merely prejudicially hostile to him (and not, trying patiently to explain him what he may not upload), I leave the adms the decision of the line to be followed. Of course I made a notification of this post to Mmm448. Best wishes. --G.dallorto 20:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no copyvios in his recent uploads, but if he continues I will block him for a few weeks. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Captain Scarlet

 

Following a recent block over on Wikipedia, Captain Scarlet has changed about 64 of his uploaded photographs to appear as shown on the right [update - "to images of text calling for their deletion"].

These are images which are used on Wikipedia that he has previously released into the public domain. See his user log for the full list of images replaced. Is there anything that can be done about this? This is an urgent matter as there are many articles on Wikipedia now displaying these images. If this isn't resolved promptly many are likely to be removed from articles by editors unaware of the context of this issue. Adambro 19:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems that multiple users have reported this: See bottom of COM:AN/V, COM:AN/U and COM:AN/A -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe I have reverted all the images. His account may need to be blocked as a protective measure until communication can be established. Thatcher131 20:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
All these images were already released with contradicting license thus making them unfit to bare the Gnu license here. It's great to have an Adambro everywhere we go, without him I'd be lost. Captain Scarlet 00:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
to clear the issue Adambro, my guardian angel, has so nicely pointed out, all my photographs railway photographs are copyrighted and unfit for use as per license on [19] all other photographs are sourced to [20] which bares the motion that no content may be reproduced, see license Tous droits réservés, Gregory Deryckère ©2003. You may proceed with copyvio affirmative action. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Captain Scarlet (talk • contribs) 00:32, 6 April 2007
Not really, you agreed to release them under the GFDL and (c) Your Name doesn't change that. Yonatan talk 05:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
GFDL license is non-exclusive, copyright holder is free to release his work on any other license. There's no clash between GFDL on Commons an "all rights reserved" somewhere else. A.J. 08:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you would like to have a look at the second link then... It was a terrible mistake I made to upload them here after they had already been uploaded on vlaki.com. Example: Image:Sheffield Supertram - Park Square Bridge 30-06-04.jpg and [21]. If you are unsure at what it means and what the conditions of use of vlaki.com are you may contact Darko Szabo. Hopefuly, Mr Brooks won't accuse him of being a sockpuppet or something. Captain Scarlet 08:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Let's make it clear: saying I, the author of this work you lied, because you're not the author? Are you Gregory Deryckere or not? If so, Mr Szabo holds copyright for vlaki.com site, not for your photo... A.J. 08:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
From en:Wikipedia talk:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal VI (Requested deletion)#Author.27s right of deletion:
Author's right of deletion

I thought I would clarify a comment I made. The GFDL, like the GPL, is not a contract; thus, the initial author of an article written under the GFDL is not bound by its terms. E can, therefore, revoke the license by giving notice to the licensee. Any language to the contrary in the GFDL is unenforceable. Therefore, until an intervening substantially-transformative edit occurs, all such submissions are subject to arbitrary revocation on mere notice to the publisher(s) by the original author, and upon revocation all publication must immediately cease.

One way or another, I lied, I previously distributed media under a different license which preceeds this one. 1/ It seems I can revoke the GFDL and 2/ It cannot replace the original license. Captain Scarlet 08:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Quote: Such a notice grants a world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration, to use that work under the conditions stated herein. Section 1. GFDL 1.2 Furthermore, the GFDL is non exclusive: if you choose to license your work under extra more or less restrictive terms, everybody still has the choice to choose the GFDL. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

All of this flows from the fact that a license that is not a contract cannot impose an obligation upon the licensor. It is also established law that a license cannot be made irrevocable without consideration, and there is no consideration received by the licensor for licenses granted under the GFDL (or GPL). There is simply no way to prohibit the original licensor (author) from revoking eir grant of license, which is why you have to allow for author's perogative to delete. Captain Scarlet 09:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to respond to Captain Scarlet's petty remarks; he's mentioned me three times despite I being only one of a number of users who have reported this issue. It may however, we worth nothing that Captain Scarlet has dual licensed the images under Creative Commons, or at least he has on those I've looked at. I personally cannot see how the licence which he has released the images under elsewhere has any bearing on this. Adambro 09:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Right Adam... Listen, and read, the licenses used here are illegal as they breach the license already present with the media release beforehand. I lied about the licensing when I uploaded them. All of my work was previously released under NonDerivative work and as such, all Wikipedia's licenses cannot be used for that media. Captain Scarlet 09:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
(c) is not a license, it's mere author's attribution. May we see what license terms did you use to publish your work before? Do you suggest that everyone who agrees to release one's (c)opyrighted work on GFDL or similar license afterwards breakes the law? A.J. 10:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing in copyright law that says the copyright owner can not release his or her property under two different licenses to two different sites, even if the licenses are mutually incompatible. It might be unwise, and a copyright attorney would probably adivse you not to do this, but it's not a violation of any law and the fact that you released your images under GFDL and CC here has no bearing on the licenses used elsewhere. Now, I happen to think that as a courtesy, we might consider deleting images that you uploaded if you no longer wish to contribute, especially images not used in any articles. But there is a process for that, and what you did is simply disruptive. Thatcher131 12:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I was relishing the possibility of seeing any courtesy but have been unable to locate it anywhere. courtesy has so far been unable to apply that trait of caracter so I am rather puzzled by the above comment which suggests I would be treated in such manner. Captain Scarlet 09:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
That process is Commons:Deletion requests. A.J. 12:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This is probably the first sound thing I've heard in a long time, I thank you for that. Put bluntly, I no longer believe in Wikipedia and ultimately wish the deletion of my work by whatever means i can find, it's my defense mecanism. I don't believe I was being disruptive as I was updating media I uploaded with another version, too created by me. From what I know of Wikipedia it is hard to get media deleted, if there is an official route (hidden I presume, pardon the sarcasm) please explain it to me. I don't believe I can use Comons deletion requests though can I? Captain Scarlet 12:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
We actually do have something written about this, it's at Commons:Ownership of pages and files#Deletion. Specifically: If you upload an image but then decide that you don't want it to be on Commons any more, then you have the right to list it at Commons:Deletion requests, and the other users there may sympathise with you as the uploader. However, if the consensus is to keep the image, it will be kept, and you have no special right to protest about this. You can request deletion, but the decision is in the hands of the community. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm still looking for anything sympathic in this place... It's all give and no receive. Captain Scarlet 12:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No it isn't. I explained why the hell I want my work to be deleted, I haven't insulted or called anyone names... If I tell I don't like you Ejdzej, it's not a personal attack, I just don't like you. Captain Scarlet 12:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:77brie77

This user has uploaded Image:Brie comte robert.jpg claiming to own work without providing any license tag. The image looks like the same one as the one at [23]. I am unsure if it is authorized. Could any French-speaking admin advise the uploader? I cannot speak French very well.--Jusjih 13:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  Done Voilà, voilà... Michelet-密是力 10:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Apparently closed. User:77brie77 = fr:Utilisateur:77bcr77, btw, and proud owner of the website where the picture was taken from. Michelet-密是力 16:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Honza

Looks like a sock of blocked User:Perníček. Both pages start with "Jmenuji se Jan Raba", and some of the behavior is similar. But not knowing Czech, I couldn't say for absolutely sure. --Davepape 02:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I understand, it means "My name is Jan Raba". And „Honza“ is a familiar form of the name „Jan“. --Franz Xaver 11:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Did anybody try to contact him in Czech language? It's possible that he doesn't understand all these warnings. I suppose, if it was not in good faith, he would not use the same name for a sockpuppet account. Isn't it? --Franz Xaver 11:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:KEITH3.JPG

I am on need of a neutral admin on this. If I delete the image or block this user because of that re-upload the "abuse of power" can be claimed. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:KEITHR.JPG. Lugusto • ※ 23:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Users re-uploading copyvios should be blocked. This is not in any way “abuse of power.” I'll delete Image:KEITH3.JPG and give the uploader a block. Kjetil r 01:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I've some conflicts with this user at Portuguese Wikipedia on the past, in this case deleting this image can be a problem. Thanks for it. Lugusto • ※ 18:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ddespie (talk · contribs)

This user has uploaded several unfree images and then coincidentally they have all been used by sockpuppets of en:User:MascotGuy on Wikipedia. Could someone please take a look at the situation? Dgies 23:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

See also: en:Wikipedia:Long term abuse/MascotGuy
I've deleted all of the user's contributions and left a warning. I don't know whether cross wiki Checkuser is possible, but I'll file a case. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Before I open a case, can you point to some diffs that could proof that those users might be the same? -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Cross wiki checking would require either someone with rights on both, or two CU's cooperating, I would think, to share the IP and user info back and forth. I'm not sure whether that's exactly 100% provided for in policy but since all CUs can see all CU actions, I think it should be fine from that aspect. I'm willing to help if you file a case. I will just get on IRC and see who I can find that has en:wp checkuser. ++Lar: t/c 01:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Walterwayar (talk · contribs)

I found a wikipedia style page on Walter Wayar that was moved from User:Walterwayar. I have moved it back. It seems to deal with a politician, not sure if there is any offending comments in there or if all is above board and this user has created a wikistyle page for his own profile. Can someone check. Thanks. Deadstar 13:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone fluent in Spanish could take a look. Perhaps a Wayar staff-member has been asked to post his bio on the web. Wsiegmund 15:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This user also keeps moving his talk page from where it belongs (at Walterwayar) to a self-created page User talk:Walter Wayar. I have given the link to change the username as that might perhaps be what is needed, but unfortunately, I'm not sure the user has read the remark. Can someone (preferably with Spanish) have a look please. Deadstar 09:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Parishan (talk · contribs)

This user keeps uploading pictures with licenses I think are not correct. There was a deletion request for all his pictures, but it seems that nothing was really solved. Please, a third opinion. Dantadd✉ 21:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I quickly scanned the first 5 uploads; Image:Azphilo2.JPG source says "personal archive"... it looks like a scan of a page (probably magazine) to me, with the page texture in the background. Also Image:Davudova.jpg says PD-old because it was taken "ca. 1935" but that says nothing about the author. I think some images may be fine but they should probably be looked at individually to make sure the copyrights are correct. -- Editor at Large • talk 22:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

¿Copyvios?

Copied from Siebrand's talk page
Hi. I'm afraid about contributions of Vasilis. He's uploading images of marsupials like this and this, marking them as "self-made", however, here and here, such images seems have another authors. Can you check it?. Thanks. --Lin linao ¿dime? 00:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no time at this time. About to go to work. I've copied yor request to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Siebrand 05:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Almost all uploads by this user (dozens) are copyright violations. I have all tagged them as such to be removed by another admin. Siebrand 06:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

2 Suppressed:

Michelet-密是力 11:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Flag of Serbia.svg

This is National flag of Serbia, and Image:Flag of Serbia (state).svg is state flag of Serbia. So, Serbia have two flags. Somebody every tim revert this flag to be state flag (whit CoA). Please, can some admin stop this reverting in future. Thanks. --Pokrajac 21:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a consequence of a content dispute at en:Talk:Flag of Serbia (and perhaps elsewhere) and would best be discussed there. It is pointless to bring this dispute to Commons and to pursue it by repeatedly uploading different versions of Image:Flag_of_Serbia.svg.[26] It clutters the log and serves no purpose. Wsiegmund 10:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Parthian Shot / Soroush83

see w:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:ParthianShot. Many of the images uploaded by Soroush83 (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) are from www.cais (dash) soas.com (a site now on our spam blacklist, which does not have authority to release copyright). w:user:Aksi great was involved in resolving this on en, and has tagged many for speedy. This is a pro forma notice, I guess you'd say, that many of these images are going away and that this user bears watching. See for example Image:Hafez_e_Farshchian.jpg ++Lar: t/c 11:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As Lar says, these images were found to be copyvios. I don't think the user (Soroush83) meant to introduce copyvios to commons as these images were widely used even on the english wikipedia. Also, I don't think the problem will occur again with all copies already deleted and the spam filter in place. - Aksi great 12:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Strike "Bears watching" with apologies to Soroush83 for speaking hastily. The user has left a list of other images that ought to be given a once over for copyright violations on my user page. and seems to me to want to help resolve the matter, and despite language difficulties has been quite collegial and polite. ++Lar: t/c 19:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block of User:Errabee by User:Gmaxwell

We tend to do things fairly informally here, but as a favour, and per a request on w:User_talk:Lar#Commons_block I am asking for a review of this block. I'll comment more later myself if necessary but for right now I just want to say that I do think that it is important for people to be aligned with the mission of a site if they want to be users in good standing on it, and I think it is important that people not deliberately misrepresent permissions information. I am not sure I would have blocked indefinitely but I am not inclined at this time to overturn it. ++Lar: t/c 19:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot see any warning for this user that their actions that ran contrary to Commons policy. If there are no warnings I would be very uncomfortable with a first block that was an indefinite one. I would like to see some more information on recent "deliberate misrepresentation" would be appreciated and to allow me to reach a sensible conclusion in my own mind More reading done so I think strike that --Herby talk thyme 13:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
After reading w:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Errabee, I 100% wholeheartedly stand behind Gmaxwell for this block and I would have done the same. This is by Errabee: This is an episode I'm certainly not proud of. First of all, I've taken all the photographs myself. So when the big deletion was going on of all paintings by artists who died less than 70 years ago, I decided to test how strict Commons would enforce copyright laws by nominating all my pictures, expecting that the majority would not be deleted (which turned out to be a slight misjudgement as all have been kept). And to press the issue further after my request was speedy denied at first, I pretended they had not been taken by me. A clear violation of WP:POINT indeed. Let he who is without faults throw the first stone. (Referring to Commons:Deletion requests/Photos by Errabee, see also User_talk:Bastique/archive5#my_images.
This kind of behaviour is poison and people who are willing to engage in it have no place here. All collaborative projects rely on a special bond of trust between contributors. Errabee has shown us the utmost disrespect - things like this are much more damaging than, say, admin accounts being compromised and the main page being deleted, because they destroy that community trust. Anyone who behaves like this deserves the same treatment. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
There are similar recent cases: Riva72 (Commons:Deletion requests/The castle photos, Commons:Deletion requests/Riva72 images) and Commons:Deletion requests/Images by Captain Scarlet, relevant discussion are now on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/User problems 3. Riva72 was also blocked for 1 year and decided to leave Wikimedia projects (according to his statement at en:Wiki). I wonder whether we should put stroger accent on that Commons licenses are irrevocable (big red letters or suchlike?) 11:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC) —the preceding unsigned comment is by Ejdzej (talk • contribs) 11:19, 9 May 2007
Whops, one tilde too far :) A.J. 07:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Alnokta (talk · contribs)

I'm not any good in further talk, please have a look at: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-self-automobiles. A.J. 10:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. Siebrand 08:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Juiced_lemon Conduct Problem

I have tried to encourage collegial cooperation and reasoned consensus based upon verifiable sources. Yet, it seems to me that User:Juiced_lemon is acting in an uncivil manner and has violated each and every one of the following policies, guidelines or standards for normative conduct. Please: be civil, do not engage in personal attacks, do not change other editors' comments on talk pages, do not make claims without providing sources (if you want to be taken seriously), do not call other editors a "liar," and do not disrupt wikimedia or discourage other editors from participating. Please do look at sources provided by other editors and respond to content. Please review the following: [[27]] , [[28]] , [[29]] .

This problem primarily refers to User_talk:Juiced_lemon's conduct on this page. Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Palestine Mandate 1920.gif . - Doright 20:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that User_talk:Juiced_lemon has just now removed the warning on his user talk page within minutes of it being posted and again makes a personal attack in the edit summary calling the editor a liar. See diff's: [[30]][[31]]
It is seems clear that an administrative intervention is required to prevent further disruption by User_talk:Juiced_lemon . If I might add on a subjective note, User_talk:Juiced_lemon conduct strikes me as odd considering that his contribution has been entirely ad hominen, he refuses to look at evidence provided, attempts to change the record and now deletes warnings from his user talk page. -Doright 21:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
He's always been disruptive. ¦ Reisio 03:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
How has his behavior been handled in the past? -Doright 18:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
He's been brought up on these boards many times, and AFAIK aside from one time when he actually butted heads directly with an admin, nothing has been done. ¦ Reisio 22:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There's obviously some issue being brought over from somewhere else here. He called someone a liar and stroke out a vote. This isn't grounds for a ban. In addition, English Wikipedia policies do not apply on the Wikimedia Commons, commons policies do. I have told the user not to call other users liars but giving him\her a "final warning" certainly didn't seem to help anyone. Please refrain from warning him again, if you feel an edit of his is violating policy, you are welcome to contact me or post here. Yonatan talk 03:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yonatan, are you an admin? And if you are, is it proper for you to act as an administrator in a matter in which you are personally involved? I also see that you have ordered me to not warn the user about their disruptive and uncivil conduct and that you have supported their removal of my warnings and have even gone so far as to engage in the very misconduct about which User_talk:Juiced_lemon was asked by another admin to not engage in (i.e. do not change other user's comments).

Yonatan, do not conflate, complicate or obscure the issue. The only issue I asked to be address is what I view as disruptive misconduct by User_talk:Juiced_lemon. However, contrary to your claim that User:Juiced_lemon merely called someone a liar and stroke out a vote., the record shows that he did and continues to do much more (but you'll have to look at the diff's since User:Juiced_lemon and now Yonatan seem to think it is okay to revert, delete and modify other users contributions on talk pages). Yonatan, you revised the edit of another user on the User:Juiced_lemon talk page and instead of couceling User:Juiced_lemon about his misconduct, you whitewash it and blame the victim.

This conduct would be considered improper behavior subject to sanction in English Wikipedia. I'm new to commons but can't imagine that basic rules of common decency do not apply here. However, I have not been able to locate a page showing what the rules and policies are that govern commons.-Doright 05:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, calm down. There's no huge conspiracy against you and yes, I am an admin. I was trying to defuse the situation as I think it has already been escalated way more than it should've in the first place. I believe the striking out was done in good faith, the user is now aware that he is not supposed to strike out other's "votes" (need I remind you that nobody counts these "votes" anyway so it didn't really matter in the first place?). I have told the user not to call other people liars. I don't see how I'm personally involved in this matter - thinking the image should be deleted doesn't make me a party to this conflict you're having. I believe I am well capable of seeing violations of our rules (if I wasn't, I probably wouldn't have been admin) and in order to defuse the situation I asked of you to report here or to me any further violation of the rules by the user rather than warning them, which would only escalate the situation further. I didn't condone any of the user's actions, I just think what you're doing is a large overreaction. However, striking out a vote in good faith is certainly not vandalism, even if it were done contrary to policy. Yonatan talk 05:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
"Calm down?" "Conspiracy?" These are words that can serve no purpose other than to paint a negative image. Where have I been anything but calm? Where have I claimed there was a conspiracy? Your rhetoric belies your bias. And then you "defuse" by blaming the victims? [[32]] -Doright 07:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
If you'd like me to withdraw my involvement in this matter, I have no problem doing so and letting someone else handle it. Yonatan talk 06:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. I would like you to withdraw your involvement in this matter and rescind your order that I not warn User:Juiced_lemon about his misconduct. -Doright 07:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I saw it more as a strong suggestion, rather than an order, I just didn't see how officially warning him would do anything to help calm down everyone's spirits. You are free to do whatever you feel is right, providing you follow our policies, and other admins may act upon it as they see fit, I will not. Yonatan talk 07:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. -18:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Yonatan, we do not have any formal policy about disruptive language or personal attacks, and rules of the English Wikipedia do not apply here. Nevertheless, I will block any involved user that makes uncivil, attacking or other disruptive comments, be it on a page or edit summary. This is the last warning. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Without even actually looking into the particulars of this matter (because I don't need to...) I can without hesitation say that I support Bryan in this. Everyone needs to work to resolve issues and concerns in a civil and collegial manner without attacking those that are trying to help defuse the situation. ++Lar: t/c 17:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Lar, having actually looked at 100% of the particulars regarding this matter, I too can make the following statement: (1) I appreciate and support what Bryan has said. And, (2) Everyone needs to work to resolve issues and concerns in a civil and collegial manner without attacking those that are trying to help defuse the situation. Thank you for your support and encouragement.-Doright 18:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Bryan, thank you for swiftly stepping into the breach. Being new to commons, I modeled my dialog on standards from English Wikipedia, from good faith attempts at reaching a consensus to a final warning to User:Juiced_lemon that I would file a complaint if he did not cease. He replied by again and repeatedly making uncivil ad hominem attacks and deleting the warning and my request. So, I view this now as an opportunity for me to learn the policies, rules (or in the absence of formal policy), guidelines, standards or expectations for conduct at commons. For example, in English Wikipedia, in general, it is a violation to delete a good faith warning from your user talk page. How is such a deletion looked upon in commons? And, more generally, since I'm new here, where can I read about the normative standards or culture at commons? Thank you for your assistance. -Doright 18:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Our policy pages are listed at Commons:Policy. Although they're not written down, Commons inherits the general principles which guide Wikimedia, such as Wikiquette and Assume good faith. AFAIK we don't have any advice about if removing warnings from one's userpage is OK. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes giving people warnings is the bad act.
My advice is, giving a warning to a user that you are already in conflict with is only going to inflame the situation. So don't do it. Seek the help of neutral third parties. (This is what's happening right here, right now.)
And keep your cool. There's nothing that happens here that can't be undone. There's nothing that happens here that that much, in the wider context. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Juiced_lemon New Incident

Now User:Juiced_lemon says about the editor, "you are lying" [[33]] . And then he goes on to say, "the meaning is the same" as calling the editor a liar [[34]]. , thereby admitting that even in his own mind, he is again commiting one of the specific incivilities he was ask to stop by Yonatan.

Bryan, is this what you meant when you said, "I will block any involved user that makes uncivil, attacking or other disruptive comments, be it on a page or edit summary. This is the last warning." -Doright 20:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No. This is a difference between an accusation and a direct personal attack. Given that this was not a new comment, but that JL was toning down an already existent personal attack, I don't see this edit as out of line. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Nlu's bad behavior

Administrator User:Nlu is not being neutral in many articles including Wikipedia article Balhae or Goguryeo. Also, that user also blocked User:Gabeyg because of may be the protests from User:Gabeyg. Also, User:Gabeyg live in where shared network is operating, but user:Nlu think that User:Gabeyg is master of sockpuppet. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 63.135.11.194 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 13 May 2007

I believe this is a Wikipedia problem, not a Commons problem. Please post your message there instead, on the Wikipedia:Administrator's Noticeboard. -- Editor at Large • talk 16:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, user:Steel359

in Wikipedia, User:63.135:11:194 is already blocked once, but User:Steel359 expanded without more specific reasons. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 63.135.11.194 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 13 May 2007

Again, Commons does not deal with wikipedia-related blocks and issues. If you would like to bring up the matter on Wikipedia please see Wikipedia:Appealing a block for information. Thank you, -- Editor at Large • talk 17:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

SmarJay

Dear administrator

I, SmarJay, would like to unsubscribe for personal reasons.

Kind regards

SmarJay 18:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, you haven't made any contribution at all... so it's hard to say you were ever subscribed. We may block your account if you wish. A.J. 19:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
"unsubscribe" sounds like you've been getting email through your email address registered with Wikipedia. If you have, how would you describe that email? If you haven't, what exactly do you mean by "unsubscribe"? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Edgar Allan Poe/User:Poirot

Each time I check the uploads of Edgar Allan Poe (talk · contribs), I find lots of copyvios (such as Category:Wassily Kandinsky), or uploads with very dubious claims (such as Image:Ante pavelic .jpg; see also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tito-brionska-izjava.jpg). Besides, it appears to me that User:Poirot is a sockpuppet of Edgar: I remember having seen this "sent the wrong one" claim Poirot made on Image:Goring 2.gif on a previous Göring image uploaded by Edgar (and since then deleted).

Edgar also does good uploads, although sometimes of mediocre quality (such as the Category:Vlaho Bukovac images). But about half of his upload log is red, indicating the images were deleted as copyvios. (And a couple more will yet become red...)

He has been made aware of the issues in countless deletion discussions, by me, by User:EugeneZelenko, and others. It doesn't appear to have helped.

What can be done to improve his success ratio? (I mean: how to get him not to upload copyvios, not how to dodge our scrutiny! :-) Lupo 10:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that user:Edgar Allan Poe has improved his behavior since his last block in February, at least in terms of red links. The images he uploaded from the encyclopedia appear to me to have been done in good faith.. / Fred J 11:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Did you take into consideration (a) a number of pending deletion requests, and (b) the uploads of Poirot (talk · contribs)? Lupo 12:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I added Commons:Requests for checkuser#Poirot. --EugeneZelenko 14:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Lupo: I think many of the deletion reqeusts were based on him believing that several Yugoslav works are now PD, it could have been an honest mistake. I'll wait with comment possible sockpuppet until there's a result from CU. / Fred J 14:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. A CU may or may not give a definitive answer. For me, Image:Poirot.jpg (uploaded by Edgar) is one connection. Very similar behavior, identical argumentations, sometimes even identical copyright statements on images, Edgar suddenly popping up on a deletion request that concerned only images uploaded by Poirot are other points that close the case for me. Yet I'm not even so much concerned about whether they are sockpuppets or not. But cleaning up after them takes too much effort. And Edgar's last 4 uploads are, uhm, "interesting". Maybe I'm getting too cynical and jaded. Honestly, it's good to see you at least still appear to have hope that he will improve. But how to make him improve faster? Lupo 15:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
To begin with, I have sent EAP a very clear message on his talk page. / Fred J 06:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
See the CU case results: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Poirot ... My investigations indicate that Poirot is pretty clearly a sock of Edgar Allen Poe. I haven't investigated the behaviour deeply (more than to justify doing the CU) and would leave it to others to decide what exactly to do. ++Lar: t/c 11:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
At minimum, I suggest deleting all of the image space contributions of confirmed sock puppet Poirot, already described by Bryan as "only created ... to upload copyright violations" here.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Even Image:Weizmann 1948.jpg appears to be mistagged. "Institutional Creator: Brown-Suarez Photo" doesn't sound like PD-USGov. That might not even have been intentional, but still, it's wrong. That's the real problem here (not the sockpuppetry). Edgar doesn't know enough about copyright to realize in which cases he would better ask beforehand, he has strange ideas about copyrights, or maybe he just doesn't give a damn. And he doesn't listen when problems are pointed out, but just makes whatever claim comes to his mind, even if its unfounded, unverifiable, or plain hilarious. Bryan has given him a very stern warning, maybe that helps. If not, too bad. Lupo 19:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
See the NARA FAQ on copyright... many images from there (including the Truman Presidential Library, which they administer, and where this image came from) are PD but not all, you have to research the restrictions on them. In this case, the image provenance page says "restrictions: Undetermined" which means it's not NECESSARILY PD gov. Thus, a candidate for deletion unless permission is gained. In my view this user needs to be more careful, at best, and stop with the socking as well. ++Lar: t/c 18:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

People have warned "Edgar Allan Poe" of not abusing the account and warned that he may be blocked. Today he uploaded Image:Adolf Eichmann.jpg from the Eichmann trial in 1961 and claims that 1961 is 50 years ago and hence the photo is public domain. Thuresson 14:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Eichmann was a mistake. I misreda the year. Sorry. --Edgar Allan Poe 14:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sebastián Reyes 20

Although he has been informed on 22 May, he continues to upload copyvio images, dealing itself for author. All the images have already been marked for speedy deletion. I suggest a block.--Trixt 01:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  Done. He now has three days to study COM:L without the distraction of being able to upload copyright violations. Thanks! —LX (talk, contribs) 06:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Kmilop (talk · contribs)

Although he has been informed on 19 May, he continues to upload copyvio images. All the images have already been marked for speedy deletion. I suggest a block.--Trixt 02:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  Done. Blocked for one day. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Romek79

Please help me to check all uploads by User:Romek79. He uploads images from flickr without providing a deeplink. He always uses Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 1.0, whenever another license is stated on flickr. Some are also totally incompatible with Commons (NC). --Polarlys 01:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC) PS: hundreds of photos. Seems as we are a backup storage for flickr. Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 1.0 is always wrong. What to do? --Polarlys 01:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete and block. Kjetil r 01:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I won’t do it by now. I am tired of deleting hundreds of badly licensed files. My engagement here already resulted in a certain degree of hostility towards my person, whenever Commons:Scope and Commons:Licensing are my principles. --Polarlys 16:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I have checked two images so far, Image:2007PolskaZakop.jpg and another, and they are OK (cc-by-2.0). So deleting all his uploads will not be necessary. But they have all been tagged with a no source template, so that is what might happen. All his images need to be flickr reviewed. / Fred J 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

33rd G8 summit

I „vandalized“ (User:Kay Körner) 33rd G8 summit. (Reason: All uploads by the user mentioned above were copyvios („press license“) and I deleted the empty page. I put this notice here, since Kay Körner failed to do this. --Polarlys 16:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he has gotten over it. / Fred J 16:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Andros64

For User:Andros64 every portrait (e.g. Image:Wacław Komar.jpg) is „a trivial photo, which shouldn't be a subject of copyright at all . It is not any "manifestation of creative activity, possesing an individual character.“ That’s nonsense. I removed this hint and he keeps reverting me, calling it „admin abuse“ (whenever I don’t know why I have to be admin to do this). He also removes some requests of deletion, calling it „admin abuse“ again (e.g. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3APolish_Hostages_preparing_in_Palmiry_by_Nazi-Germans_for_mass_execution_2.jpg&diff=6029421&oldid=6028028). It’s just another case, where PD-Polish is used, whenever the nationality of the photographer is unknown.

My short introduction to German copyright law (§ 64 and 72 UrhG regarding „Lichtbildwerke“ and „Lichtbilder“) is just „personal interpration“ for him, maybe because of the fact, that he sometimes used § 72 UrhG instead of § 64 to upload copyrighted pictures.

If he removes my requests for deletion again, please restore it, I won’t do it because it’s a childish and boring game. --Polarlys 16:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

After assistance from Jeff G., he appears to have changed his mind about the "trivial image" part at least (see Image talk:Wacław Komar.jpg). I guess one solution, if he doesn't accept "nsd" templates, is to nominate the image(s) in question for deletion. I'm not an expert in the particular PD-Polish / PD-Anonymous issues so I can't judge the validity of his claims here (maybe someone else can?).
Fred J 16:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

juiced lemon (talk · contribs)

User Special:Contributions/Bibi_Saint-Pol seems to have spend HOURS of hard work this night organizing categories. He has been working until 22:27.

Juicedlemon seems to have been waiting until that guy went to bed, because at 22:34, Special:Contributions/Juiced_lemon starts reverting everything... without any discussion. Revert peoples hard work is NOT the way to do it on a community project as commons ! --LimoWreck 22:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have left a note on User_talk:Juiced_lemon#Stop_reverting_User:Bibi_Saint-Pol_until_you_have_a_discussion_with_him.2Fher_.21.21 to ask him to stop until Bibi Saint-Paul returns tomorrow. First they can discuss the changes, before just starting to revert hours of work --LimoWreck 22:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Small status update. User:BibiSaint-Pol was still online it seemed. He opened the discussion on juicedlemon's talk page. (in French). Anyway... the reverting has stopped for the moment, ... so lets just wait what the outcome will be ;-) --LimoWreck 23:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Bibi Saint-Pol has emptied the category Category:New Town Hall, Munich, then he has requested its deletion with the “badname” template, while this category was properly named. The different users who had categorized numberous pictures in Category:New Town Hall, Munich are also deserving.
LimoWreck wears out with his continual attacks and insinuations against me. --Juiced lemon 00:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Juiced lemon has called my comments on that person's user talk page spam [35] [36] [37]. I determined that behavior to not be civil, and warned that person to be civil [38]. That person then deleted my warning from its user talk page [39]. I then warned that person not to remove warnings [40], and that person proceded to remove my warning from its user talk page, making its third revert in less than 8 hours [41]. For further information, please see its user talk page history for today and my user talk page history for today.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't add comments to my talk page, but impersonal texts from various templates. You also failed to specify the reason of your agressive interventions on my talk page.
So, take care of your own behavior, and stop to bother other users! --Juiced lemon 00:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Since when are "impersonal texts from various templates" not comments? I specified the reason for my original comment "{{Summary}}" in this edit and my subsequent revisions to it, and then I got more specific with "I was looking at your recent edits to the Village pump when I wrote this comment" in this later edit. The rest of my comments/warnings were directly based on the responses of Juiced lemon.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with the user Siebrand

He constantly puts deletion tags to my pictures and when I ask him for reason, he doesn't answer and places standard text to my user talk page. He completely doesn't answer my questions!!! The rule sounds "If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page" - but I have www-link to the page from where the picture originates - Milovice may 1984 2.jpg which is www.milovice.ru and which is my own page. So what is a problem? Doronenko 05:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You linked to your own website as a source? That's a problem. Where did you get them from to put them on your site? Did you create them? Who created them? How do you know the license status? Only the copyright holder has the right to release them under any license at all. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The image belongs to my website and was created by our team-member Anatoly so he granted me permission to use it everywhere. I can send you his mail but he doesn't want to publish his mail here. Doronenko 06:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
You can send this mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, for more information see Commons:OTRS. --Matt314 09:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The author has already sent a mail to them. I don't know if they received it. Doronenko 10:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Received in OTRS, Ticket # 2007061410003867, now working through OTRS. MECU≈talk 19:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
This ticket is better and solves it: 2007061410004161 MECU≈talk 19:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

User:White Cat

With his bot User:WOPR, User:White Cat has added delete templates in hundreds of category pages regarding transport, pleading he wants to open a discussion about the term transport. This user said he does not understand “transport”, but only “transportation” (he doesn't read the English Wikipedia).

Since transport is a important subject in the topics structure, this useless bot action is very disruptive. So, this user acts irresponsibly, because discussions should precede such massive operations. More, the normal procedure, when you want to “rename” a category, is to add a move template, not to add a delete template.

This user, who is administrator, also threatened to block me if I continue to revert some of these disruptive actions.

Grounds to massive incorrect operations (bot operated by an ignorant and irresponsible user), I request the desactivation of the bot WOPR, and the reversion of all recent edits of this bot. --Juiced lemon 18:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Related thread. In the first comment White Cat asks you to comment on the subject. And instead of discussing it, you start with “Transport” is the standard term in Commons. Stop immediatly your edits regarding these categories. So instead of the asked discussion, you are acting like "I'm right, you're not". Don't you realize that it won't work this way. Why don't you start discussing the actual issue? Rules and guidelines are not eternal but open for discussion. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I can and will use the same bot to remove the "delete" template from each and every page it put it on should the discussion close as a "keep". The same bot is capable of speedily renaming all those categories so on a rename close, I will also use the same bot. The discussion will most likely close as a "rename" should no one raise a rationale against so it is in your best interest to post a good rationale. No matter the circumstances a {{Delete}} template should NOT EVER be removed until the COM:DEL discussion is closed. -- Cat chi? 21:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Bryan, you must consider that Wikimedia Commons is not my only occupation. I have noticed the mess in the project, as a result of WOPR bot edits. So, my first concern is to repair the damage. Do you really think that the linguistic issue, raised by User:White Cat, has such importance and urgency, so we should suspend any other activity in order to deal with this problem? --Juiced lemon 23:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
What mess is this? You have two options. Either participating in the COM:DEL request or not. I do not see the point of your post here. -- Cat chi? 23:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
S/h/it needs a point?  :)   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
What mess in what project?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I accept the discussion about the convenience of the words "transport" and "transportation", but it wouldn't be better to discuss first and then run the bot putting the delete template on hundreds of pages? Dantadd✉ 23:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Then how would you know that there is a discussion? Its trivial to remove the templates. I see no comments by Juiced lemon there. -- Cat chi? 23:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I also see no comments by juiced lemon at Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Transport.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
#include <stdsarcasm.h>
Where's the fun in discussing the actual question at hand when you can mass revert and call anyone you disagree with useless, disruptive and irresponsible? After all, it's worked so well in the past. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Compile error
  • missing ;
  • main() was not found
-- Cat chi? 08:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Many discussions take place in the village pump (or other similar pages in other languages). Most users who initiate these discussions don't feel the need to disrupt the project in order to advertise. --Juiced lemon 11:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh please, what is disrupted? <sarcasm>Please, provide a diff of the panic.</sarcasm> Village pump is no longer the right address for category discussions. COM:DEL is a better address, more organised too. -- Cat chi? 13:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Spetsedisa (talk · contribs)

He removes my request for deletion again and again, doesn’t react on my contributions on his talk page. --Polarlys 00:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Excuse me, it`s not like that, Polarlys marked all my uploaded pictures because, as he claimed, they don`t have an author. I provided him with some authors that I know about and he said that I`m cheat - why he says that ? This is not fair. Also, I tried to explain that some autors are just anonymous (ex. German officers or soldiers who made pictures) and becuse of this Polarlys requests are weird (how could I know who personally, when it comes to German soldiers, was an author ?), please see discussion here [42]. Also, I tried to explain him the rules of "polishpd" tag, according to the disscusion here concerning "polishpd" tag[43]. So, please say, if Polarlys have right to deletion requests like that :[[44]][[45]] - I provided the source according the "polishpd" tag, but I dont know the authors because these pictures either were given anonymously to Polish military officers, or nobody know who the author is personally (at least these are proofs of a crime). Thank you in advance. Spetsedisa 01:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
That’s not the point. You remove my request for deletion again and again. The photography of a copyrighted poster in an exhibition is a derivative work. You even tagged a poster from Nazi Germany as PD-Polish, maybe you should have a look at Commons:Licensing instead. PD-Polish requires an author and photographs by “anonymous authors” are protected by copyright as well. --Polarlys 01:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
We don`t understand each other - in my opinion this is not a copyrighted poster, this is amateur informational annoucement issued to the public, not copyrighted, without any authors - publicly shown on the wall. It is not an exhibition, it is shown on the street.
Nazi poster was published before 1994 in Poland without a clear copyright notice, and according to "polishpd" tag is considered a public domain. How about this [46], it doesn`t say anything about the source an an author, why don`t you request for deletion ? Anyway, let`s just wait what administrator say, I don`t want to argue without a reason. Also, I`m not uploading images to break somebody`s rights, I want to do something positive here. Plase administrator to say what does he think about licensing using "polishpd" tag, especially when author is completely anonymous. Thanks. Spetsedisa 01:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The example is under fair use and I don’t care about en.wikipedia.org. --Polarlys 11:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Spetsedisa removed several requests for deletion again. --Polarlys 11:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it doesn't matter? Spetsedisa: Removing deletion templates doesn't help in any way -- they can still be deleted. / Fred J 14:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I already pointed that out to the user. Even other users restored my requests by now. I’ll stop it since it doesn’t matter. Independent from the content of any deletion request, removing it because of the claim „I am right“ is wrong and abusive. --Polarlys 15:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Your argumentation is a nonsense. Obviously, anybody can and must remove deletion requests which have been added for unknown or inane reasons. So, you cannot reprehend an user who removes your requests, when you have adduced woolly motives. More, the help pages regarding copyright issues are unfortunately incomplete. --Juiced lemon 18:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
That’s not the case here. Some users agree to delete some of the files. No matter if they are right or wrong, there is no need for a discussion. In this case, no one is allowed to remove requests on his own, to illustrate his point of view. Deletion requests are closed by an administrator, nor by the one who opened the request neither by the uploader. There are obvious cases of course, where it is allowed to remove such requests. --Polarlys 18:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I was simply NOT AWARE that I can`t remove a deletion request, especially after providing all necessary information, I have no experience here, and I just didn`t know about it. So I may only say that I`m sorry, it was non intentional. I thought that after adding all missing information, this is allowed. But on the other hand it`s clear to me that some of your requests were just weird and unreasonable, and I had right to remove them. An obvious example is here [47] discussion concerning this matter [48] Spetsedisa 19:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
At this point, I was about to tell you to read the text in {{Delete}} that says in bold letters "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself"... until I realised it doesn't. en:Template:Delete does have that text; perhaps ours should as well? I've seen several disputes just in the last few days centred around premature removals of delete tags. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  Done --Polarlys 19:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin deletes pages without saying why

I do understand that certain content is not welcome in the Commons' main namespace. I am not talking about obvious nonsense or copyright violations, but simply pages that cannot be considered galleries etc. When an admin intends to delete a page, it would be kind to notify major contributors to that page before deleting it, allowing them time to move it to a suitable place. Alternatively, the admin himself could move the content to a contributor's subpage to speed things up. At the very least, admins should make sensible use of the edit summary feature whenever they delete a page, so other users understand why the page they were looking for or had created has been deleted.

Judging from numerous comments left on his talk page, admin Szczepan1990 often fails to give a reason for his deletions. Of course, he has valid reasons for his deletions in most or all cases, but he does not state them in his edit summaries when he deletes pages, which causes unnecessary confusion with affected users. For examples, see 2007-05-18 2007-05-19 2007-05-19 2007-05-19 2007-05-19.

I do not know whether his behaviour has changed by now. If not, can somebody please remind him to briefly supply a reason for each deletion he carries out? Thank you – Dustsucker 2007-06-07

I believe he carried out a mass deletion of all gallery pages without images. Some main namespace pages are appropriate without images, but most are not. So it caught a few good pages amongst the bad, but certainly the good ones can be undeleted. Nonetheless putting a reason would have been useful, I agree... --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
My main problem with these deletes is that there was no discussion and no notification (ie page deletions don't seem to show up in watch-lists). If there is no other solution to the notification problem, I see no reason why all deletions shouldn't go through a normal deletion process. --Tony Wills 12:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I do understand your point Tony and it is valid. However I have personally deleted just on 100 pages in four days and I am nowhere near the must active admin in that respect - the workload would not be good if they all required deletion process. In general my deletions tend to be junk/test pages by IPs however I do frequently delete pages outside the scope of Commons by named users. I'd love to say I always inform them but I am human! Equally those marked for speedy that appear ok (not the result of vandalising etc) may well go quickly. One issue is that - as a general rule - pages without images go. I certainly deleted a couple first before I realised that some pages aren't as simple as that but some more "image" orientated folk may not look at that in the same way that I now do.
The trouble with tricky problems is that there are rarely simple solutions! Sorry but I hope it helps you understand some more - regards --Herby talk thyme 12:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Romek79 (talk · contribs)

I had a really bad morning/start of the afternoon. Aside from having tagged more than 750 images uploaded by one user over the past 6 months, leading to a very busy Category:Unknown as of 19 June 2007 (currently 915 entries), and costing me several hours as a tiny percentage of the uploads had actually been corrected by some of the Commons Angels (tm), I realised that we failed this user somehow. Despite his recent blocks, he most probably thought that was he was doing was right. He has put many hours into his uploads, too, and because I/we failed to notice him earlier, he now either has to get really, really busy, or most of the work he did on Commons will be destroyed 8-10 days from now.

This must be one of those special cases, as this is the first case I personally discovered that involved more than 50 images over a longer period of time. Usually some responsible user trips over a few uploads, tags them and slaps some kind of informative template on the user's talk page, leading to better understanding. I would urge all you, regular users and administrators alike, to visit Commons:Welcome log more often and inform users of their mistakes in the beginning of their careers. MediaWiki:UserMessages.js will make your life a lot easier. If 20-25 users check the contributions of 10-15 new users every day, we will not only gain more contributors that actually understand what kind of an awesome project we have here, but they will grow into more active and informed users. Like I said: my day on Commons hasn't been all that great up to now. 750 images tagged for deletion, 500 or so removed. I hope I have at least been able to share a positive thought with you. Cheers! Siebrand 12:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(continued from #Romek79) I wonder if it would be simpler to just review the flickr images, instead of first tagging with no source, then delete, and now for someone (me?) to review & undelete? If there is a Polish speaking admin seeing this, please help with reviewing his uploads from Polish Wikipedia by locating the original filename for images such as Image:Bielany from Tyniec.jpg so they won't be deleted. / Fred J 14:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Ouch. Looks indeed like he slipped through the cracks. That's a lot of work, trying to find and review the original sources, and then to update the image pages. I did four of them (including Image:Bielany from Tyniec.jpg), and it took me about 20 minutes to correct them. (All four were fine, BTW). Lupo 14:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Da Man2 (talk · contribs)

I hate filing these, but this is starting to get out of hand. Da Man2 has some good uploads, some helpful contributions; but he has been revert warring with myself and others (past 3RR, 4RR, 5RR...) over changes to quite a few heavily used images and replacing images on templates at will, without considering why the image was changed from his version to begin with. Please see his talk page; there are at least four threads of discussions where people (myself and others) are attempting to explain why he should not change images on a whim and insist on his version.

This all sounds very familiar... see the section here. I'm not sure if an RFCU is warranted, but I have found both Yung6 and Da Man2 contributing to (and reverting) the same images and editing the same templates so many times in the past two days I hardly think it could be a coincidence. Outside thoughts appreciated. -- Editor at Large • talk 22:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think they are the same person. Ltljltlj 20:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd request CU - just my 0.02 --Herby talk thyme 07:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I was about to block Da_Man2 yesterday -- it is fairly obvious that they are the same users. See edit histories [49] [50] [51], and note that Da_Man2 started heavy editing just when Yung6 was blocked on June 16 [52]. This is also fairly telling [53]. If it isn't a sockpuppet, it is a meatpuppet (his twin brother maybe..?)
Some people might say that he has been doing useful stuff too. But personally I support a long block for a month -- I just find his conduct disruptive and I think we have enough good users to make up for losing him. / Fred J 11:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Fred and his proposal - I've filed a RFCU just to be sure, and if they're the same person we can deal with blocks knowing whether they are one and the same or not. -- Editor at Large • talk 13:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
We have the same IP because we live next door, but we're not the same person. Da Man2 19:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course. Then please explain why you are behaving excactly the same, are as disruptive as Yung, and started editting when Yung was blocked. Are there any admins here who think that Da Man and Yung are not the same person, and that an indefinite block is not appropriate? -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
RFCU has been answered. Seems pretty clear cut block evasion to me. I would not support an indef though, as the user does have some useful contribs. ++Lar: t/c 19:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I have blocked all the users indef though. All those accounts have solely been created to disrupt Commons. They also tried to sneak in copyvios by creating false screenshots. We really cannot use users that purposely lie about copyrights. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I defer to your greater experience with the users, as the positive contribs I noted were seen by a quick glance at the contribs, not via the more indepth analysis you've performed. Thanks for the followup. ++Lar: t/c 20:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
For the record I want to add that I supported a one month block, not an indef block. I still have hopes for the user, because I think he actually believes he is doing something useful... I will not revert the block though but I find it somewhat notable that Bryan blocked him without discussing it first (it's not like it is an urgent matter). / Fred J 20:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
"not an urgent matter" to everyone perhaps, but I have been constantly kept on my toes for the past three days reverting his changes to images used hundreds of times across various projects, answering the same questions time and time again, and I've watched him getting on the nerves of many users when he continually reverts their images or their changes because he thinks he's right. This guy is slippery and hard to keep track of, and if the situation is not dealt with now we're going to have more angry users (fr or it wikipedia was quite upset when Yung6 changed an image used hundreds of times, "improving it", when in fact it was almost a new image and not as nice as the original), more socks, and more copyvios on our hands. Commons hosts images that can be used hundreds of times on multiple projects, and we owe it to those projects to take care of the images they use frequently. All it takes is one upload to an icon here and thousands of pages and templates project-wide are changed, which may mess up colour co-ordination, formatting, etc..
A user who abuses multiple accounts, lies about copyright status on images, does not listen to reason or anything others say, refuses to concede that their choices may not be the best, and frequently lies about other things such as relation to other users (he has come up with interesting claims for the checkuser results both on Mr Bas and Yung6) and whether images were taken by him or not. I've tried talking to him to make him understand, others have tried talking to him on different accounts, and we've all discussed things and tried to get him to see what the issues are so they can be fixed, but nothing has ever come of it. Some useful contribs don't outweigh months of attempted rehabilitation with no results and continued aggravation and problems. -- Editor at Large • talk 22:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I can only agree with Editor at Large. This user's sole purpose was disrupting. He has done that by lying about copyright statuses, impersonating real life people, revert warring over images that were heavily used, abusing multiple accounts, stalking EaL. I cannot assume any good faith here. However ff somebody thinks he deserves a second chance, go ahead and shorten the block. But then better keep a close watch on him. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
And FYI, Da Man2 has requested unblocking. Please handle this as you feel appropriate. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • reset

Reviewed the request & declined it though like Fred I could be persuaded to shorten it possibly --Herby talk thyme 08:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think he is back. He's now going by his IP address, 71.233.232.243. He even has the same contributions as Yung6 and Da Man2. Today was the first time he's been on in a month. -- Ltljltlj 17:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad username

Euro-t-guide.com (talk · contribs) (it's a website) Would someone better at handling bad username problems take this? I don't the proper procedure. MECU≈talk 13:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

  Done   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User refuses to accept the correct copyright status for an image

Hello,

User:NE2 has reverted my correct licensing information on images Image:Handicap reverse.svg and Image:Handicap.svg. He maintains that The FHWA cannot override existing copyright; I say that this is none of my business and that the document out of which those images are taken very clearly says, in the beginning, that

Any traffic control device design or application provision contained in this Manual shall be considered to be in the public domain. Traffic control devices contained in this Manual shall not be protected by a patent, trademark, or copyright, except for the Interstate Shield and any other items owned by FHWA.

Please tell this user to stop changing this correct license block to a {{Delete}} template. Thanks! lensovet 17:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The FHWA cannot override existing copyright. The deletion discussion has been open for almost four months with no resolution. --NE2 21:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I concur with NE2. If something was copyrighted prior to the FHWA including it in the MUTCD, it's still the original copyright. Copyrights are non-revocable. (→zelzany - framed) 16:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
lensovet, please stop removing the {{Delete}} template from those images. They are to remain there to notify everyone that these images are currently candidates for deletion, whether or not you disagree. Cheers, Iamunknown 21:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Edgar Allan Poe

Looking in the user’s upload log, you’ll find a lot of deleted copyvios. Looking on his talk page, you will find a sockpuppet for uploading copyvios (User:Poirot) and warnings, even more warnings and „a very last warning“. The user still uploads derivative works, copyrighted works and „free works“ with bogus copyright claims (see User_talk:Edgar_Allan_Poe#SFRY_images). He tags images as works of the United States Federal Government without providing a governmental source. He removes the no source since templates providing other blogs and websites as a „source“ (update: just deleted these AP photos). And yes, he got a visa for North Korea (Image:Kumsusan memorial palace-kim il sung mausoleum north korea.jpg). I’d prefer a little block, maybe a half year, whenever he might use a sockpuppet again. --Polarlys 16:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. User have enough time since Bryan's warning to actually read Commons:Licensing and correct behavior accordingly. But seems it's not a case... --EugeneZelenko 14:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I would support the sort of ban that Polarlys is talking about. The user's talk page alone shows a complete disregard for policy messages, tags etc --Herby talk thyme 15:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
How about 2 or 3 months? I think we have pushed our patience until the limit with him. He clearly violated his last warning. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Lupo already suggested a block of the user higher up on this page. I still have some faith in this user, but a shorter block might give good results. Maybe start with 1 month? / Fred J 14:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict with Fred!) and I was going to say three months so how about compromising on two? There certainly should be a block given the disregard for advice --Herby talk thyme 14:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I am not good at compromising :-), but I think 1 month is a fair reprimand -- it will give him enough time to think about it. If he continues, then we can add another month, or two... / Fred J 14:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict 2) Hmmm... One month sounds good to me. If he continues this way after his block expires we can still block him for some longer period... I'll write him a message on his talk that he has crossed the line. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
2 months should teach him a lesson. If he can use that lesson for anything can only time tell. --|EPO| da: 14:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have implemented a 1 month block and advised him to read Commons:Licensing before returning. I think we should not hesitate to block the user for 3-6 months if he continuous his behavious after the block expires. Let's hope that is not necessary. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The user does not understand his block/does not find the block appropriate. See User_talk:Bryan#Please and User_talk:Edgar_Allan_Poe#Crossed_the_line:_blocked. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

71.233.232.243

The IP address 71.233.232.243 is being used by Yung6, Da Man2 or whatever other names he's been using. He has been reverting Image:Stop sign MUTCD.svg, a image that Yung6 and Da Man2 had been reverting in the past. I say lets ban this IP so we don't have to deal with this vandal anymore! --Ltljltlj 00:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have protected Image:Stop sign MUTCD.svg for a month. / Fred J 14:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Benjah-bmm27 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Head up on possible issue. Came on track of this user because he reverted a no source on file only containing {{PD-self}}. It appear that he has hundreds of uploads that look exactly the same, so his revert is understandable. I tagged some of his images, and left a note on his talk page about having to add more information to probably all of his uploads. He may start kicking and screaming because that's a lot of work... Siebrand 11:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Threatening to delete an image just because it does not use the latest template du jour is counterproductive to say the least. The pictures he uploaded already have all the required information, just without using the template. Specifically, the PD-self template already says that he is the author, and that he released the image in the public domain. It would take you just as long to add the {information} template as it takes to add the deletion threat template. --Itub 13:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I merely suggested to use {{Information}}. We demand not simply slapping a {{Self}} template on a contribution of media file, but also a source in text. As stated on Benjah-bmm27's talk page: own work, created my self, own photo, or anything of the like is enough. He has already replied to my call and I have replied to that again. He may need some more insight in the goals of this shared media repository and I'm trying to help him with that. Cheers! Siebrand 16:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that {{Self}} is not and has never been a sufficient assertion of authorship. We could get better at pointing out what is required, though. {{Image source}} in particular should make this more clear and not suggest that {{Self}} is sufficient. (And while I'm at it, I really think {{Nsd}} and {{Nld}} ought to suggest different talk page templates; when using {{Nld}} because a source but no license is provided, {{Image source}} is plainly wrong. If they are changed, we should probably have a tag for when both license and source are missing, and a talk page template for this, much like the current look of {{Nld}} and {{Image source}}.) —LX (talk, contribs) 17:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to refer to the {{Pd-user}}, not the {{Pd-self}} template. The {{Pd-user}} template, after transclusion, reads "This image has been released into the public domain by its author, Benjah-bmm27. This applies worldwide." There. The text is already there. He is the author. What difference does it make whether he typed the text "created my self" himself, as you suggest, or got it included via the pd-user template? As for "insight in the goals of this shared media repository", I thought the goal was to have freely licensed images for the wikimedia projects, not to make adding images so bureaucratic that they might get deleted for using the wrong template, or to have so much red tape that potential contributors may get discouraged from uploading. --Itub 17:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Since „author“ means for a lot of uploaders “I searched for the cover on Google image search and uploaded it” (I already had to defend myself for deleting such “own works”) or “I own this book and I scanned this picture” it’s highly necessary, to point out what author actually means. We need a clear statement in our infomation template, not just another template which is used regardless of its meaning. To exercise caution while uploading images actually limits bureaucracy and we also need additional information to make a file useful. --Polarlys 17:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Marphthebrowndwarf

I can't imagine how images uploaded by Marphthebrowndwarf (talk · contribs) could be used... From other side it could be part of modern comics (so copyvio). --EugeneZelenko 14:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Joymaster (talk · contribs)

This user, an admin, has uploaded hundreds of photos with unclear license information. Also many images uploaded by this user was deleted as against project scope. Now, after i have listed many images for deletion, he removed copyvio and deletion warnings: (examples)

  • [56] no indication for GFDL,
  • [57] no author and date of creation or publishing, the source link is not available (server time-out)
  • [58] no indication for GFDL, no checkable source
  • [59] no indication for GFDL.

He can't or will not provide checkable sources for the images and gives also no believable permission information. I'am willing to basically trust an admin, but not if he/she uses his status to upload images without respect to the commons policies.

—the preceding unsigned comment is by GeorgHH (talk • contribs) 16:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody should post images without unclear copyright status, admin or not. Neither should anybody remove deletion tags until the problems are solved, admin or not. We should treat admins like any other users: if they are persistent in removing deletion templates or uploading images with unclear copyright status, they will eventually get blocked. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

User (an admin - fot him it's very significance) GeorgHH don't understand Polsih language. I try translate him my intentions, but he dont understand Englesh very well or I can't translate my Polish words clear... On Commons they are about 20 amdins with Polish native language - if GeorgHH can't speak with me - still are 20 another admins with PL-nativ and least EN-basic (like GeaorgHH).

And for the end. I'm a soldier and I have many friends in units in all Poland - they are happy that photos wich they give me in PD or GFDL are for wikiusers in all Earth.

Joymaster 20:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Why should you allowed to do things that other users are not allowed? Every user that simple write "I have permission" or "Photo made available (with permission to use) from the family archive" must provide an email or link to verify this statement, otherwise the image will be deleted (e.g. Image:VenezuelaJulio2006028.jpg, Image:Gilbert Seresia 21-06-2007.jpg, Image:Ale030305.jpg).
And, because i don't understand polish good i asked users for translation here and on IRC. --GeorgHH 09:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
It's a joke, isn't it? There's a lot of images on the Commons with From my personal/family archive statements. Should we delete them, too? odder 18:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we all know quite well that it's no joke, and there is no need for sarcasm. The fact is that images with such statements are frequently contested – and with good cause, it seems. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
If Joymaster says that he has allowance from their chief it must be true, I do not see any reason why he could lie about it! --WarX 10:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I like you also assume good faith. It's just... those nasty lawsuites because we didn't take action where we should have verified license claims... This project has a few basic rules: source, author, license, permission if not self created or a dirivative work not in the public domain (see: {{No permission}}). Let's try and honor those. Cheers! Siebrand 11:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I could have similar problems with prooving licenses given personally to me by my co-worker, my wife or commisioned photographer... But reverting delete templates is not proper way. What could be done is to give as much details in "Permission" field as possible and possibly: email to OTRS with contact (phone number) to the author? Honestly, I don't know. A.J. 11:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


All: Please make your comments also to Commons:Deletion requests/Images by Joymaster I, Commons:Deletion requests/Images by Joymaster II and Commons:Deletion requests/Files by Joymaster III!

If we will accept files with only uploaders statement in this case, it's ok for me. But then it must be a unique exception for images uploaded in the past by Joymaster and it must not be an authorisation for future uploads of images without written permission. --GeorgHH 12:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I think claims such as "made by my friend, I have permission" are in general fine, if used sparingly. Remember AGF? In general, such claims are made for isolated images, and unless there is reason to doubt the claim (such as the image being found on some unrelated web site), we have, AFAIK, accepted them without lots of bureaucracy. (Imagine someone trying to explain to his grandmother or elderly uncle why she or he should send an e-mail to a "WikiMedia Foundation", possibly even in English, writing some pseudo-legal gobbledigook that maybe we, but probably not he or she understands. No disrespect to grandmothers and elderly uncles intended! :-) Lupo 13:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "Made by my friend" claims become problematic if they appear to be highly unlikely to be true, such as image(s) found on other web sites, or when the claim is made by an uploader for lots of images, or also e.g. old anonymous images, or images from remote places, or just from places far away from the normal residence of the uploader, if known. (Although people travel far in their holidays nowadays...) In such cases, we should insist on having the situation cleared. Either by an e-mail from the friend (e.g., from the owner of the external web site) or also, if the image appears elsewhere on the web, by making the web site owner state on his web site under which license the images are published. Joymaster's uploads fall, IMO, in this category (lots of images, available at external sites), and I think he should thus provide verification of the "free license" claim in one of the two ways I've outlined here. (Or in some other way.) Lupo 13:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • A related issue is claims by uploaders about images in "their" archives (mentioned above). Richard Arthur Norton was such a specialist (I don't know whether he has stopped putting CC licenses on old anonymous photos from his archive). There, the basic problem is that archives, and that includes private archives, typically do not own the copyright on their holdings. In family archives, copyrights may also have passed to the archive owner through inheritance, though. But only for images taken by family members. Lupo 13:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Tmil01

The images of User:Tmil01 are very good (Image:Lucerne pano.jpg), but the source (http://www.ThomasMilkovic.com) haven't license. My english is too poor (bad). Can some English administrator contact with the user? Thanks--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 12:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Bj64

Could an admin please look into the contributions of Bj64 (talk · contribs). I undid an edit that filled Commons:OTRS with question marks. I wasn't able to do anything with other edits as they were images, and Bj64 was the only contributor. I don't even want to hazard a guess as to whether this is vandalism or some kind of computer bug. But the pages are a complete mess. Thanks. ElinorD 20:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

They're Chinese characters. I asked User:Shizhao to talk to him. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'm glad I didn't jump in with a vandalism warning! ElinorD 22:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Filomena

I'd like a third party to intervene in this "discussion" user Filomena insists having with me. It would be very easy for me to block her, but she dragged me to a position where I am personally involved.

The user has been warned several times for not tagging well uploads (see for example [60], [61], [62]), she kept on removing warnings from her user page and not dealing with the problems on the pictures themselves (see for example [63], [64]). I sent her a request to not remove such warnings [65], she replied asking where was such a rule stating that you could not remove warnings from your own user page [66]. I replied it was not a formal rule and actually it didn't really matter if she removed the warnings because they were registered in the page's history [67], in an attempt to soothe somewhat her anger.

She replied with the answer that is visible here, specifically demanding to not have any interference from Brazilian admins and to always write in English. She put such a warning on her user page too. She then asked me to ask the other Portuguese-speaking admin to not revert her page (in order to make the previous warnings visible). Since it was obvious at this point that she was just going to be confrontational, I replied this, and upon her insistence, this.

Since then, the user has threatened, harassed and insulted me, even after I asked her to look for some other admin to intervene and leave me alone.

Some background information:

  • The user is user Filomeninha in the portuguese Wikipedia. She is currently blocked for one year for having exactly the same type of behaviour there, including hatespeech against portuguese users.
  • She insists on editing there using open proxies. She defends her right to privacy and doesn't care about the WMF resolution about infinite block on open proxies.
  • She is incapable of accepting any criticism to her behaviour or her editing style.
  • Yesterday, she started a campaign, editing as an IP, to strip my adminship from pt.wikipedia, so the persecution now is over two projects (I know it's her through her editing style and the way she defends a user I blocked there yesterday for hatespeech and insulting).

Honestly, and you may say I am not assuming good faith here or that I am not thinking straight, I don't think we need this kind of user around here or any Wikimedia project. So I'd like to hear some opinions and possibly some third party intervention. I resorted to ignore her in the meanwhile because she is just trying to provoke me. PatríciaR msg 11:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with PatríciaR and have encountered the nature of this user's edits on my talk page. I have placed a message on the user's talk page. I do prefer not to block users however I will certainly consider it in this case --Herby talk thyme 12:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your intervention in this matter, Herby, thank you. PatríciaR msg 11:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
It's worth of note that this user (we don't really know if the user is male or female) has created a Flickr album (first upload there June 20, 2007) to make "license laudering", gathering all pictures she/he likes to upload them here. I saw that coming because in pt.wiki she/he had already told me that she/he wanted pictures in the article no matter what. In fact, she/he had previsouly made copyvios on pt.wiki such as [68] or [69]). Dantadd✉ 13:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you meant http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Especial%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Imagem%3AImg_pl11B.jpg and http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Especial%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Imagem%3ASalo9.jpg . And this user appears to have been blocked from Portuguese Wikipedia for a year per pt:Usuário Discussão:Filomeninha.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • reset

I consider I have placed enough information on the user's talk page on expected behavior. Should the user not conform to the normal requirements now I would personally consider a block in order --Herby talk thyme 16:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Support warning, and if not heeded, blocking, as needed. We don't need uploads that make more work for us because they are ultimately going to be deleted. ++Lar: t/c 18:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Herby!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
We cannot use users that create Flickr accounts or use other means to purposely commit copyright infringement. I suggest that we indefinitely block this user if they purposely upload copyright violations again. And the behaviour already shown should warrant a block. About 2 weeks, I would say. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I concur with a indef block as well due to the copyright violations. (→vishwin60 - framed) 17:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Stealthusa - repeated removal of deletion templates and incivility.

This user appears to be attempting to upload fair use images on Commons under false GFDL claims, in order to bypass the deletion process for the same images on the English Wikipedia. One has already been speedy deleted as a copyvio and I tagged the other, Image:Spice Girls Reunion In London.jpg for deletion. User:Stealthusa has repeatedly removed the tag (with edit summaries such as "Dismal vandal uneccesary juvenile tagging" and placed an uncivil comment on my talk page. --Jimmy Joe 19:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Image was uploaded to English Wikipedia as fair use by same user as [70]. User also mysteriously added a license to somebody else's image back in January [71]. User even issued a warning to Jimmy Joe for tagging his precious image for deletion. User does not appear to be constructively contributing to Commons. If user is blocked here perhaps someone should have a word with an en.wikipedia admin about blocking him there as well. -Nard 20:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
blocked for one week. --Polarlys 21:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User:韋駄天狗

Anyone there who understands Japanese? I just deleted one of his uploads as a copyvio and I think the other files are copyvios as well. What does the source section say? --Polarlys 12:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it translates into "This human photographing" on some of the sources and "Great runner 狗" on the others, which is the same as his username. --Digon3 talk

Liftarn (talk · contribs)

I already talked to Liftarn some time ago, but unfortunately his talk page still gets filled with deletion warnings because he doesn’t care about uploading derivative works, images not covered by COM:SCOPE, images with insufficient licensing information on their home wikis. While using Commons helper he also doesn’t care about changing obsolete licensing templates and insufficient file descriptions. Sometimes OTRS permissions get lost. Quantity instead of quality. What do you mean, is blocking for one day a suitable warning by now? --Polarlys 23:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I see you notified him about this thread and that he has seen it (and archived it) but not responded. I think it is just a pity that he continues to put his energy into copying such images that are clearly unuseful or that he should know by now are not allowed here. / Fred J 16:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any policy prohibiting derivative works. Did you mean "derivative, based on copyrighted works that don't have a free license"? --Itub 07:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. --Polarlys 20:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Liftarn keeps on uploading the old way, whenever he cleaned his talk page, it’s filled again because of insufficent sources on en.wikipedia.org and de.wikipedia.org, files without permission, and so on. --Polarlys 20:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This user needs to be stopped.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
If this user does not contribute constructively to Commons, a long block could be in order sooner or later. (→O - RLY?) 18:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

After several warnings and dozens of source and permission warnings on his talk page I blocked User:Liftarn for three days. The user is uploading images with the help of the CommonsHelperHelper tool and doesn’t stop uploading fair use images, logos, files without sufficient source information on sister projects. --Polarlys 18:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. / Fred J 18:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, hopefully he will be more amenable to hints after his little vacation.  :)   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I am willing to block for a week if consensus agrees and he still keeps loading copyvios. (→O - RLY?) 23:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
There are no recent uploads. --Polarlys 23:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course there aren't any, but I've already tagged one uploaded by this user, which suggests that there might be more that we haven't found yet. (→O - RLY?) 23:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

24.168.39.49 (talk · contribs)

24.168.39.49 (talk · contribs) insists on removing warnings from its user talk page, first wholesale and then lately via HTML comment tags.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Commons policy, so perhaps I should keep out of this, but I think the feeling at en would be "What does it matter?" If the user removes them, you know they've read them, so what's the point of insisting that they stay up? However, as I said, I don't know what the feeling is here. ElinorD 23:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
When a user has vandalised a page it is nice to be able to visit their talk page, see they have been warned multiple times before, and then decide whether to block or not from there. You can't see from an IP's contribs whether they have created nonsense pages/templates/whatever that have been deleted, which is a huge part of vandalism here; IPs create vanity pages or pages for popular subjects on wikipedia that don't have galleries here and add random nonsense text, or they follow redlinks on licenses and create pages with nonsense. Seeing a user has been warned before even if their contribs don't appear is helpful and a contributing factor to deciding whether to block or not. -- Editor at Large • talk 02:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. My familiarity is with en, and I always write in the edit summary which template I'm using — uw-test1, uw-vandalism3, etc. That way, even if the vandal removes them, an admin can see from the page history that several warnings have been given. My concern relates more to civility warnings. I don't know if they exist here, but they are sometimes used just for harassment purposes at en, and I think if someone removes such a message, the person should not be reverted. People sometimes remove them simply because they're irritated by the use of a template. At en, vandalism-only accounts are usually blocked indefinitely; it's most unusual for an established user to engage in a bit of vandalism (unless it's 1 April); and IP edits might not be from the same user. ElinorD 22:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
That same user: has also posted multiple copyvios after being warned to stop; has been rather uncivil; sometimes logs in as Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff (talk · contribs) (which has been blocked); operates a sock puppet on Russian Wikipedia; and has been blocked thrice.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreeing with both Editor at Large & ElinorD in a sense. No it doesn't matter but it is a sign of misbehavior of a sort. I may sure edit summaries show warnings but equally we have a warning template about not removing warnings. I prefer them to stay & will usually revert but I guess it is no biggie --Herby talk thyme 07:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
That same user has reuploaded a copyvio that Bryan deleted and has reuploaded a copyvio that Siebrand deleted.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted and blocked for a month. (→O - RLY?) 18:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
You beat me to it. I also deleted the re-re-recreated Image:Zoo press.JPG, slapped {{Deletedpage}} on it and locked it down. It's really a shame that such a skilled and prolific contributor can't be bothered to exercise the slightest bit of civility when collaborating and discussing with others. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for taking such decisive action! Please consider doing the same for its socks 24.168.39.49 (talk · contribs), 216.194.61.21 (talk · contribs), and 216.194.61.143 (talk · contribs). The last is now attempting to get its images deleted from Commons, despite having released them under CC-BY-2.5, which attempts I think need to be reverted. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the IPs being socks. Might want to file a checkuser on this just to make sure. (→O - RLY?) 17:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Done, thanks! I was relying for the most part on http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff&action=history and the contribs of the IP Addresses as related to the images Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff uploaded.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Another of his images was proven a copyvio yesterday.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Executioner and usage of categories

dear all, unfortunately I am having a bit of a spat with IMO a new user User:Executioner who just does not seem to understand the correct usage of images and the category-tree Commons:Categories. Please take a look at that users and my talk page, basically he likes to over-categorise images or simply completely remove categories he does not like. I am busy sorting out the images concerning Afghanistan, apparently he seems to be taking personal offence at some of the work that has been done. I would appreciate any input or should I just continue working and ignore his messages? I am trying to avoid a tit-for-tat edit war obviously. thank you. Gryffindor 22:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am Afghan from Afghanistan and I am more concerned about putting everything in order for my country Afghanistan. Check my history carefully and you will see that I was first in putting things in order for Afghanistan related categories. The first thing this user:Gryffindor stated to me was me being new here, which is false because I've been here since 2006. This user and me ONLY had a dispute over ONE single image and now he accuses me of over-categorise "images". This is another false accusation because that is not what I do. User:Gryffindor says he is trying to avoid edit-war but actually he started the edit war. He reverted several times after I warned him not to and to have a discussion before you revert my edit, something he failed to do. The whole problem is that I want this one (1) single image of George Bush's visit to Afghanistan to include Afghanistan category, but User:Gryffindor persistantly removing it from Afghanistan.--Executioner 22:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Frankly on top of that I find your rude tone quite offensive, I suggest you calm down first instead of throwing around words like "accuse", "vandalism"[72], "why the hell"[73], and some other bizarre statements such as how the "white man is superior"[74] (excuse me?). Gryffindor 22:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Executioner, your problem is that you want to use a category as a showcase, though galleries are specially assigned to that purpose. So, add your picture to أفغانستان, and stop to annoy Gryffindor. --Juiced lemon 22:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
You just stated that I used a "rude" tone, which means that you just called me "rude". I take that offensive as well. George Bush is the most powerful man on earth and he is white by race, so it is ok to say white man is superior and why you think this is bizarre. Your revert constitutes vandalism, so why should that be a surprise?--Executioner 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:GW Bush and Hamid Karzai in Kabul 2006-03-01.jpg is in Category:Hamid Karzai and George W. Bush, which is in Category:Politics of Afghanistan, which is in Category:Afghanistan. Furthermore, Image:GW Bush and Hamid Karzai in Kabul 2006-03-01.jpg is also in Category:Hamid Karzai, which is in Category:Presidents of Afghanistan, which is in Category:Politicians of Afghanistan, which is in both Category:People of Afghanistan and Category:Politics of Afghanistan, which are both in Category:Afghanistan. Thus, placing Image:GW Bush and Hamid Karzai in Kabul 2006-03-01.jpg directly in Category:Afghanistan would be overcategorization in three separate ways. Gryffindor is entirely correct in keeping Image:GW Bush and Hamid Karzai in Kabul 2006-03-01.jpg from being directly included in Category:Afghanistan.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Executioner I have just updated and added some images (including the one so dear to you) to the article Afghanistan just like Juiced lemon has proposed, I hope that is fine with you and hopefully will settle this issue. Gryffindor 23:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
What is all that suppose to prove? I didn't place the image under all those cats. Check to see who placed this image under all those categories. I think removing some of those other categories would be a good idea but leaving Afghanistan cat. Like I said that Afghan cat is lacking good images. You may agree with Gryffindor but it doesn't mean I will also agree with him because he knows nothing about Afghanistan.--Executioner 23:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
PFHLai placed that image in Category:Hamid Karzai in the initial upload via this edit. Edward moved it down a level to Category:Hamid Karzai and George W. Bush in this edit. You overcategorized it into Category:Afghanistan and Category:Hamid Karzai in this edit, this edit, and this edit, and you overcategorized it only into Category:Afghanistan in this edit.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't you get tired of putting all that nonsense, when instead you can make it easy by saying that I just placed that image under Afghanistan category. That's all I did, added Afghanistan category.--Executioner 01:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Gryffindor, please don't place those people of Afghan images in the Afghanistan article. The majority of Afghans are not oriental, only %10 of them have oriental looks. The great majority of Afghans are mediterean looking.--Executioner 23:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I attempted to delete "Category:Politics of Afghanistan" and User:Juiced lemon reinstated the cat. I like to tell User:Juiced lemon, why you want to keep two (2) similar cats ("Category:Politics of Afghanistan" and "Category:Politicians of Afghanistan")?, aren't they both the same thing???? You see folks, I am the correction while others here who are disagreeing with my ideas are creating errors and making stupid double categories.--Executioner 23:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
What on earth are you doing? Category:Politicians of Afghanistan clearly goes in Category:Politics of Afghanistan but are separate entities, please do not attempt to remove any of these categories or meddle with them until you have a clear grasp of how the category tree works (see Category:Politics by country for guidance). If you have trouble understanding English, I suggest you get some help from a fellow native speaker with good English skills who might be able to help you a little bit out (and I mean this in a sincere, good way). Gryffindor 23:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Politicians are not the only subjects of politics-related media content.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
You cannot compare Afghanistan with the rest of the countries because Afghanistan is different. There are too many unessary empty categories created for Afghanistan right now. The country barely has a functioning government, and you want to make it appear as it is a normal functioning country like the rest of the countries in the world. We are dealing with the country at present times, whenever it becomes like other countries then at that time we may add the same categories like the rest of the developed countries do. Please store this in your mind....and I don't need to ask others for help in understanding English. I was educated in the United States, may be you have hard time understaning my American English because it is slightly different from the European version. THis is why I was telling you that I am Afghan from Afghanistan, which means I am expert on my country's situation. You view my country like any other country because you have no idea how the government of my country works.--Executioner 23:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
So what if there are empty categories, as long as they have subcategories? Categories do not need media content like images, they can exist with only subcategories.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you dispute that Image:GW Bush and Hamid Karzai in Kabul 2006-03-01.jpg should remain in Category:Hamid Karzai and George W. Bush and Category:Hamid Karzai?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you dispute that Category:Hamid Karzai and George W. Bush should remain in Category:Politics of Afghanistan?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you dispute that Category:Politics of Afghanistan should remain in Category:Afghanistan?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you dispute that Image:GW Bush and Hamid Karzai in Kabul 2006-03-01.jpg should remain in Category:Hamid Karzai?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you dispute that Category:Hamid Karzai should remain in Category:Presidents of Afghanistan and Category:Pashtuns?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you dispute that Category:Presidents of Afghanistan should remain in Category:Politicians of Afghanistan?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you dispute that Category:Politicians of Afghanistan should remain in Category:People of Afghanistan and Category:Politics of Afghanistan?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you dispute that Category:People of Afghanistan should remain in Category:Afghanistan?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you dispute that Category:Politics of Afghanistan should remain in Category:Afghanistan?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I am an American, educated in the USA, and I understand your American English just fine. You do not, however, appear to understand overcategorization on Wikimedia projects. What does overcategorization on Wikimedia projects mean to you?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't care if you are American or not, I was talking to Gryffindor...I do understand overcategorization, it means to exessively categorize something. This is not what I do though. I am organizing the categories, at the same time adding just a couple of categories to every image I select. Adding 2 or 3 categories to an image is not "overcategorization".--Executioner 01:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is that wikimedia categories are not keywords. Instead they are branches in a tree, Afghanistan is a heavy branch that divides up into smaller branches and twigs. The images are leaves on the ends of twigs, this tree does not grow leaves directly out of branches. This is how commons-wikimedia categories are used due to wikimedia limitations. Putting images on branches as well as on the ends of twigs is termed over-categorization. I hope that helps :-) --Tony Wills 14:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Adding 2 or 3 categories to an image is "overcategorization" if any of the resulting categories grow out of one another, or something that grows out of one of them, or something that grows out of something that grows out of one of them... Put another way, no category for a specific page should be direct ancestor of any other category for that page. In the instant case, Category:Afghanistan is a direct ancestor of Category:Hamid Karzai, which is a direct ancestor of Category:Hamid Karzai and George W. Bush, so page Image:GW Bush and Hamid Karzai in Kabul 2006-03-01.jpg should not be Category:Afghanistan, and it should not be in Category:Hamid Karzai.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I am well aware how things work here on Commons Media, I don't need to read the rules to know because I am a person who knows things without reading instructions. Instructions are made for those who have lesser working brain cells. This is how I view it...
  • Earth
    • Asia
      • Afghanistan
        • Kabul Province
          • Kabul (Capital City)
There is nothing wrong with placing one single picture of Afghanistan's president standing with US presidnet inside Afghanistan. It would be wrong if I tried to put more than one pictures this way. This is my whole point, and you are trying to channge this subject to showing me how these easy categorization suppose to work. Man this is something 5 year old kids these days learn how to do. It's ridiculous to even see people coming here explaining this junk over and over...hahahahahahaha. Do you realize how dumb this looks, trying to show something to an expert. Look at my entire history and you will learn that I am an expert on this and a very professional at everything I do. Every image I uploaded is a professional one. This means I am a pro, and I don't need lessons from amataurs. Please don't waste your time on this nonsense, trying to teach me who people suppose to put images in categories, the only reason I may have made some few mistakes in the past is because not many categories were available at that time.--Executioner 15:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I take exception to being called an "amataur", and I'm sure G. W. Bush would take exception to being called "presidnet". Here in Wikimedia Commons, it is you who appears to be the amateur at categorization.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Big deal, I misspelled couple of words. I usually type very fast in here, it's not like I'm writing a book. I am not what you think I am...I am whatever I say I am, if I wasn't, then why would I say I am, in the papers, the news, every day I am, I don't know it's just the way I am. If you or anyone else here want to challenge me in knowledge, we can have this going on instantly, lets go into a Yahoo chat room and we can see there who is smarter. The writing in here is tooo slow, I will show you how fast I type, and I challenge any living person on earth on any subject relating to the world. POINT-OUT exactly what you believe is something I overcategorized instead of talking blah, blah, blah, blah.--Executioner 19:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I see, so you meant to call me an "amateur"? I take exception to that, too. "something you [[[User:Executioner|Executioner]]] overcategorized" (besides the obvious, Image:GW Bush and Hamid Karzai in Kabul 2006-03-01.jpg) is simple: you [[[User:Executioner|Executioner]]] categorized Image:Mountains of Afghanistan.jpg into both Category:Mountains of Afghanistan and its direct ancestor Category:Afghanistan (via Category:Geography of Afghanistan) in this edit.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Executioner I am getting tired of your wild edits, now you have gone on an edit spree simply removing whole categories from images that were in the proper category by stating that they were over-categorised when in fact they were not. I am not going to go into all the details because I am getting tired of this, I had to revert almost all of your edits because they were simply not in line. Please familiarise yourself with all the Commons policy before making any edit at this point and consult either me or any of the other administrators, so that we can avoid cumbersome edit-reverts. Gryffindor 14:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Gryffindor is trying to obfuscate the situation here, he or she is putting false categories to images, removing my relevant fixes, and doing other nonsense acts but trying to make me look as the one doing something wrong here. He made following recent changes to
I like to know why he removed Category:Herat from the image Street in Herat? If you place this inside Category:Streets in Herat, it does not explain if the street is inside the Category:Herat Province or inside Category:Herat (the city).
Secondly, the second image does not show evidence that those salvaged military vehicles are inside Kandahar Airport, they could be anywhere in Kandahar Province.
Thirdly, the name Mohammad Nadir Shah is incorrect, it is Mohammad Nadir Khan. Nadir Shah was the ruler in 1730s while Nadir Khan was someone else in early 1900s. Since you are not Afghan, you don't have much infor on Afghanistan's history. My advice is to learn from me because I am an expert on Afghanistan and its history.
Fourth, the Kandahar Valley is a housing scheme, those in the picture are not buildings but "houses". There is a difference between a house and a building, check dictionary for more details.
Finally, the Kandahar International Airport is the second biggest military bases for NATO forces, which is currently used by the Canadian Arm Forces as well as other NATO forces. It is the same as Category:Bagram Air Base. Since Bagram Air Base is inside the 2001-to present war, then Kandahar Airport also belongs in the same category.
I am now convinced that User:Gryffindor is here for edit-war with me, something I am not interested in. I am Afghan from Afghanistan and obviously I am here to help correct the mistakes non-Afghans make in here about my country.--Executioner 15:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You have been warned now by administrator Adambro to fully comply with Commons policy. Deleting such messages from your talk page will not fool anyone [75]. I second his opinion. Gryffindor 00:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Gryffindor is still reverting other people's edits without even explaining his reasons. I've removed Category:Ismail Khan from Category:Herat by explaining my reason but User:Gryffindor reverted and re-added Ismail Khan (Ex-governor of "Herat Province") in the Herat category. [76] I just want to know why add Ismail Khan in Herat category? Isn't this overcategorization? After all, Ismail Khan is included already in several Afghanistan related categories. He was not even born in the city of Herat. Also, he is not regarded as Afghan warlord by the government of Afghanistan, the man is a legitimate minister of water and energy, and prior to that he was a regular Mujahideen commander like many others in the country. Isn't calling a minister of Afghanistan's government as an "Afghan warlord" a POV? Somebody needs to correct this information about Ismail Khan and delete the category Category:Afghan warlords because it may create edit-war between different ethnic groups, as one group will add someone from the other side and vice versa.--Executioner 23:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
"But, some criminals and drug barons are linked to former warlords who helped U.S.-led forces evict the Taliban six years ago and who now serve inside government....The lower house of parliament, populated by ex-warlords and former militia leaders along with suspected drug dealers, has also proposed a blanket amnesty for those who committed war crimes over nearly 30 years of conflict." Yahoo News on Afghanistan There should only be Category:Ex-warlords of Afghanistan --Executioner 14:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Executioner has again deleted such messages from its talk page twice, despite a warning not to do that and what amounted to a promise not to do that, and has been uncivil in its attempt to get me to stop reverting such deletion.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked (Executioner)

Because of repeated incivility, removal of warnings, and violation of various policies, I have blocked Executioner for 24 hours. Hopefully this will give some time for everyone to cool down. (→O - RLY?) 17:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking such decisive action! I'm cool.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
May I ask if anyone took into consideration that I was in a constructive discussion about some of this on the user's talk page before the block? I consider it regrettable that such impulsive action was taken. I am sure there are issues to be resolved however when someone is attempting to do this with dialog I do not consider a block appropriate. --Herby talk thyme 09:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Jeff G.'s interventions are not judicious, and I disagree on any block based on his dubious denunciations. --Juiced lemon 10:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Those are personal attacks. Kindly cease and desist from making them, and retract those you have made. If you want to discuss a specific edit or portion thereof in a reasonable manner, I will be happy to do so.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

juiced lemon (talk · contribs)

There are some open proposal everywhere on commons.

Eg: Commons:By location category scheme.

People have different opions, which is fine.

However, User:Juiced lemon seems not to agree, and single-handedly revert this page to his own previous version. [77]. However, it seems this proposal page has been block for that reason before. Commons_talk:By_location_category_scheme#Not_a_policy_but_a_proposal..

Moreover, he's already gone ahead, and does massive renames and moves of categories to fit is own vision. He puts the category move template, {{Move}}, which is fine... I'm open for discussions to move categories of placenames to an English version if this make sense.

But the template talks about a proposal and reaching a consensus on the talk page. Just going ahead and renaming to fit your own ideas doesn't seem a real consensus. If you look at his history, you'll see lots of renames of categories of places all over the world. Some will be fine, others are questionable. A discussion ? I can't really find them. All I can find is pushing an own vision and changing proposal pages to fit that vision... --LimoWreck 11:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see he's been reported recently a few times higher on this page. Maybe some of you will have a clearer idea about what's going on, or what he's doing... --LimoWreck 11:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm getting tired of this dispute also, and rather the way Juiced Lemon behaves and disregards the process of consensus through community discussions. I personally don't know exactly what the dispute is about, but I don't think we will see less of Juiced at this place...
I don't know if Juiced Lemon's actions are constructive at all, so before undertaking any actions against him it is necessary to have further input from those who have worked with him. / Fred J 17:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't know, but if you need an interpretor to handle it in french, drop me a line. Michelet-密是力 18:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I've worked with Juiced Lemon a bit and I think he is opinionated and abrasive. However, in my interactions I've found Juiced Lemon to be constructive and often correct. That said, I do wish that he would make more of an effort to be pleasant and patient. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have no idea what all the things are he's up to. I only found out a small part of this, because he's been messing with some categories I've been involved in. (and they're still messed up). Only then I found out he's had issues before, he's been changing lots of categories (which might be fine, but not doing it to push some opinion), modifying proposal pages that had been protected before because of this, and then I noticed he's been listed above as well. I have no idea about the history of this all, what he's up to, what's been done or discussed before.... maybe someone knows more about this. Anyway, just going around messing things up is rather disruptive ... --LimoWreck 22:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. He messes things up. ¦ Reisio 01:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about this category, but I have seen Juiced Lemon doing good and constructive changes to other templates.--A Jalil 12:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

continued

The LimoWreck's comments are not exact.

--Juiced lemon 08:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that what you do with other users as well ? Turning things around ? This category:Ieper dates back from 2005! Your Category:Ypres dates from recently: 2007. What you have done is plain nonsense: removing images from the original category, and spreading them around on two categories. YOU are the one that's moving the thing. I have been discussing this, all you do is keep spreading the images of one single city in two categories. Plain nonsense. --LimoWreck 18:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I think Juiced lemon is an important and valuable editor. I agree with most of his views, except for one thing: the use of English to name categories is ok, the use of English Wikipedia patterns is not. Dantadd✉ 18:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I think Juiced lemon is a very efficient editor. If he sets his mind on a change, he does it so quickly that by the time people notice it, more than half of the changes are done. If somebody dares to revert his changes, he reverts them very quickly again. And if there is still too much reaction, only then he begins to explain.
Juiced lemon is very good in trying to minimize what he has done; a look at his contributions will reveal major structural changes and some sort of edit war before any explanation or discussion gets going.
Several of his changes with the maps don't fit the approach of LimoWreck, who has put many man months of work in the commons of West Flanders. That being said, LimoWreck is equally efficient and changes and reverts very quickly; he discusses only when really unavoidable. An inflamentary couple so to speak.
For the time being, I suggest to leave the coexistence between Ypres and Ieper as it is now with:
  • Ypres as central point for historical and cultural data
  • Ieper as central point for geographical data and maps
There might of course be better ideas --Foroa 21:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Ambiguity in naming is never a good idea. Aside for language preferences (I am a native Dutch speaker, as is LimoWreck), we have a convention that we use the English language for category names. Galleries can have more localised names. The images related to Ieper should be in Category:Ypres, as on en.wp the town is called en:Ypres. Siebrand 22:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Why you have Category:Den Haag and Category:The Hague then ? And the further mix in the subcats ? Historical ? Or waiting on Juiced lemon ? --Foroa 22:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Historical, waiting for a bot to correct it. I do wonder why people keep on battling over this issue. We have seen it in Catalan/Spanish/French, Dutch/French/English, and most probably in other places. We are an international multi-lingual project and until we have a proper multi-lingual category interface (most probably based on WikiData - and yes, that sounds like Single User Logon will be there right after Wikimania 2006), this issue cannot be resolved. However, if we do not use English (that just happens to be a convenient language in our Anglo-Saxon centred Wikimedia universe) as a lingua franca, fixing it when we DO get the functionality will be a hellish job. Someone with a better memory for policy pages on category naming, please paste a link in this discussion, as I remember having read in several places that we do keep category names in English. Cheers! Siebrand 22:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
we do keep category names in English
That is not accurate - this misconception is (I'd say) the chief reason why people clash with Juiced lemon (who thinks it is accurate). There is no such policy/guideline. ¦ Reisio 23:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to make sure we are not talking about two bits of information, I looked the policy up: Commons:Categories#Creating_categories states: Category names should always be in English [..] Categories for life forms should use the scientific (Latin) name.. Do I understand correctly that at least the first phrase is heavily disputed and not policy? FYI: this sentence was introduved on 19 March 2006 by User:Duesentrieb[78] and appears to be de facto standard. Siebrand 13:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
de facto is just that. We actually have (de jureish) policy at Commons:Language policy. It states (my emphasis):
"Wikimedia Commons is a multilingual project. This page contains the project's policy on how multilingual content is used, and what content should be in which language.

The only content area where there is a consensus to use a single language is biology-related content (plants and animals), where latin binomial names are used."
To me that is clear. There is a section on categories which includes a tentative "So far, Categories are in English", but only following "This definitely deserves a talk of its own, and I propose we discuss it". It was never resolved to explicit policy, and in my opinion never needs to be - we should instead concentrate our efforts on improving the MediaWiki software so this is not an issue.
¦ Reisio 02:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
@Foroa: good analysis (even about me ;-) ). Normally I would be open for discussion, but when users like juiced lemon spread images over two identical categories just for meaking a point, break interwikis, seem to model the different proposal pages to their opinions, and seem to do whatever they like, I am very suspicious about that ;-) --LimoWreck 01:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
They're waiting on Juiced lemon, for sure...hehehe... "To be taken with moderation.". Dantadd✉ 22:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Awards

I've been trying to do some rationalization of Category:Awards and its sub-categories as currently files have been all over the place with sub-categories repeating the categorization of the main categories leading to a confusing system. I realized that User:Juiced lemon was reverting some of them - without even discussing it. For instance moving Category:Military decorations of the Soviet Union out of Category:Military decorations by country and just into the higher level category of Category:Military decorations. I've left a note on his/her user page but after seeing the number of related instances mentioned there I thought I'd post as it is very frustrating. If someone disagrees with a categorization I've done then talk to me - don't just revert it! Madmedea 00:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Union is not a current country. I assume you know that. Therefore, Soviet Union subcategories are not eligible for the “by country” categories. This is the exhaustive list of eligible territories for these categories, as I told you on your talk page. I cannot discuss every time somebody doesn't apply an elementary rule. --Juiced lemon 08:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Commons:Territorial division of the World is another page recently created by Juiced lemon. It is mostly his personal vision of categorization, and has no authority on the commons. Juiced lemon created the page on May 24, 2007. See a similar problem in the next section. This statement by Juiced lemon is insulting and uncivil: "I cannot discuss every time somebody doesn't apply an elementary rule." Is there a guideline at the commons like this one: w:WP:CIVIL? --Timeshifter 02:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Commons:Territorial division of the World is mainly inspired by Commons customs. We don't go to change our customs because you reject any rule, especially when I have written something about it. I notice that you have never discussed about this document in its talk page. You have not a constructive attitude.
A characteristic of the Commons project is that most tasks are very technical, and need minimal knowledge in order to properly accomplish them. When administrators find copyvios, they don't discuss a lot neither, because this is a very frequent problem, and they wish to spend their time for more interesting tasks. To repeat that 1+1=2 ends up being tiresome. --Juiced lemon 08:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
About Commons:Territorial division of the World. Just because you wrote something does not make it a Commons custom. Just because you start a Commons draft proposal does not make it a Commons custom. If people do not write on your draft proposal talk page, then that lack of interest in your draft proposal does not make it a Commons custom.--Timeshifter 09:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Commons:By location category scheme

Some sysop should consider to block this article. User Juiced lemon changes unilaterally this proposal page converting a "custom norm" (in his own words) when the debate is not ended and in the talk page there isn't a deep discussing. I was reverting but he re-reverts my actions again and again. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 09:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Juiced lemon is trying to create his own unique categorization policies. In the meantime out in the category trees he reverts almost anybody he disagrees with. Then he refers back to his own draft policy proposals, even though few people agree with him. This is deceptive. I have seen these types of peculiar attempted guideline rewrites by people at wikipedia too. But the wikipedia guidelines are soon restored because there are many more editors keeping an eye on guidelines. Here, we have Juiced lemon creating completely new guideline pages a few weeks ago, and trying to pass them off as official policy. This is deceptive. I think it merits a temporary block. --Timeshifter 21:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
How many times do you plan to repeat your dishonest comments? You even don't care to fit with the cause of the discussion. --Juiced lemon 08:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The point of the discussion is your attempts to dominate this proposed guideline: Commons:By location category scheme. --Timeshifter 09:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Juiced lemon conduct proposal

This is a proposal about how to change User:Juiced lemon's (JL) editing behaviour so that it causes less community friction, and JL is able to continue editing here as a productive community member.

Both parts of this statement are important. JL does a lot of valuable work that not many people are interested in doing, so it would be a sad loss if they were to leave the project. At the same time, it's not enough to simply do useful work - you also have to get on with the other people who are doing useful work. The many topics on this board show that that part is not very successful at the moment. If JL's conduct was to cause other community members to feel wikistress or even leave the project -- that would also be a sad loss.

This discussion is NOT a place for people to say how much JL annoys them. It is an attempt to try a new way of managing users, since clearly "leaving them to their own devices" is not working very well here.

So this is my idea: we invite JL to work with us develop a set of conduct guidelines that are acceptable to both us (the wider community) and JL.

If JL doesn't accept this, we develop the guidelines ourselves and impose them on JL. If the guidelines are not followed, the admins institute progressively longer blocks as is standard practice with disruptive editing.

So BEFORE ANYONE ELSE responds to this topic, I invite Juiced lemon to respond. JL's response will determine what the next step should be.

For everyone else, I suggest to think about what conduct guidelines would JL have to adopt for you to be able to work with them without raising your stress levels? Taking into account fundamental disagreements are not likely to be resolved. It's that old agree to disagree.

This also does not mean that JL is the only one who has disruptive conduct. Many conflicts with JL I notice have had impatient, rude, aggressive acts from other users. So don't feel that this is all "JL is wrong and everyone else is right" because it's not.

Thank you --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Juiced lemon's editing behaviour is a complex thing. I should summarize it up in: “I try to choose the best ways in order to get the best results with lesser resources”.
Now, we can discuss about the appropriateness of my objectives, or about my optimization choices. However, there are recurrent difficulties to talk about such issues in Commons. For example, there was very low participation of the community to Commons talk:Territorial division of the World, though this project is far more important than the “transport/transportation” issue, in my opinion.
You request my participation in developping conduct guidelines. Why not? Except that I regard these guidelines as general ones, that is every Commons user will submit to these guidelines. I agree to consider and analyze some personal cases in order to easy this job. --Juiced lemon 14:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hoping that there was an yes in your response :-). Seems like a good idea to help you and everyone work well together. FloNight 20:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, great. I am really happy about this.
It is true that the guidelines will be more or less applicable to all users, but the difference will be about what happens to users when they violate them. For other users, generally nothing would happen, or maybe a warning. But you are right that they will not be crippling unreasonable things.
JL, what do you think about this: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/JL conduct guidelines? If you agree that it is more or less a good way to proceed, then we can open that page and invite comments. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you didn't understand my previous answer. I agree to contribute to improvements in Commons functionning, and that implies some restrictions regarding individual actions of users.
Your proposal doesn't fit in this scheme. You are clearly considering specific measures against me, that is what I could only call “sanctions”. Sorry, but I am not to blame, and you didn't put forward any definite reason in order to initiate such call to lynching.
I am the pointer of real problems which will be cause of conflicts until their resolution. I didn't create these problems which affect Commons functionning, but I can help to resolve them. I could not consider such actions, if I should be treated differently than other users. --Juiced lemon 09:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, not quite so smooth...
The "definite reason" for this proposal is that your work here, you constantly and consistently have conflicts with other users. There are so many conflicts that the only reasonable conclusion is that they are caused by something about the way you carry out your work.
You will continue to disagree with people, I agree. But there is a way of disagreeing that doesn't cause people to ask other people to be blocked, or post messages about them on the admin noticeboard. There is a way of disagreeing where both parties feel OK about it, not stressed and upset. "Stressed and upset" is what is often happening to people who disagree with you at the moment.
My proposal is only to allow reasonable guidelines, that most users will already follow most of the time.
The edit war over the {{Delete}} template on "Transport" categories is only the latest example. You said to White Cat: “Transport” is the standard term in Commons. Stop immediatly your edits regarding these categories. What is the problem with this? You provide minimal explanation (why is "Transport" the standard term? says who? since when? where was it decided?) and then demand that someone else changes their behaviour. There is a way to have this discussion that is much more friendly and useful to the other person. But you don't choose to do it. This is only the latest example.
What do you think about this? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
A general assessment is not a definite reason. I have not so many conflicts : in this page, there is only one conflict beetween me and User:LimoWreck (this user has created several sections).
I don't consider that I have a conflict with User:White Cat. I warned him, as I warned the Commons community, about an inappropriate action. I didn't questionned that he could open a discussion regarding any subject, but I criticized his individual way to advertise a debate. That you call “edit war” is a total of 6 reverts regarding 6 different category pages, while User:White Cat added a delete template in hundreds of pages: that is a very insignificant action.
You have criticized my message in White Cat's talk page. Yes, it is abrupt, but I had no time to be verbose. Can you think about your impression, when you are browsing through the transport structure, and you see a delete template on every page?
I said: “Transport” is the standard term in Commons. I think it's true, since this term is widely recognized or employed in Commons.
As regards Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/JL conduct guidelines, the title and the first phrase This page is to determine the conduct guidelines that will apply to User:Juiced lemon (JL). are a wrong beginning, since I told you previously that I'll agree to contribute to write general conduct guidelines, but not to guidelines intended to a single user (because I don't recognize any reason to do that). --Juiced lemon 13:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
JL, on your talk page I see conflicts with White Cat, Jeff G, Limo Wreck, Bibi Saint-Pol, Madmedea, Dantadd, Mantanmoreland, Martorell, Ludek. I'm not saying in all these cases these people are 100% right and you are 100% wrong. I think in most cases both parties probably deserve blame.
You don't consider that you have a conflict with White Cat -- maybe that's part of the problem. For you what is a pretty everyday way of interaction, is a way that causes stress to other people. I can understand that you were alarmed to suddenly see "delete" templates all over the Transport categories, I would be alarmed too, like "hey! what are you doing?" But there is still a way to have that conversation that is much more civil.
I don't know why you say I had no time to be verbose. On a wiki we always have time to be verbose. Everything can be undone. So what's the huge rush? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Creating conduct guidelines for a single user seems unfair to me. The only thing that is needed is to have real rules and enforce them. For example, I'm still astonished to see that the tree-revert rule doesn't exist here. IMO, the admins here often turn a blind eye to edit wars and personal attacks. In the case with Juiced lemon, the simplest logical explanation is that it is he who has communication problems, given the large number of people that have trouble with him (an alternative explanation would be that there is some sort of conspiracy against him, which I don't buy). The solution is to start blocking users who do things like repeatedly reverting good-faith edits with no explanation, refuse to participate in discussions about those edits, insult other users, and engage in revert wars. But it doesn't matter whether their name is Juiced lemon or not. --Itub 08:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at this discussion between User:Gryffindor and User:Executioner. That is what I'd call a conflictual situation (see the related section below). In my opinion, User:Gryffindor have clearly triggered off this situation, because he didn't let User:Executioner do what he wanted. I think also that User:Gryffindor have screwed up his communication with User:Executioner.
However, I support Gryffindor's action, because he works in order to improve Commons organization, and this purpose is much more important than the confict with Executioner.
That's a general problem in Commons: we cannot strive for a better organization, if we don't force people to comply with rules. And forced people will be displeased.
A few months ago, I had conflicts with other users who heavy overcategorized media files. Now, overcategorization is no more a major issue, because most users agree that overcategorization is harmful. I don't like to risk conflicts, but often the alternative is to do nothing.
I agree with you: we need more rules, and I am working on that (Commons:Naming categories, Commons:Territorial division of the World, Commons:Category scheme countries and subdivisions at the moment). --Juiced lemon 10:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I have a problem with the preamble to this discussion including the line If JL doesn't accept this, we develop the guidelines ourselves and impose them on JL, which seems to negate any good faith discussion going on - The preamble sounds like a sugar coated ultimatum. It is not appropriate to have special JL guidelines.
  • I would also like to point out that in the 'transport/transportation' case sited User:Juiced lemon was originally doing nothing wrong. There was no prohibition on removing {{Delete}} templates despite the forceful assertions by user:White Cat. The initial problem was caused by User:White Cat's apparently novel use of the {{Delete}} template to discuss a category move - obviously done in good faith and with the best intentions. White Cat thought the tag 'spamming' was appropriate but at least two users thought it inappropriate and started reverting. There was no urgency in stopping the reversions, no harm was being done. Instead of reconsidering and discussing this novel use of {{Delete}} White Cat ended up using admin powers to block another user (not JL) doing good faith edits, that he personally disagreed with. The escalation of this conflict was certainly not just from JLs actions.
  • That all said, it is obviously in JL's interests to find out why people have conflicts with him, and to decrease those conflicts if for no other reason than to save him having to stop and waste good editing time ;-) - he might as well spend him time explaining what he's doing and considering how others see it and save everyone's blood pressure :-) --Tony Wills 13:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
You are going through a lot of troubles for a problem that relates to speedyness and character. JL is always right, so not worth discussing it. If people don't agree, he starts to patronise, to tread people like children that understand nothing, and finally to insult. The problem is that he behaves like a God that own the commons, only he knows the right answer. You can write 25 conduct proposals, but this will not change the fact of the matter. --Foroa 14:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
You are misleading. I don't insult anybody. And if I should know the right answers, I should not ask for other opinions in the village pump. --Juiced lemon 16:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
As someone who has had a conflict with JL, and fully admit that I did not act perfectly in that, I can comment that the main problem I have is that if JL thinks he is right he will revert an edit or make sweeping changes without asking for comment or notifying the users involved (the latter is what particularly caused my frustration). I'm not sure that any sanctions or conduct guidelines will change what is obviously a fundamental personal stance on how to communicate. 20:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't revert your edit because I was right, but because I thought I could persuade you I was right. Commons have not yet clear policies. Therefore, though I am sometimes hardy, I don't go to tell you: “look at this draft I have written, and comply with the instructions”. In a situation like this, I am embarrassed to communicate. --Juiced lemon 21:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
re User:Foroa, the mode of operation you describe is unfortunately the way many people operate here, the difference is perhaps that JL is very active and such interactions happen more often. So the point is we don't need JL guidelines although we can use his many interactions to work out better ways to handle conflict. We need perhaps to go from how do we 'control' people, to how do we draw them into being more community aware and tolerant. One point - we can not really control other people, but we can control our own actions, if there is out of control conflict then we must look at our own part in it. It is nice to operate from a basis of power and be right (quote this or that guideline, policy etc) and try and force people to do what we want - but that approach is often counter productive. This is a wiki, it can be undone, don't stress :-) --Tony Wills 01:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that guidelines for an individual user are the right approach. Guidelines, policies, and best practices should apply for all of us. In particular, I think, we should consider it to be a good practice to start discussions before major reorganisations or renaming actions take place in the category space, to provide helpful comments in all edits, and to open discussions on the talk page in case of non-obvious reverts. Comments and discussions allow to avoid or reduce tensions which easily arise if users get the impression that their concerns are simply ignored. And, we should also acknowledge that some processes take time. We are here in a community with people coming from very diverse cultures and backgrounds. Issues like finding the best name for a category can be not only challenging but also a sensible point for some of the users involved. In conclusion, making just the "right edit" is not always sufficient and we need a consensus oriented attitude even from the most active editors who do valuable work in the category tree or elsewhere.

I would suggest to stop this discussion at this noticeboard, to get rid of Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/JL conduct guidelines, and to work on those missing policies which, if finished, will apply to all of us including JL. --AFBorchert 00:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break: separate the general case from JL case

OK... there is some good, calm input from a few people here. Evidently people feel Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/JL conduct guidelines was the wrong approach. I blanked it.
Itub said, IMO, the admins here often turn a blind eye to edit wars and personal attacks. I think this is probably right (regarding edit wars at least), and I can say for my part, that it's because I don't want the admin role to be the babysitter or the nanny. We should all be able to act like adults and sort out disputes ourselves. I really dislike the way where admins are asked to intervene in all kinds of disagreements. Do people prefer to work in a wiki like that, maybe? Where it's clear "the admins are in charge"? I dislike it a lot, but maybe others don't.
Another point I would like to make is that just because we don't have an explicit rule written down, doesn't mean an action is acceptable. Edit warring is not acceptable, even though we don't have a formal "three revert rule". Removing deletion notification tags from images is rarely acceptable. You know, blanking perfectly good pages is not acceptable! We don't write that rule anywhere, though!
One more problem is that Commons community are not all people who visit Commons every day, or even every week. Even if we have a weeklong discussion on Commons about a category name, and we consider the matter settled, people can come back months later and be like "Hey! why was this changed? I didn't know about it!" And just saying "Well, we had a discussion, too bad if you missed it", is not really satisfactory. A discussion about category names can apply to thousands of categories. There is no way we can realistically tag all the relevant categories - so it is hard to contact all the interested parties. Maybe we can try to advertise such discussions more widely, like in the sitenotice or Wikizine or something else. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, so: where to from here? Which of these statements do people agree with? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. Commons needs more explicit rules about the structure of Commons
  2. Commons needs more explicit rules about acceptable user conduct on Commons
  3. Commons admins should block people more often for breaking the rules
  4. ?
For me maybe 1, probably 2 and almost certainly 3. I have considered 3 when I have looked at some actions that seem to me beyond what is acceptable but felt that I might be out on a limb. I really am not a lover of rules myself but something like 3RR for example seems a good principle in general.
People are bound to miss discussions but so long as there is a discussion and it can be pointed to then that might suffice.
The category issue is a "thorny" one. I have frequently "speedied" request to delete categories if it is empty, there is a new one with the content in and a "known" editor has requested it - I've stopped doing that since these discussion. There really does need to be more on this but it would be very hard to come up with a general rule to be used across Commons.
I'd be happy to help out in any way that I can --Herby talk thyme 07:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to formulate something more constructive within one or two days. --Foroa 08:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The work is significantly harder than anticpated while I have less time than anticipated, so around the end of the week probably. --Foroa 21:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
For me, all three.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
So in light of the discussion further down the page about introducing one specific rule (3RR). where does this idea/process stand? This is a larger framework than a specific rule... I don't know if a big involved philosophy discussion is quite the right thing to do here and now but the three statements above clearly are ones that different people have different views about. One could argue that with a community as diverse as ours, more explicit rules and guidelines make it easier to know what is ok and waht isn't, but one could also argue that having a lot more rules means losing some of the laid back, easy going nature here that so many of us value. ++Lar: t/c 17:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Baring in mind that "3RR, where it is implemented, is a tripwire, not an entitlement", I don't oppose to writing that rule down somewhere.
I just wonder... should there be something different about our 3RR rule because our revert wars are different from those that take place at wikipedias? Samulili 18:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that we need more explicit rules on user conduct. Commons has really very few "user problems". Problems with users are often quickly handled (indef block), but others are special cases that cannot be covered by general rules, and we should not make specific rules about them. I believe that the only thing we should do is act earlier instead of talking. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I really like that idea - do you have suggestions? I'm certainly going to think about it - this place is not like Wikipedia and I hope will not become like it. I guess there is a sense in which I like 0RR or 1RR (Lar's comments somewhere here) but not a "rule" as I really don't like them! --Herby talk thyme 18:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Bryan that we should act earlier instead of talking; my action is limited to posting here. In JL's case, he called the assertion that he "breaked an assumed 3RR rule" "a obvious wrong assertion" in this edit, when he knew full well what he had done (that he had made more than three reverts to one article in 24 hours; in fact, 133% more than three). I cannot trust him, he made massive-scale changes and reverts without useful edit summaries[79], he ordered around an Administrator[80], he was uncivil[81], he removed legitimate warnings from his user talk page[82][83], he disrupted various areas of this project[84], and he lied[85] and ruleslawyered[86] on this very page. I urge you Administrators to take decisive action.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I make tenths of edits by day, and I didn't remember these 2 edits which have broken the 3RR rule, because I usually pay attention to that (to do not break the 3RR rule). Your comments are dishonest, since you don't give any references, so nobody can check what you have shamelessly exaggerated. --Juiced lemon 00:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
First, the onus is on you, don't revert. Regardless of how many edits a day you make, try to remember where you've been. Second, when I advocate that you try a kinder, gentler approach, saying "Your comments are dishonest" and "shamelessly exaggerated" is not exactly what we meant. Try stating things less confrontationally please. ++Lar: t/c 09:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I have added references to back my allegations of 23:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC) above, and I take exception to your failure to assume good faith and your personal attacks.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Flickr review status nom) 02:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Juiced lemon, need for 3RR rule, cost-benefit analysis

Concerning Category:Satellite pictures of the Middle East. Thanks to any who have participated in this issue. It looks like the dispute has been settled. There is discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion. I now have agreed to remove the map category, and to link to it instead. I made a note about it there. I am in the process of removing the map categories from the various satellite picture categories.

User:Jeff G. seems to agree with me concerning keeping the subcategories of Category:Satellite pictures of the Middle East. See this diff. He put back a subcategory in Category:Satellite pictures of the Middle East. Juiced lemon seems to have stopped depopulating it since Jeff G. asked him to stop. It seems that Xavier also agrees with me about the subcategories of Category:Satellite pictures of the Middle East. See this diff.

There is now no current edit warring between me and Juiced lemon. And I don't intend to 3RR again. I did it to get some attention from admins since no admins seemed to be paying much attention to the many reverts by User:Juiced lemon, and the many complaints against him at Commons:Categories for discussion and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems and elsewhere.

I think we really need an official 3RR policy here as at wikipedia. Vague policies are unfair, and I have seriously considered dropping out from doing much on the commons. Due to the anarchy caused by people like Juiced lemon, and his random destruction of many hours of my efforts. I took discussion to him immediately when we had problems on several issues (not just the satellite pictures issue). I also went to the community board.

I think it is probable that many other people have given up on doing much at the commons due to Juiced lemon reverting hours of their efforts. I think the community has to make a cost-benefit analysis concerning Juice lemon. He has never been successfully blocked except for one time for 2 hours. His blocks were reverted due to no 3RR rule. I find that amazing for someone who is so disruptive. See

A genuine, strict 3RR rule would provide some reasonable curbs on the destruction done by Juiced lemon. And the cost/benefit analysis (of users remaining versus users who have quit) would be better. Think of the many, many hours of work lost due to the many users who have probably quit or cut back on their editing because they were rudely and incorrectly reverted by Juiced lemon. A 3RR rule would greatly increase the number of productive hours of editing at the commons. --Timeshifter 20:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Repetitive reversion without discussion is bad. It is disruptive. It is the disruption itself that is most corrosive, not whether a particular rule is violated or not. en:wp has a formal 3RR rule, and I have observed users trying to game it by doing their reversions in 24.5 hours or whatever, users getting away with many more reversions, and admins (including myself) blocking (or declining to unblock) for violating the spirit rather than the letter of the rule, so there are two sides to the coin. Will a formal, strict 3rr rule do any good here? I don't know. I do think it would be good to ask the community if there is a new consensus about it and would favour such a discussion.
I also think that it is an entirely separate matter from considering a particular incident, or the behaviour of a particular user or users... you've conflated that a bit and I'd rather separate it out. I also would like to note that I may not be "uninvolved" since I warned both of you earlier today. ++Lar: t/c 21:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Lar. Thanks for participating. You wrote: "It is the disruption itself that is most corrosive, not whether a particular rule is violated or not." If the cause of the disruption is the impunity with which 3RR occurs, then we need to also look at the cause. That being the lack of a rule, in my opinion. It seems totally arbitrary to me how 3RR is dealt with here. I am sure I am not alone in how I feel about this. I really dislike dealing with systems that feel like they are based on an insider game. I am talking about how it feels to the average newcomer here when dealing with admins and longterm editors. That feeling is even more corrosive than 3RR disruptions in my opinion. Every newcomer and longtime editor should be able to point to the same set of fairly enforced rules and guidelines. Currently, reversion is dealt with in an arbitrary way. Juiced lemon did 2-per-day reversions for weeks. I went to his talk page and to the community board. Nothing changed. I found out he does this with many people. Then I finally decided that nothing would change until this reversion game was exposed. It worked. Finally some more people are paying attention. --Timeshifter 22:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Timeshifter has made an unfair report. My blocks were reverted because they were unjustified, and User:Martorell wrongly adduced the Three Revert Rule.
Accusations are not Truth.
This is not the place to discuss about the 3RR rule, and such discussion wouldn't concern more Juiced lemon than Timeshifter. --Juiced lemon 22:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
It is widely known and widely mentioned that you, Juiced lemon, frequently revert. Just look at the many other reports on this page. The admins who tried to block you had their blocks overturned because there is no 3RR rule. Read the unblock edit summaries here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Juiced_lemon --Timeshifter 22:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why we need a formal 3RR here just for him (not necessarily saying we don't in general). He should be dealt with just for being disruptive & uncooperative. ¦ Reisio 02:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Juiced lemon is a prolific editor who obviously is doing a lot of good. I just want the cost-benefit analysis to favor the benefit side. Dealing with him for "being disruptive & uncooperative" would help temporarily. But longterm I am more concerned with how other editors are effected by all this. I want them to contribute more, and not feel discouraged or constrained by the many little reverts that Juiced lemon can do. That is where creating a formal 3RR process (as on other wikipedias) can help. The other editors would immediately know where to go. Plus most would already know how to use the 3RR reporting process. But right now there is no easy way to deal with this. It is all so vague. I had to go to several talk pages and community boards to get the ball rolling a little bit. --Timeshifter 02:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
A rule and a new process are two different things. I am not sure about the first yet but I know I am more in favour of it than the second. We try here to not introduce process unless we have to (the CU process is simpler than en but is there to preserve info). ++Lar: t/c 03:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand what you mean by a rule and a new process. I assume you are talking about a 3RR rule. But what do you mean by a new process? Can you expand on all this a little?--Timeshifter 05:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure. The rule is "don't revert war, reverting 3 times in 24 hours is a sign you've went too far and is blockable". That, in essence, could be it (worded more formally), and we use our current mechanisms for notifying, administering, handing out blocks, etc (this very page, in fact). OR we could build up elaborate new process... en:wp has a special page you go to in order to make reports (WP:AN/3RR) and special templates you use to report (see the bottom of that page for the template) and a bunch of ruleslawyerish stuff that strikes me as overkill here. Another example is Checkuser. Many wikis have no checkusers and no process at all. Admins just turn up on meta and ask. Meta itself, for local checkuser requests, has a rather informal process, which makes it hard to find past cases. en:wp has an extremely baroque process, with special code letters, a rigid format for making requests, clerks to marshall things along and help users fill out forms, and often you will see the request turned down because it wasn't formatted right or didn't have the right code letter. ... so... Meta is too loose. en:wp is too rigid. Our process here is just about right. We use separate pages and an archiving system, we have a form to fill out that helps the user format the request to be useful, we even use symbols in the requests, but we don't have code letters or CUs that turn down requets because they're not quite formatted right. I don't want to see us adopt the level of process that en:wp has around 3RR. Just using this page should be all. Does that clarify it? I may have went on a bit too long. :) Maybe I should write an essay "Why Commons is like Goldilocks"? ++Lar: t/c 10:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

I agree with Timeshifter. I have basically given up on the idea of editing the commons (in the sense of creating categories and such), and it is indeed due to users like JuicedLemon. I limit my contributions to uploading images and placing it in such categories as I find, even if I think that the existing categorization scheme is utterly stupid in some cases. --Itub 08:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we are suffering from a lack of policy but other social issues. In Real Life there are two sets of rules: a) You can get away with doing something wrong if you do enough good (say, in a relationship). b) You will be penalized for doing wrong things, preiod (legal).

From the many discussions regarding User:Juiced lemon, I infer that we are leaning too much to option a) and we don't require enough of the good deeds. Maybe I haven't pulled my weight in this issue but I can promise to be "tougher on crime" if that is wanted from the admins. Samulili 08:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Let us perhaps start being a bit less easygoing about disruption, especially repetitive disruption that wastes time. I've started a dialog with Juiced lemon on his talk page. What he needs to realise is that if many people see his behaviour as disruptive, even if he might think he's justified in particular cases, that the pattern has to change. The problem is that "civility blocks" don't typically work... which I think is why Timeshifter might be saying to go with the 3RR rule and enforcement of it as a way to address the issue. ++Lar: t/c 10:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I suggest a 3RR rule but with an easier process. I am not really concerned about the process as long as it is the same for everybody. The 3RR rule should be the same as at English wikipedia so that people are not confused. In other words it has the same setup of 3 reversions allowed in 24 hours. The 4th one gets you blocked. No mercy. Anybody gets blocked. The length of the block is set up according to some escalating scale depending on how many previous blocks in the last year. We shouldn't count blocks older than a year. People usually do learn over time, and shouldn't be overly penalized for past mistakes. But I believe the escalating scale for the length of the blocks should be public. Such as 24 hours for the first block. 48 hours for the second one. 1 week for the 3rd one. One month for the 4th one in a year, and so on. I believe that is the scale at English wikipedia. So the rule and blocks are the same as at English wikipedia, but the process is according to whatever the commons decides. Fairness is the key to making this work, and making it feel like no one has any privilege to revert more than others. --Timeshifter 23:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
This is all well and good. But there is no way the Commons admins can guarantee that such a scheme would be carried out evenly and "fairly". For one thing there is no automated tool to alert admins to when someone has made their 4th revert. Hence we can only act on the cases that are brought to our attention (or else personally stalk troublesome users). Don't you feel that it encourages this "tattle-tale" behaviour? I can't help thinking of children who run to their parents to be the first to "tell on" the other one. Another problem is the limited number of admins who would be willing to spend much time on this stuff. You can imagine it is not too rewarding (--unless you enjoy the power trip, and like an adult power-tripping over a child, I find it distasteful at best). Blocks like this only really work if you catch the user "in the act".
I don't think a scheme of blocking adequately addresses the root problem: what is the reverting caused by? It's a sign that the usual methods of discussion have broken down. Blocking people for reverting is not going to restore the consensus approach.
Having said this, it makes me very unhappy that one user can cause so much angst for other users, and it's bad for Commons to allow this to continue. I just don't believe that instituting a rigid 3RR blocking policy would actually solve what's going on here. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Anything would be fairer than it is now. Let us try it out and see if it helps. Over time modify the process as needed to ease the burden on admins. --Timeshifter 07:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

Personally I don't think it is the right way to solve the problem... Is this just to stop one user? Then it is better to discuss what to do about that particular user.
I don't like to make a policy out of it -- users come from different places, no all are familiar with 3RRs. / Fred J 09:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Reassure me: have you found some proof I have breaked an assumed 3RR rule? If your answer is no, the debate about a 3RR rule in Commons doesn't concern me and have nothing to do in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Why are you stating a conclusion from a obvious wrong assertion? some account to settle with me? --Juiced lemon 12:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I do recall a time when you reverted five times in less than 24 hours. It was a while ago, and it was the incident that persuaded me that it was useless to try to categorize things correctly when the Commons is dominated by people like you. --Itub 13:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Juiced lemon: 3RR, where it is implemented, is a tripwire, not an entitlement. That is, you are not ENTITLED to revert 3 times but not 4, rather it is a line where it's clear that you are revert warring. I have blocked on en: for less than 4 reversions (but for violating the spirit of not reverting) and had those blocks sustained, more than once. The real point of it is that the spirit of the wiki process is that we do not revert war, we discuss and reach consensus. When you ask "have you found some proof I have breaked an assumed 3RR rule?", you are asking the wrong question. That question is a ruleslawyerish question, it is assuming that 3RR is an entitlement. The right question to ask is, "Am I contributing in accordance with the spirit of the wiki process, by reaching consensus on changes I know might be controversial, instead of reverting the changes of others repeatedly?". And the answer, clearly indicated by your contribution history, which has many many many examples of repeated reversions, many examples of assertions that you are right and others must be wrong, is "not yet". You have much scope for improvement. That is not to say that everyone else is perfect.
My belief is that those who want to introduce an explicit 3RR policy want to make it more clear cut that repeated reversion is not acceptable and that it may lead to loss of the ability to contribute, even for prolific contributors who make many useful contributions, because on balance repeated reversion is a net loss. My belief is that those who oppose it, for the most part (yourself notably excepted), oppose it because it is not necessary to make the case that reversion is disruptive, or that you do not always contribute positively. You are a prolific contributor. But you have received counsel from many many parties that your approach is not always effective and that you should change it. You can take that advice on board, and change, or you can ruleslawyer. But the latter is not likely to be effective as I am sensing a loss of patience among many in this community. I hope that helps clarify matters. ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have no fixed opinion about the 3RR rule. And I am not especially interested by this question, though I have near always respected this rule. In my opinion, there are more important issues in Cmmons, like edit warring, since User:Lar recalled it.
I think that we could prevent edit warring, if we'd have procedures in order to resolve the underlying issues. That bothers me, with the dispute with Timeshifter, is that he first refused to discuss, arguing that I'd be necessarily wrong, since I was named in this page.
This is one of my last edits. Assume that someone revert it as a mischief, what should I do? --Juiced lemon 16:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, a fair question. But I think you probably know the answer already. Seek first to understand why the user reverted your removal of those categories (I don't have expertise in this area but most of the categories you removed looked like obviously valid removals to me, what does a county in the middle of NM have to do with the history of AZ, for example?)... how do you understand why the user did it? First try to determine if it was vandalism by examining their other contributions, and only then, if none were in good faith at all, should you just revert. If there is any chance that it was a good faith reversion (not "mischief") start a conversation about it, by leaving the user a message, by engaging them on the talk page of the map, or by bringing it to the pump. Draw other users in too. Only once it is clear what consensus is should you act further to revert their reversion. But you know all this already, it's all been explained before, if I am not much mistaken. ++Lar: t/c 23:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 3

Since you asked, here's some proof:
Looking at the history is more easy, isn't it? However, the history shows that Timeshifter has broken the 3RR rule first. --Juiced lemon 16:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Bzzt. Wrong answer. That's ruleslawyering. My kids do not get away with "but he did it first" as a defense... and neither should you, or anyone else. Please address the issues raised. As I said, I think the community is losing patience with you. IF it comes to pass that this rule goes into place, I for one will hand out blocks to all participants, not just one, so don't worry about that. But it would be far better if you modified your behaviour without regard to what others do or do not do. "he started it" does not entitle you to continue it. ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Larry doesn't need this but maybe others might find it useful. I agree fully with Larry. There is a phrase "Do as you would be done by" - it works well. --Herby talk thyme 17:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not a wrong answer, because it's not an answer. My answer is above the User talk:Jeff G.'s intervention, and I said that I near always respect the 3RR rule. This time, I let me be carried away by User:Timeshifter, because an other user supported me about this issue. I never said I was right, nor I was right because User:Timeshifter reverted first.
I added this comment because:
It is a wrong answer, or wrong approach or whatever you want to call it... you're looking at this the wrong way. Please do not quibble with the wording here. That sort of thing is symptomatic of the frustration that many folks have with you. That's a bad spot to be in. Ignore Timeshifter. Focus on your own tendency to revert and correct that. If you insist that "he did it first" is justification in this case, I will be happy to block both you and Timeshifter, commensurate with the level of disruption that your overall history of reversion has caused the project. I don't think you will like that one bit. So, let bygones be bygones, put the past behind you and undertake to stop reverting (not "near always", but always). You are being given far more latitude here than most other users would get, because of the hard work you have done, but you are also exhausting the patience of many. For the record I myself subscribe to WP:0RR unless mightily provoked at which point I might slip all the way to WP:1RR. I highly recommend you try 0RR for a while. ++Lar: t/c 18:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Strong moral support here for Lar's position. --MichaelMaggs 22:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I second that. / Fred J 10:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Said before but I will say it again - I support Larry's view on this --Herby talk thyme 10:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 4

We continue to struggle with this topic, as can be seen by discussions elsewhere on the page... see also User_talk:Juiced_lemon#Please_work_constructively which was updated to point to something I spotted... Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Category:Musicians_from_Guatemala. That post is symptomatic of what I feel is the wrong approach, stating that "User:Infrogmation sabotages my work and disrupts Commons Wikimedia by trying to prevent obvious moves." just does not assume good faith about Infrogmation. I have no opinion about the category question itself but I find that tone unacceptable. My patience is exhausted and I have warned Juiced lemon that the next time I see that sort of incorrect approach, lacking in civility, and speaking in a manner that I think will disrupt harmonious editing here, I will block him. I believe I can count on the support of others. I am sorry that it has come to this but I really think this is out of hand. ++Lar: t/c 12:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't assume “bad faith”, but I recorded the fact. I created Category:Musicians from Guatemala shortly after Category:Musical groups from Guatemala on 09:40, 21 July 2007. User:Infrogmation removed the contents, then deleted this category on 12:23, 21 July 2007. I can't imagine a single reason to make that a positive action.
This deletion have two consequences:
  • the deleted category have to be undeleted: I opened a section in Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests and I gave the most accurate reason for this undeletion.
  • it indicates a larger issue, since the human error of User:Infrogmation is not an isolated one. A lot of categories are deleted by administrators without a valid reason. This issue must be treated.
Now, Category:Musicians from Guatemala is not yet undeleted, and User:Infrogmation, with this reversion, categorized Category:Musical groups from Guatemala in the empty and unused category Category:Musicians of Guatemala, which is currently a redirection.
How do you interpret this new action? --Juiced lemon 13:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The focus is on your actions, not that of anyone elses. The onus is on you to go the extra mile. Whether you agree with Infrogmation's action or not, it is inappropriate to characterise his actions as sabotage or disruption. Period. End of Story. Assume good faith even if the other person appears not to be, or suffer the consequences. "He started it" or "He did a bad thing" are not excuses. You have been counseled about this before. There is nothing more to say here that has not been said over and over and over. ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You said: Assume good faith. Why? I don't assume “good faith” or “bad faith”, because I don't make assumptions which cannot be used in reasoning or argument: that's trivial activity.
In particular, I didn't assume anything about User:Infrogmation and, as I already told you, I wrote the most accurate comment about the deletion.
I read in the Wiktionnary:
sabotage: to deliberately destroy or damage something in order to prevent it from being successful.
User:Infrogmation didn't delete the category by chance. Therefore, I think this verb precisely characterizes Infrogmation's action. It's not an assesment about his intentions. If there is some nuance that I don't appreciate, you'll have to explain it, because I don't understand why my comment is “inappropriate” for you. --Juiced lemon 18:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
"You said: Assume good faith. Why? " Why? (???!!!???) Goodness, Juiced... Because that's what we do here. It's the basic premise for our behaviour here. We expect all contributors to assume good faith about others, unless their actions demonstrate otherwise. You need to internalise that. Repeat it over and over to yourself till it's second nature to speak softly.
I am afraid the word "Sabotage" carries a very negative connotation, that the person carrying it out isn't acting in the best interests of the thing being sabotaged. I doubt very much that everyone you interact with is deliberately destroying things, I really do. Use neutral connotations going forward, please. Even if you have to soften your words. Please. Or else. ++Lar: t/c 03:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I have no doubt that many users are deliberately destroying (or trying to destroy) things in Commons, due to my huge watchlist. To my knowledge, “deliberately” doesn't imply bad intentions, but only consciousness of immediate acts and effects. The category Category:Musicians from Guatemala didn't disintegrate.
Good intentions are not sufficient to do good work: the Chernobyl disaster occured due to a test which was expected to improve the safety. That's why I don't assume good or bad faith, but only the complexity of mind.
To improve the efficiency of the Commons activities, it is necessary to accept descriptions of facts and criticism. If you think that my wording is unnecessary annoying, the best is to add a message in my talk page, and I'll try to correct it.
These agressive interventions in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems are a wrong approach. --Juiced lemon 17:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Per the definition of sabotage which you offered, the intent of the deliberate act is "to prevent it from being successful." If you assume that other established users are deliberatly doing things for no other reason than to obstruct Commons, how is that not assuming bad faith?
Assuming good faith has the following components:
  • Don't assume you know everything. Other users may have reasons for their actions which are not obvious to you. If you see a peculiar edit from someone who doesn't have a record of vandalism, don't assume that it is vandalism or misguided destruction. Instead, ask them about how they reasoned.
  • Conversely, don't assume everyone else knows everything you do. Learn to tolerate actions which you think are destructive and which you suspect may be misguided (but again, don't assume this is necessarily so, and if you do, try to keep your suspicions to yourself). Explain and motivate your way of seeing things to the other user. Hopefully, you'll get another person helping you to do things your way instead of in a way which you feel compelled to reverse.
  • Don't assume your way is the best way. If you know the reason for another user's actions but you disagree with them, don't just revert. Instead, discuss the matter. See what other users think. The world doesn't end tomorrow; if your way really is the best way, others will support it and you will have it your way in due time.
Above all, consider what your comments accomplish. "User X is sabotaging Category Y" simply labels User X as a vandal or, at best, an uninformed buffoon. Antagonising other users like that doesn't aid Commons' workflow or your own. If you need to vent such frustrations, find another outlet.
—LX (talk, contribs) 18:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I looked at this one earlier & was trying to come up with a well worded answer. Frankly I cannot improve on what LX has said & I'm grateful for it, thanks LX --Herby talk thyme 18:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
User X as a vandal or, at best, an uninformed buffoon. is not what I wanted to express. I couldn't guess it, so it's best in such case to let a message in my talk page. I have changed the wording. --Juiced lemon 19:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to give you some credit for trying... "User:Infrogmation destroys my work and bothers me by trying to prevent obvious moves." is marginally better than "User:Infrogmation sabotages my work and disrupts Commons Wikimedia by trying to prevent obvious moves." But why not try a phrasing more like "I don't think this category should have been deleted. The category that was there before fits our standard usage better" or something like that. Take personalities out of it completely. ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
You are obviously a troublemaker and a lyer. ... Your igorance[87] does not assume good faith. Not even close.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
You arrange words in order to misrepresent this discussion in my talk page. This technique, designed for people who are lacking in common sense, has been widely used for political propaganda. Using it is neither kind, nor fair. --Juiced lemon 22:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Though I am lacking common sense and fairness, I must admit that concerning the discussion above (You are obviously a troublemaker and a lyer. ... Your igorance[88] ), I have been a bit provocative because I was fed up with one way discussions and wanted to show JL to what sort of situations his style of arguing leads. Please don't take this passus in account when judging on the whole file. In the future I will refrain from being provocative (and avoid discussions with JL in general). --Foroa 06:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you deny that you wrote those exact words in that exact order in that exact edit?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • reset

It may be hard I know but could I ask that we cease these "detailed" concerns with Juiced Lemon and any others. We need a collaborative approach here and - in the hope that others will follow examples - we need to show the way we would like people to behave. Dissecting every posting on any user will expose flaws (except for those of you who are perfect) in anyone. Can we please stick with the need to work together constructively and amicably and not persist in "scratching" at small irritations. I would prefer this whole thread to end. If there are fresh problems so be it and they can be dealt with afresh however let us focus more broadly now --Herby talk thyme 10:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 5

Commons:Disputes_noticeboard#User:Jean-Pol_GRANDMONT_removes_.E2.80.9Cmove.E2.80.9D_templates: and here, we go again as foreseen ... --Foroa 12:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What is this about? It looks like both users need to be encouraged to take this to the appropriate discussion place (near as I can make out this is about whether we should go with Province or province in category names??) but I'm not seeing that Juiced Lemon is out of line on this one, other than the revert warring. Using a move tag to spark discussion, as Juiced did, seems right to me. I'm the first to say that I think Juiced could improve some of his approaches but let's not condemn everything he does out of hand ok? In this case the other user should be encouraged to discuss things more, in my view. I could be missing something though... ++Lar: t/c 16:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Jean-Pol is one of the most busy and productive media providers for Belgium (2400 image uploads, all photographed by himself), and as many very productive persons, he don't want to waste time on what in his eyes is a detail and hence a waste of time.
Because I know the sensitivities, I warned Juiced lemon on his talk page that it was very rude to do a massive cat rename combined with a major restructuration of the geographic organisation in Belgium. The reorganisation has been reverted to a big extent and the pivot categories Category:Walloon Region and Category:Flemish Region are in the (long) deletion process. No major Belgian content provider voted to keep these categories. The reason for renaming "Hainaut (Province in Belgium)" to "Hainaut (province)" mentioning "Misspelled category name" is quite arguable indeed and deserves some documentation.
At the same time, I warned Jean-Pol and offered to organise the move myself the 5 provinces if he agreed (It is easy to stick a movecat template on a category, but the real move requires a lot of work).
When Jean-Pol came back from holiday, he started reverting all changes in the Walloon provinces and told JL that he should discuss this before doing the changes. This was followed by an almost military order from JL to stop reverting, followed later by a threatening to report Jean-Pol as a bad user.
As a conclusion, Lar is right: in normal conditions, this should be settled by discussions. But whenever you have one party that is too nerveus or has exhausted his credit, the war starts easily.
I reported this incident to show:
  • that before major restructurations and renamings, one should document it, listen to the concerned users and reach a consensus.
  • the fact that anyone can, in 10 minutes time, restructure a whole cat organisation through adding several cats, movecats, ... while reverting it back takes long procedures with deletion requests, voting, arguing ...
...--Foroa 17:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
And what do you think of Commons:Categories for discussion#Category:Audio by brand?
I agree to take part in the writing of procedure(s) about categories structure changes, then to apply them. --Juiced lemon 18:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


  • Audio brand: no idea yet: my experience is that it takes a couple of hours before you can take a sensible position in the categorisation of a subject. My thoughts and reply for the radio's, although very incomplete took me more than an hour to define a first emergency scheme to answer the most urgent needs. But all those discussions are volatile and complex; they should conclude in a simple resolution with a cat tree and a minimal doc, otherwise they are restarted again and again.
  • Category change procedure participation: glad to hear that. With all the discussions here, I did not progress at all with my planned "use case" document, but I think that could shine another light on many aspects here.
  • a first problem is that we have no tool that helps in generating a listing or a pasteable doc of some parts of a structure tree, so it is already very difficult to docement the existing structure.

--Foroa 18:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Juiced Lemon assuming bad faith

I feel the need to again bring up this user here. I find it serious how he continuously assumes bad faith of other users and I find this very detrimental for the atmosphere on Commons. Especially when he does it of admins, who we all hope on behalf of Commons. On Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Category:Musicians_from_Guatemala he says that "User:Infrogmation sabotages my work and disrupts Commons Wikimedia by trying to prevent obvious moves." And he repeatedly assumes bad faith with my actions -- calling my de-adminship warning message "a cunning proposal" and "a trick" (Commons:Village pump#The cunning proposal). I find it impossible to conduct constructive discussions with such a user. / Fred J 22:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You find impossible to conduct constructive discussions with me? You are joking... you have never tried a single time. You have began to harass me without definite reason, meddling in disagreements which don't concern you, in issues you don't understand.
The “cunning proposal” is this proposal, not the warning message. You didn't join the talk in the village pump, where you could give some explanation about your behaviour: you prefer to complain here and lead personal attacks, rather than reasoning.
What you are doing in this section is a BAD ACTION and is very detrimental for the atmosphere on Commons. --Juiced lemon 23:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Juiced, please. You've been counseled about your approach multiple times, including multiple times on this very page. Make your thoughts known in a neutral way, and don't cast aspersions on others. Please. ++Lar: t/c 03:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
It appears that a block is in order.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I've thought a bit about this post (& canceled two attempts). I've been attempting a dialog with Juiced Lemon on the cunning proposal. Each attempt I have made to clarify the situation has resulted in a further post disagreeing with my explanation of the situation. So I find myself in agreement with Fred - whatever else Juiced Lemon appears not to be assuming "good faith" at all. This is not a situation I am used to find myself in and I would appreciate the views of others as to whether my explanations can be seen as concealing something from the community as a whole. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
A discussion in the village pump is intended to (in particular):
  • identify points of agreements and points of disagreements
  • find a way to resolve points of disagreements
  • obtain a concensus about some issues
The discussion “The cunning proposal” is not finished, and I don't understand you criticism about this debate. I am not bound to agree with you. --Juiced lemon 12:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
You are not bound to agree. You can disagree if you wish. But you ARE bound to disagree in a manner that is not disruptive. Even if you think you have been provoked. This point has been made repeatedly. We should try to consolidate discussion of the deadminship proposal in one place if possible, and consolidate discussion of the issues surrounding your participation in another... there seem to be too many threads going right now. ++Lar: t/c 13:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_3&oldid=264579224"