::Not sure my whereabouts are relevants to the subject but I go out quite often which allows me to contributes quality pictures to our project like [[:File:European robin in japanese garden in Toulouse - facing right.jpg|European robin]], [[:File:Euroleague - LE Roma vs Toulouse IC-23.jpg|wheelchair basketball]], [[:File:ST vs CO 2012-03-10 - 42.jpg|rugby union]] for last week-end. I have a quite nice collection of mallard ducks prooving I like to go out for walks ... and please do not involve my mum in the discussion (for the record as lots of mum she is proud of her son). --[[User:PierreSelim|PierreSelim]] ([[User talk:PierreSelim|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
::Not sure my whereabouts are relevants to the subject but I go out quite often which allows me to contributes quality pictures to our project like [[:File:European robin in japanese garden in Toulouse - facing right.jpg|European robin]], [[:File:Euroleague - LE Roma vs Toulouse IC-23.jpg|wheelchair basketball]], [[:File:ST vs CO 2012-03-10 - 42.jpg|rugby union]] for last week-end. I have a quite nice collection of mallard ducks prooving I like to go out for walks ... and please do not involve my mum in the discussion (for the record as lots of mum she is proud of her son). --[[User:PierreSelim|PierreSelim]] ([[User talk:PierreSelim|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
:::You seem to think that other peoples' whereabouts is relevant to their contributions here, this is not the first time you have attacked other users editing from [http://wikipedia.org Wikipedia.org] referring to them as 'from en-wiki' and trying seemingly to tar them as 'invaders': [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=68266622][https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=68047767][https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=68057429][https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=68094705]. You need to drop the hostility towards people trying to contribute constructively to discussions on basis of what country they are from, and read through [http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia]. --[[User:Mistress Selina Kyle|Mistress Selina Kyle]] ([[User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
::I didn't say anything about your mother, and you know that. I asked you to think about what would your mother would think if she knew what you were doing, because I am sure you have not told her of this? What do you think she would think if she knew you were chasing down and banning people who blow the whistle about people attempting to subvert a very large and influential website to advocate abuse of children?
::If you are in the situation where you are scared what she would say, then that is called a '''reality check'''. --[[User:Mistress Selina Kyle|Mistress Selina Kyle]] ([[User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
# There was no warning given that the behaviour should stop, never mind that it might be considered harassment and result in a block.
# There was no warning given that the behaviour should stop, never mind that it might be considered harassment and result in a block.
This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
The most uncivil there was "Have you waked from your sleep?" and it's not really something horrible. Somebody whose english abilities would be higher could write something significantly more stinging while staying much lower than that on the radar. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 09:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a notice on the user talk page asking him to be civil. I do not think we need to do any more than this in this case. --Sreejith K (talk) 09:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that context i didn't even notice it. Probably because it's not "You are an idiot" (where it'd be a noun) but rather "Idiots..." (an exclamation). So one can easily have substituted it with "Geez" just with a raised tone of voice. Of course if you are looking through the short post waiting to be insulted about something, you will; but that isn't a statement about the language, but rather about the intelligence of the person feeling an insult. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 09:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, in essence, if someone uses this language, you won't feel insulted. But then, there have been instances when I differed with people on Commons and elsewhere on totally different issues. But I never resort to such adjectives. Do you? Hindustanilanguage (talk)
He has been warned by Sreejith and I think we shall not do more because to me it's an isolated fact. Do you suggest another action or shall we close this topic ? --PierreSelim (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think we should close the issue for now. However, if the user again resorts to this language again, we'll have take this background into consideration. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
What an ironic post. This reversion by Saibo arbitrarily deletes discussion; his diff is me restoring it. The content he was trying to restore through reversion was all moved to the talk page (Commons talk:Requests for comment/PD review). Also quite amazing to see an administrator, having provided enough disruptive comments to require them to be moved to the talk page, then to treat the removal as "vandalism" (Commons:Vandalism: a "malicious change"). Rd232 (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not my problem that you have inserted some other comments in the meantime to hide your deletion. You are welcome to reinsert them. --Saibo (Δ) 13:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is your problem, since you deleted them, and it is quite obvious that my additional comments were nothing to do with you (don't be so egocentric). And you can cut this sort of nonsense right out - the relevant part of your comments was preserved, and you're welcome to make more relevant comments. You are not welcome to attempt to further disrupt an RFC about how to apply Commons policy because you disagree with that policy. In my email to you I commented
As I said in the closure at Commons:Deletion_requests/All_files_copyrighted_in_the_US_under_the_URAA, "Most of the rest of this discussion relates to moving all or part of Commons to outside the US, or using uploads to local projects more. Users who want to discuss that further would be best served with a separate RFC on that topic - perhaps Commons:Requests for comment/Commons Abroad and related ideas." If you want to do that, feel free, but please don't seek to further comment in unhelpful ways on an attempt to figure out how to comply with current legal requirements.
Now, please understand that you are being disruptive, and that this is not acceptable behaviour, especially from an admin. Additionally, you're using an inappropriate dispute resolution mechanism (vandalism noticeboard). Rd232 (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do the both of you want? I'd be more than happy to look at both of what you have to say, and likely come up with the result of sending you both to your rooms without dinner, if you want me to. Or you can both act like admins and discuss this on your talk pages and resolve it. We are probably used to pissing matches such as what seems to be occurring by less-experienced editors, but from admins...wow...just wow. russavia (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi russavia, thanks for your comment. What I want is stated right at the start. Rd232 restructured (in fact it is a deletion) a discussion in the way he likes (up to now I avoided to mention: some here might remember that this occurrence is not the first time if this controversial restructuring) and I do not agree with that but he insists to delete my comments by reverting. --Saibo (Δ) 15:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually when i came across this discussion, i first thought that Saibo has lost it. But then this is out of line. Removing discussion because it's 'heated' is equivalent with trying to channel it in the direction that one wants it to go. Such moves, especially during the heated discussion are very contravercial, and should be avoided wherever possible. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 16:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if you quoted the full edit summary: move heated meta discussion to talk, keeping quote of materially relevant part [emphasis added]. All the comments moved to talk were because they were disruptive, or responses to those comments which added nothing to the discussion of the RFC subject. Moreover they were almost entirely meta comments (complaining about the RFC or the Commons policy it's based on, not participating in it). Moving these comments was necessary because such disruption should not be tolerated. I tolerated quite a bit, but when Saibo came back again with the same disruptive comments, it was too much. After those comments a previously active discussion had no contributions for a week, and a causal element cannot be ruled out. But whether the disruption succeeded or not, there is no doubt that Saibo intended to stop the RFC achieving anything, and by definition that is disruptive. Rd232 (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly stated what I want in the AN section you (Russavia) closed:
User:Saibo has repeatedly made disruptive comments at Commons:Requests for comment/PD review, per his apparent belief that the second bullet point in the heading of COM:L (media must be "in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work") is not in fact policy, and that therefore attempts to ensure that PD-tagged images comply with this are some sort of "US-centric" chauvinism. I eventually moved those disruptive comments to the RFC talkpage (quoting on the main RFC page the only part that actually was relevant to the RFC), and pointed out by email that if he wanted to change policy, he was welcome to try. In response he raised Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism#Arbitrary_discussion_deletion. He is now edit-warring this claim into the RFC page, and from discussion at AIV and his user talk page clearly is not going to desist.
As for "...discuss this on your talk pages and resolve it..." - I already emailed Saibo (immediately after moving the material to the RFC talk page, to explain), and attempted further discussion at his talk page. You can see the results for yourself. Rd232 (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is "...discuss this on your talk pages and resolve it..." meaning a deletion of discussion content and ensuring that it stays deleted by reverting its restore? Do you know Doublespeak? --Saibo (Δ) 19:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The content wasn't deleted, it was moved from the RFC main page to the RFC talk page, where it should have been in the first place. And you're replying to a comment about user talk page discussions. Rd232 (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know what you mean with "And you're replying to a comment about user talk page discussions". But, really, I stop that discusion here with you now. Enough time wasted. --Saibo (Δ) 23:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again doublespeak. You are the one who demands this discussion - not me (like you try to put it here). I fail to see how this should be "goodwill" - to the opposite since you use try to coin (or establish/push it as solution) the term "Commons abroad" (that is a non-neutral page title). More comments on this on your RFC page.
Well there goes that olive branch... Look, I'm not coining or "pushing" anything. "Commons Abroad" was coined by Dcoetzee in the URAA DR (as far as I know) as a perfectly reasonable handle for the idea of hosting files outside the US, where they might not be subject to US copyright laws (though it's probably not that easy to really dissociate WMF from such a non-US-based Commons). The fact that you cannot seem to get your head around the fact that Commons is hosted in the US and run by a US organisation and subject to US laws is not my fault: I've tried to explain it to you. And I've raised the RFC I previously suggested you start, because it gives you (and others who were interested, the DR had plenty of activity) a chance to discuss whether there is a way for Commons (or at least other Wikimedia projects) to host content currently subject to US copyright restrictions. Rd232 (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I do not need that discussion - the content ever was and belongs to Commons. And if the WMF does see any need that hosting this public domain (except in one country) content does not fit their home jurisdiction they can think about what they want to do (that may be moving to another country). --Saibo (Δ) 20:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC) But, ehm, that here is the wrong place to discuss that. --Saibo (Δ) 20:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I raised it with Jimbo in December, and the response made it clear that moving abroad wasn't something the WMF would consider at the moment (practicalities, plus moving to another jurisdiction means then being subject to those laws, which may be much more restrictive in some regards like free speech or fair use). The WMF position is quite clear, that copyright violations should be removed, and URAA creates a new class of copyright violations. Nobody likes it, but that's the situation. I wouldn't mind if you were energetically trying to change that somehow, but all your efforts seem to involve some form of denial of the facts. That denial (to bring this back ontopic) extends to disrupting attempts to deal with the situation as it exists, and that disruption is what I attempted to deal with. Rd232 (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with your deletion attempts and you don't like that so you deleted my comments ("deal[t] with"). Of course my comment and even my presence is disruption from your point of view since it is the opposite of helping with your "effort" (quoted from somewhere else). Probably it is also disrupting by the community that you have very few people behind your back and willing to help you with this "effort", hmm? --Saibo (Δ) 22:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained my and your actions repeatedly, and engaged with your bizarre, unsupported and illogical position on Commons not needing to respect US law (which you'd previously tried repeatedly to inject disruptively into a discussion on how to comply with US law), and tried to feed that into a constructive direction (ways to reduce the impact of US law on what Commons wants to achieve). At this point you're just repeating yourself, with decreasing amounts of rationality, both here and elsewhere. Frankly, I'm starting to wonder how compatible with Commons adminship is the belief (which you apparently sincerely hold and cannot be shifted from) that Commons does not need to comply with US law. That's quite separate from the disruptive way in which you have expressed that belief, and then attacked me when I dealt with that - which is in itself a problem. Rd232 (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not really sure why you are commenting on my admin rights here, but, well: If you think that the community wishes that I, the disruptor, should not be an admin, then please make a desysop request (note that this is no recommendation you to do so). As said above: I will not further waste my time in this discussion with you. --Saibo (Δ) 23:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, a desysop request needs some prior consensus and anyway I don't wish to pursue it on the back of a single incident which hopefully can be settled fairly soon (even though your unwillingness to respect the laws applicable to Commons is rather concerning). If you wish to end this incident, just remove this claim or allow me to do it. That's all. Rd232 (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved Saibo's objection notice (using {{Fact disputed}}, used to mark disputed media descriptions or file names, i.e. if you believe that the content of the file does not match its description) to the RFC talk page. I'm hoping that this can be an end to this. Saibo's objection is noted, without disrupting the RFC. It remains the case that all kinds of participation in the RFC are welcome on the RFC main page, whilst objections to the RFC (and other discussion about the RFC) belong on the talk page. Rd232 (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I request that User:Saibo be blocked for 24 hours for disruption. This recent edit at Commons:Requests for comment/PD review, combined with a failure to engage in further discussion (and outright comments above that he will not engage in further discussion) indicates a willingness to continue pursuing his campaign to disrupt the RFC in question. This cannot and should not be tolerated. Rd232 (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Saibo has overacted, but it was an example of some awesome trolling by Rd232. And it's not an honest belief by Rd232 which can be reinterpreted as trolling, it is blatant twisting of every rule in the rulebook to attempt to get the most effect out of one's actions. To make sure that my words are not just an empty accusation, i'll back them up now. There were two discussions going on: PD review and Better search. In the first one the discussion has began going in the direction Rd232 didn't find useful, so all the comments which disrupted moving forward were moved away to the talk page, and any attempt to bring the discussion back was countered. At the very same time Rd232 watched as any discussion about improving the search deterriorated into demands for censorship, which has almost completely killed most of the potential behind it; not only were these sorts of discussions not removed, but Rd232 has engaged in them (right now real proposals have 2 or three replies, most of the energy is spent combating the trolls... yes i know that it's best to ignore them, but then it appears like the community actually wants the censorship, so it's a catch 22 situation). I must confess, i have considered moving all the demands for "safe search" off that RFC onto the talk page, just to see what would happen, but have decided that it'd be POINTy bahaviour, and wouldn't be helpful, but i can bet a lot that i would not have much support from Rd232 on such a move. Due to this clear contradiction, and abuse of the position i think that it can be understood why Saibo has reacted the way one did. Yes, it was wrong, and yes, one should have had a cooler head, but sometimes trolling does get the better of us. As i have mentioned Rd232's actions have almost caused me to engage in disruption myself, but in the hindsight i'm glad i didn't. Please block nobody or both parties in this dispute, and don't take sides in this dispute by blocking, as that would only worsen an already heated situation. Thanks. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 16:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the discussion has began going in the direction Rd232 didn't find useful" - simply untrue. Barring Saibo's repeated disruption, it was going just fine.
"watched as any discussion about improving the search deterriorated into demands for censorship" - untrue on multiple fronts. (i) nobody, but nobody, is asking for something that could be honestly called censorship (ii) I started the RFC with two main subsections, one on "effective search" and one on user-controlled filtering, and I've repeatedly moved subsubsections to maintain the distinction.
There is no contradiction, no POINTy behaviour, no trolling. I've acted to protect an RFC against disruption by someone who clearly should know better. The root of that protection is moving comments to the talk page that belong on the talk page. Pretending that the two sides are equal here is like saying a vandal and the person who reverts the vandal are "two sides". Rd232 (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've disrupted the discussion, you got a response. Pat your own self on the back and move on, no reason to add an insult to injury and demand to block the person. I'm not going to continue this discussion. You've trolled me enough, i'm trying to stay away from anything with your name on it for a while. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 16:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saibo's disruption on this issue is ongoing and apparently intended to continue, that's why a block is necessary, especially as there is much future work to be done, with much future potential for disruption if he remains determined to do that. As for you, despite some fairly outrageous contributions of yours to the "safesearch" discussion (some of which many would consider "trolling", though I try not to use the term), you clearly have something to contribute to the Effective Search discussion, so I'd urge to continue with that, assuming you're able to keep disputes out of other areas. Rd232 (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not going to apologise for being willing to use a variety of means to keep discussions focussed, moving, relevant and on-topic. Occasionally annoying people is a personal price I'm willing to pay for the collective good of not having discussions that go on endlessly, uselessly, or die out without conclusion, etc. Generally I accept pushback against my managerial efforts; in this case, I cannot (well I did initially, when Saibo undid my collapse of part of the comments, but later persistence showed that this acceptance was a mistake), because the underlying comments are disruptive, and because there is every reason, given the user's views, to fear that this disruption will continue. Without the undertaking I asked for, or a block to make clear the community's views of this sort of disruptive behaviour, the implied threat of more disruption will remain. Rd232 (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again (as I said to Pieter), this is not a vote. And again (like Beta M), this is a user who has been involved in the recent heated "safesearch" discussion in disagreement with me. Can we have some neutral observers actually take this situation seriously, please? Rd232 (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add that Niabot has a history of disrupting Commons in order to prove his or her points: [1], [2], [3]. I don't believe that Niabot can be considered a good or neutral judge on what is or isn't considered disruption. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, another user who opposed me in the recent "safesearch" discussion. (How many to complete the set?) As for "It takes two users to create disruption" - well I wasn't aware of that. Will you nominate Commons:Vandalism for deletion or should I? It's appropriate to deal with disruption as necessary. If the disruption takes the form of comments, those comments may need to be moved or deleted, or even revisiondeleted. This is basic admin stuff, don't pretend you don't know. Rd232 (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rd232 (talk·contribs) is an involved party to the dispute, and therefore should most certainly not be removing comments from other users in discussion. Extremely inappropriate. Basic admin stuff really. -- Cirt (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"an involved party to the dispute" - not exactly true. Look at Commons talk:Requests for comment/PD review - I didn't move any of my comments, because I wasn't involved in any of the exchanges that needed moving. Nor was Saibo involved in the on-topic discussion, except for that one comment I quoted. He intended to disrupt the RFC, and when he persisted sufficiently, I felt that it needed to be addressed. Rd232 (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Against the block, please both of you discuss calmly without reverting each other (I'm sure you can do it: you are both of you two useful contributors to the project). --PierreSelim (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately it ignores the fact that (i) we have stopped reverting; Saibo's notice is left there (I tried moving the notice as a compromise to document his objection to the move of the comments, but that was rejected as well) (ii) Saibo has explicitly said he will not discuss it further (iii) my most recent offer to him to end this sensibly (on his talk page) was apparently rejected (certainly wasn't engaged with). At this point, Saibo is apparently unwilling to do anything but enforce his position through further edit warring; he's not even willing to promise to desist from future disruption on the same issue elsewhere. Quite how I'm supposed to resolve this through further discussion escapes me. See also the section below. Rd232 (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now what
So far the only people to have commented are people I have had unrelated disputes with. There's no sign of that changing, and the issue has had plenty of exposure.
Those commenting seem to think that Saibo's comments should not have been moved.
Those commenting seem unwilling to meaningfully address Saibo's behaviour. The nature of Saibo's comments and disruption, and apparent willingness to continue that disruption, and unwillingness to discuss the matter any further, has not seriously been discussed. Saibo has rejected repeated attempts of mine to resolve the situation in some constructive way. Apparently this sort of behaviour is just fine.
Commons:Requests for comment/PD review has had no substantive comments since Saibo's disruptive comment of 22 Feb. Nor have any of those involved in the topic commented on the dispute about moving the comments. It looks rather like Saibo's attempts to disrupt Commons' efforts to deal with a class of copyright violations arising from the URAA is going to succeed. (Aside: nobody on Commons likes that this new class exists, but it does.) I can only conclude that worrying about moving some disruptive comments from an RFC main page to the RFC talk page ranks far above dealing with copyright violations in Commons' priorities.
The question then becomes, "now what?". The logical outcome seems to be:
Restore the disputed comments to the RFC main page
Close the RFC, since it's nearly been open 30 days and is dead, and restoring the comments will help ensure it remains dead.
Change COM:L to reflect Saibo's view that files do not need to be PD in both the US and the source country, at least for URAA cases (or even broader - he seems to think Commons does not need to respect US laws at all). This view has been implicitly endorsed by the refusal of people to engage with the disruptive expression of it.
I'm definitely involved, but I find Saibo's editing here very problematic. He has a problem with a policy, and yet he isn't willing to take it to a forum about changing policy, or even acknowledge that he's arguing against long-standing policy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stop feeling sorry for yourself. You only have yourself to blame for being so pushy. And I had more disputes with Saibo than with you. As for the issue: yes, Commons should change policy. Give it some time. There is no immediate hurry. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Despite one comment supporting my actions, I've restored the comments on the main page and closed the RFC. The disruption may or may not have been successful, but the discussion did grind to a halt, and at this point any harm arising from the comments has been done. So since Saibo and others continue to object to the move, I've restored the comments, as it makes no difference now. I've created Commons:WikiProject Public Domain, and trust that if anyone tries to disrupt that, this will not be tolerated. Rd232 (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Help needed with non-collegial behaviour
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I have images that are within scope and in use, and some have been kept after a two deletion requests in 2010 and 2011. Now their existence once again questioned with the exactly same arguments by User:Takabeg with support of administrator User:Jameslwoodward which consistently exercise dependent judgment by unconditionally supporting every action of User:Takabeg. With that support of an administrator-friend User:Takabeg engage in personal attacks and harass other independent voters on these deletion requests. As for the facts:
Our actions are not similar. The law and evidence are same. As you know, participants of previous DRs ignored the law and evidences. The copyright holder prohibits the use of their name. Takabeg (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I also provided my evidence for the case of the Tower, but that is not the problem here. The problem here is that you're intentionally trying to delete an innocent photo of a manhole cover mixed with others and an administrator User:Jameslwoodward supports that your wrongful decision. Like your trying to pay in a shop with four true coins and one counterfeit coin. Laitr Keiows (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is your failure to assume good faith. The manhole cover is in Category:Kobe Luminarie because it commemorates it, so it's not some random manhole cover that has no link. It's not unreasonable to put it in the same DR with other FOP issues on the same topic. Rd232 (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The photo of a manhole cover isn't a photo of Kobe Luminarie and couldn't possibly be a copyvio per restrictions on architecture declared in FOP#Japan. There are four other Japanese manhole covers here on Commons and they're are not subject to any deletion requests as far as I see. This suggests that the photo of a manhole cover commemorating Kobe Luminarie is in this deletion request by mistake. Laitr Keiows (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only mistake I see is that you don't seem to have actually read FOP#Japan. If you had, I'd expect you to acknowledge that it mentions artistic works, which it may be argued the manhole cover is. That makes it fine to include in that DR, even if the file is ultimately kept. Rd232 (talk) 10:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These covers are mass produced and you can find them all around Kobe (I live here), still one may argue the manhole cover is an artistic work of some sort, but I think there should be separate request for that. Laitr Keiows (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should have noticed that the manhole cover was not properly included in the DR -- the file name was right there in the list. My apologies. I should point out that no one who had commented in the discussion had pointed out the manhole cover until after my last comment there. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exibit 2
At Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Tower_of_the_Sun_in_Osaka.jpg both User:Takabeg and User:Jameslwoodward take similar actions and ignore every argument from previous two deletion requests by turning into personal attacks against participants of those past debates telling that they "don't know Japanese copyright law" which may look like User:Takabeg and User:Jameslwoodward are both experts in Japanese copyright laws, but they are not. This deletion request also includes some files that don't depict the Tower of the Sun as a whole and don't fall under the main argument for deletion, proving that once again User:Jameslwoodward has his judgment compromised.
It is good that you help beginners, but why do you think it is right to tell someone you don't even know that "it's nothing but your own opinion"? Especially I don't think it is right to greet a novice (which you knew he or she is) with these words subtly spiced with humiliation and insult. This your phrase fells much like personal attack, which are not allowed here on Commons. We got to be polite, courteous, and civil here. Laitr Keiows (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I ignored nothing here and made no comments about anyone. My only comment was that we had an opinion of a Japanese copyright lawyer that specifically said that the Tower of the Sun was not covered by the Japanese FOP exemption. The fact that Takabeg and I agree on this is not somehow evidence of a conspiracy, but simply that we both think that User:Laitr Keiows is wrong. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exibit 3
At Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Backus,_Garden_at_Hiroshima,_Autumn.jpg both of the subjects support each other once again and don't even bother to make a little research on that work in subject and instead prefer to blatantly harass me questioning the upload. I couldn't find a similar document here on Commons, but there is a Wikipedia policy WP:MTPPT that prohibits recruiting anyone who agree with you for the purpose of supporting your side of a debate.
I've asked some question about Backus' paintings to User:Jameslwoodward (here) before I uploaded his paintings. Jameslwoodward replied and provided information about the status (here). It's very natural for me to ask Jameslwoodward on this issue, when the related DR is opened. Takabeg (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It may look natural to invite someone to take your side of a debate, but, see, if everyone would invite their friends or colleagues to vote for one's side of a debate, every debate will be won not by ones who give best arguments, but by those who have more friends. If you'll look at that deletion request you'll see that there you, instead of finding evidences and truth, tried to pressure me and other readers with subtly related claims into believing that you're right, instead of finding actual evidences, which what I did. Laitr Keiows (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not only I find it very strange to see two users act accordingly in three similar cases, but what worries me most is that their action may lead to deletion of innocent free images and harm the project. Please assist in preventing further disruption from these users. Laitr Keiows (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't recruit Jameslwoodward. I asked him because I've uploaded paintings of Bucks with the explanation of Jameslwoodward. I didn't know his opinion on that painting. Maybe he could say "copyvio". That's all. Takabeg (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. As you said, I believe wikipedia is not a democracy. The important is showing evidences. Laws and evidences are superior to personal arguments and claims of users. Takabeg (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a little more AGF. It is very common for users to agree with one another about deletion requests. James is a very very experienced commons user, and it's highly unlikely that he is trying to get files deleted that he doesn't think deserve deletion. Anyway, you should at least notify him of this discussion. --99of9 (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, a handful of cases of a highly active admin agreeing with another user is not the basis for a complaint. Focus on facts (copyright laws and evidence etc), and COM:AGF. Rd232 (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, User:Jameslwoodward may accidentally agree with Takabeg resulting with that image of a manhole cover above and some other images featuring the Tower of the Sun on the background deleted because Takabeg packed them into one mass-deletion request by mistake. Now, how do I fix that mistake? How do I stop deletion of innocent free images? Laitr Keiows (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"innocent" is an inappropriate word to use. As for your question: it's perfectly possible for some files in a mass deletion request to be deleted, and others kept. Just make a case in the DR to distinguish those you think should be treated differently. Rd232 (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be enough to leave a comment there stating that the photo of a manhole cover isn't a photo of Kobe Luminarie and couldn't possibly be a copyvio per restrictions on architecture declared in FOP#Japan? Laitr Keiows (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So write one. You noticed the issue, and you can make the case that it should be kept for a different reason to the others. --99of9 (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As Takabeg has explained above, he and I had worked together on File:Backus,_Garden_at_Hiroshima,_Autumn.jpg when he first uploaded it. It was, therefore, perfectly natural for him to come to me when User:Laitr Keiows put the {{Delete}}tag on the file. Note that he did not ask for my support, but merely "what do you think of this [DR]". No competent, trusted, user is looking for anything other than clarity and an appropriate closure of a DR -- if User:Laitr Keiows had raised something new in his DR, then I would have been happy to see the file deleted.
He says above,
"don't even bother to make a little research on that work in subject and instead prefer to blatantly harass me questioning the upload"
This is far from correct. Before commenting on the DR, I looked once again at the WP:EN biography of the artist. It was obvious that the artist, Backus, was not in Japan in Autumn 1946 as Laitr Keiows thought and that the work was created while he was still in the Navy. I also don't understand "prefer to blatantly harass me questioning the upload". There is nothing in the DR that is anything other than a straightforward statement of disagreement. Neither of us mentioned Laitr Keiows in our comments in any way. If I am "blatantly harrassing" another editor whenever I disagree, then I confess I do it many time each day. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Laitr Keiows, why should Jim (or Takabeg or anyone else) be conspiring against you or the works you uploaded? More realistically they are pointing out that one or more files that you uploaded might not be eligible for being here. Nobody here has any reason to conspire against anyone else. Anyone is entitled to have their own opinions. Sometimes I do not agree with either Jim or other Admins, but this doesn't mean that Jim (or any other admin) is conspiring against me (nor I am doing the same, of course). When facing these matters we all should always make our best in assuming good faith and considering that an admin's task is never easy. In my humble opinion you'd defend better the files that are matter of RfD by providing uncontestable reason why they should be kept, rather than complaining about a supposed conspiracy -- Blackcat (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] PS if this is not clear it's my fault , please tell me! :"> PPSS: I would also add that nobody of us is happy to delete a file, especially if it's an uploader's own work and properly licenced, because any deleted file is a little piece of knowledge we must be clear of; unfortunately for us we also have to deal with copyright laws and respect anyone's intellectual property. This is hard to deal with for anyone, especially when dealing with very well done photographs, but if we want to keep a free project plenty of reusable contents we can't do much but eliminating unfree material.
I see you have deleted the images - I blocked for a while though looking at them I doubt we will see any great value from this user... Thanks --Herbytalk thyme14:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Add my two cents (I added a second complaint, didn't see there was already one)
Advice resistant. Continually uploading protected material, claims own source for all images. Has history of vandalism warnings on eswiki as well. --Hedwig in Washington(MAIL?)22:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to be a slightly long one. Some of the links will also take you to some of the less salubrious parts of the web. And yes I tried to do this in a less public manner but alas that failed.
Beta_M goes by the name VolodyA! V Anarhist (see his userpage for confirmation). He also goes by the name ethical_anarhist (see anarchopedia). Beta_M seems to have an interest in under aged sex. Over on anarchopedia he mass coppied stuff from boywiki (a site that covered the interests of movementfor example. As ethical_anarhist he can be found posting some unfortunately titled podcasts much the same under the name VolodyA! V Anarhist
As such it has pornographic and sexual content, unfortunately this means that government disallows you to view it unless you are at least 18 years old.
Please only proceed if you are at least 18 years old or United States of America government has ended discrimination by age in its jurisdiction.
Bolding mine. We also have this edit (since deleted) where he removed any suggestion that there might be a moral reason why child pornography doesn't fall under wikipedia is not censored. I haven't done anything like a full review of his edits these are just the first ones I found in an initial skim.
So we have an editor with an unfortunate interest in under aged sex that they haven't left at the door when editing commons. As a result the user needs to be banned from editing.Geni (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this user has blocked me. The block has since been lifted as it was deemed to be uncalled for. The revision which was deleted was deleted without me asking for it, i don't mind if it'll be undeleted. I request that this discussion be closed and that User:Geni will be instructed to back off. This user's (who is an admin) actions begin to border on harassment. I have made steps in the direction of trying to talk out the differences, only to receive an answer "I don't care one way or the other about your position" and "this isn't over". At this moment i no longer believe that the actions of this user are "free speech", and i request that after this discussion is closed the contents will become visible for admins only. Thanks for your time. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 09:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i don't know the procedure, i'm not an admin. What do i do to speed up the process. It's driving me mad, i've spent a better part of the day on this as it is... I've also been blocked on English Wiki, but that doesn't bother me that much, i'll deal with it later. I have been really contributing much to Commons, and it's a shame that admins allow themselves such behaviour. Can somebody please let me know what is the policy here? Do i wait for this to close? Do i go somewhere else? Please answer. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 10:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see anything there on Commons that's disruptive. I don't care about what they've done off-wiki. He offers a link to Freedom Porn to editors who have uploaded explicit pictures to Commons; I don't see the problem with that. Yes, it has a disclaimer that disagrees with certain completely ineffectual rules the government has put into place while following them. I fail to see why that's criminal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the problem? What he does on Commons seams fine to me. What he does elsewhere is not our issue. Despite that i can't find any issue elsewhere as well. That is his opinion. Thats all. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係11:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding enwiki, they have a policy that anyone who is a paedophile be immediately banned without recourse to appeal. I fully accept VolodyA has an interest in human sexuality, and to my mind an unfortunate attitude of reflexive {{Vk}}ing, though that has been getting better recently. Generally I find him to be a productive user - he was initially warned about advertising for that anarchistwiki, but this has also stopped. I am honestly unsure what to do here, the evidence seems pretty conclusive to me, but I don't really see that Volodya's behaviour here is problematic. Everyone has some bad edits, we learn better. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of Wikipedia Review before; but what what i'm reading now it looks like an awful group of people. The link that mattbuck has provided isn't even worth responding to. It's along the lines of "this person talks about paedophilia, thus this person rapes children". The article clearly can't be talking about me, it's simple for me to add 51 months to the year 2000 and show where i was then, even well before then (i had reasonably extensive traveling at that time, and i still have that passport with all the stamps), but of course i don't want to post that on the private forum like this (or over at Wikipedia review). I also have other things to show, but of course, they would be compromising my identity, and these people have shown that there're not going to stop in their harassment. Also there's an issue of "guilty until proven otherwise" which i really dislike. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 12:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only a passing comment but W Review is the pits - why any intelligent person would want to be there I have no idea. For those UK based it makes our gutter press look quite reasonable...!
As to the issue - if Arbcom/Foundation think there is a real issue then the account should be locked on Meta as an "Office" action. --Herbytalk thyme12:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact i can show evidence to that fact. But i'm unsure as to how i would go about doing that, without opening myself up to abuse. One option would be to agree to have some independent admin. For example, i would propose mattbuck. He currently believes that the evidence is against me, if we can agree that 1) if i provide him with enough information to reverse that belief and he posts publically here; and 2) he will promise to delete all the scans of documents and other info that i'll provide to him; then we can consider the issue squashed. I am a bit scared, because i would be putting my faith in a person who has stated already that the evidence on WR is convincing (something i believe to be rubbish), but i have seen mattbuck's administration skills and i think that it's possible to show to him what is going on (although if we can agree on a person who knows russian, it would be awesome). However, no proof will be provided if powers that be will then reserve the right to reject the mediation. Neither will the proof be provided if i believe that the person is acting in bad faith and simply is using the position of power to get the information that would compromise my identity or will share the information with anybody else. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 14:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I respect Mattb however if there is an issue with proving your identity in such a matter I would suggest you consider doing so with the Foundation staff. --Herbytalk thyme14:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will only be disclosing my documents to a person that i believe would not do evil. I am willing to take a first step (a very risky one at that), but if there's nothing coming my direction, i'm not going to play any games. I'm being drug through the mud here for the reason of having voted the Keep on the DR that an admin has had some interest in. Maybe i'm making a mistake with being polite, too many people start assuming it means psychological weakness and that they can bully me. This isn't the case. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 14:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are very serious charges which may result in consequences for both you and User:Geni. Sorry to ask again, but can you simply confirm that you are not the person charged? A simple statement such as "I am not that person" would be better than statements about documents. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not and cannot be a person from that article. There were things which WR have dug up, which is me, so i can't say "none of that is me". Is that sufficient? It's just that i am afraid that i'll say "this isn't me" and then somebody will post proof that something on there actually is (which some of it would be), and then since it appears like i've started lying none of what i say will be believed. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 14:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote against that. A person has a right to say what one wishes, including something which isn't true. However, the fact that the admin has blocked me without discussing, and then after i was unblocked still brought it up everywhere else, should result in some sort of a separation ruling. For example Geni should not comment on the threads that i'm active on (but can comment on the same page in a different trend as long as one isn't cross-pollinating the issues), and should definitely not bring up any block requests against me. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite troubling to see that a Commons admin participates in a witch-hunt orchestrated from Wikipedia Review. Could you not to bring their crap to Commons? What about the real life identity of Beta_M, his real life activity, his opinions on whatever topic, all these things look highly irrelevant for me. Trycatch (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is going way too far in my opinion. Either there are real proof, and I believe commons sysops are not competent (I mean it's not the competent juridiction for that kind of matter, criminal court of your country is), either it's starting to feel like an angry mob starting a witch-hunt. Both cases, I feel it's not the good place to discuss about that if we don't have proof of disturbance in Commons itself. --PierreSelim (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen a lot of actual disruption to this from users that believe that Israel has a divine right to rule and from users that believe that Israel should just be pushed into the sea. But we don't go around digging up their outside political opinions and banning them from the project preemptively. As far as I can tell, Beta M has never expressed support for pedophilia on this project.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe English Wikipedia arbitration committee has apparently reversed Geni's block of Beta M, a few minutes after Geni's opening of this thread here, with the comment "Block is already removed on Commons. Block was based on a faulty assumption and did not follow any established policy." There doesn't seem any Commons policy that applies, and en:Wikipedia:Child protection talks about problematic onwiki behaviour or "[editors] who identify themselves as pedophiles". This doesn't seem to apply here. In addition, that policy says "Comments posted on Wikipedia suggesting that an editor may be a pedophile will be RevDeleted promptly, to avoid issues of privacy and possible libel." I would suggest, in view of ArbCom's decision, that we do that here: delete the section and RevDelete old revisions that show it. Rd232 (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appear to have completely misread that en.wp situation - mea maxima culpa. However it's still true that there's no Commons policy on this, and that there isn't any really problematic onwiki behaviour that's been documented. And the English Wikipedia tries to handle discussion of these matters privately via its ArbCom, and there are excellent reasons for that. Rd232 (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There may be no Commons policy on this, but the global policy Meta:Pedophilia is likely to be relevant here: "Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be indefinitely blocked". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am simply pointing to what would be the relevant policy if someone were to make such a case. I agree with Rd232 that there are good reasons not to have that type of discussion here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such "global policy". Did you notice the banner on Meta:Pedophilia: "The following is a proposed Wikimedia policy. The proposal is under discussion. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy"."? --M5 (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll have to do something about that. Perhaps you would prefer this quote from Sue Gardener: "Wikipedia has a long-held, zero-tolerance policy towards pedophilia or pedophilia advocacy and child pornography. The Wikimedia community is vigilant about identifying and deleting any such material. Any allegations to the contrary are outrageous and false". I think even the pedants will notice that she refers to the "Wikimedia community" here, not just Wikipedia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She was talking about "identifying and deleting any such material", no one argues with that. Blocking of good-faith users for alleged off-wiki activity is a wholly different matter. --M5 (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepBeta_M as a Commons contributor. I am not aware of any disruptive behaviour from his side on Commons and his activities off-wiki are not really our concern. If there are concerns that his behaviour elsewhere violates the law, this is a matter for the police and not for us. Furthermore, Wikipedia policies do not apply here. That said, this discussion contains references to a few deleted revisions on Commons and I don't know if there was anything disruptive in any of those revisions since I can't see them. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who unblocked the user. At the time I was not aware of the evidence Geni presented in this thread, and although I don't think it's grounds for an immediate block, I think it is a concern when the user attempts to directly modify draft policies to reflect their views, etc. In light of their conflict of interest, I would advice them to stick to discussion pages when involved in policy discussions related to child pornography, and to avoid linking offsite resources related to advocacy. I have no problem with them participating in relevant deletion requests, since DRs are closed by admins and a user's opinion there is weighed only according to its merit (and moreover, their opinions expressed thus far in DRs have been consistent with policy and the law). I believe if the user continues to be conscientious about acting in accordance with policy and the law, the need to block them will not arise. However, we should keep an eye on them, and warn them promptly if they begin to engage in any form of advocacy. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So far as i can see we have no true evidence that Beta_M is the same person, as mentioned in the links. We have no policy on how to react and we have no a single fact that would show that he is disrupting the project. Why the hell can you get blocked for something like this? I was called child porn uploader as well, when will i get blocked? I don't know why it is that way, but every time i see people from EN:WP acting up at Commons i could smash my head at the table and weep out of pity. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係23:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Geni is a Commons admin as well as an en.wp admin. Anyway, in the absence of policy or demonstrated problem, it's hard to see what can be done here. Dcoetzee's comment above seems like a reasonable conclusion, but I'm still wondering if we shouldn't delete this entire section in the way the English Wikipedia policy suggests ("Comments posted on Wikipedia suggesting that an editor may be a pedophile will be RevDeleted promptly, to avoid issues of privacy and possible libel."). Of course, we could consider broader questions, like... Is there really no relevant Commons policy? Should there be one? Should there be some way to discuss these issues privately when they arise, to protect the privacy and reputation of the user? That would look something like a (limited) ArbCom, which Commons hasn't wanted, but there are times when the ability to discuss serious issues non-publicly would be useful. Possibly this could be linked with discussions at Meta (m:Requests for comment/Global requests committee) - though whether we'd really want Meta to handle this is debatable. It would probably be very difficult to reach any conclusion on these broader issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try. Rd232 (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Editors who attempt to use Wikimedia projects to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be indefinitely blocked. Please tell me where on Wikimedia Beta_M has done any of these and I'll ban him myself. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess that ArbCom's decision turns on the last point, "identify themselves as pedophiles", which as written may be an offwiki identification. Rd232 (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When on earth did i identify myself as pedophile? I, once again, see idiotic illogical statements like "this user advocates the use of the term boylove, therefore the user is a paedophile". The simple fact is that when a few years back WP community has decided to move "childlove movement" article into "pedophilia activism", it did so against its own policies, there were no secondary sources for that name, it wasn't called that by anybody, in fact Wikipedia coined the term which is a farce. Then there is my edit of the policy (sorry i don't remember it, it would be a while ago), from what i recall the proposed policy was being rewritten by several users multiple times a day, people would try to talk rewrite in the way that they thought would bring the policy closer to consensus, and i've removed parts which had at least 50% votes against on the talk page. It's cherry picking, anybody who was dealing with that policy whose goal was to have something useful at the end has removed something from the proposed text. If what i did was considered vandalism, then why wasn't i informed of it then? I'll tell you why, because nobody thought so. People only see it like that in retrospect, and any action taken out of its context like that can be seen suspicious. I give somebody a challenge, look at my contributions (it's simple, they are all there in the logs), don't just look at one or two that are posted here, but really look at them. You'll see that there are whole days that i spend contributing to commons. Ask whether these are contributions of somebody who's edit warring to publicly advertise one's paedophilia? VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 03:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know very little about these things, and don't want to. But on a purely linguistic level: paedophilia means "child love" (paedo=child, compare paediatrician; philia=love), and you were quoted above posting offwiki "I [Beta_M] to the large extent support childlove movement.". Rd232 (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: English Wikipedia's ArbCom appears now to have endorsed Geni's English Wikipedia block of Beta M: block log. Also, there is now (thanks to Delicious carbuncle removing a "proposed policy" tag this evening) a Meta policy on Pedophilia, at m:Pedophilia. So there may now be a policy basis to block on Commons as well. Rd232 (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Would a unilateral removal of a template on Meta really turn something into an official policy? Wouldn't it be necessary to have an RfC or a vote on it first? The policy also gets a lot of criticism on the talk page. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question More importantly. Is there any evidence that Beta_M did anything like this? Currently it looks like as if any measurement is taken to ban a user from the project. (see previous question) As if inside a private trial the judge, flirting with the prosecutor, would shout out the death sentence, because he can do so, while in the background some ugly creatures pulling the ropes to make an example, while thinking about the moral profits they could make. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係01:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
did anything like what? ...maybe somebody should ask en.wp ArbCom what exactly was the basis for their decision. Rd232 (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People, please stop and think. You're getting bogged down in technicalities, which is exactly what the intention was. I understand that i myself am the one who in such discussions would drag everything in but the kitchen sink, but the issue that is raised here is not about the validity of the tag on meta, not about whether or not i talk on my podcast criticising Mediawiki's policies, not even about the existence or non-existence of Commons policy. The question that was posed: Should User:Beta_M be banned. Now, with that said, and i know that i have gotten in some arguments with people on DR and RfC pages, but even those people... Will the project benefit from banning me? Am i disrupting this project in any way? After this issue is settled, then we can discuss policies all we want, my understanding was that they were never bureaucratic tools, they are there to help the process (i.e. there are policies because there's consensus, not there is consensus to follow the policy). VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 03:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Without regard to your case specifically, the policy is not the result of consensus, but has been imposed by the WMF. It is also long-standing practice (although the parts about advocacy of paedophilia are more relevant to Wikipedia than Commons). I suggest you direct your energies to addressing your block on the English-language WIkipedia, since it is likely that the block may lead to a request for your account to be globally locked. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then i guess that i'm screwed then. I've left Wikipedia a long time ago, and now i was doing only some minor edits there. That's exactly because the community there is horrible. I will also not discuss anything behind closed doors, that is why i didn't respond to Geni through e-mail, i didn't respond to Geni when one has tried to get me to talk privately on IRC. This is not the way to deal with blocks. Blocks affect the whole community, and others have a right to see most of it. Ok, some facts are misrepresented and it's a negative thing, but the community benefit of having these discussions in a place that even a new user sees them would be enormous. Do you think somebody comes to this place knowing all the policies? No. People learn when they come across them. How is somebody suppose to know about things like ArbCom? I've never heard of it until 2 days ago, and now i'm told that it's a group of people who will be making a decision about a global block. I have no interest in talking to them, because they aren't the community that i was trying to benefit with my contributions to commons. I can care less of ArbCom, and if this community accepts their opinion without even knowing what that opinion is, that's it then. Anyhow. I got to leave now. Maybe i'll write a statement for ArbCom, but i'll post it here as well. And i'll be posting all communication with them on a public medium. This shit has got to be dismantled, even if i'll be the one who ends up being a fall-person due to it. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 04:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's done partly behind closed doors partly in order to protect you from your full identity being revealed. If you really want it done openly, the evidence presented may include: your full name, your locations over a number of years, your university courses, your student identification numbers, photographs of you, your votes on minutes of university meetings, your past contributions to wikimedia before creating your current account. Do you really want that all presented on-wiki? That is what could happen if you insist on both denial of Geni's claim and conducting the investigation in public. --99of9 (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon? Is arbcom Stasi 3.0 or what? And is your suggestion really meant that way? And, still, where is the problem which Beta_M is (claimed to be) for our wiki? That must be already public actions by Beta_M since he cannot do anything here which is not public. Link it! --Saibo (Δ) 12:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These things are all available on the world wide web, it's just that publicly assembling them in one place on wikimedia is a very bad idea. I think he is better off discussing it in private with arbcom. Regarding your request for links, at this stage I'm not arguing for or against a block on Commons. --99of9 (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The media story says that Vladimir Mozhenkov is in jail. So how Beta_M could edit Commons if he is Vladimir Mozhenkov? Like Niabot, I don't see any proof that Beta_M has committed something wrong, and it looks like a witch hunt. More over, setting a policy of Wikimedia wide blocks based on a comment by Sue reported by Fox News is not a good idea. Just my 2 Rs. of common sense. Yann (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is from 2000 and the person in the article got a 51-month sentence. Anyone getting a 51-month sentence in 2000 would have been released by now. --Stefan4 (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I failed to check that date. But then blocking someone here now for what allegedly happened 12 years ago is even worse. Yann (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've actually looked at the site, I think the problem is overstated. Unless I'm missing something, it looks like just an ordinary amateur porn wiki, and he was suggesting an alternative outlet to users whose low-quality pornographic uploads were deleted, just as enwiki redirects people to Wikia, etc. Although I think randomly spamming his site in particular is not a good idea, it suggests we might want a page Commons:Alternative outlets similar to en:Wikipedia:Alternative outlets, and a list of some more notable porn wikis for avid low-quality penis photographers could be included. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Martin and Dcoetzee, I finally can see what is the ground for this discussion. If Beta_M did wasn't good I think we should start to write a policy and warn him. I kinda agree with Dcoetzee. If the consensus we reached is that it's unacceptable, then a long block with an explanation is needed. One way or another the disruption of yesterday is not acceptable, and clearly prevented us working on that matter calmly (I'll make a seperate thread for that). PierreSelim (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One additional problem is that it never was or is a policy. Delicious carbuncle"made it a policy" one day ago [4] without any consensus and despite the criticism from the community, because the wording is vague, doesn't correspond to various definitions of the terms (e.g. pedophilia) and laws in different countries. From my point of view it is not even close to be a policy and all we see is an orchestrated witch hunt. :( --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係10:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh bull-fucking-shit. Yes, he spammed that website. Months ago. And he was warned for it. And he stopped. He's human, he made wikimistakes in his early career here. It happens. As an example, I was banned on en.wp a few years back for 3RR violation, but the emphasis there is years ago, no one should come along today and say "he violated 3RR back in 2006, we should ban him!". -mattbuck (Talk) 11:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original ban by Geni. Geni had it right, and judging from the private wiki the editor spammed here his views have not changed. Completely inappropriate for curating adult content on a Wikimedia project. --JN46612:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He just wants to remove any sexual content and to drive away any related contributers. Thats his current mission. The end justifies the means. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係12:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not confuse a user account here with the president of the United States job. I still see no evidence of continued distruption/damage to this wiki here. Spamming might be a problem, but it is apparently an old case and it might even benefit this wiki (so AGF really is justified) if some low quality uploaders do not upload here anymore. In enwiki nothing is made public and not even a block reason is stated. Here some believe shit made up by WR (who - in topic and users - only appear here if there is a chance to "break" something in our wiki. And others streightly join the circus and first decide that the person needs to be blocked and then search for policies matching (and if there are no policy it is tried to make them policy). The process (how this block request runs) here is really disgusting and by no means according to the court standards I am used to (innocent until proven guilty especially). Where is the block reason except that you do not like the person? --Saibo (Δ) 12:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The user was blocked by someone who is an admin here and on the English-language Wikipedia, not by Wikipedia Review (WR). The news reports were published by newspapers and news websites, not by WR. The crimes were prosecuted by the state, not by WR. The crimes were committed by a Russian exchange student in Montana, USA, not by WR. The META:Pedophilia policy was created by META user in response to statements by the Executive Director of the WMF (which owns and controls this website), not by WR. Your anger seems misplaced. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Yann. No user is to be banned for RL activities happened years ago. A temporary block for spamming of private weblinks could be considered, but only for actual events which do not seem to be the case (although it is certainly better if uploaders of low-quality homeporn material will gain knowledge of freedomporn.org and then upload their pics there and no longer on Commons). - A.Savin12:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a difficult situation. If the person behind the account was convicted and jailed from 2000 to 2002, there shouldn't be a problem with him being online, provided that the court hasn't given any restriction to his access. Since he paid his debts with justice, he's now a free person like many others. The only real problem according to policy would be his improper usage of the site to push a certain point of view. Is the person doing this? Damru Tespuru (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This guy was apparently arrested for distributing kiddie porn, not for evading his taxes. Do you really want a person who was apparently gaoled for having photos of naked kids on his computer to edit a project which has no age requirements — which means that can be edited by kids — and which deals with photographs — a good number of which consist of nothing but amateur porn — ? The mind boggles, really... Salvio giuliano (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, any solid proof of that ? Moreover, if it's him, he served his time. Now please find an import of this user that is problematic, because it seems to me that you are doing a w:Fear, uncertainty and doubt (I've not found any porn images uploaded on commons by Beta_M). --PierreSelim (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i support this. If it was him, then he paid the price already. In his active time he did nothing that would be illegal or disturbing, which suggests that he learned his lesson. So what? Is he now a human second class and that for the rest of his life? Sorry, but your comment... I won't comment on it, because it would contain a lot of disturbing words. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係17:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have two of them and i love them like any other father should do. So i would bid you to stop your provocative wording, which is inappropriate for this discussion. I have good faith in many people, but reading comments from people like you makes me angry. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係17:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that it would make sense to lock out a large group of people (pædophiles) from Commons only because a different large group of people (children) hasn't been locked out from Commons. Besides, I would guess that most Commons users are at least 15 years old anyway, which is what the law requires for making sexual contacts. Of course, if it is discovered that a user uploads child porn to Commons or uses Commons to attempt to establish a sexual relation with someone younger than 15, it would of course be a reason for a block. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the identification is correct, what does a ban achieve? Prevent upload to Commons of child porn? There's no evidence of that ever being issue. Prevent contact with children using Commons? There's no evidence of that either, and the ease with which sockpuppets can be created means banning doesn't achieve that much. As Pierre has said (I think), real evidence of illegal or dangerous activity should be taken to the authorities, because there isn't much that Commons can really do about it. The only thing it can do reasonably effectively (we hope) is effectively deal with child porn materials, and if someone's uploading them, then naturally a ban may be part of that. That's not the case here. Rd232 (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What now
There does not seem to be any real evidence of disruption of the project. (There was the linkspam issue - User_talk:Beta_M#Please_stop_adding_links - but that seems resolved.)
There does not seem to be any real evidence of illegal activity. (not counting attempts to identify the user with a person convicted for illegal activity in 2000, which is of debatable relevance to the present)
There does not seem to be any applicable policy that would permit a ban in the absence of these.
Unless there's more evidence forthcoming, there's no direct conclusion that can come from this; the English Wikipedia's decision and policies don't have effect here, and it seems increasingly unlikely that there will be consensus to act on the basis of current information and policy.
Comment my summary wasn't intended to get s/o !votes. It was a summary of the position, plus some possible things we can do, so that if this thread is closed with "no block/ban", then there are clear steps which can be pursued by those willing to put in the effort. Rd232 (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that we need to have a discussion on whether Beta_M should be allowed to participate in any deletion discussion concerning material that can be considered child porn. Although Beta_M isn't uploading CP; he's still advocating for CP to be kept on Commons: [5], [6], [7]. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a topic ban would be conceivable. But DRs are decided on merit, not numbers, so if his contributions in DRs are not disruptive or very different from those of others, it may be hard to make a case for it. Rd232 (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking again here to consider a block for Michaeldsuarez. You are now calling Beta_M to advocate for CP (child porn). The two first images were deleted for copyvios, the last one was kept by mattbuck. that is enought really. --PierreSelim (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That section looks more like a section suggesting that it is stupid to have notices saying that you can't use a web site if you are too young. Many web sites have such notes on web sites deemed inappropriate for children, although the definition of "inappropriate" varies from country to country: in some countries it is pornography (age limit: 18 years), and in other countries it is alcohol (age limit: 20 years). Of course no one will be stopped by those notices since too young users just would lie about their age, so I don't see why criticising the notices would be controversial. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Use of the term "child sadvocates" alone (if you google it) suggests signing up to the "childlove movement", aka pedophilia, world view. But what links that page with Beta M? Rd232 (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Create a bookmark, javascript:if%20(location.href.indexOf('\?')%20==%20-1)%20location.href=location.href+'?useskin=monobook';%20else%20location.href=location.href+'&useskin=monobook';, and click on it to display the "history" tab. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the page Michaeldsuarez is talking about. "ASP should realise that most of child pornography is produced by children and thus a blind statement as seen above hurts more children than "protects". Perhaps a stronger statement that opposes child rape and sexual abuse should be put in place of this one." Where Beta_M talking about "giving children the "freedom" to make porn" on this page? This smear campaign needs to be stopped. Trycatch (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't what you just quoted and this make it obvious that Beta_M favors decriminalization? Beta_M has already said that he "to a large extent" supports the childlove movement. What's so hard for you guys to understand? You guys can't put two and two together? This isn't a smear campaign. These are the facts. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What you are linking to is not disruptive behaviour on Commons and does not appear to be associated with Commons in any way, so I would say that it doesn't have anything to do with whether the user should be blocked here or not. As far as I can see, the linked page only shows a political opinion of the user, and doing so is one of the basic principles of freedom of speak, regardless of whether you support the views or not. There is no evidence that such behaviour has occurred on Commons. If the user breaks against any policies on Freedom Porn or Anarchopedia, this is a matter for those web sites, and if the user breaks against any applicable laws, this is a matter for the police or any other relevant authorities – not for us. I think that the user's contributions to Commons tend to be constructive and I think that the project would benefit from him remaining active here. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about last century real-life of anybody. But linkspamming on Commons for a porn site should clearly be stopped. Linkspamming on Commons for a site were child porn is belittled should definitely be stopped. Users who - on Commons - advocate for or even belittle childporn should be blocked indefinitely. I can hardly understand why there is such a long debate on this. --Martinatalk23:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the linkspamming did stop, some time ago, after warning. And no evidence has been given of the user advocating for child porn or pedophilia on Commons. Also, there is a debate because there is no policy for this. Rd232 (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank, I can already read myself, and am getting to another conclusion than you. Child porn is criminal internationally, like murder or theft are, and we do not need a rule for any of these aigainst promoting or belittling. --Martinatalk11:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again: no evidence has been given of the user advocating for child porn or pedophilia on Commons. There is basically a disagreement between those who are willing to ban people for appearing to support pedophilia even if they have only expressed those views offwiki and done nothing in that direction on Commons, and those who do not want to ban people just for their views, however unpleasant. That is why English Wikipedia created a policy for the situation, and why I suggested above that someone should try to the same on Commons (or on Meta as a global policy). I suspect that the wider Commons community might support such a policy, even though the more vocal users alone might not. But someone needs to draft it (Commons:Child protection), manage the drafting to keep things moving, deal with people who will want to derail the proposal before it's ready to be formally proposed to the community, and then propose it and manage the big community discussion of the proposal. That's a lot of work. Anyone want to volunteer? Rd232 (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Banned without evidence of disruption or harassment or other policy violation? Banned just for offwiki-expressed views? Rd232 (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now the discussion has started on the administrator's noticeboard it would require an consensus between the administrators to ban him. However the consensus is the opposite, administrators don't want to ban him, they want to discuss if his previous so called spamming was a good idea, and if we should create a Commons:Alternative outlets page similar to en:Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. If you insist we can create a subsection where the administrators make their decision clear (and we close after we reach some kind of clear consensus). --PierreSelim (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pieter Kuiper: just ban him? But then he will come back with new accounts. Maybe he already has 300 accounts nobody knows about. As usual, Internet has no defense against potential malefactors (if you want to call Beta M a "malefactor" for wasting his time here at Commons). Damru Tespuru (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So should we ban people, who belittles copyright infringement via e.g. using some Pirate Party userbox? Probably yes, because copyright infringement is a crime almost universally in the world. There is a big difference between advocation to break the law, or advocation to change the law. If the first is problematic and probably unlawful in the most of countries, there is nothing wrong if somebody dislikes current laws and advocates to change them. Trycatch (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"belittles" is almost a meaningless word here; find a better one. But my main point: advocating to break the law is not against the law per se. In order to make advocating to break the law illegal, additional laws must be passed, to make that advocacy illegal. This is done eg with "conspiracy to [do something]"-type laws. Rd232 (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've simply repeated the word "belittle" after Martina Nolte, I've used it in the same sense as Martina. After little research I have to agree with -- even advocating to break the law generally is not a crime. So barely advocating to change the law is even more "not a crime". Trycatch (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If our administrators really decided not to ban this user, this discussion now is becoming an academic one. But just to make sure what kind of community I'm working with: Commons is a platform where people, who for example could promote that murder should be allowed or that violation should be allowed or that "childlove" (child porn/child abuse) should be allowed, "consensually" are welcomed? Because having such an opinion (free speech!) is not criminal by itself and because such opinions are not desturbing the project? I personally feel extremly disturbed by working with people who advocate for child porn. Evidence has been given enough. --Martinatalk23:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Commons is a platform where people..." can do what they want (as long as it's legal in Florida, where the servers are) unless the community agrees otherwise. It's a blank slate, and if you want to ban certain things being written on the slate, then you'll have to advocate for it. On this issue, Commons:Child protection is that way. If you prefer carte blanche for the community to ban any view it doesn't like, then start Commons:List of banned views, with a policy header like "X people voting will be sufficient for a view to be added to this list; any user expressing it on or offwiki will be banned." On the plus side, in most other internet communities you wouldn't have the chance to shape their inclusion policies like this. Rd232 (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is not a political project, so politics is preferably not discussed on Commons, be it pædophilia/childlove (why can't people decide on whether Greek or English should be used?) or any other political ideology. Most countries (well, democracies at least) typically have constitutions stating that you may not discriminate people for their opinions, religion or political views, so it might even be illegal to ban a user for expressing such opinions. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"(why can't people decide on whether Greek or English should be used?)" - the correct term is pædophilia (however spelled). "Childlove" is only used by those advocating for the acceptability of paedophilia. Rd232 (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're both English terms - one of Greek origin, one of Anglo-Saxon origin. But as I said, the Anglo-Saxon origin one is only used by those advocating for the acceptability of paedophilia. Rd232 (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't handle working with people with different beliefs, you are welcome to leave. But all our projects are built of people of widely varying opinions, and going after every deviant one would tear us apart. (Personally, it's not the lone people with bizarre views that scare me; it's the common ones that get traction and do all the damage.) Instead of starting a witch hunt, we should try to work together neutrally.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a matter of beliefs. Its a matter of someone with an actual criminal conviction not staying away from areas related to that conviction.Geni (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prosfilaes, nice try and good examples for what exactly is not the point which we're discussing about. You picked up some (completly legal) photos that do not state any of my personal beliefs about the depicted topic. And - in difference to the actual user case in debate - I do not spam links to a website where I advocate for undressing children in public or for spraying grafittis or for leaking, as I do not advocate that directly here on Commons. Having a personal view or belief is one thing, misusing Commons to propagat it is just another. --Martinatalk20:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefan4: Note that we are entitled to ban users for any or no reason, since we are not the government, and this is not an issue of employment, etc. I understand that some good users are uncomfortable working with people who hold these types of views. By itself, I don't think this is enough. Just to give one example, if a user grew up in a patriarchal society, they may be uncomfortable interacting with female users as equals. The same is true of users who grew up in insular, racist societies, or people who hate kids and don't like interacting with young users. Some people don't feel comfortable interacting with convicted users editing from prison, but there's been no move to block rehabilitation programs that include Wikipedia editing. If the user remains compliant with policy and avoids grooming and advocacy, I see no immediate reason for a block, but there's no reason we can't monitor the user closely. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and there are also half-way measures available to us. For example in Dcoetzee's example of a convicted user editing from prison, we might decide to impose a topic ban on subjects related to their conviction. --99of9 (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: I have no problem with blocking users for disruptive behaviour on Commons, regardless of reason. I have seen numerous cases where users have been blocked on English Wikipedia for uncivil discussions over political issues such as the political state of Kashmir, and I certainly don't oppose this. Grooming on Commons or uploading of child porn to Commons would certainly be reasons to block a user, but I am heavily opposing blocking users for disruptive behaviour outside Commons in a situation completely unrelated to Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) A topic ban was actually proposed above (as I expect you saw), but there was no evidence for editing behaviour in the topic being a problem, and discussion rapidly veered away from the topic ban. If someone wants to try proposing it again, perhaps in a new subsection, I've no problem with that. Rd232 (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking in general terms, there is an argument to be made that users should be judged based on their activities on Commons. In the case at hand, however, we have a user who has been indef-blocked on the English-language Wikipedia. Since Geni's block was upheld and the user reblocked by an ArbCom member, I believe it is safe to assume that they were blocked for violations of the policy there. It seems sensible, given Sue Gardener's statements on the subject, to take that into consideration. Does the block there hold any weight here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, blocking policy should not be based on guesswork. Currently, there has been no statement from the English-language Wikipedia as to why the user was blocked, so it is not possible to tell whether there is any reason to block him or not. Normally, you are innocent until proven otherwise. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And we do not need enWP's reasons to find our own decision at Commons. For here, enough (own) reasons have been given. --Martinatalk
Proposed close
Well, it keeps coming back to this: there is no policy that would currently permit banning Beta M for the views he has expressed off-wiki, and his actions onwiki do not appear to merit a block. There are however some users who will not be satisfied until they are able to ban users who express such views, as English Wikipedia can (under en:Wikipedia:Child protection). Indeed, some of these users seem willing to set the precedent that it is acceptable to ban people for their views even when policy doesn't exist to confirm that the community supports such action; in principle, with that precedent set, a handful of users could ban anyone for any view. There is no consensus here for setting such a precedent, and nor is there likely to be.
Therefore I propose:
closing this thread
interested editors go to Commons:Child protection, where I have started a first draft of a relevant policy.
interested editors can also go to m:Pedophilia, but a process for getting a global policy agreed will take much longer.
Why should this quickly be closed? I don't need a written policy against promotion for child porn, may it be openly and/or between the lines and/or by linking (own) "childlove" advocating external websites. I also don't need a magnifying glass to find evidence for all of these. We're not talking about a "political" issue (see above) or "opinion" but about moral minimum standards on Commons and the working atmosphere in our project. To me it is incomprehensible that we ban people for saying asshole but should be ready to let others "collegues" promote childporn. For closing this topic I'd like to see at least a kind of admin consensus.--Martinatalk00:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The promotion activities stopped six weeks ago, and as far as I know there was no direct link with child porn. Morality is not political? Well that's a point of view... As for your "asshole" comparison: I don't think we do ban people for saying "asshole", but we do ban people for disrupting the project and for abusing and harassing other users. What we don't do is ban people because they used the word "asshole" in a forum post somewhere on the internet (unless perhaps there is some connection with Commons harassment). Anyway, you may not need a policy, but without one, you're just not going to get agreement on any action. I've mentioned the proposed policy to Jimbo by the way, because he enforced the policy tag on the English Wikipedia policy. Rd232 (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you want to ban people who express certain views offwiki - but that just means they'll come back under another name, and you won't even know about those views when you interact with them (which might make a big difference in some contexts). Arguably, it's better to know, and have some sort of chance of keeping an eye on them and have a better chance of seeing where they might be crossing certain lines, than driving them underground where no-one knows who they are. At the end of the day, in a community this size, there are going to be people - many people - with views that you or I or many others consider horrible. And as long as those views aren't expressed within the community, there's nothing we can do about them, because we don't know. And if we ban people when we happen to come across knowledge of views from other sources, they'll very likely just create a new account. It may still be worth doing, but it's not worth doing on an ad hoc basis because a handful of users think it a good idea. The whole community needs to support the principle. I suspect they might, but that needs a policy to support it. Rd232 (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Beta_M has never promoted paedophilia on Commons or elsewhere on Wikimedia. We should not ban him for activities outside Wikimedia (preferably not outside Commons). Let's close this, there's no consensus for blocking. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He wrote: "We need to actively go out and search for some parts of human sexuality that we are not yet representing and to urge everybody who wishes to contribute to do so." He believes that most child porn is produced by children. Conclusion: he urges children to upload their sex photos to Commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do not talk about the opinion that green is nicer than blue. We also do not talk about an opinion that somebody expressed in his private kitchen. By linkspamming his website he actively outed himself as advocator for childporn. With not one single word he denied that. Nor did he hold out in prospect that he would no longer mix in topic related discussions on Commons or that he will not agitate in this direction on Commons (i.e. deletion discussion concerning material that can be considered child porn). Quite the contrary: He's simply claiming "free speech". An advocator of childporn should, of course, stay underground, we should not give him any platform for spreading his ideas and pushing "certain lines" each week and month a bit further. --Martinatalk02:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, by your logic, if I were to post a link to livejournal, I would be "outing" myself for everything I've ever commented on there? (I confess, it's a lot of McFly slash fiction.) Beta_M is not pushing any lines "further each week", and he has not done anything wrong on Commons. We should not ban someone for things they did wrong outside of Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was a rhetoric question and wresting my words, but I nevertheless give you a serious answer. If this "livejournal" (? - what ever that might be) would be your site and you'd be its main contributor (especially of the issue in discussion, see above regarding "child sadvocates") and you'd promote it on Commons: Yes, this would be like expressing the content and opinions of that site directly here. (By the way described you can even adopt opinions of others as your own. If for example I would promote such a car sticker by linkspammig through Commons everybody would know that I would explicitly oppose "childlove movement" and I think - and hope - that I would quickly be stopped to push this POV on Commons.) --Martinatalk20:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commons has no NPOV policy, How could we inforce that having millions of pictures (that are POV) ? I believe only the spamming would get you a warning to stop (as it was said to Beta_M). --PierreSelim (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images always are POV and water is wet, of course. But POV pushing for replacement of animal testing by using child abusers instead, would be abuse of Commons for promotion of morally declinable and legally forbidden practices - and still I hope that this would be stopped. Like I hope that Commons will not tolerate active advocates of "childlove".--Martinatalk20:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Commons' job to adjudicate between different views - even bizarre and unpleasant ones. That's the baseline; if the community wants to make exceptions to that, it can. Probably it can. There's a possibility of US anti-discrimination laws limiting what this US-based website can legally do. It can make an exception, if it wants, to ban people who suggest "replacement of animal testing by using child abusers", say. But that principle needs to be properly established and reasonably wide community support demonstrated, and not just invented and implemented by a handful of people in a corner of the site when they encounter a user they want to get rid of. Rd232 (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) I think Martina's point is that the promotion of a particular website, even if trying to be helpful (done like this it's certainly not exactly "linkspamming") carries certain implications if the promoter is responsible for the site and for most of the content. By directing people to a place where they may be exposed to particular views, the promoter is not just promoting the website, but promoting those views as well; and the link is stronger the more responsibility they have for the site. I think that's a valid argument, to say that this is indirectly promoting those views to those specific Commons contributors invited to go to the site - even if that wasn't the intention. As to Beta M's relationship with the site: well he did create the About page, for example. Rd232 (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have a user among us who promoted a website where he advocates childporn and paedophilia, who - in a sister project - spreaded paedophile jargon (boylover, girllover and childlover instead of "paedophile"), who - on Commons - propagated for childporn (We need to actively go out and search...), all links can be found above. We do not yet have a policy like Commons:Child protection, but we have Commons:Blocking policy to protect the project and his community against "behaviour that has the potential to damage the Commons or disrupt its collegial atmosphere". The policy lists some common reasons for user bans, but these are not exclusive at all. Nor is it necessary that this behaviour is illegal (childporn and paedophilie is internationally illegal, while advocating for paedophilie and childporn in most countries is not illegal). Bans are covered even if a behaviour only has the 'potential of damaging.
If Commons is a home for paedophiles and gives them a platform to propagate for their "movement" the damage for the project is that other contributors who cannot work in such an atmosphere and environment are driven away. Additional damage is done if Commons gets known in public as giving paedophiles or "childlove" advocators a voice. Both are relevant reasons for a user block.
Rd232, we are not in a small, dark, private "corner" of the project but on the central site where user blocks are dealt with, and were bans that are not clearly covered by the above mentioned "common reasons" are discussed a bit longer and then decided (in general by more than one admin). I still don't see a formal problem on that as long as there is a group of admins who see a (potential) dmage and are willing to use their buttons to protect the project against it. --Martinatalk23:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC) (added 00:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]
He is blocked for harassement on Beta_M (talk·contribs) talk pages. He also stated twice commons administrators were fascists (here [8] and here [9] in the diff summary). I think he has gone a bit too far, a 3 days block seems to be Ok, if you disagree you might want to open another section to discuss about Peter Damian's case. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, all he did was ask Beta_M if a blog that is online under his name, and where he said comparatively recently that he was advocating childlove, was his. Isn't that a fair question, under the circumstances? The "fascist" references were obvious sarcasm. --JN46618:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see why as admins we should be forced to endure people who simply wish to be disruptive. I stand by my block, and my later revocation of his talk page access when he used the edit summaries to continue to be rude. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I do not see why as admins we should be forced to endure people who simply wish to be disruptive." - the user in question was not obviously intending to be disruptive, and minor post-block rudeness, even in edit summaries, is not a reason to revoke talkpage access. Rd232 (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Rd232. I wish you would simply stay out of arguments in this topic area, Mattbuck, and let other admins handle them. --JN46602:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave this open a little longer. I have been thinking hard about this, and would like to make a comment, but want to look through the contribution history more before commenting. --99of9 (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. I proposed close on those terms because the discussion didn't seem to have anywhere else to go. I'm quite happy for the proposal to stay open a while, in case anyone might have more evidence or reasoned argument (as opposed to emotion). I'd also welcome people heading over to Commons talk:Child protection. Rd232 (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i didn't read this for a couple of days, i don't want to restart the flame war, but i wanted to post this so that people that i actually do interact with on here will be able to see this. I do believe that we should go out and document every aspect of human sexuality that exists out there. I believe that the current representation of BDSM is so small, that it's shameful (in fact when i've written about going and and seeking stuff, i was thinking mostly along the lines of DS for example, which is a very difficult topic to represent). Another example of me uploading on topic content is what i've done with Queer Review, i think that it will greatly help those who are searching inside of themselves to understand their sexuality. Somewhere above there was a post about discussing things behind closed doors, i've said that i don't want to do that, but the reply is probably correct, if everything about me would be posted in the open forum, that would be a scary thing. So at this moment i don't know what i will do (i want to do something that won't only benefit me, but will be ethical, and sometimes it's important to take a stand and say "i won't participate in something i find wrong, even if non-participation will exclude me from something". While reading what i wrote above, do not misunderstand it for an apology. I just want to set the record straight in the only two things that i think were potentially valid criticisms of me. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 12:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Linkspamming
I'm still intending to comment on the other issues here, but since this one has recently been raised by Rd232 and Martina, I'll post this section of my comment now
I was the one who asked him to please stop adding links (advertising freedomporn). When he argued about this, in order to decide how hard to press my objection to his disruption...
I asked him directly: "Do you have an interest in any way in the particular site that you have been advertising?"
His answer (in part, my emphasis): "yes i do, not a financial or other reason, but psychological one (i want it to develop, it gives me happiness)"
I took his word for it, and didn't bother investigating the site.
In fact, it seems to me that the real situation is that he is thesite maintainer (though in later revisions this has been somewhat anonymized), and accepts donations.
Now, I'm glad he stopped advertising, but I'm seriously unimpressed by what appears to be a flat out lie to an administrator questioning his disruptive conduct (or at least intentional deception). --99of9 (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have even less of a financial reason to support Freedom Porn than i do to support Wikimedia Commons. Both projects that i support accept donations, this isn't a lie. To call it "deception" is an act of purposefully stating what you believe not to be the case. Can i ask you two questions: Do you have financial benefit from supporting Commons? Does Commons accept donations? VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 14:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also as an admin on Commons you know very well that you've not posted a page that anybody who would want to make a donation would see, nobody would look through the history to find a page from 2008 (4 years ago). The real donation page is here. And it's very common for a non-profit group to allow people to donate, this isn't something special, it's not a business model. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 14:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure any donations will have been minimal, and I believe Beta_M that he did not advertise his site here for financial reasons, but out of belief in his philosophical cause, and because he was hoping to find kindred spirits. However, this said, I am really not comfortable with Beta M curating sexual content here. I believe it is a net negative for Wikimedia. I posted some general comments on Foundation list. [10] --JN46619:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This section is about disruption. It is not about the user being discussed in the section above, nor is it a place to discuss general principles or opinions. Closing since, as of now, no action is going to be taken in relation to the users discussed here. Re-open if necessary. Rd232 (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday Geni came here with a serious matter, and I think he was right to do so:
He put a block on a user, and tried to keep the matter low profile, it was kind to him
As his action has been reverted, I believe it's a good place to discuss about it
Now, at least 3 users came here to comment with very serious accusations and engaged in a witch hunt here (pedophily). Thoses users are active on en-wiki, and not very much here. I think it's not acceptable at all. Either they have proofs, and they must show thoses proofs to competent authority (not us we are not a court neither a police office, it doesn't mean we tolerate pedophily), either it's just a witch hunt Both way their disruptions clearly prevented the administrator to understand the problem. I made it clear yesterday in that thread that it was going too far [11], but the disruptions continued here, one of this users even modified a draft of policy that wasn't approved to make us believe it was on metawiki. Sorry I don't find this constructive, your wasting our time.
Before acting I think one should always keep in mind that not only the absolute truth matter (what is the truth after all?), but the form is paramount important: Ex falso sequitur quod libet.
Delicious carbuncle, already warned in his commons talked page many times that we prefer not to engage in conflict here [12], and he is the one who modified the meta policy on pedophily [13]. This last move is not bold, it's acting when being part of a conflict to proove you are right. It's not what we do on Wikimedia projects. As he seems to prefer engaging in conflict rather than contributes to Commons, I suggest either:
a 6 months block on Commons
or a very last warning before a ban on Commons.
Michaeldsuarez, already warned last year not to call people pedophile on his Commons talk page [14]. He was warned and continue, I believe we should do something: either a block (less than previous user) or a last warning but this is not acceptable neither, but not as disruptive as previous user.
Tarc, comes out of nowhere to help both previous users in their disruption, I think a warning would be good.
If thoses users state they will stop this behaviour, we can avoid the blocking part of this request but remind them that we will not accept such behaviour in the futur. Whatever the decision is, I'd like to point out this nice essay (it's not a policy) COM:MELLOW. Sadly yours --PierreSelim (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is that trolling? Weren't the previous incidents about interpreting actions? That's different from quoting statements. Rd232 (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would call it gaming the system, moreover giving the link again here to an external wiki (outside of wikimedia sphere) is a kind of provocation, as I started this talk I will not use my tools against thoses users, but really I don't believe they are here to contribute peacefully and for the good of our project. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want my comments on something so serious to be baseless. I didn't want the next reply to be "What evidence?" That's why the link is there. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a double negative? You just told me to don't think of not using it, which is basically a command to use it without hesitation. I'm not "trolling"; I'm just helping you to improve your English so that people can understand you a little better. I haven't call anyone here a pedophile since Trycatch told me to stop. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't really see what the users have done wrong here. There is a very messy situation (which English Wikipedia has a well-defined process for), spilled over onto Commons because the user is active here, and Commons has no process for it or policy for it. So it's very difficult to make a decision, but because of the subject matter, tensions are very high. But the input the users have provided has not really been disruptive here, and the Meta policy issue is a matter for Meta (and it's not like there was any attempt to deceive on the policy issue). Rd232 (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the tensions are very high, I believe their actions here are trully not constructive (and that's why they have already been warned), to me it's not a coincidence. Now for the meta thing I'm speaking of tricking us here to believe it's a meta policy. In the end, If I opened this thread is also to get opinion like yours, I hope it will be constructive. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how their contributions are unconstructive; this is a discussion about a possible ban, and they provided evidence and comments about that. As I said it's a problem because of a lack of policy; if we had a clear policy on this, we might be able to say that certain contributions are or aren't relevant to a discussion. The fact that English Wikipedia acted as it did also makes a difference to how we should evaluate those contributions, as they're clearly focussed on arguing for taking the same action as another project has, for the same reasons. As for the Meta policy, Delicious carbuncle apparently thought it was policy, and changed it when it was pointed out it was only a draft. I noted the change here. (I missed the recent change back to "proposed policy", BTW.) Rd232 (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Allow to again quote Sue Gardener: "Wikipedia has a long-held, zero-tolerance policy towards pedophilia or pedophilia advocacy and child pornography. The Wikimedia community is vigilant about identifying and deleting any such material. Any allegations to the contrary are outrageous and false". It seems clear that this is policy, regardless of how the META page is tagged. It was originally labelled as policy, but changed to draft. I changed it to reflect what happens in practice, but it will likely take someone from the WMF to make it stick. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"...'The Wikimedia community is vigilant about identifying and deleting any such material...." - as it should be. And if you point out any such material, I'm sure it will be dealt with. Rd232 (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can quote Sue if you want - but Sue is Sue and not us. Sue also tried to install a image filter and was bashed by us. --Saibo (Δ) 15:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delicious carbuncle, imagine that there is a thread where people talk about somebody who commits copyright violation, and i come and say "I would like to remind everybody that uploading child pornography isn't permitted, due to the fact that the servers are in Florida, USA". That would be an accusation that this person has uploaded child pornography, wouldn't it? Now, imagine that there's a thread of somebody who's accused of spending time in prison for downloading child pornography in college and i say "The Wikimedia community is vigilant about identifying and deleting any such material [child pornography]", and magically this becomes no longer an accusation. My upload log is public, there is nothing even erotic in it, there's nothing about children in it. Why do you want to bring this up? I think that you are getting engaged in this debate and forget that you are actually talking about a real person (me) and not about some abstract user name. I am going to hold no grudge, but i believe that you've made a mistake with that last post. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit sad that the barnstar was replaced. Blocking Beta_M for the quotations on English Wikipedia seems to be a serious violation of the freedom of thought. I'm not aware of any disruptive behaviour from his side on Commons so I see no reason for a block. I'm not sure exactly what he has done on English Wikipedia (apart from being inactive) as I haven't had any contact with him on that project, so I'm not able to tell if that block is justified. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have not taken a position here in regard to the circumstances of your case. The framing of the issue is not mine, and I am simply responding to the claims that there is no applicable policy. I believe that these types of discussions are damaging to the project and help neither the accuser nor the accused. I contacted someone from the WMF yesterday to try to calm the situation but they appear to have done nothing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I stand behind what I said earlier. Any person involved with or expressing any sort of advocacy on behalf of "childlove" (what a nauseatingly PC term that is) should be removed from the project. Period. Tarc (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This section is about whether to take action against you and some other users; the section about Beta M is above. The fact you post in this section declaring "childlove" a "PC" (en:political correctness) term (a frankly offensive claim, since it's pedophiles' attempt to normalise pedophilia, and no-one else uses it) along with ignoring the debate above about lack of policy basis for any action suggests you would like to resurrect the debate about whether your contributions here are constructive. Is that right? Rd232 (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, Rd232 I don't see any reason not to act with this list of users canvassing the discussion above on Beta_M. Yes they have repeatively claim accusation on user, Micheal seemed to have been very provactive yesterday on your attempt to summarize the situation, even after adminstrators clearly claim there was no consensus to block this user. In this subsection he also mocked a user for his bad english (what a constructive attitude on an international project!). As we resurrect this thread, I believe that we don't have a consensus to block any of this user, however if no admin disagree I'd like to warn thoses users that's it's not welcome (and might lead to a block if repeated again in the futur). --PierreSelim (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that a warning would be helpful, even if it were necessary; it would probably just inflame things further. Michael was active yesterday after proposing a topic ban, which was a perfectly reasonable suggestion in context. And the "double negative" English issue can be read as explanation as well as mocking, so I'd AGF. Rd232 (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I think you are right, I'm ok to close this without actions. You are probably right with the "double negative", as I'm not native english speaker I just might have read it wrong (moreover I was requesting actions against this user, this may also explain the lack of AGF, but it's my fault). However I think it's good thing to have explain my concerns. --PierreSelim (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The Category:Photographs by author is clearly for non-wikimedia photographers; see introduction there: Collections of photographs used with permission of their non-wikimedian author. User PereslavlFoto will not realize and does editwarring on his own user category to be added there since several weeks now [15]. - A.Savin21:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, and I've removed the category. But I can't help wondering... The distinction seems to imply that Category:Photographs by author are photographs by "important" authors, without importance being defined. Just being "non-Wikimedian" seems a bit unsatisfactory. Maybe we could add a criterion, like "author has an entry in any language Wikipedia". (We'd need a new category then for non-Wikimedian authors without an entry, and naming it might be tricky.) Rd232 (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have a high vanity degree and maybe he is world famous in Pereslavl-Zalessky. Not worth to waste time on discussions between notable, less notable and maybe almost notable. --Foroa (talk) 07:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PereslavlFoto does not seem to have non-wikimedia photographer activities, so it is quite clear to me that his user category should not be included there, at least as long as we have not decided to mix up user with photographer categories on Commons, or PF has come out himself trustworthy as journalist or similar. For his continued edit warring (just look at the revision history), he should get at least an administrative warning. - A.Savin11:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have some serious misgivings with Kobac, who has a real problem with incorrectly tagging images for deletion for lacking sources, when he actually suspects the images in question of being copyvios or such. See for instance User_talk:Ragdoll8 for examples of images marked for deletion for "missing source", a seeming result of haphazard usage of visualchange.js. Only after I have responded on his talkpage has he instead listed these images for deletion as being copyvios (which they are). But the fact remains that Kobac plays fast and loose with deletion methods instead of following correct policies. When brought up on his talk page, where I have asked him to desist at least a half dozen times by now, he just demands that I show him a page in policies that says he can't use the labels willy-nillily. I imagine stating such a policy wasn't thought necessary, since it should be obvious to anyone.
Other examples of careless usage include File:NissanGloria95.jpg which was tagged for deletion as part of a wave of deletion requests. Marked as having been uploaded by a user called Suland, who was editing a lot of Nissan Gloria/Cedric-related articles (and adding pictures) six years ago, the car in the photo bears a vanity license plate with his name on it. Naturally the original en:wp file is long since deleted, since the transfer took place five years ago. Many pictures were thus incorrectly deleted, yet Kobac remains without regret and continues to haphazardly mark perfectly ok files for deletion. I have pointed out that placing incorrect deletion tags on images he suspects of being copyvios is not the right way to go about things, but he persists: a newer example of Kobac knowingly mis-tagging.
Anyhow, I am not asking for a block or anything, but just for some admins to patiently explain to him that deletion tags are to be used appropriately, and often a simple deletion request with a resulting conversation is the way to go - especially when dealing with minor attribution issues from users who are now long since retired. Mr.choppers (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A question concerning deletion from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
It is not uncommon for admins to moderate the discussions at the administrative boards to keep them on focus. Removing a comment is not necessarily a suppression of an opinion but an attempt to keep these boards functional and the individual threads on-topic. This does, however, not imply that such moderations cannot be questioned. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Today I added an edit to the comments section of the discussion called Noticeboard disruptions and cross wiki problems[16]. Rd232 removed the comment before he closed that discussion, and put this edit on my talk page [17]. Although Rd232 said my comment was in the wrong place, and he may be right, I completely fail to understand his reasoning, because my comment was in the comments section of that thread. Is there a particular protocol that applies to the discussions here that I have violated? An explanation would be much appreciated. Thank you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked the user for disruption. The original comment was merely misplaced; pretence at failing to understand why is disruptive trolling. Don't fall for it. Rd232 (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) No, trolling is pretending that there's anything remotely constructive about insisting on restoring a comment which was placed in the wrong thread, after this has been pointed out, and the thread closed. The claim to not understand why it was the wrong section I simply don't believe; but if that were the issue, he could have asked that in our conversation on his talk page (started with me notifying him of his error, and asking him to finish the fixing which I'd started, by reposting somewhere else). He didn't; he chose to come straight here. Furthermore, he chose not to post his comments in the correct section (or the other page I suggested as perhaps more relevant), demonstrating that he doesn't actually care about having his opinion heard. This is disruptive trolling, and we should waste no more time to discussing it, because that would only give him the satisfaction of achieving his goal. Rd232 (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only disruption I see is 'forcing' you to perform an out of process block. And a week's block too. What do you think you'll be preventing from happening for the next week? Nah, if anything this is punitive for having the gall to argue with you over the lame ass kiddy fiddler policy you imported from en. You've screwed the pooch on this one young man. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I already pointed out on his talk page, if my issue was my disagreeing with his misplaced comment, I'd have left it in the section when I archived it. Instead, I told him on his talk page it was misplaced, and asked him to post somewhere more appropriate. What is the block preventing? Well on the evidence of this trolling, it's preventing trolling. Rd232 (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you think it takes a week to prevent this so-called "disruption"? In your opinion it was an inappropriate place to post, it wasn't in his and to make sure he came over to your way of thinking you blocked him for a week? Sorry son, that's a really, really bad way to use your sysop utility belt. <shakes head> --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"In your opinion it was an inappropriate place to post, it wasn't in his and to make sure he came over to your way of thinking you blocked him for a week?" - I don't know why you're misrepresenting the events, but I tire of correcting you. Please review what I've already said, and if need be, look at the history and logs. Rd232 (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably you tired of correcting him too? I'm sorry Rd, but I've already said how it looks from here. If I have anything else to say as the discussion continues I'll say it here rather than splitting it over two locations. In summary I believe you were wrong to block him, you were wrong to make it a week and you were wrong to use your bit to solve a disagreement. I'll leave it to others to voice their opinions now. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the comments section of that thread" - is that trying to imply that a random subsection header saying "comments" entitles you to ignore the thread topic? And lest we forget, you explicitly posted an opinion in support of a user expressing an opinion in that thread after that user had been told their opinion comment was in the wrong section. It's plenty enough AGF that the original post was a genuine mistake; there's none left now. Rd232 (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc's comment is also in the wrong section, as had been pointed out in the first line of the first response to Tarc's comment, and as is pretty obvious from the section title ("Noticeboard disruptions and cross wiki problems"). Malcolm should have seen both. He was wrong to comment there, instead of the main Beta M section, just as Tarc had been, but at least Tarc had a sort of excuse that the section was partially about him. Rd232 (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, looking at the diff again, the indenting of Malcolm's comment makes it an irrelevant butting-in to a discussion between two admins about whether to act, rather than just an irrelevant comment that bears no relation to the thread purpose. Rd232 (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see sarcasm in the Malcolm Schosha's words, but trolling? not so much. It often depends on the eyes of the beholder if somebody's sarcasm (or just annoying behavior) is trolling. That's why non-obvious blocks like this should be done by uninvolved admins. Trycatch (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look at this suggests that uninvolved admins should review this block I think. It looks to me as though the block was placed in haste and possibly not that rationally. Blocking talk page access seems plain wrong at this stage. I would look further but will be off wiki for a few days shortly. --Herbytalk thyme10:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - got that wrong - I did say it was a quick look and I will not be here to deal with this. However I do think a week is ludicrous and I tend to agree with Docu's comment below - removing stuff not liked is getting to be a habit. --Herbytalk thyme10:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"removing stuff not liked " - I have never moved stuff I don't like because I don't like it. There is always an administrative/moderative reason for the removal or moval or collapsing, and it is always intended to improve discussions. (And when listening to Docu, bear in mind he's been antagonistic and unconstructive towards me the moment I became active on Commons last year.) Rd232 (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a repeat problem with that administrator. He keeps removing or hiding comments he disagrees with. Previous reminders here and elsewhere where just fruitless as now. As he increasingly combines this with his administrator role, I suggest we put an end to the later part. -- Docu at10:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sequence of events
Since there are various incorrect claims floating around, maybe this will help clarify things.
15:05, 10 March 2012 Schosha places a comment on the ANI/U board. "Any person involved with or expressing any sort of advocacy on behalf of "childlove"...should be removed from the project". This is in a section headed "Noticeboard disruptions and cross wiki problems", which is a suggestion from an administrator that certain users should be blocked for their actions. The comment is irrelevant to that topic. It is a response to a comment by another user, Tarc. Tarc's comment is also in the wrong section, as had been pointed out in the first line of the first response to Tarc's comment, and as is pretty obvious from the section title ("Noticeboard disruptions and cross wiki problems"). Malcolm should have seen both. He was wrong to comment there, instead of the main Beta M section, just as Tarc had been, but at least Tarc had a sort of excuse that the section was partially about him. The indenting of Malcolm's comment also makes it an irrelevant butting-in to a discussion between two admins about whether to act, rather than just an irrelevant comment that bears no relation to the thread purpose.
15:37, 10 March 2012 - I archive the section (as it's concluded - no action will be taken), removing the misplaced comment
15:42, 10 March 2012 - I notify Malcolm of the removal and suggest he repost elsewhere. (I also comment on the substance, but it's quite clear that it's an opinion separate from any reposting - Feel free to repost in the right section).
18:15, 10 March 2012 Malcolm demands restoration of the comment in the archived section (and responds to my comment on the substance), and threatens to take the matter to AN/U.
21:06, 10 March 2012 Malcolm declares he doesn't understand. He doesn't ask for clarification.
21:19, 10 March 2012 Despite being warned that a demand for restoration would be considered disruptive, he goes off to post at AN/U to ask for clarification, having failed to ask me for one.
In the interim, Malcolm fails to post his opinion anywhere else, as suggested, thereby demonstrating that the demand to restore a misplaced comment in an archived section is trolling (he didn't actually want his opinion heard, as part of a live discussion where it would be relevant - he just wanted to make trouble).
21:24, 10 March 2012 Rd232 (talk | contribs) blocked Malcolm Schosha (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation blocked) for disruptive trolling.
It does not explain the intimidating language in the warning, and it does not explain why Rd232 would need to take action in person. Irritation about impertinence is hardly an explanation either. The explanation could be prior history between Rd232 and Schosha on enwp, as alluded to by Schosha on his talk page. Rd232 should not import such personal conflicts. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Intimidating language"? You mean Restoring it, or demanding that it be restored, would demonstrate an intention to be disruptive.? Rd232 (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree that Pieter may have a point here. Assuming the issue is resolved the two of them should try and avoid one another I think. --Herbytalk thyme13:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we had there was another discussion with the same administrator here not too long ago:
It seems that he still fails to understand that he can't edit other users contributions. Besides he shouldn't attempt to "administrate" or "moderate" discussions he is involved in either. -- Docu at15:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It comes to something when admins can't even moderate a thread on the Administrators' noticeboard aimed at other admins, to remove comments that have no bearing on the thread topic. I guess you'd prefer giving carte blanche to anyone who likes to come along with irrelevance or deliberately disruptive comments. As for wanting completely uninvolved users to moderate a discussion - how do you expect that to happen? We don't have such an abundance of users wandering by lengthy and complex discussions who will read them, deal with the rare inappropriate comments that sometimes happen, but refrain from commenting before (in case it happens) or after (in case they're subsequently accused of involvement post-hoc). It's an entirely unreasonable expectation. We don't have a cast-iron separation between moderators and contributors, and we can't. Your conclusion therefore appears to be that (in practical terms) there can never be any moderation. That is, as I said, carte blanche for disruption, irrelevance, and the breakdown or slow death of discussions. Rd232 (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Participation to discussions on AN isn't limited to administrators. As it's primarily your attempts "moderate" by hiding, moving, removing, editing, re-contexting other users talk page contributions that seem problematic, you might want to leave that to other participants. -- Docu at15:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn block?
Overturn Sorry Rd232, I do not consider this a good block. Malcolm's version (that he was replying to Tarc and unaware of other sections) is plausible. It is not customary on Commons to remove another user's comments from discussion pages unless they are in violation of policy (e.g. personal attacks), so it is not surprising that Malcolm was annoyed and asked you to restore them. AN/U is an appropriate place to bring a user dispute like this. Refraining from re-inserting his comment is not evidence that it was originally for the purposes of trolling, it may simply be evidence of self-control. (P.S. obviously not everyone knows correct indentation convention) --99of9 (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Refraining from re-inserting his comment is not evidence that it was originally for the purposes of trolling, it may simply be evidence of self-control." That's not what I said. It was the failure to post either the same or a similar comment somewhere more appropriate, not the failure to reinsert the same comment in the same place. Rd232 (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've unblocked Malcolm Schosha as there is wide consensus here that opening a question at this board like in this case should not be punished by a block. From the interchange it becomes clear that Rd232 and Malcom Schosha were in disagreement whether the comment was appropriate and whether it was justified to remove it. I understand Malcom Schosha's posting as a query for a third opinion in this matter which should always be legitimate. Even if such requests appear to be annoying to the admin who tried to moderate and/or close a discussion, we as admins should be careful not to intimidate users by blocking them for asking questions. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all who offered support, and to AFBorchert for unblocking me. I want Rd232 to know that my intent was not to provoke a conflict and, if my edit actually was in the wrong place, that certainly was not intentional. In the context of what I saw, it seemed the only place to put such an edit. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well the next time someone tries to help you contribute your opinion where it'll actually be relevant and listened to, try not to spit in their face. I told you where else to post, you could have asked for clarification of that, and if you'd still wanted it back after that, I'd probably have done it, since at worst it would be useless. Insisting on something useless is disruptive. It was pretty obvious why it was useless, but if you really needed help understanding, you only had to ask me. Asking at a noticeboard before asking me is a strategy that someone as experienced as you knows perfectly well will maximise conflict. With the best will in the world, I find it hard to believe that this was not your intention - because whilst I have forgotten our long-past en.wp history (I very vaguely remember the topic was Israel/Palestine) and certainly bear no grudge or ill-will (but then I always find it hard to bear a grudge into the next hour, never mind the next year), apparently you do, since you keep mentioning it. Rd232 (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rd232, In my view your action, deleting my comment from this noticeboard, was unjustified and extraordinary. I did ask you to restore it and you did not. Neither did you ever show that any harm could result from my comment staying where I placed it. I said I would ask for the opinion of other administrators, on this noticeboard, if you refused to restore the comment. Taking a question to a noticeboard to get the views of other users is not disruptive, it is good sense. If it turned out I was in error, I would have avoided repeating the mistake in the future. As for our past history, I certainly do remember that you played a part in my site banning from en-WP (which I still regard as unfair) and as an editor in an editing dispute that lead up to that. There are other administrators around, and if you think some sort of administrative action should be taken against me, you should refer that to one of them. I would appreciate your consideration in that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The harm was mostly to you - having your opinion placed somewhere irrelevant and archived (discussion closed). I was archiving in response to your irrelevant comment, to prevent a slight possibility of minor harm arising by having a split conversation develop that ought to be linked with discussion elsewhere, in a thread that had served its purpose. Because that archiving made your comment even more useless than its mere misplacement made it (misplaced just as much as Tarc's was), I thought it would be helpful to remove it and say "hey, it didn't go there, put it with the rest of that discussion". As to "played a part in my site banning from en-WP" - I can honestly say I don't remember that at all. Now that you're jogging my memory, I do however dimly recall making an effort to accommodate your wishes in relation to your userpage at some point after you were banned (something to do with Google indexing and renaming). If you want to remind me, feel free to do so, by email or on my talk page. (Or we could let bygones be bygones.) Rd232 (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no "harm" to me at all, and I was not expecting my comment to be preserved for the ages. What I regret is that you do not show any indication of understanding that your removing my edit was not the correct thing to do. I was not expecting an apology, but your defending your actions even now, is regrettable. Considering that, and our past history, would you be so kind as to refer any administrative action against me that you may think necessary to other administrators? I would appreciate getting at least that little from this discussion. Thanks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
All of this user's uploads have been of copyrighted images of Frank Mir. User was notified each time as the images were flagged for speedy deletion. User continued to find another image off the web of Mir to upload. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As Toilet is known to use commons as private photo storage (e. g. here), I suggest deletion and block him indef, since he has never ever responded to claims or questions about his doings here, just uploads (see reason for his first 3-month block). --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Again he has uploaded the deleted files (1, 2,...) we had so many deletion discussions before. I'm really sick of renominating this again. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
? If u take a picture of a person with recognizable face, it is not "okay", maybe they donna want that every person can see her/him. And pictures like that or hardly "public". --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little tricky. I think these are good photos and well within scope, but a lot of them are from Peru, where generally you need permission to publish a photo of a private person taken in a public space. Someone with some expertise should follow up. - Jmabel ! talk18:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Country specific consent requirements#Peru suggests that the issue is not so straightforward. P.S. As a side note, it was a bad idea to introduce country-specific laws to COM:PEOPLE. The picture was published on Commons, in the US, by a person from the Netherlands, why the supposed limitations on publication of it in Peru matter? Now we have to analyse all these extremely tricky laws (and probably delete some useful educational pictures) without any benefit for Commons. Trycatch (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the right place to discuss Common's policy, but a short answer: That's because we're not only gathering pics but free content, really free, to spread it to anybody for any purpose. In some muslim countries there can also be a quite issue to publish pictures of people. In Germany and the Netherland you're not allowed to publicly show everybodies face even if seen in public.
To be hosted on Commons the work should be "free" only in copyright sense of this word, see Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. Commons generally do not care about non-copyright restrictions (if it's legally possible in the US, of course), dunno why the exception for personality rights was made. Of course, it's not the right place to discuss, and so on. Trycatch (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest to close this section per Commons:Non-copyright restrictions / per Trycatch. Commons not comprised such laws in the past. If there is an issue with some files and specific country laws, start a deletion discussion or a discussion elsewhere. COM:AN isnt the right place for this, implementing such rules is not done by administrator attention or intervention. --Martin H. (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:XHolmes
Rather than tagging all of his uploads individually, I figure it might be better to just post a comment here. Anyway, User:XHolmes has uploaded a number of pictures related to Chicago. At least some of these pictures were previously uploaded to Flickr by a user named Brule Laker. I have contacted Brule Laker, and he has told me that he is not associated with XHolmes, and has not granted permission for his files to be used.
These are the files I found that seem to be taken from Brule Laker's Flickr albums:
XHolmes uploaded a number of other pictures, and I'm not immediately sure where those came from, but I suspect they are also being used without permission. Zagalejo (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Damian (talk·contribs) was unblocked without discussion by Rd232 (talk·contribs). He was blocked for harassing Beta_M (talk·contribs) on his talked page (you can just check the history [18]) forcing Saibo to protect this page to stop the harassement [19]. Meanwhile he found it interesting to say to call the admins of commons facist police[20].
He was blocked by Mattbuck for 3 days. To this Peter Damian, repeated his facist claim in the diff of his user page [21] which got him removed from his user talk page access.
Now Rd232, have decided to remove the block without discussion.
In the light of this thread on wikipedia review it seems clear that few users have thought it would be good to continue on Commons what the fight they have started on another website. I have reblocked Peter Damian until a decision is reached here. --PierreSelim (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote 2: The link is provide to show the source of all this, i.e. it's hard to say the fight comes from elsewhere without linking to the source. I think no one has been warned or blocked for this thread yet (even if I don't like few posts out there it's not our problem). --PierreSelim (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Observation to the sidenote: views expressed offwiki are blockable, unless they involve adult child sexual relationships, in which case they should be celebrated. Have I got that right? John lilburne (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Damian is blocked for what he has done here. The link just shows he is involved in a discussion about this offwiki and he brings the dispute here. Read again my message please, he is blocked for harassement by mattbuck, and removed right to use his talk page for using it as a way to pursue the previous disruption. Calling people fascist when you are harassing people on their talk page was not a good idea. I cannot make it clearer, this link just enlight how a group of people brings their offwiki opinion here, which leads to a dispute. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is your point? Every body brings their offwiki opinions here. There are people here that bring there porn must be liberated and readily accessible everywhere, and there are people here that bring their porn must be banned opinions here. Others are bringing paedo advocates not welcomed, as opposed to peado advocate are welcome opinions. The question of whether a particular opinion is currently held is hardly harassment. John lilburne (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: He is also ban from enwiki for [22], which is not the point here, but shows the appeal of this user to drama and harassment.
I saw the posts on Beta_M (talk·contribs). To be fair, originally Peter was referring to the admins of Anarchopedia, not Commons admins, and was doing so mockingly (pretending to assume Beta M's point of view). However, the user ignored the usual policy that a user may remove any message they wish from their talk page (see e.g. en:Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User_talk_pages, I assume it works similarly here). This edit, which you already linked above, reading "The anarchist emails the fascist admin police to put the defenders of free speech in wiki jail. Very appropriate." is a completely inappropriate response to a user making it clear that he will address the issue that was raised. This kind of tone makes it clear that Peter is more interested in assaulting the user personally than resolving the concerns he originally raised. I think a limited-time block was most appropriate. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the user ignored the usual policy that a user may remove any message they wish from their talk page" - diffs? As far as I can see he posted a different question. And the tone doesn't show "more interested in assaulting the user personally than resolving the concerns", it's a laconic aside. Anyway the posts weren't "raising concerns" (asking for action), they were asking questions (asking for information). Rd232 (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock - Reality check - A convicted paedophile / pedophile is editing the commons, uploading child pornography and using the Commons as a platform for a propaganda campaign to "change attitudes" towards supporting child abuse (as "adult-child sexual relationships"), promoting illegal activity.
And instead of any action whatsoever, you shoot the messenger and block the one who brought this to attention?
You suggest that "the wider Commons' community's views on this may be different from those of users who choose to come here"[23] and yes, it is just that. You are in your own little world, where you have convinced yourself, as if its a religion, that just because something has free copyright means that its promoting freedom, even when it is promoting the illegal rape of children. Take a break from the computers for a while, step back, and think, please, of the question you have to ask yourselves, in all seriousness: What would your mothers say? Qu'est-ce que vos mères dire, PierreSelim (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes)? --Mistress Selina Kyle (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure my whereabouts are relevants to the subject but I go out quite often which allows me to contributes quality pictures to our project like European robin, wheelchair basketball, rugby union for last week-end. I have a quite nice collection of mallard ducks prooving I like to go out for walks ... and please do not involve my mum in the discussion (for the record as lots of mum she is proud of her son). --PierreSelim (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to think that other peoples' whereabouts is relevant to their contributions here, this is not the first time you have attacked other users editing from Wikipedia.org referring to them as 'from en-wiki' and trying seemingly to tar them as 'invaders': [24][25][26][27]. You need to drop the hostility towards people trying to contribute constructively to discussions on basis of what country they are from, and read through wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia. --Mistress Selina Kyle (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about your mother, and you know that. I asked you to think about what would your mother would think if she knew what you were doing, because I am sure you have not told her of this? What do you think she would think if she knew you were chasing down and banning people who blow the whistle about people attempting to subvert a very large and influential website to advocate abuse of children?
There was no warning given that the behaviour should stop, never mind that it might be considered harassment and result in a block.
The questions appear legitimate and relevant to a current discussion.
Removal of talkpage access for a couple of minor digs at admins is unwarranted, and removal of email access was entirely unexplained (possibly an error).
It is longstanding practice that blocks and bans and behaviour elsewhere are considered irrelevant (though it may provide information that helps identify problems on Commons).
Comments offwiki may help explain intention. In this case, as far as I can see, it supports the view that the user was acting in good faith. Other Commons edits around the time on related matters also support that.
PS I removed the block "without discussion" (I did email mattbuck, but didn't get a reply until after I'd unblocked) because (i) both the original block and the reblock to remove talk and email access were obviously bad (ii) there's quite enough discussion of these issues around already, and in the circumstances an AN discussion of a 3-day block of a WR member (hello, everyone) would almost inevitably involve drama out of all proportion to the issue. Both blocks (and the talkpage protection, come to that) were a severe overreaction to the perceived problem; more discussion would only compound that. Rd232 (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Rd232, it was your opinion I was waiting for. I've put the block back because I think it at least as to be discussed. As Dcoetzee said "a limited-short" block is appropriate and it's what I support, (3 days was a good choice IMO). You may however have some points (no warning, email block), I however disagree on the good faith, and I don't think someone used to enwiki needs to be recalled not to call others fascits. Now the block has lasted 2 days... --PierreSelim (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An active advocator of paedophlie is protected and his opponent is blocked for asking him?! Could you please adjust your measurements? --Martinatalk13:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Speedied his latest and blocked for three days. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment - I've left a polite note to Rd232 (talk · contribs) at diff. -- Cirt (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose a rather disruptive block request. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Figure_in_Manga_style_variation_1.png#filehistory){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fuwafuwa-chan.jpg#filehistory){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anime_Girl.png#filehistory){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=67747569){kind=link}
06:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep on the DR that an admin has had some interest in. Maybe i'm making a mistake with being polite, too many people start assuming it means psychological weakness and that they can bully me. This isn't the case. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 14:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
-- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 23:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Question Would a unilateral removal of a template on Meta really turn something into an official policy? Wouldn't it be necessary to have an RfC or a vote on it first? The policy also gets a lot of criticism on the talk page. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Support -mattbuck (Talk) 17:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hotel_Karada.png&diff=67580504&oldid=67576497){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Simulated_Forced_Fellatio_in_Bondage_Scenario.png&diff=67580422&oldid=67579747){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sukumizu_Girl.jpg&diff=67737053&oldid=67730900){kind=link}
