Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 13

A category corresponding to an existing article and category in en:wiki Article of course exists here as well. Decius removed it for some reason and i told him User_talk:Decius#Category but he removed it again claiming "revisionism".... diff, diff, diff Megistias (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

First, just two general points:

• 1. To make it easier for other users, you might want to add interwiki links to the category (Category:Northern_Epirus):

[[en:Northern Epirus]]
[[ar:إبيروس الشمالية]]
[[bg:Северен Епир]]
[[de:Nordepirus]]
[[el:Βόρεια Ήπειρος]]
[[es:Epiro Septentrional]]
[[fa:اپیروس شمالی]]
[[fr:Épire du Nord]]
[[it:Epiro settentrionale]]
[[la:Epirus Septentrionalis]]
[[ru:Северный Эпир]]
[[sq:Epiri verior]]

• 2. As Saranda is already in Category:Sarandë and Category:Sarandë in Category:Northern_Epirus, Category:Northern_Epirus should be removed from Saranda.

Specifically about this category: The scope of the category isn't too clear and this can lead to confusion. You might want to discuss this on Category talk:Northern_Epirus. If the category is about a specific historical period, I wouldn't necessarily expect it to have general locality categories as subcategories. If it's a category for a geographic region, it might be sufficient to redirect it to one that covers the same area. -- User:Docu at 11:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC), edited 11:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

TeeExperte has been cross-wiki spamming, uploading promotional (and likely copyrighted) images to Commons and creating adverts with them on en.wikipedia. Requesting block per promotional username/spam-only account. Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If the images are their own, all they would need to do is to send a permission to OTRS. You could argue that the images are not in-scope, but this is independent of whether you deleted an article about them at Wikipedia. -- User:Docu at 18:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I asked at COM:OTRS/N since there is already an OTRS number at de.wp for something. Wknight94 ^talk 18:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks very much. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I work at a research institute and want to upload some data simulation of the volcano emission from Iceland. Obviously I need to provide permission to release the picture into public domain, but how? A email from the institute to somebody? Finn Bjørklid (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, an email (like this) from the copyright holder to OTRS. If the copyright holder is you, and the files you want to upload are not publicly available on the net (or available with a free license clearly indicated on the website), this is not necessary, you can just upload the files here directly. –Tryphon^☂ 10:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will upload the pictures when they are ready and get the scientist who made them to email "permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org" with a statement of free use, and I guess that would solve things. Finn Bjørklid (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Admins, Giorgio writing. Categorizing pictures remained out on 6 September 2009, I have found a series of portraits of a girl, 53 pictures, taken by the user Ralf Roletschek. I'm really puzzled about their correct category and I would like to ask him, that is an expert uploader, if he can add the category himself or, at least, if he can suggest me the right one. Bu he doesn't speak english and, mostly, I don't speak german. Unfortunately I have to add. So I write to you, whoever is german-speaking, to ask the favor of explaining him the issue. This is the first photo: [[26]] and here the "gallery": [[27]]. Thank you very much, mates. Servo vostro--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

These portrait shots of a non-notable model just serve as possible originals of Manga drawings. This is perhaps some source material for this wikiversity class or some other Wikimedia project. According to the German comments on these images, the photographer has uploaded a large bunch of images such that the Manga drawers can select a few usable originals and afterwards the unused shots can be deleted. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

User Domaleixo is trying, once again, to impose his point of view about an image. In this case, it is File:Brasao de Belo Horizonte.png, which Mural crown he does not agree with. It has already been shown at WP:PT that this is the correct blazon, according to the city site. Domaleixo has already been blocked at WP:PT for disruptive behaviour and cannot accept others' opinion about it. Tonyjeff (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

It's on my watch list, if it gets re-uploaded again, I will warn him and if he does it again, he'll be probably blocked. Kameraad Pjotr 18:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Bporter28 (talk · contribs) has continually uploaded obviously copyvio images, mostly photographs of Las Vegas casinos and restaurants taken from elsewhere on the web, tagged as free images, and has not responded to any user talk space messages despite warning. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for three days. If upon expiration of the block, Bporter28 continues to upload copyright violations the block will be extended to indef. Tiptoety ^talk 21:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hwon074 (talk · contribs)

This user is a single-purpose account on en-wiki who's not interested in anything other than changing the lede image on en:Leehom Wang. Today he uploaded File:Leehom.jpg, which appears to be copyvio, and when I tagged it he turned around and uploaded two more copies of it under new names, File:Leehom at Singapore Brands Promotion.jpg and File:Leehom in Singapore at Brands Promotion April 2010.jpg. He has never used a talkpage and appears to be uninterested in contributing constructively, he's just gaming the system. rjanag (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 03:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the duplicates. Let us know if it continues. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

He's finally opened up to discussion over on en-wiki, so the issue might be moot now. Thanks for the help, rjanag (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 14:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, now he's back at it: File:Leehom Wang at a promotional event 2010.jpg, exact copy of File:Leehom at a promotional event 2010.jpg. rjanag (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 02:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the image has been dealt with, but I've blocked him for a week. It would've been indef, but I don't think he's had a clear, unambiguous warning, so some leniency is necessary. However, he also engaged in sneaky copyvio using Flickr, so a little caution is also called for. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The user was recently blocked on Wiki-pt for insulting some user. And he's filtered for persistenting abuse of the public space, after being notified several times to stop. Now he's bringing his grievances to Common,s calling the buroucrats from Wiki-pt "burrocratas" (stupid buroucrats). See his conversation with this user.

Olá MC, agradeço pelo apoio em meu favor. Tudo o que disse eu ratifico. Esses administradores e burrocratas formam de fato uma quadrilha e combinam tudo via chat Bloqueios, eleições e demais sanções. Agora eles tentam desqualificar minhas declarações dizendo que são inverossímeis, inclusive li que o Darwin me chama de mentiroso, mas o mentiroso é mesmo ele. Trata-se de um hipócrita e tumultuador. Desde que voltou só criou confusões e mais guerras de edições e pedidos de bloqueio. Uma dia a tchurma perceberá quem é esse sujeito, inclusive trata-se do autor, como IP, daquela historinha de porco no Esculhambares cujo protagonista é o Frederico. Ele mesmo me contou. Participei de muitas conversas em que vi essas combinações via chat. Inclusive na vez em que você foi bloqueado pelo Burnmensteir, havia uma espécie de discussão no próprio chat em que eles escolheram esse administrador para bloqueá-lo porque seria menos visado. O Ruy não queria ser sempre ele a fazê-lo. Eu não saberia nada disso se não estivesse lá e presenciasse tudo. Agora eles agem mais espertamente. Se escondem em salas privadas do próprio MSN nas quais discutem tudo. Christian, Castelo, Ruy, Darwin, todos eles e outros mais. Infelizmente a realidade é essa. Quanto a esse usuário que disse na sua discussão que teria falado com o meu espírito a respeito de um café na Rio Branco, isso é mentira. Não conheço esse usuário. Estou aproveitando bem o meu tempo de exílio. Até no cadafalso dá para se admirar uma bela paisagem. Aequiparat factum nobile velle bonum. Abraços, Junius 15:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

201.95.219.71 02:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Erjkcbfdsicbu (talk · contribs) who opened an account on April 21, 2010 only to upload a copy of our Larry Sanger-image, to put it on his userpage and to add a caption "Ik" (dutch for I), thereby suggesting that he is Larry Sanger. I suggest blocking him as imposter. In addition, I've asked Mr. Sanger on his :en-userpage for comment. --Túrelio (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, would someone please block Fredy.00's/Le chatea's/Zemanolog's/and so on's IP address 188.75.128.2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user.

Apart from the ban evasion itself, the user is continuing to edit disruptively (removing notifications of deletion discussions from files before the discussions have been closed) and aggressively towards other contributors (only including examples since my previous notice):

• "Are your blind? / If your continue in this sabotage of Wikipedia..." (sic)
• Blanking of notice of ongoing deletion discussion
• Lots of PD template changes, which I'm not sure is appropriate coming from a user who is banned for systematically lying about copyright issues

Sorry to have to repeat myself, but my previous notice seems to have been ignored for some reason. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of any previous ones - sorry :). Blocked, 1 week but let me know if you think any longer is appropriate, thanks & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The contribution to Commons:Deletion requests/File:HLHimmler.jpg uncovers UstinadlabemELBE (talk · contribs), and AfghanFan2010 (talk · contribs) is another one found with a check (different IP). --Martin H. (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I just got this notice on my user page [31], perhaps as a pay back for opposing his POV on deletion of porn images. The file has the permission from the creator of the image. And I notified the image's creator here [32], gave him a link to the uploaded image on Commons, and he acknowledged my notification of the upload. That should be quite enough. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Two of my images have been nominated as well. This is the same as what Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) has been blocked for several times. Wknight94 ^talk 15:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

suppot::That's not a helpful constraint in my opinion, especially since it seems to be used rather unilaterally (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hellendoorn NH Rol 362.JPG, less than one hour after I told you about heat and kitchens. I am thankful that you reviewed my uploads, but you aren't exactly the person to whine about reviews. Erik Warmelink (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No comment, but thank you for the notice of mentioning me here. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't nominate images just as payback, OK? It's really not a good idea. You need to, in general, improve your approach. Right now it's lacking. ++Lar: t/c 04:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha: For the record there is nothing wrong with that permission, the originator gave you a CC license that is adequate for our needs. ++Lar: t/c 04:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Lasvegaslover seems to have uploaded a lot of images which look like they're professionally made. They don't seem to be the sort of things that a typical Wikipedia editor would create. Am I seeing things wrong? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking around and I have found a Flickr account which has the same username as the Commons account. Could be the Flickr user but also the possibility another person using the same name. Bidgee (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Images uploaded by Lasvegaslover are not matching the Flickr account (some images are indeed from the account, different cameras and have found one copyvio. I have messaged the Flickr user but I am doubting the Commons user being the flickr uploader. Bidgee (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

They have confirmed via Flickr mail that it is them. Bidgee (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I just came back from a few days away and find that Jimbo has gone on somewhat of a rampage, deleting many many images that apparently violate his new policy which he is pushing on us. If this were anyone else, he would have been deadmined and banned within minutes. I would like to know whether there is anything we can do to stop Jimbo being able to use admin powers on Commons, as he clearly has no respect for community consensus and policy on what makes images in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• This old Meta proposal may be of interest. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

If you read the talk page (or the notice in the first paragraph) of that old Meta proposal you'll see that this is pretty much resolved. Jimbo is not able to use admin powers at Commons anymore. Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hadn't quite got to that bit yet. Good to know, thanks. Consider this unhappiness withdrawn. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

A user who had his sysop rights removed after resigning under a cloud under controversial circumstances, is requesting to have his admin rights restored, without going through the RFA process. Please see Commons:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Restoration_of_rights. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No actual issues to deal with - just more of Jimbo's recent actions causing our actual policies to be misunderstood. Adam Cuerden (talk)

Just noticed that this user tried to revoke licenses in own images by clearing image descriptions. I reverted this changes. I think will be good idea to keep an eye on this user. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I would like to get in touch with "Koroesu" about the picture related to Bakunin <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bakunin_1840s.jpg?uselang=fr> as I wish to know the source.

Thank you

Ronald Creagh

<ronald.creagh@wanadoo.fr> (user "rcreagh")

User talk:Koroesu.--Ankara (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

...and the claim of "Travail personnel" ("own work") on the image is ridiculous. - Jmabel ! talk 00:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably using {{Own}} because he scanned it...? I guess knowing the source is interesting enough to be sure it's PD (or not.) Esby (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate username. --Sandahl (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Duly blocked and copyvio deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

see http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&diff=39362995&oldid=39361572

• See also Troll-Alarm 3 Regards 78.55.254.226 11:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Bizarrely you appear to be reporting your own behaviour as trolling...? Maybe you could be a little clearer --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This is Mutter Erde, I've blocked him for 24 hours. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah - his is a dynamic IP for info so anything more that 24 hours is probably not worthwhile. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, thanks. This might be a good time to remind admins of the wording of Commons:Blocking policy#Use: "User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block may and should also be blocked." (Emphasis mine.) Frankly, I feel that the enforcement of that policy has been somewhat lacking lately.

I don't want to give undue attention to vandals, but as we're already discussing the matter, I also feel that, in the absence of an equivalent of en:Wikipedia:Banning policy despite the fact that we still apply the concept of banning, a clarification of whether or not en:Wikipedia:Banning policy#Edits by and on behalf of banned users applies here is in order. Edits like this, effectively assisting a banned users in continuing the personal attacks for which they were originally blocked really make me wonder. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Please block 78.55.118.41 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Admins, please react to this. Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  Done for 24 hours. As Mutter Erde's IP address changes every day, longer blocking periods do not help. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sndpsingh23 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is a pretty obvious sockpuppet used to evade the recent block of Shrikrishna 3 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user and continue replacing existing files with copyvios. Please block and remove the copyvio uploaded on top of File:Ajay-Devgan-LondonDreams01.jpg. Thanks! —LX (talk, contribs) 16:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Block   Done and looks like the file is reverted. No other obvious socks for now. Thanks for the info. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverted yes, but the copyvio is still there; would be better deleting it. –Tryphon^☂ 16:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Right. We shouldn't have full-resolution copyright violations lying around in the file histories, so please delete the revision as well. I also found en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sndpsingh23/Archive (also compare en:Special:Contributions/Sndpsingh23, en:Special:Contributions/Shrikrishna 3 and en:Special:Contributions/Sandysandy2010), so this might be something to keep an eye out for. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Point taken - deleted and the other one blocked. Will go poke about a bit :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thread archived; Stillwaterising asked to take this as a warning. Any further incidents should be handled with a block of an appropriate length, but I don't think that it would really be helpful to block two weeks after the fact, for actions taken in the middle of a complete community breakdown. The behaviour certainly was disruptive and inappropriate, but this long after the fact, it's a bit hard to justify taking action now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't see any further issues here: Esby accidentally uploaded a few derivative works in the process of a batch upload of useful images. They've been dealt with. Wrong forum, really: User talk:Esby would have been better, but that's been apologised for, so let's all move on. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we already have moved on; the last comment was four days ago ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User:PANONIAN change my comment in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Soviet caucasus1922.png her. more then thet he is spliting my comments in tha same disscation. Pleas ask him stop doing it. I active mostly in commons and the Hebrew Wikipedia. I never made edit wars and never seen such behavior of this user. He upload map thet containg term thet never exsist he post this map in alot of wikipedias as I said in this commant with anonymous IP. this is the real reason of deleting of this map. Anyway if he have any problem with my comment he can report me. Geagea (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment that I deleted was a clear example of trolling and personal harassment: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3ASoviet_caucasus1922.png&action=historysubmit&diff=38370579&oldid=38349182 - please somebody tell to this user that page of that deletion proposal is not a place for his personal "crusade" against me. PANONIAN (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I asked Geagea not to attack other editors. S/he needs to confine his/her comments to the substance of the discussion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have the strong suspicion that the user PANONIAN is edit-warring against me on the Atlas of Serbia using those proxies:

• 194.106.188.92
• 194.106.188.74
• 194.106.188.180
• 194.106.189.203
• 194.106.189.12
• 194.106.189.27
• 194.106.188.222
• 194.106.188.225
• 194.106.189.253
• 194.106.189.249
• 194.106.188.3
• 194.106.189.153
• 194.106.189.85
• 194.106.189.191
• 194.106.188.53
• 194.106.189.124
• 194.106.189.161
• 194.106.188.26
• 194.106.189.164

The reason why I suspect the User PANONIAN are three:

• 1) they are some maps included by me in the Atlas of Serbia or map comments edites by me 3 years ago (I mean most of those changes concerning the Romanian/Vlach population in Serbia) who have been changed on 11 February 2010 by PANONIAN (I meam most of the edits made here concerning the Romanians/Vlachs of Serbia). After I reverted PANONIAN's edits on my comments, PANONIAN's edits have been restored promptly by this ip-user who stared an edit war against me on the Atlas of Serbia. I noticed PANOANIAN's edits on 25 April 2010 and reverted them see here. Promptly, only 13 hours and 32 minutes, the "unknown" ip-user 194.106.188.92 reverted my edits and accused my of POV-pushing. The edit war started now and the rest can be easily seen here. Just shortly before, he ended his dispute with Geagea.
• 2) I believe that PANONIAN's reason to carry out his edit-warring by proxis because only 2 weeks earlier, on 10 March 2010 he was blocked for the second time on this year due to edit wars. I think that he is trying to avoid the third block using proxies. This time, he isn't just edit warring, but he is also insulting me (see point 3).
• 3) In en:wiki, in the past PANONIAN had similar disputes concerning the identity of the Vlachs/Romanians of Central Serbia (see here and here); I also recognize the same arguments used then and now. The way he argumented there are similar to those from this talk. He use often to insult obsessively user with an opposite opinion by calling him a "Romanian nationalists". During this talk he insulted me, by calling me a "nationalist" for many times (starting with 1 May 2010), though I told him 2 May 2010 to stop with such accusations (I wrote: "And stop wrinting here things like "your great national cause", such outbreaks just make our conversation unfriendly."). But he didn't stop and continued to call me and my opinions "nationalistic" for further 15 times or more. The term "nationalist" isn't obligatory insulting, but when you are asked by the adressed person not to call her in such a way, I think that any further disregard of this demand is doubtless made with the intention to insult me. However, another attempt of him to insult me was here when he suddenly wrote "[...]I do not know how large (or small) your IQ is,[...]" -> this is an alternative way to say "Probably you are dumb".

And last but not least, his comments when he reverts my edits are nothing but lies. He writes "back to compromise version", but there is no compromise there. He is just reverting my edits and noting more.--Olahus (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The edit-was continued today ... isn't there any administrator to block this page for unregistered users???--Olahus (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I'm trying to take this seriously. I started reading the discussion page of Atlas of Serbia, and after 1/3 I stopped. Postings got longer with each reply, arguments were just repeated over and over again. Both parties seem to have some valid points though. I don't quite get what makes Serbia such an annoying topic. Discussions about that country heat up in seconds and everyone accusses everyone else of being a nationalist. As for Vlachs vs. Romani, what is the big f***ing deal? Is it so hard to find a middle ground? State both terms and mention there apparently is some controversy. Please reset that discussion and find a term that both of you like. (btw. plainly reverting with the comment vandalism is not helpful either). --Dschwen (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Please block this user for extensive vandalism on File:RomaCastelSantAngelo-2.jpg and delete all those porno pictures. Thank you --Justass (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

  Done Lupo 11:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This kind of personal attack destroys commons: 1 2 3 [42]. There is no justification to call people with other views for vandals and threaten them with blocks.--Ankara (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I would advice to ignore the troll. If you bite, you give Ottava Rima attention and more credence than is needed. Just see it as a rather sickening example of continued anilingus and move on. Erik Warmelink (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• This edit, by Erik Warmelink, is a vulgar and mindless personal attack, and that certainly does warrant a block. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

  Hi, Malcolm. There already is a section dedicated to my behaviour. Sure, block me for my lack of command of the (US variant of) English. The edit above is an attack (on someone who seems to be here only to attack others), I can understand why you consider it a vulgar attack, I can even see why you consider it a personal attack (though I attack the behaviour of a pseudonym, not the person behind the pseudonym), but it isn't mindless. And you are smart enough to know the attack wasn't mindless. Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I re-read your edit, and stand by my my original statement that your edit "is a vulgar and mindless personal attack" directed against Ottava. You called him a "troll" which is an incorrect characterization of his contributions to Commons. Please refer to the Wikipedia article Don't call editors trolls. Also, you "anilingus" comment is extremely vulgar and unacceptable. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not call Ottava Rima a troll, I called the contributions trolls (wikt:troll#Etymology 2, I consider "A person who posts …" a neologism, note that I urged not to bite). If "anilingus" doesn't have both meanings of "kont kussen" (kiss the buttocks; literally, but far more often as "je kunt me de kont kussen"), I shouldn't have used it, but considering the discussion, the double meaning did fit. This isn't en-US.wiki despite recent attempts. Erik Warmelink (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I have made the problems with your original edit [43] sufficiently clear. Anyone who chooses only needs to read that to understand my point. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ottava Rima has had a quite disruptive behaviour on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and user talk pages (at least). After having tried several times to make him amend his behaviour, I have put a formal warning on his talk page, asking him to stop

• Pushing deliberate misinterpretations of the policies in order to support your opinions;
• Accusing other contributors of bad faith and of misreading the policies when it is exactly what you do;
• Aggressing and harassing other contributors, issuing abusive ad hominem arguments;
• Accusing admins of policy violations when they remind you the rules of the project.

These are more or less part of the grounds on which Ottava Rima has been banned for one year from the English Wikipedia. If his behaviour does not improve I will request here for him to be blocked here as well for being highly disruptive to the "collegial atmostphere" of the project (and for harassing other users, if necessary). --Eusebius (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• NB: Eusebius, it does not seem appropriate for you to be issuing a "formal warning" to a user who is opposed to your personal editing goals. It does not seem appropriate for you, as an involved administrator, to make threats of sanctions against a user when it is clear that you would benefit personally from his being silenced. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with Eusebius issuing this warning. First of all, I wouldn't say that he was involved in a conflict with Ottava Rima to the point of being biased. And even if he was, this is just a warning, announced on a public noticeboard, so that any admin who considers Eusebius overstepped a line can amend it; this hasn't happened so far, so it seems Eusebius' impression is shared by most. Also note that he specifically said he wouldn't issue a block himself: I will request here for him to be blocked, which clearly shows he doesn't want to act unilaterally. Everything was done by the books. –Tryphon^☂ 11:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Per Tryphon - I see nothing at all wrong with this warning. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

  Support some sort of reprimand and temporary ban. I am getting very very tired of this guy - he keeps threatening to try and de-admin me for alleged policy violations (no such violation occurred, and several people told him so, but he doesn't seem to be willing to drop it). I'm all for being tolerant and stuff, but we do want people who listen - he has been told time and time again that Commons is not here to editorialise on other projects, and that SCOPE states that if an image is in use on an article page it is in use and so in scope. Many many times, yet he keeps insisting that it is only in scope if there are no other images on the page, or various other reasons why an image which has been in use for years should be kept deleted because it happens to show some sort of nudity. For instance, see COM:UDEL (plus archive 1), or my talk page. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You have made multiple policy violations, such as closing a undeletion request that you both commented in and voted in, then claimed that we were "not a democracy", negated most of the statements, then closed with a comment that was 100% opposite of policy. 2 of the three images were admittedly "not being used on a page" and you said that they could "potentially be used" so that was a keep. Policy is clear: "and an image does not magically become useful by arguing that “it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on X”, where X happens to be the subject of the file." You have no grounds to support this as you are conflicted and you are completely wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that these administrators and users see nothing wrong with involved administrators issuing warnings and blocks. I note, also, that many WP administrators see nothing wrong with the porn on this website, while at the same time promoting the use of Wikipedia by schools and libraries (including children's rooms). Discouraging, but così è la vita. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Malcom: Please leave your puristanism at the entrance of Commons. Ottavia attitude is enough to issue such a warning. I also banned him from IRC saturday for trolling and threatening people and I feel it was the right thing to do. Esby (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Esby's ban was overturned as being inappropriate and abusive. Esby's ban is motivated by personal political feelings and not policy, which is the definition of abuse. Why Esby would mention that he banned me and yet ignored that it was overturned for being highly inappropriate is anyone's guess. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Some people trust admins - some don't. Applies the same as far as users are concerned. I'd like to think I have never allowed my personal judgements to affect my admin actions - given I'm human I may be wrong and I'm sure someone will come along and point it out to me. With around 30k admin actions it would be quite remarkable if I had not made a mistake in that time - I know others are perfect but I am not. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

@Herbythyme: Every human has biases. I do not see why I should trust Commons administrators more than I trust Supreme Court justices, who also clearly make decisions influenced by their biases. I do not consider that bad, but rather as an unavoidable aspect of human nature. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough - I find (& have found) your approach on Commons unhelpful. I guess we are both stuck with the situation. There is enough to deal with in normal times on Commons without this sort of thing and at present there is plenty to actually do here. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If you think that my contributions to Commons are harmful, why do you not block me? I can leave without any regrets because I feel secure that my contributions have been good, my arguments rational, and have acted without any expectation of applause. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If they were harmful I would block you - that is not what I said. Gone to do real work. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In this context, the way you used "unhelpful" seems to mean the same as harmful. So why not block me? It would make many treasured editors happy, and it make no helpful users sad. (Strange, though, that I should take flack, while none of you had a single word of complaint about this vulgar and insulting edit by Erik Warmelink [44]. Così è la vita.) - Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll chime in. I have blocked Erik twice now, once for edit warring and once for unhelpful edits, and I am not unwilling to do so again to cut back on disruption. So I think I have some standing to say that your raising Erik as an issue to deflect discussion about yourself is... well, it's unhelpful. Which is exactly what Herby is referring to. Your edits are not helpful. Are they blockable in and of themselves? Is the drama from blocking you worth it? Dunno. But unhelpful? Certainly. There's a lot of that going around. ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No need to do me any favors, Lar. If you think it will do you some good to send me into wiki-commons exile, I will have no regrets about leaving Commons and, in fact, I never expected anything different. I think my edits here are helpful, and certainly rational, and your threats are of no concern to me. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

@Esby: Puritanism? Why do you want to demean the ethical concerns of other users with a negative use of framing. And, for that matter, without bothering to construct a rational argument? I do not have much patience with such name calling. Please do not tell me what to do, and particularly please do not tell me that ethical concerns about porn may not be stated on Commons. Do you understand? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop trolling? Thanks in advance. Esby (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take your own advice. You started out by name calling, and have now gone on to calling me a troll. Please review WP:TROLL. - Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

1. This case has nothing to do with the presence of sex-related content on Commons and whether we like it or not. Anyone has the right to have an opinion and to express it (not here, please). The issue here is the way it has been done. So please avoid digressions.
2. I believe my various messages and my final warning to Ottava Rima have been made without passion and without getting personal. I have been doing my job as an admin by closing a few del/udel requests, by asking a user to behave properly and by warning him when he failed to do so. I'll continue doing my job by checking that the warning has been understood. However, I have failed to notify this discussion to him, so I'll do it at once. --Eusebius (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing exceptional to say that an administrator who is involved in a disagreement with a user should not be the administrator threatening sanctions to that same user. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are you looking for? Do you want Eusebius to retract his warning? Do you want someone else to warn Ottava Rima? Several people here have endorsed this warning, and no one besides you seems to have a problem with how it was handled. So it seems to me that you're trying to draw focus on a small procedural detail (with no suggestion on how to fix it) when the real issue is the disruptive behavior of one user. So again, what course of action do you suggest? –Tryphon^☂ 14:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Eusebius's warning was already removed by me per him making repeated personal attacks over my ability to read. The WMF already knows my background as an academic in English Literature, so such statements are inappropriate at best. And Tryphon, there are only four people in here that seem to be in any opposition to me and at least three made it clear that they are conflicted and biased based on disputes that result from their own political interpretation and statements that have been proven to contradict our policy with clear comparisons between their words and the text of the policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Before we go any further - would you consider me "conflicted" in this case? Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• There was no link to this page, which is highly inappropriate. There is also many personal attacks by many people in this thread, such as Eusebius, who claims I am unable to read yet I am a professional academic in English literature whereas he is not a native English speaker. He is also involved and this is clear retaliation for pointing out that his statements are not grounded in a legitimate reading of the policy, which uses very clear language. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Then I conclude that Rima is unwilling to read. His interpetions of policy are absurd, his claims in DR's are best ignored to avoid endless "discussion". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks do not verify your statement. I have already provided through clear copy and paste with analysis how my reading of policy is verified in multiple clauses in multiple sections and that there is no way to interpret in a different manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not see that as a personal attack. You interpret policy in what is, as Pieter says, an absurd way. You are able to read, obviously, as you're reading this, and the policy is perfectly clear, as are the arguments people have presented against your position. Thus the obvious conclusion is that you are unwilling to read it. There is only one relevant section Ottava, and that is "use on another wikimedia project", which you consistently ignore. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have now blocked this user. He has been very selective in removing material from his user talk page. Discussions were still taking place here and so the removal of the warning (and nothing else) cannot be called "archiving" to my mind. Warning both Eusebius and myself not to restore the warning is plain wrong. I have only blocked him for a day in order to get further input. I have been forced to re-block protecting his talk page as he persists in selectively removing postings. I have left his unblock request on there.

You blocked him for deleting from his own talk page? That seems....unusual - Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Not specifically that. I blocked him for removing warnings while discussion was taking place and warning those who reverted him that they were the vandals. That is disruptive (as his behaviour seems to have been). I place a very short block to allow sensible discussion. I have not been involved with this user so I need to read around some as I imagine others do. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Not specifically that"? To me it seems like "that", and - specifically or not - it looks like a duck. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have not been involved in this with him up until now however I consider his behaviour disruptive in a number of areas. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think his intimidating/harassing is repeated even after being warned and apologizing. I see no possibilities to reform this user's attitude. So a long-term ban is needed. – Kwj2772 (msg) 15:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Looking around I am inclined to see it the same as you Kwj. However I have not really been involved with this user. I do see disruption, sniping and the likes. I will not object to my block being lifted if there is consensus nor will I object to it being extended - my block was only intended to put a stop to the current behaviour. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, he's behaving in a manner consistent with his past record, and I doubt that a short term ban would change that. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The removing of the discussion that Herby restored was at the very least unpolite and disruptive. This user seems to be making a habit out of baiting administrators and users and seeing how far he can push peoples buttons, by wikilawyring and other tactics. I have no tears for this user. He is continuously playing a game of how to waste the time of as many Commons users as he can, it seems. There are better things to do than us having to adhere to the whims of this user. TheDJ (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It is also rather annoying that user immediately turns to IRC to petition his case with me. TheDJ (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Octava is a valuable contribute who many other editors dislike because they loose arguments with him, causing them trouble. But life is trouble [45], and so are many good editors. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

We went over this with Mutter Erde, and decided that if someone was disruptive, it was too bad if he otherwise did good work, the rest of the community works better when he's not being disruptive. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

And Juiced Lemon before that. I find these really difficult - vandals is vandals is vandals - they are easy. Real contributors I really dislike blocking. However - this is a collaborative project - if folk cannot/will not work collaboratively then, regretfully, we need to deal with it. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

So what do we do? I don't like it that he is blocked, but SOMETHING needs to be done. TheDJ (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• I   Support a block, but not too long (I'd say one month), first because it would be a first block here on Commons (in first approximation), second because it might be the case that Ottava Rima's current behaviour is biased by his strong reaction to the sex-related content issues. So I'm willing to believe that this can change over time. However, right now it seems necessary to "protect" the community from his aggressive and disruptive behaviour. I think he shouldn't be blocked for removing the warning from his talk page (this does not seem to be covered by the blocking policy) but with a rationale such as "showing an aggressive and disruptive behaviour, pushing deliberate misinterpretations of the policies, failing to take warnings into accounts, accusing other users of bad faith and violations". "Harrassment" and "disrupting the collegial atmosphere" of the projects are actually covered by the blocking policy. --Eusebius (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware that Commons is not, in many respects, run as I think is best. Blocking good editors for being "disruptive" (which in my view is a meaningless term as it is used on this site, and a vicious instrument in the hands of many) is one of the ways I think it not run for the best.

Anything wrong with my saying what I think is best? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Because you consider that user:Ottava Rima is a good editor at Commons? Less than 50 images uploaded, 400 contribs, with 300 after the 6th may 2010... ? Esby (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Only 50 images uploaded?!! Shit! Okay, lets block him. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe he has alot more that were copied over from en where he uploaded them a couple years ago. Not sure how many but he has more then 50 on the project as far as I know. Jamesofur (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait, he's barely contributed before this past week? Then who the hell am i thinking of who was disruptive with this sort of thing last time? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we should unblock Ottava so that he can participate in the discussion. The unblock should be conditional on the fact that he won't go straight back to attacking Eusebius regarding the warnings. Clearly there is some support for a ban. Let's discuss that. TheDJ (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

While I agree in a sense I think some breathing space is still appropriate for now. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd also make it conditional on not misrepresenting policy. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I would just add that the email I had (posted on the user's tall page for completeness) does indicate that he feels he is in dispute with me from a previous matter. I had not considered it but I guess it is likely he is seems to like such dispute (the effect is the same as wiki stalking in practice if not in intent). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Additionally it now appears that he has requested oversighting of my posting of his email. I find this quite hard to deal with as he is accusing me of things by mail that I cannot respond to in a public way which would be my preference. Under the circumstances I will not respond to the most recent email although I appear to be violating many policies at present. I'll leave others to deal with this but I do consider this harassment as I am unable to respond to the community. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If you do not feel comfortable discussing this issue via private e-mail, why did you not just tell him that, instead of making it public? Of course its too late now.

What I do not understood is why Ottava puts up with the chronically shitty treatment he gets on these wikis. This whole place frequently seems mad. So serious about enforcing rules that are rules no place but wiki-land. So serious about preventing "disruption" in a wiki that is already in chaos. More than anything Commons seems a ship of fools. Feh. - Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

He is free to leave. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Per Mattbuck however as we do not run Commons in the way Schosha considers appropriate may be he is free to leave us in peace too. I now consider him to be harassing me too (& not for the first time). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 21:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Herby wrote (concerning me): I now consider him to be harassing me too. Herby, I do not recall saying anything intended to "harass" you. Could you clarify? Certainly we disagree. But, if you think that is grounds to send me into wiki-commons exile, you should not hesitate. I will not regret it. I have acted as I think right, and you should do the same. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I find your approach completely lacking in the spirit of collaboration/co-operation that I have relished about Commons over quite a long period. Examination of actions is fine - I feel you go beyond that (as does the user who is the subject of this thread). You are welcome to your views - I am welcome to mine - I would prefer not to interact with you - that is the effect you have had on me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, Herby, you accused me of harassing you, but when I asked you to specify with some examples of harassment all I got in reply is a vague answer ending with a statement that you would rather not interact with me. That clarifies nothing. What I am saying is that if your edit (above) contains an answer to my request for specifics I do not see it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

See, the thing is, in some ways it comes down to your word against Herby's. When that sort of thing happens, the community often gives credence to those people that have shown respect FOR the community, and who have worked hard to gain trust, and who have avoided being abrasive. (in short, nice people...) You may not agree that's how it ought to be but I think that's often how it is. Herby's earned my trust and respect and support. I suspect I speak for many when I say that. You've earned, with me, a reputation as abrasive, argumentative, and not collegial. So, I believe Herby when he says you were harassing him, and not you when you say you weren't. You constantly say "I'm leaving, and I don't care if you block me on the way out" or words to that effect. I don't believe you there either. If you're really so disgusted... leave. After all, we're not worthy. Or better, change your ways. When you want to be, you're a great contributor. ++Lar: t/c 13:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There seems to some sort of strange communication problem here. Herby said I had harassed him, which I do not recall doing, so I asked for a clarification. Although it is clear that we disagree about Ottava, I have no wish to rough up Herby. Even my limited experience with him has shown that his approach is non-combative, and if I have actually harassed him I am quite willing to apologize. I know I can be abrasive and, if it is shown to me that I have overstepped reasonable bounds in a disagreement, I am always willing to apologize for the rough handling, and I am willing to do that even if I think I am otherwise in the right. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments like the above give me some faint glimmering of hope that we might be able to work with you, Malcolm. But then you go and say things like "The conversation, with the clowns (aka administrators) on this thread, was amusing," and I despair again. How was that a helpful comment? People have just patiently explained why Ottava is a net negative and that was your response? I'm not seeing a way forward unless you do more like the above and less like what I clipped from. ++Lar: t/c 15:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Lar, I was trying to find out if someone here is awake. Apparently not. In my view the only administrator who has shown any signs of normal human decency in all this discussion is Adam Cuerden, who at least made it possible for Ottava to state a defense himself. Not that anyone listened. As I watched this discussion progress, the word "clowns" unavoidably came to mind. Sorry about the negative report, but that is how I see it, and I regret having to say it. As for your "seeing a way forward" working with me, I doubt it. The situation seems hopeless, and I understand the likely outcome in regard to my continued presence on Commons. Fatal but not serious, seems a good descriptive term for this. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

At least for me that hope died with It never ceases to amaze me what a bunch of mean spirited dicks and ignorant assholes WP and Commons administrators can be. :-( --Dschwen (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if the negative report hurt your feelings, but that statement sums my understanding of this discussion. Would you have liked what I said any better if I had just said "It never ceases to amaze me how mean spirited ignorant, WP and Commons administrators can be"? "Dicks" and "assholes" or not, "mean spirited" and "ignorant" certainly applies. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

So - we are "ignorant" and you are... You see - I am just not as rude as you (though I certainly have faults). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This is getting nowhere, just binding time that could be used in a more productive way. Block? --Dschwen (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

  Support block. Wknight94 ^talk 18:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

  Support block, assuming you are talking about me. It is of no concern to me, and if you think you will benefit from sending me into wiki-commons exile, I can live with that. Refer to the quote at the top of my WP talk page[46]. - Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This is about the only part of today that does not give me pleasure. I refuse to make this personal. And neither did your rude language hurt my feelings. You are simply making the working atmosphere less pleasant and distract from productive work. 1 week to get some distance and perspective. --Dschwen (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

  Oppose block, for now, if we're talking about Malcolm Schosha. We should conclude about Ottava Rima and ignore him, unless other users are complaining (about something else than this conversation), in which case we'll open a new section. --Eusebius (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

  Oppose for pretty much the same reasons as Eusebius. Let's close this and move on. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

  Oppose I think. He is rude and abrasive however he has from time to time apologised. We do have worse around. Per Mattbuck & Eusebius --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

  Comment You should probably make a separate heading on this page to discuss the behaviour/block of MS - this thread about Ottava is complicated enough as it is... Finn Rindahl (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I also like how Ottava Rima's "opponents" are all "intellectual midgets". Amazing all this childish name calling from someone who does "not have much patience for such name calling." Apparently the patience only goes in one direction. Wknight94 ^talk 15:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

He is rude and unpleasant. Frankly it is only that I feel conflicted with this user that I haven't done something about it. I doubt the words would be tolerated from many others. I keep hoping that if we all ignore him he will go away basically (though I appear to be wrong in that). From one of the local friendly dick heads. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I invested some time in trying to get a rational explanation from someone, but that was not forthcoming. Now you call me "childish", when I tell you that your attitude is mean spirited and ignorant. Call me childish if you want, but it is mostly the administrators who are the children here. This is known. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Except that lots of explanation has been given. You just don't accept the validity of it, apparently. OK, that's fine, but nevertheless it has. Most other folk do. That might tell you something... ++Lar: t/c 17:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No, just the usual WP and Commons catch phrases. Citing catch phrases is no the same as an explanations. But that's ok, and I expect nothing more. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt but, since this has wandered far afield, maybe a new section is warranted. Wknight94 ^talk 14:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think a new section is needed. It is interwoven with the rest of the thread, an is probably close to concluded. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Mattbuck: "conditional on not misrepresenting policy" - Ottava will ruleslawyer that to death. Herby: "accusing me of things by mail that I cannot respond to in a public way"... yup, that's a standard tactic too. Keep shifting the playing field until everyone is confused. Claim special privs and deny them to others. Attack the messenger not the message. I think a month of no Ottava might be good for the project. Harassing Herby is totally unacceptable. He's one of the sanest and soundest people here. ++Lar: t/c 18:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

True, he would. I agree, ban him for a month, no one should be mean to Herby. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

One month seems appropriate, although I have little hope of seeing any change of behavior after that period of time. –Tryphon^☂ 18:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've returned from a period off line and found two further emails which I consider again harassment. I am accused of misuse of rights however I cannot state the accusations nor respond to them to the community I serve. I place this with some sadness as my block was merely intended to give breathing space not to cause further issues and disruption. I am told that I am to give access to the user talk page again to allow the user to express their views however when they had that access they - in my opinion - were editing against the way we work on Commons. I understand that they consider that they run Wikiversity however I'm not sure that that can or should influence me or the community here. I am happy to justify my use of my rights to the community at any time. However it does seem to me that this user seeks to engage with admins here is a disruptive way. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 20:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Reflecting here. Admin actions (use of any rights) should always be open to scrutiny by the community. I have always believed that & will continue to do so. However there are times when such scrutiny becomes harassment in my view. I am certainly not perfect however I found the continual questioning of Eusebius was something beyond simple questioning. Commons has some great admins and Eusebius is - to me - one of them. I have never seen an RfCU pass with as many votes as his did suggesting I am not the only one holding him in some respect.

I do consider Ottava Rima has not been editing in a co-operative manner. Commons seems to have acquired a few users who delight in wiki lawyering style debates (I dread the day we have "commons lawyering"). I think the community should look at this carefully and in a timely way. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is pretty clear above so I have extended Ottava Rima's block to one month. I have also turned off e-mail to go along with the disabled talk page. Commons needs a break. Wknight94 ^talk 11:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Five editors, with the exception of one, support inclusionism here. There are, as I quickly counted, six in support of a one month block. Don't you think it would have been better to hear some of the other editors' opinions? Blurpeace 15:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If people by now haven't looked at it, they're not going to. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been about 24 hours all together (starting from Eusebius's 1-month block proposal). I've seen at least 3 days or more given for long-term block discussions. Blurpeace 15:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Since we're voting now about his block, I'll chime in and say that I could see a shorter block of a few days, but I do not support a month block. A few days would have stopped the disruption, let everyone including Ottava calm down, and hopefully everyone would have been able to get back to discussing things calmly. Killiondude (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

@Blurpeace, what's "inclusionism"? How is it related to this discussion? What is your opinion on the block itself? @Killiondude, this isn't really about Ottava calming down. It's about the project needing a break from the chaos. Wknight94 ^talk 16:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

See the meta page (i.e., "We aren't censored!"). Birds of a feather flock together? I agree with Killiondude, in that the block was too long. It would have served the same effect with less time. Blurpeace 16:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(indent reset) I'm not against a shorter block if other contributors think it is better, I'm just afraid it won't change much. Plus, I hope nobody is making assumptions about my position on the inclusion of sex-related content, because I don't think I have expressed it anywhere and I'm not willing to. As it has been said, the warning and (temp) block of Ottava has primarily nothing to do with content, it is about the four points written in the warning message. --Eusebius (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocking seldom helps, longer blocks never have helped as far as I know. Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Then let's indef and move on. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Word! --Dschwen (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I considered it, and would support it. Wknight94 ^talk 20:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Mattbuck wrote: "Then let's indef and move on".

Err.."Off with his head!", you mean? [47]. Mattbuck, I hope that was supposed to be a funny comment. It was supposed to be funny.....right? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. If temporary blocking doesn't help (and judging by the current IRC chat where Ottava is arguing that every single photo anyone has ever taken of trains, planes and automobiles is a copyvio, it isn't working yet) and we are agreed that Ottava is a disruption we'd rather do without, the only solution is indefinite block. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Really? It never ceases to amaze me what a bunch of mean spirited dicks and ignorant assholes WP and Commons administrators can be. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Count me in. If Rima is arguing on IRC as Mattbuck says (and I have no reason to doubt), he does not need to return. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I would provide chatlogs, but iirc posting them in public is against channel rules. As for being a dick, I'm respectful to those who are respectful of others. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on days of discussion in IRC with this user and his response to my rather stern admonishment regarding his behaviour and the following continual apparent intellectual dishonesty in the wikimedia public meeting about the recent commons happenings (claiming that Com:Scope forbids commons from including images which aren't in use in articles), I have little hope for lasting remediation. Ottava appears to believe that he knows better than all of us and that continuing to push his agenda through any means available including playing fast and loose with the clear language of the policy is acceptable. Even if the former is true the latter is not and bad behaviour is unlikely to improve if it's not even admitted. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Gmaxwell, even assuming that is a correct evaluation of the problem, I do not see why it is that big a problem. Even if Ottava does disagree with some administrators, so what? Are you saying that Commons can not live with dissenting views, and will not tolerated dissenting views? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we are terrible intolerant people, we oppress people with dissenting views. We are worse than the government of Myanmar, pardon, Burma. Come on Malcom, do you expect a serious answer to a question like that? It is not a question of tolerance if someone wants to undermine the goals of the community. --Dschwen (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you a mind reader? What makes you think you know Ottava's intentions, much less that Ottava intends to "undermine the goals of the community"? You are assuming bad faith to the tenth power. Don't do that.

It appears to me that there should be more than one way to understand what the goals of Commons actually are. Moreover, the idea that a user (without even administrative authority) could do anything to undermine Commons, is laughable. Don't make silly arguments. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ottava has exhausted every possible remaining reserve of good faith. Assuming good faith does not require us to pretend not to notice ridiculous behavior. It is little surprise to anyone who participated in Ottava's en.wikipedia ArbCom proceedings that he has continued to do the exact same thing here on Commons. Now, I will admit it's obvious (to me) that Ottava wants what he feels is best for the project. But he simply cannot work with a community to achieve those goals. No amount of cajoling, begging, pleading, or arguing has ever convinced Ottava how to interact constructively with people with whom he disagrees. Whether the disruption is willful or not is irrelevant, although it's almost impossible to see how, at this point, he couldn't be aware of it. For the health of the project and the people with whom Ottava disagrees (who are legion), he simply cannot be allowed to continue his methods of 'collaboration'. Powers (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

LtPowers, all you have said is that you can not get him to agree with you. So what? I know that nothing I have said, or could say, will make a particle of difference because the intellectual midgets who oppose him can't construct a rational argument, and its easier for you to call him disruptive than it is for you to figure out how to think. Tutto è inutile! This whole discussion has been hopeless. The usual Commons administrative SNAFU. More than anything I have to give Ottava a lot of credit for not giving up hope that he can explain something to such fools. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not about the fact that he does disagree, it's about how he disagrees, and the fact that he simply does not listen and creates his own fallacious interpretations of perfectly clear policies to back up his own viewpoint. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You're not paying attention to what I wrote, Malcolm; you're just reading what you want to read. I never said one word about being unable to get Ottava to agree with me. The problem, as Mattbuck said, is not disagreement but rather how Ottava reacts to disagreement. Normal, mature wiki editors react by making logical arguments, striving for compromise, obtaining outside help, or, in the case all of that fails, walking away. Ottava doesn't do that; he makes illogical arguments, sets up straw men so he can knock them down, relentlessly studies his opponents for any perceived slip-ups in their comments, slings accusations of coordinated attacks aimed at him, and refuses to acknowledge the barest possibility that he might be wrong and that others might be right. The documentation at his ArbCom hearing was exhaustive (quite literally so for anyone who tried to read it all). And as Gmaxwell points out, countless editors on multiple wikis have come to the same conclusion quite independently of each other. The ArbCom hearing was full of different people who'd encountered Ottava's anti-collaborative behavior on some topic or another, and found with varying degrees of surprise that their conflicts were by no means unique, but rather just another datum in a long history of Ottava being Ottava. If you think this is just "I don't like Ottava because he disagrees with me," you clearly have no understanding of the scope involved here. Powers (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Au contraire, it is you who have not understood what I said. My point is, even if every negative thing you have said about Ottava were true, that is (in my view) not a reason to block him for even one minute. He is not a vandal, he apparently intends to make positive contributions to Commons, and has the capacity of doing that. He made a lot of good contributions to WP, and arbcom blocking him was an irrational mistake. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong there. Being unable to work within the community is a perfectly acceptable reason to block him. I'm sure he did make a lot of good contribs to WP, but this is Commons, where in the view of myself, and many others apparently, he's more trouble than he's worth. We could ALL have been out improving stuff, but instead we're here arguing over him. That's bad. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The conversation, with the clowns (aka administrators) on this thread, was amusing, so it has not been a complete wast of time. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that long block might not be a solution in this case. The used has a year long ban on English Wikipedia, and now he is in troubles here on Commons. On the other hand the user is not a vandal, and is fully capable of making very positive contributions. Maybe the community could consider giving this user a mentor. A block is the last resort, and could be reimposed at any time, if other options do not work. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no problems with disagreement or dissent, — I disagree with many people on commons, and I'm thankful that they've tolerated my blather. I believe that a key distinguishing factor is that none of us are going around repetitively telling people that the plain language of the policy says something other than what it clearly says and continuing even after being corrected by everyone and his brother. Instead we say it "ought" to say something else, or we'll have disagreements about more subjective things. We don't continue to push a single one true answer until everyone has lost patience, we seek criticism for our ideas and compromise over the details.

What strikes me as most compelling here is that many people have reached the same conclusions about the user's behaviour without coordination. I independently cautioned Ottava about his behaviour when I saw him IRC with no knowledge that others were also warning him elsewhere. I don't claim to know his motivation, — he seems very honestly motivated to me, but also uncooperative, self-important, and loose with the truth, but I can see the _behaviour_ and other people see it too. I was also unaware of the enwp block before this discussion, but it seems perfectly in line with what I've seen here and is further evidence that a resolution is unlikely.

Regarding mentoring, it would only be viable if the user wished to improve. Quoting out of context from a private conversation, "I have very refined taste". It's nearly impossible to mentor someone who honestly believes that it is you (and the rest of the world) that needs the mentoring, and thats the impression that he's given me. Finally, Ottava has strongly held the position that commons should only contain works actively in use in other projects. If he wishes to contribute to that subset of our stated mission I believe he could do so with almost equal effectiveness by working directly on those projects (or at least whichever ones haven't already banned him). --Gmaxwell (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I spent a half hour on IRC with Ottava trying to find evidence for the validity of the claim that other people support his position, but I only received highly stylized examples. For example the claim that when anyone says 'commons is restricted to educational works' that they are supporting his position that commons is restricted to works which are in use in another project. After that I spent a half hour trying to get Ottava to suggest a minimal change to Commons:Scope which would eliminate his claim that it _requires_ works to be in-use but all I could get was an example of how to remove the educational requirement entirely and permit all freely licensed works. I feel like I gave him every opportunity to participate as a full member of the community and I believe that he gave me every reason to believe that the disagreement was not simply a good faith misunderstanding of the policy. --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added this as a transclusion from his talk page. It's only right he has the right to defend himself. If things start going wonky, check the noinclude tags on his talk page. - Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Purge the page to check for new comments

I did not see your generous response towards Ironholds, who was not banned. I am truly sorry to see that you have been banned, and I would like to be able to wish that you should be soon welcomed back by the community. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 08:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You are not welcome here if you wish to justify the abuse of this project. The abuse cannot be refuted, and if you are here to spread misstruth, then do it elsewhere. There are facts that cannot be denied.

1. A.Savin blocked me inappropriately. A. He was clearly involved in canvassing another project to defend Russavia and blocked me. B. He closed a discussion after a very tiny portion of time. C. He claimed a block log that is, for the most part, clean. D. His claim of a single purpose account or harassment are incredibly factually wrong and highly inappropriate.

2. The discussion on AN was started by Mattbuck and show that I and others point out that he inappropriately closed a deletion discussion that he was involved in. A. He took offense that it was pointed out he misstated our policy. B. He was caught canvassing for support on IRC and booted me when I pointed out that he is not supposed to do that. C. All in the discussion who came in quickly were all members of the IRC channel. D. One individual was caught consistently lying about my ability to edit AN in defense of myself, which multiple people pointed out.

3. Mattbuck inappropriately closed a deletion discussion he was a participant in and closely connected to. A. He has, according to many at en.wiki, trolled Jimbo Wales regarding the movie being deleted. B. He made false claims about policy and consensus, and this was pointed out by others. C. It was an image that Russavia commissioned and, according to third party reliable sources such as this piece, has no purpose here except to harass.

4. It all goes back to Russavia, who the vast majority of the community has said has violated our policies and our trust in his war on Jimbo Wales and his use of sexualized images to harass users on another project. It is clear that the use of the block button or the threat of it is to intimidate opposition. This cannot be refuted.

So lets be honest - Commons has a major problem. The vast majority has attributed that to Russavia and his actions, and reliable sources have made it clear that he has been abusive and brought the project into disrepute. Why should anyone be willing to contribute while we have a system where our governance is not only actively encouraging his policy violations and harassment, but admin are willing to abuse their tools (deletion closings and block buttons) to silence those who stand up against it?

How can anyone be happy with this situation? How can anything but outrage and anger be an appropriate response to such atrocious behavior? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I did think it unlikely that you would be socking, and was rather relieved to find you weren't. I always try to be fair, even when a multi-socker is involved, and the way I had read the wording used by Mesilliac led me to the possibility that he was you rather than Rinpoche. I would like to thank you for your courteous emails, and hope that my little reword on Lucy Gray is an improvement. I'm not a great content creator, not finding subjects that I know about that aren't already covered (and which are notable...), but I do like wording to be clear. Peridon (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I was one of the ones that busted Rinpoche where ever he went. In return, he stalked and harassed me on and off wiki (and even used Wikipediocracy to bash me). By the way, your comma placement really helps the sentence a lot. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

--Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

For what it is worth I still have the two additional email in my box that Rima seems to have forgotten sending. All together I had three from him under his user name and 1 under what I imagine is his real name. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record regarding the IRC block that Ottava mentions above: Freenode policy discourages posting logs, but I'd be glad to share the logs with anyone who has any concern regarding my conduct. I had genuinely hoped that we would be able to resolve Ottava's misconstruing of the policy as a simple misunderstanding which could be corrected with some simple additional explanatory text. I believe I treated him with courtesy and respect as did the other participants. After spending something like an hour in continual discussion it became apparent to me that Ottava was continuing the same disruptive activities on IRC which resulted in his block on commons. I gladly stand by my actions, though I do regret that they further upset Ottava. Several of the parties present thanked me, and I don't believe any complained. In addition to pre-clearing the IRC block with the other active parties I also offered to voluntarily reverse the action if anyone in the channel wanted (and removed it a on my own initiative once it was no longer needed). --Gmaxwell (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I open this section to summarize the opinions about whether Ottava Rima should be blocked, and for how long. Each user can use one itemized line: Either   Oppose,   Support or   Neutral, and in case of support, the length of the block. NO FURTHER DISCUSSION HERE, NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS! Those will be removed. Discussions have been taking place in the sub-sections above, this one is not the place where you are going to argue or convince anyone. I take the liberty to append a few opinions expressed already, feel free to modify/re-sign/remove your own line (and please forgive me if I haven't understood your opinion properly). After May 17th 12 noon UTC, an admin will either confirm or lift the block in a way consistent with this summary and whith the points raised in the discussion. --Eusebius (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

•   Support 1 month. --Eusebius (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
•   Oppose Malcolm Schosha
•   Support 1 month, nothing more. Tryphon [48]
•   Oppose Ottava Rima
•   Support 1 month. Lar [49] Validate this summarization of my view. Note that we go on consensus not polling, though. ++Lar: t/c 13:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
•   Support indef. Pieter Kuiper [50]
•   Support indef. Wknight94 [51]
•   Support 1 year to indef. – Kwj2772 (msg) 11:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
•   Support indef. Dschwen [52], would support a one month block as well. If things are not improving considerably after that a longer block - possibly indef - should be applied swiftly. --Dschwen (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
•   Support "a few days". Killiondude [53]
•   Oppose Erik Warmelink [54]
•   Oppose Mbz1 [55]
•   Support "long-term". Esby (talk) 11:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
•   Support whatever the outcome is of this poll. --Foroa (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
•   Support indefinite -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
•   Support 1 month, and really hoping user becomes less 'defensive' after that. TheDJ (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
•   Support at least 1 month.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
•   Support - Long term to indefinite. User has shown he is incapable of working with others and without wikilawyering policy until it "means" the exact opposite of what it says. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
•   Support I think a little like Foroa - whatever the conclusion actually is. I', not sure that the behaviour is likely to change. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
•   Oppose indefinite. User is disruptive, but genuinely wants to help the project. Has not been treated all that well at times. Up to a month would be reasonable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
•   Support Indef because there is no reason to expect the behaviour to change, summarizing my commentary (search for gmaxwell), but should be immediately unblocked if there is a sincere public statement that he is interested in changing his behaviour (e.g. mischaracterizing policy). --Gmaxwell (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• I'd support either indef. or one month (with indef. if this pattern repeats itself). Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
•   Support - Not sure about the time though. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
•   Support, per Cuerden and Killiondude ("a few days" to a week). A shorter block serves the same effect without jumping to, "Burn the witch!" group mentality. Blurpeace 17:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
•   Support One month. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
•   Oppose -- seems like the use of blocking/banning to silence opposing viewpoints. Dtobias (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

  Can you link to some elaboration of your views? We're mostly not trying to conduct a vote here, but create a concise summarization of positions. I'd be interested in examples as they might be issues worth correcting, regardless of the block. --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

•   Oppose in favor of a warning (which this discussion surely serves as). Ottava Rima is not the easiest personality to collaborate with, yet he has great strengths. He has been one of the most productive contributors of quality content in en:wiki history and he genuinely cares about WMF, which perhaps has something to do with the heat that goes into his interactions. There's quite a bit of light with the heat, though. He needs a better understanding of accepted Commons standards. So along with clarifying where the lines are (and that we mean business about them) let's extend a measure of good faith. At a sister project my experience was that good faith in this individual was worthwhile. Durova (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
•   Support, simple disruption gave way to even worse behaviour. 1-2 Months maximum. Max Rebo Band^{"almost suspiciously excellent"} 22:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
•   Oppose Per Durova, although a short block would be fine with me. --99of9 (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
•   Oppose Unblock if possible. If not, a short block is fine. He has potential IMO. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 00:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
•   Oppose - I noticed this from his user talk page and I am not happy with this at all. Mrathel (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
•   Oppose I've tried reading this block proposal for the last half hour, and frankly its just giving me a headache. I'm also not seeing reasons to crucify a decent editor. Geoff Plourde :D (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
•   Support one month.   Oppose indef. OR is a great content contributor on any wiki he contributes to, however the relentless attacking and unproductive approach demonstrated at COM:VP#Suicide_Girls_copyright is typical when he is in disagreement with others, and it needs to stop. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I read that Suicide Girls discussion, and fail to see anything there that justifies blocking him. He seems to have raised a legitimate copyright issue regarding whether SG has the right to relicense the pictures in the manner they did. Blocking him for raising the issue would definitely be a case of using blocks to muzzle critics. Dtobias (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
    • It's not about blocking him to shut him up because he has opinions. People are entitled to opinions, in fact we welcome them. But we do require that people not be wedded to those opinions - if you continue to hold your opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence against it, and twist policy until it "means" the exact opposite of what it says, just to try and shore up your position... That's not healthy for the community as a whole. I'm sure he has done some good edits, but mostly he just seems to argue, gerrymander policy and be overly aggressive and confrontational. The rest of the community is better off without him. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
•   Oppose any kind op block. Ottava Rima's interpretation of policy is entirely correct, so why should he admit it isn't? By arguments, progress is made. We call it consensus-building. You should learn from this user, not attack him. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  How can it be correct to say that a policy means the exact opposite of what it says? As for consensus building, that's great, but BOTH SIDES need to be able to accept that sometimes the other has things right. Ottava proved utterly incapable of doing this. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

  Sorry, I'm not playing. Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

  I'm not playing either. I'm happy for people to disagree with me reasonably - I'm not always right. But Ottava proved unable to be reasonable. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

  Mattbuck, please allow an observation from several years' experience. My first encounter with Ottava Rima created an impression very similar to what you have now. When one pushes, he's apt to push back with equal force. Unlike most people who do that, though, Ottava does have the capacity to build consensus and be reasonable. Things can get back on a good track. Durova (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I'm done with this. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

•   Oppose indefinite per Adam Cuerden.   — C M B J   07:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or are others disconcerted that the above section suggests dishing out a block on the basis of a poll? Commons works on consensus, not the whim of the majority. Polls can help clarify if there is consensus but they cannot replace it, and I'm really unhappy to see one used in this manner in particular. I'd interpret the poll as guidance (and possibly a summary of the discussion), not as a binding vote.

That is not to say Ottava's conduct should be ignored, but...--Nilfanion (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It was actually intended as a digest of everyone's opinion in this discussion (which is now practically unreadable, partly due to lengthy digressions) and a guidance, and not as a binding vote. Maybe you can suggest a better phrasing for the introduction paragraph? --Eusebius (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, if we must block somebody as combative, I feel like we should be able to expose something like that. Not as pretty as the en.WP ArbCom decision, though. --Eusebius (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well if you get rid of the obvious "poll" connotations and just reformulate it as a summary that will do really. Calling it a final poll and giving a closure time are the two biggest problems really. For what its worth, I agree this discussion is hard to follow and a simple summary does help readability, its just if we do block Ottava for a lengthy period it should be on basis of the entire discussion not vote-counting.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I will rephrase out the "polls", but not having a deadline has been pointed as a problem... And has proven one, in my opinion. --Eusebius (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Eusebius, I would like to ask you to provide in one place (in the pool or here) all the differences from the user own contributions on Commons only to support a request for a long block. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Durova, what would you expect us to accomplish with a warning? Ottava appears to have an absolute and unwavering faith in the correctness of his actions— including his misleading characterization of commons policy. I'd absolutely support a warning if Ottava's response were characteristic of someone who admitted fault or even if he professed a desire to fully disengage from the issue but we haven't seen that. (An in fact, a little bit after I left my summary comment above Ottava launched a long missive complaining about _my_ behavior copying everyone short of the pope (Though I'm apparently I'm lucky there— he assures me that he has in fact met the man), including the media in an apparent wildly misguided attempt to get me "fired" from the WMF.). It's also worth noting that the fact that he is, apparently, the world's foremost expert on poetry (and literature of all forms) isn't especially helpful on commons. Other projects may have faced a hard decision weighing his contributions against his behavior, but that doesn't appear to be much of an issue here. --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Durova: Ottava Rima DID receive a warning. He denied the "validity" of the warning, removed it from his talk page and began attacking me and Herby (who restored the warning on his talk page), both on-wiki, on IRC and by e-mail, using the very same behaviour he had been warned against. Warning: tried it, didn't work. Next step: block. --Eusebius (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Somebody having strong beliefs which disagree with yours is a blockable offense? Please let me know what the politically correct party line is so that I can be sure to properly genuflect to it. Dtobias (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not at all what Eusebius said, and I think you know it. Please try to participate in a constructive way. It's not about OR's beliefs, it is about how he puts them forward. Read what Gmaxwell said again. ++Lar: t/c 21:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Please excuse the tardiness of this reply. As my user talk page announces, my wiki time is limited these days. Ottava Rima is a very unusual editor. He's an administrator on one WMF project, sitebanned at another, yet despite the ban he has contributed (and continues to contribute) one of the most impressive bodies of quality content that site has ever seen. What works best with Ottava is something Commons prides itself in and has gotten away from recently: mellowness. Talk to the fellow. He is, simultaneously, one of the most trollable people I've ever encountered on the Internet and one of the most willing to genuinely let bygones be bygones. Just get real with him. You don't have to make special exceptions to policy. Just communicate with a baseline of fellow-human respect where you're coming from. You might really be surprised how far that goes. Durova (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the mellowness of which you speak? Looking at this page now, I see all sorts of proposed bans that make me think of the intolerant cliqueism that has long been rampant on en-wp, where blocks and bans are used to shut up anybody who the dominant administrators don't want to hear. Dtobias (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Every now and then a real world event prompts a week or two of chaos at one of the wikis. En:wiki almost always feels the brunt of that because it's the most widely known of the WMF projects. Maybe it's a sign of Commons's growth that this site is the focus this time. It's disorienting, and a lot of people who care about the project get caught up and don't handle the moment well. Having had little time to edit during the current maelstrom, I can't really be expected to answer for conversations in which I took no part. It is useful, though, to step back and view this as a routine part of wiki dynamics. Give things another week to settle down and see whether there's still a problem. Durova (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Durova, from what you say you seem to be able to deal with Ottava Rima in a mellow fashion, when most of us obviously can't, or with great difficulties. Would you agree to propose yourself as a kind of mentor/tutor to him at the end of his block, to try to make him contribute peacefully and according to the terms of his warning (that is, mostly, without being too aggressive, without attacking/accusing/threatening people, without pushing distorted interpretations of the policies)? --Eusebius (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Due to reduced availability I can't promise that in a formal way. But if there's any problem I'd be glad to smooth it over to the best of my ability. Right now, really, a lot of it is probably how the heat got turned up after Fox News ran that story. Things got intense for a little while. That cycle is probably nearing its natural calm-down stage. Best regards, Durova (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we close this off and get on with our lives please? -mattbuck (Talk) 01:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that:

• Ottava Rima has been blocked since 7 days for now.
• there is majority that wants to maintain the block.
• there are contributors who also opposed to an indefinite block.
• there are contributors who oppose the blocking and think the situation can be solved / restored.
• there are contributors who oppose but never really contributed to commons (<50 contribts).

I'll do the following proposal: maintain the block for 7-10 days then unblock him. Now, considering the situation, any new attempt from him to distort policies or to threaten other users in any kind of way will lead to a new block.

Esby (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable wrt the opinion expressed. Also, if Durova or somebody else was willing to act as a kind of mentor/tutor as I suggested, in order to smoothen communication with Ottava Rima, it would be great. --Eusebius (talk) 08:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not what mentors are for. Instead, you should all simply communicate better and show some respect.

We're trying to find a way of communicating with this user in a peaceful manner, I don't really see what you can criticize here. Showing up just in order to tell us that we've lacked respect (where, for God's sake, where??) while being insulted, attacked, harrassed and threatened doesn't really help. Ottava Rima has triggered conflicts with about any admin having tried to tell him that his statements or behaviour was wrong. --Eusebius (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

@Esby: This is not a poll (21:13). No definite consensus has formed, but the entries above AFTER many arguments were given, i.e. from users that are not regulars on this page and perhaps took the time to check the facts and think things over, are mostly against a block. Therefore, the block should simply be lifted, and everyone should examine their own behaviour in this. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I know this is not a poll, that's why I did a 'proposal'. I also talken of some people without giving the exact numbers about it, so to summerize clearly, so people can't accuse me of twisting the numbers or lying:

• For block : 24.
• Opposed to indef but supporting a short block possibly: 4 - (Adam Cuerden/ Diego Grez/ CMJB)
• Against block: 8 - (Ottava Rima / Malcom Schosha / Erik Warmelink / Mbz1 / Dtobias / Durova / 99gf9 / Mrathel)
• Against block with less than 50 contribs - (Mrathel (13 contribs) / Geoff_Plourde (33 contribs))
• Against block with a 'retired user' on his profile: 1 - (Guido_den_Broeder)

You seem to think that people coming here randomly Or maybe not so randomly? Canvassing? noooo, let's assume good faith... have to be 'valuated' more than regulars. Fine, but this just ignores the regulars and do not make either consensus, unless you have something better to suggest? For instance I suggested a proposal, which can be discussed and is not definite by definition.

Esby (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Having almost 2/3 of expressed opinions in favor of a block is not a consensus in favor of a block, but it is a consensus in favor of a block lift? It is a fact that this user has been utterly disruptive to the work of many people and that several users have complained of being harrassed by him. This is in the scope of the Commons blocking policy, and several of the latest oppositions just said that admins shouldn't block people because it is bad, or that they are simply "not happy with this". As you say yourself, it is not a poll, it is the summary of the opinions in a long and complex discussion and the latest contribs came from people who did not participate to it. --Eusebius (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously quite a few people don't agree that that is a fact. I may be retired, and not willing to throw myself in the thick of this battle, but as a publisher I do know my copyright stuff and I have many years of experience in writing and interpreting policies. Ottava Rima is right on all points, and I find him admirably patient in the face of so much ignorance and bullying. And yes, absence of consensus to block means unblock. A consensus to unblock is not required. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

1) Insults and harrassment are factual, 2) It has nothing to do with copyright, 3) Repeating that Ottava's interpretation of the scope policy is right won't make it become right, 4) there is no need for community consensus to block someone when the terms of the blocking policy have been met. --Eusebius (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have had absolutely no offsite contact with Ottava Rima regarding this incident. And in the interests of building consensus I don't really strongly object to letting the current 1 week block run its course. Durova (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

[Unindent] It's actually a one-month block. However, by my count, only 7 people suggested indef, whereas 14 voted against it. I see no consensus for extending the block. There is some weak consensus for a few days to a month. I suspect that the best solution is effectively what Esby said: let the block run out the three weeks it has left, at which point it will automatically lift. It's longer than I'd like, but I can't see how further discussion is going to reach any real consensus about the exact length within that range. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Serves me right for not double checking; time to brew caffeine. One month does seem on the long side. Not worth risking a wheel war, and will recuse from using the tools anyway due to content collaboration at a sister site. It's doubtful any consensus will form here. Durova (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I am withdrawing the proposal, since Ottava Rima has nothing to do better than attacking me here. I am out of this discussion. Have fun. Esby (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

  Done I have implemented Esby's proposal, and shortened the block. It expires on May 28th, for a total current block length of 16 days. --Eusebius (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am against that, this was before Ottava decided to accuse me:

• of saying that he(=ottava rima) canvassed while I actually never said that.
• of canvassing while showing no proof of it.
• of insulting other people while still not showing any proof of it.

Either Ottava Rima decide to amend, accept his ban and makes excuses, removes his accusation, either I'll ask another uninvolved admin to sanction his groundless accusation and possibly extends the block duration.

Esby (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* He's rather good at shooting himself in the foot, isn't he? I'll see if I can do anything. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I cannot do anything. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus for an indef. it seems, but the reduced block will do just fine. Either OR comes back - having learned from this and contributing constructively towards Commons - the likelihood of that happening is just as big in nine days as it would have been in 19. Or OR comes back and resumes the behaviour that has caused this discussion; in nine days users will still have this discussion fresh in mind and there *will* be consensus for a longterm/indef block. I'm hoping for alternative one :) Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ottava Rima already knows how to contribute constructively, and has consistently done so. The same goes for various other users that you have recently blocked. What needs to change is the attitude of those users that pile up opposing views without the slightest incling of what they're talking about, don't know what consensus is or how to produce logical arguments, and wish to ban from their untrained mind anyone or anything they don't understand. Restrict and train them, or Commons ends. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like the foundation to take actions against Ottava Rima, since he claims they got the logs. All he is doing is unsourced allegations, mixing accusations against me and my honor. The only thing that is true is that he got banned by me (and kicked by another user) from the irc channel near the 7th may, the ban was lifted a few hours later by Cary. The reasons for the ban were quite simple: disturbance of the channel, open threats performed against other people because he did not agree with them. I also don't see what the talk warring comes doing here since I never edited this page. It's just another lie agregated to the previous ones... I may also have called him an idiot recently, when he pretented and agreed that we should delete historical works of known persons such as farsari, because 20 pictures are enough to present the work of this author and we got more than 20 pictures in the corresponding category... I am sorry, but when I see an idiot, I don't lie.

An interpretation of policy stays an interpretation of policy. That does not create consensus, which was lacking here all this time. Jimbo is Jimbo, you chose to be his fellow dog in this story, that's fine, everyone is free to adopt every position they want, now I ain't even sure he actually appreciated that, now you being Jimbo's prophet does not allow you to threaten or intimidate people, and just to be sure, I'd like to remind this has strictly nothing to do with porn, this was just on the way it was handled. The meta petitions and various events proved that there was no consensus on the community to perform such action. All your actions and patterns so far have been against Commons aim as a free media repositery not necessarily used by the Wikipedia and the other wikimedia project. If You fail to understand that point here, if you cannot respect another person point of view without distorting it, without treatening this person, without invoking some conspiration theory, then You simply can't contribute to Commons and you won't be welcomed. If the foundation does nothing, I'll request an indef blocks on Commons on Ottava Rima. Esby (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The Foundation has no interest whatsoever in whether Ottava is blocked or not blocked on Commons. Any action I took on IRC was done after extracting a promise that he would not disrupt the channel; and was done in my role as channel operator (which extends to a time long before I worked for Wikimedia). I feel that Ottava has a lot to contribute, however, I also feel that anyone who disrupts the project, and cannot follow basic protocols of interaction with other contributors should not be allowed to contribute. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 15:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)