Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems: Difference between revisions
→Jaheen3alam: new section |
→Slowking4: closing |
||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
== [[User:Slowking4|Slowking4]] == |
== [[User:Slowking4|Slowking4]] == |
||
{{atop|result=I have blocked Slowking4 for a period of three months. While none of the numerous behavioral issues raised in this thread individually justify such a block, the combined pattern of this and other such threads is very clear: Slowking4 has no respect for the Commons community as a whole, nor for many of its members, and he refuses to act with basic civility. (One such issue not mentioned in this thread is his multi-year pattern of sockpuppetry here - to which he refused to admit - to aid his enwiki block evasion). |
|||
Slowking4 has long been a major contributor to GLAMWiki uploads, art history, and other areas, and I do not wish to ignore that. But like any other user-driven site and any other archives, Commons depends on a spirit of collaboration and kindness as well as quality of contributions. Our community is small enough that infighting can be particularly problematic, and we must act in a way to maintain a community. |
|||
While it is understandable to be disillusioned with the project, or to have personal gripes with other editors, that cannot be allowed to result in constant petty bickering. With or without a formal civility policy, editors should be able to act in a generally civil manner; if they cannot engage productively with the community, they should take their spite elsewhere. |
|||
I reserve the right to shorten the block should he be able to formulate unblock conditions that indicate he will change his behavior for the better. I also reserve the right to lengthen the block if it is clear that he will not change his behavior after the block expires. I ask that any unblock conversation be between me and him. If you have concerns about the block or other related issues, please email me or use my talk page. Meanwhile, I encourage everyone to go and make some unambiguously positive contributions today. [[User:Pi.1415926535|Pi.1415926535]] ([[User talk:Pi.1415926535|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||
* User: {{Vandal|1=Slowking4}} |
* User: {{Vandal|1=Slowking4}} |
||
* Reasons for reporting: In addition to my unresolved report and the ensuing discussion at [[Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 72#Slowking4 again]], the user has now made an indirect personal attack on [[User:Jcb|Jcb]] in [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=342581490&oldid=342581240 this edit]. |
* Reasons for reporting: In addition to my unresolved report and the ensuing discussion at [[Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 72#Slowking4 again]], the user has now made an indirect personal attack on [[User:Jcb|Jcb]] in [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=342581490&oldid=342581240 this edit]. |
||
Line 138: | Line 145: | ||
More recently, he made [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AVillage_pump&type=revision&diff=344814563&oldid=344812037 these edits] to a closed VP section bounded by {{t2|atop}} and {{t2|abot}}. He has never posted on my user talk page. I copied the above here at {{r|Colin}}'s suggestion. — <span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small><sub> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</sub></small> 19:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC) |
More recently, he made [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AVillage_pump&type=revision&diff=344814563&oldid=344812037 these edits] to a closed VP section bounded by {{t2|atop}} and {{t2|abot}}. He has never posted on my user talk page. I copied the above here at {{r|Colin}}'s suggestion. — <span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small><sub> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</sub></small> 19:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
{{abot}} |
|||
== Someone want to look into helping this guy? == |
== Someone want to look into helping this guy? == |
Revision as of 23:37, 4 April 2019
This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports | |||
---|---|---|---|
Vandalism [ ] |
User problems [ ] |
Blocks and protections [ ] |
Other [ ] |
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.
|
Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.
|
Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.
|
Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS. |
Archives | |||
113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 |
96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
| ||
Note
- Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
- Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (
~~~~
), which translates into a signature and a time stamp. - It is usually appropriate to notify the user(s) concerned.
{{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}}
is available for this. - It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
- Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.
I have blocked Slowking4 for a period of three months. While none of the numerous behavioral issues raised in this thread individually justify such a block, the combined pattern of this and other such threads is very clear: Slowking4 has no respect for the Commons community as a whole, nor for many of its members, and he refuses to act with basic civility. (One such issue not mentioned in this thread is his multi-year pattern of sockpuppetry here - to which he refused to admit - to aid his enwiki block evasion).
Slowking4 has long been a major contributor to GLAMWiki uploads, art history, and other areas, and I do not wish to ignore that. But like any other user-driven site and any other archives, Commons depends on a spirit of collaboration and kindness as well as quality of contributions. Our community is small enough that infighting can be particularly problematic, and we must act in a way to maintain a community.
While it is understandable to be disillusioned with the project, or to have personal gripes with other editors, that cannot be allowed to result in constant petty bickering. With or without a formal civility policy, editors should be able to act in a generally civil manner; if they cannot engage productively with the community, they should take their spite elsewhere.
I reserve the right to shorten the block should he be able to formulate unblock conditions that indicate he will change his behavior for the better. I also reserve the right to lengthen the block if it is clear that he will not change his behavior after the block expires. I ask that any unblock conversation be between me and him. If you have concerns about the block or other related issues, please email me or use my talk page. Meanwhile, I encourage everyone to go and make some unambiguously positive contributions today. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- User: Slowking4 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
- Reasons for reporting: In addition to my unresolved report and the ensuing discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 72#Slowking4 again, the user has now made an indirect personal attack on Jcb in this edit.
— Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Support BLOCK - this behaviour has been going on for quite some time, user is apparently completely unwilling to improve - Jcb (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't really see how AN/U is being used properly by bringing up issues previously raised last October, supplemented with a diff saying "do not bother communicating with that admin; no use. rather go to com:DRV". That, to me, reads as a negative opinion of going direct to the admin rather than open forum. We are, surely, entitled to opinions; they seem to be expressed quite freely on this page? Jeff, you used the "Vandal" template here, which redirects to the more neutral "User3" template. I don't think that is helpful if your complaint is about personal attacks -- you'd need evidence of vandalism. I think really there has to be a more serious issue here than expressing a negative opinion. -- Colin (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Colin: I changed it to {{User3}} for you. On enwiki, the basis for en:WP:NPA and where the subject user is indefinitely blocked for policy violations including personal attacks, multi-level personal attack warning templates are classed with vandalism templates at en:WP:MLT#Personal attacks and are escalatable to en:WP:AIV. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Jeff, I'm disappointed you don't seem able to distinguish a "personal attack" from a "negative opinion". I mean, if expressing a negative opinion of Jcb was grounds for blocking, a large chunk of participants on this page would be blocked. April 1 is still over two weeks away! It is really very important that admins understand what is a personal attack on Commons. I'm not going to give examples, there are plenty on the Wikipedia page. Admins actions and their ability at correctly identifying copyright violations/vandals/etc/etc and the care they take or the ability to admit mistakes, etc, are all valid issues for comment where appropriate If you had a large number of diffs where negative comments were persistently made and made without being appropriate to the context, then perhaps there would be something worth investigating. -- Colin (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Colin: Older discussions of this user making negative, brash, uncivil, and abrasive posts; exuding hostility; and making accusations of bad faith include Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 68#Slowking4, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 64#User:Slowking4, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 61#Slowking4, and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 33#User:Slowking4. Each has supporting diffs. Negative posts on this board backed by diffs are one thing. Negative posts elsewhere without basis in fact are quite another thing. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Those diffs are from years ago. While relevant as a pattern of behaviour, they aren't relevant to the current issue. Which is one event, where a negative opinion was expressed. I don't really think that is grounds for blocking. In the previous AN/U I supported blocking SK because they were persistently moaning about Commons in general all over our forums, and suggesting users behave dishonestly with their licences. I haven't see than recently. I've had far worse said to me by admins recently, and nobody bats an eyelid. -- Colin (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Colin: Older discussions of this user making negative, brash, uncivil, and abrasive posts; exuding hostility; and making accusations of bad faith include Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 68#Slowking4, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 64#User:Slowking4, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 61#Slowking4, and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 33#User:Slowking4. Each has supporting diffs. Negative posts on this board backed by diffs are one thing. Negative posts elsewhere without basis in fact are quite another thing. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Jeff, I'm disappointed you don't seem able to distinguish a "personal attack" from a "negative opinion". I mean, if expressing a negative opinion of Jcb was grounds for blocking, a large chunk of participants on this page would be blocked. April 1 is still over two weeks away! It is really very important that admins understand what is a personal attack on Commons. I'm not going to give examples, there are plenty on the Wikipedia page. Admins actions and their ability at correctly identifying copyright violations/vandals/etc/etc and the care they take or the ability to admit mistakes, etc, are all valid issues for comment where appropriate If you had a large number of diffs where negative comments were persistently made and made without being appropriate to the context, then perhaps there would be something worth investigating. -- Colin (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Colin: I changed it to {{User3}} for you. On enwiki, the basis for en:WP:NPA and where the subject user is indefinitely blocked for policy violations including personal attacks, multi-level personal attack warning templates are classed with vandalism templates at en:WP:MLT#Personal attacks and are escalatable to en:WP:AIV. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Jeff G. How is "do not bother communicating with that admin; no use. rather go to com:DRV" a personal attack and why did you think this is something we should be wasting our time on? T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- @T Cells: That quote implies that Jcb is unresponsive to concerns raised on his user talk page; in my experience watching that page, that implication is untrue. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- That's probably his opinion but not a personal attack. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 17:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not friendly, but still below the usual threshold for PA blocks. --A.Savin 19:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Slowking4 should not push his “personal” advices in irrelevant context, such as in this Village_pump thread. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The user is also violating Commons:Signatures policy and common norms of capitalization, such as in this edit. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Don't be so strict. It seems that he knows when to use stops, at least full stops.
--jdx Re: 06:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The user went on to malign our entire community in these edits. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The user then went on to encourage escalation of a situation in this edit and make these disruptive edits. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- I support a block, this has to stop. Tthe user has been reported multiple times on AN/U in the last years by different users. --Steinsplitter (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Twelve(12) items of trash/pettifogging for one(1) usable advice (and a trivial one). Topic ban for Slowking4 from the Help_desk and inexperienced users – damages outweight possible gains for Commons by a large margin. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Even if I kind of agree with Slowking4 on the substance of that last: surely there was no need to repeat the same remark directed at the same person all over the help page. The help page is not there as a place for experienced users to snipe at each other. It is there as a place for people to come with questions and get answers. @Slowking4: even if we presume you were entirely correct about the substance of what you were saying to Jeff G. here, this was a totally out of line and almost certainly unproductive way to communicate the message. You have a grievance with someone? Go to their talk page, or to some other forum that is intended for discussing user conduct; don't spatter the grievance all over a page like the Help Desk, Village Pump, etc.
- I don't necessarily even want to see a topic ban here, but I would like to see a focus on using the Help Desk to help people. @Jeff G.: , you might consider coming up with a friendlier wording about the suggestion to use ~~~~, but Slowking, from what I've seen over half of your comments on the page have been focused more on criticizing other people's conduct than on actually helping the person who asked a question and you might consider who exactly you are trying to benefit by doing so. I don't see where this particularly helps the people who are asking question. - Jmabel ! talk 08:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with Jmabel. Sniping at Jeff while he has an open AN/U against you seems to be a deliberate provocation. Earlier I supported a ban because whenever I saw Slowking4 post, he was bitching about Commons/Commoners rather than helping. The help page comment repeated n times is similar. Slowking, unless you have something constructive to say to help the original posters on the help page, I suggest you unwatch it and go find something else to do. While I don't think Slowking's behaviour was good here, I am also opposed to keeping this topic open perpetually. It should have been closed swiftly as there was clearly no admin action going to occur two weeks ago. Instead it is now "sticky" and become a place where people can continually pick faults in Slowking's edits. I don't think that is healthy for any user or the community. I strongly suggest this be closed, with an appropriate warning to SlowKing. -- Colin (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Is this better?
- Hi, and welcome to Wikimedia Commons. You may not have noticed it yet, but signing one's posts on talk pages here with ~~~~ is required because it helps people to find out who said something when, and it provides them with a link to one's user and talk pages (for further discussion).
- — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)ymmv.
- Actually talking to people, as a human, on their own talk page, instead of indiscriminately spamming impersonal, officious looking templates all over the place strikes me as a good idea. ymmv.-- Begoon 14:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wikimedia is not a friends’ club; I see nothing wrong in “impersonal, officious looking templates”. People usually deride bureaucracy, but it’s a determined product of social development having such alternatives as nepotism, tribalism, or dickery by some warlords; fortunately we don’t have such things here on Commons. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- As I said, ymmv. I've even seen Jeff do this to a user who had already, previously, correctly signed a post on the very same page, and, obviously, just forgot to do so in a subsequent post, but I really can't be bothered to look for that diff right now - searching Jeff's multitude of uses of that 'template', coupled with crap Mediawiki search, is more than I currently have time for, so you'll have to trust my memory. It seems pointless, and, if there is any risk a new user might find it unfriendly, counterproductive and dangerous. -- Begoon 11:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Wikimedia is not a friends’ club; I see nothing wrong in “impersonal, officious looking templates”. People usually deride bureaucracy, but it’s a determined product of social development having such alternatives as nepotism, tribalism, or dickery by some warlords; fortunately we don’t have such things here on Commons. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: I don't necessarily think User:Begoon is wrong but, yes, if you are going to put this on the Help Desk, Village Pump, etc., then compared to the wording you've been using that would be a great improvement. I think I'd change "You may not have noticed it yet, but…" to just "You may not have noticed:" and I might even leave out the "is required because" and just link the "helps people" phrase. - Jmabel ! talk 17:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Ok, how is this?
- Hi, and welcome to Wikimedia Commons. You may not have noticed: signing one's posts on talk pages here with ~~~~ helps people to find out who wrote something when, and it provides them with a link to one's user and talk pages (for further discussion).
- — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Excellent. - Jmabel ! talk 00:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Bear in mind that many of the people you are addressing do not use English as a first language. I think your grammar is overcomplex and the sentence too long. You mix up "you" and "one". The clause "to find out who wrote something when" is tricky to parse even for me. I don't think you should fill-up discussion forums with repeated requests that are directed to a newbie user and nothing to do with the question they asked. Many people are highly embarrassed to have their faults indicated in public, and also may attempt to sign the original post, which would just confuse things. The "you may not have noticed" prefix is just unnecessary: clearly they haven't noticed. It can end up sounding patronising. How would you like it if your first post to Commons was answered with nit-picking patronising criticism for all to see? With newbies, avoid Easter-egg links like "helps people". The policy page gives much better instructions about signatures (and so did you original text, though I agree that "is required by policy" is unfriendly). I think you should (a) ensure they have a welcome template on their user talk page and (b) post a short message to their talk page about signatures, closer to your original text but without using the words "required by policy". Let them know they can contact you if they have questions. -- Colin (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I entirely agree. -- Begoon 12:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Colin: I have not been using that language with people who do not post in English. When I have been using it, I have usually been accompanying it with an answer. Since the welcome message already includes "*Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~.", SignBot already signs unsigned posts for non-signing users, SignBot already adds {{subst:Please sign}} to a particular non-signing user's user talk page after signing for that user three times in a day, and so many here object to that language, I may just stop using that language altogether. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Well, since the bot already does it, and multiple users seem to have issues with the way you do it, I wonder if you can see the obvious solution. -- Begoon 13:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Jeff G. I said "do not use English as a first language". Most people on Commons write in English, even if it is not their first language. I think there are more important things to worry about that newbies signing when asking for help. -- Colin (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Bear in mind that many of the people you are addressing do not use English as a first language. I think your grammar is overcomplex and the sentence too long. You mix up "you" and "one". The clause "to find out who wrote something when" is tricky to parse even for me. I don't think you should fill-up discussion forums with repeated requests that are directed to a newbie user and nothing to do with the question they asked. Many people are highly embarrassed to have their faults indicated in public, and also may attempt to sign the original post, which would just confuse things. The "you may not have noticed" prefix is just unnecessary: clearly they haven't noticed. It can end up sounding patronising. How would you like it if your first post to Commons was answered with nit-picking patronising criticism for all to see? With newbies, avoid Easter-egg links like "helps people". The policy page gives much better instructions about signatures (and so did you original text, though I agree that "is required by policy" is unfriendly). I think you should (a) ensure they have a welcome template on their user talk page and (b) post a short message to their talk page about signatures, closer to your original text but without using the words "required by policy". Let them know they can contact you if they have questions. -- Colin (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Excellent. - Jmabel ! talk 00:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Ok, how is this?
- Actually talking to people, as a human, on their own talk page, instead of indiscriminately spamming impersonal, officious looking templates all over the place strikes me as a good idea. ymmv.-- Begoon 14:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose block - Seems much more like incivility than a personal attack, and since Commons refuses to have a civility policy, I don't know on what grounds any action could be based. Kaldari (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Kaldari: May I please have a copy of deleted Commons:Civility? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: It was just a redirect to the English Wikipedia policy page. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- True. Maybe "refuses" is too strong a word. Maybe it's just that no one has yet made a compelling case for Commons to have it's own Civility policy. I would argue that Slowking makes an excellent case for one. He knows enough not to make blatant personal attacks, but he also drives people to exasperation on occasion. Kaldari (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I think it's about time we had a civility policy of our own. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- True. Maybe "refuses" is too strong a word. Maybe it's just that no one has yet made a compelling case for Commons to have it's own Civility policy. I would argue that Slowking makes an excellent case for one. He knows enough not to make blatant personal attacks, but he also drives people to exasperation on occasion. Kaldari (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: It was just a redirect to the English Wikipedia policy page. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Kaldari: May I please have a copy of deleted Commons:Civility? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe upgrade COM:MELLOW from essay status?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Odysseus1479: Please see COM:VPP#Upgrade Commons:Staying mellow from Essay to Guideline. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've commented at the proposal already, but this just demonstrates that Jeff and Odysseus1479 do not understand COM:MELLOW. If Jeff was mellow, he wouldn't get so annoyed with newbies not signing at the help desk that he felt the need to correct every one of them in his first response to them. If Jeff was mellow, he'd shrug off (or even take the point) of Slowking4's repeated criticisms of his signing comments. If Jeff was mellow, he would not open an AN/U by bringing up issues previously raised last October along with a diff where someone merely made a negative remark about Jcb. If Jeff was mellow, he would close an AN/U topic when it is clear no admin action was going to be taken, rather than leave it up as a sticky topic to attract negativity for the next month.
- As I said on the proposal page, COM:MELLOW is not a guideline to be used as a weapon against someone you want to be blocked of someone you want to change their behaviour. COM:MELLOW is an essay offering advice about one's own behaviour. It does not say "we all need to be mellow" or "everyone needs to be patient". It says "you", the reader. -- Colin (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe upgrade COM:MELLOW from essay status?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Support block, based on this remark yesterday, demonstrating that Slowking4 appears to fail to understand the boundaries between legitimate critical comment and personally targeted harassment, in this case coming off like a threatening stalker. With a presumption of good faith I take it as unintentional, but still creating a threatening hostile atmosphere that should exist nowhere on this project. I have supported Slowking4 in the past, even when being targeted for their criticism, as they often make fair points, but this crosses the line into open hostility intended to make people feel unsafe and so comes under COM:BP rather than under any civility guidelines. --Fæ (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I read that DR and while I understand Fae's frustration with some of the votes, that page isn't exactly a shining example of mellowness. Fae wrote:
Great. Can we get a proposal together to permanently change COM:L and COM:PRP to make an exception to copyright for when the photographer is a friend of ours?
- Or in baby speak that middle aged Wikipedians seem to need at open knowledge conferences:
- Please help me. My mummy works hard making toys for other children. She has seen her toys being used by Wikimedia to promote their projects and we cry together because nobody cares about giving her credit for her work and we cannot afford to pay a lawyer. Please nice Wikipedians, read the label my mummy stitches on her toys, and give my mummy credit for her work so that future children can enjoy her cute toys.
- This was in response to a keep vote by Slowking. The discussion deviated from an analysis of copyright law, to an attack on the perceived special treatment: "perhaps photographs taken at all WMF funded events, are a special exception to Commons policies and copyright law" and (from Blue Raspberry) "Please quit using Wikimedia community insider status as a channel for seeking special privileges in intentionally and overtly circumventing the copyright law which the Wikimedia platform seeks to respect". I don't think Slowking's comment was at all friently or civil, but neither was the patronising insulting-of-intelligence post by Fae to Slowking earlier. As for Slowking's comment being "threatening" or making Fae "feel unsafe" and "a comment you would expect to come from someone stalking you". For crying out loud, talk about escalating a disagreement into nuclear warfare? That is exactly the kind of deliberately and wilfully misrepresenting what others have written, for the purpose of inventing a reason to be upset that we have seen too often from Fae. Fae, you can't go around calling people stalkers. And Fae wants COM:MELLOW to be policy? Be careful what you wish for. -- Colin (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I came here to start a new thread, but found there is already one. Repeating the same trollish comment all directed at one single user thirteen times is extremely trollish. Why is this tolerated? This user obviously hates this place. Why not help them to a happier life away from it? —LX (talk, contribs) 19:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- LX, this has already been discussed. Most of those 13 comments were in cases where the only thing Jeff said to the newbie asking for help was to criticise them for not signing. While Slowking's method of making his point has been rightly criticised, Jeff's constant nit picking of newbies is equally unwelcome on this project. Jeff has agreed to change his approach. It does seem that this topic is becoming a magnet for boomerang complaints. -- Colin (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- That just isn't true. All but two of comments made by Jeff addressed the original question. In those other two cases, the question had already been addressed by others. Meanwhile, thirteen out of thirteen troll comments by the subject of this section were entirely unhelpful and disruptive for the purpose of making a point. Discussion is fine, but the subject of this discussion has acknowledged no wrongdoing, and there is no reason to expect that they won't continue to disrupt, as is to be expected from someone who is – as it says right there on the label – just here for vengeance. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- LX , you are right, the first lot I looked at had no help from Jeff. It was hard to spot the help in later posts since it was a brief comment at the end of a long rant about signing. I should have looked more carefully. My point is that these are newbies and the first thing that crosses Jeff's mind when corresponding with them is to make them feel shitty for not being 100% up-to-speed on writing in code (which is what wiki markup is). The first thing Jeff writes to them is a long message that they have made a mistake. He then tacks on a short reply to the question. The signing thing wasn't a "by the way, could you sign next time" added at the end, but an up-front advertisement to everyone: "YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO EDIT HERE".
- And wrt SHOUTY text, the John Smith post in uppercase... I don't know why people write that way, but suspect it indicates unfamiliarity with communicating online in general and a level of technology understanding more appropriate for telegrams and fax machines, but Jeff's response "Please fix your caps lock" is just rude. It gives the impression Jeff is a power user asserting his superior knowledge, and not really understanding the "customer facing" role required at HelpDesk. Can you imagine if I phoned customer services at my bank and the first thing the assistant said was to criticise my Scottish accent and ask me to speak in the queen's English. And then when I gave my security code, she went into a huge rant about me saying "oh" rather than "zero".
- You may not have noticed, but forums on other websites that allow people to log in and post comments do not require them to sign the posts. The system does that automatically. The fact that MediaWiki is deficient in this regard is, as Slowking points out, a deficiency that we could vote to resolve, and not the newbie's fault. If anything, we should be apologising to the newbie that the technology here is inadequate.
- I fully agree that Slowking's method of making his point was disruptive and should be criticised and not repeated. But on balance, we have an admin making 13 newbies feel like crap after their first tentative post here, and we have a user making an admin a bit irritated. I know which is more harmful to Commons. -- Colin (talk) 08:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Most of this is really offtopic, so I'll try to be brief. Jeff (who is not an administrator) spends more time and energy than anyone else on this project responding to newcomers at the help desk and the blind alley that Commons talk:Abuse filter has turned into as a result of the cross-wiki upload misfeature. It's quite telling that he, as opposed to the subject of the discussion, has engaged with feedback given above and adapted his approach. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sure Jeff does a lot of useful stuff, but the diff given here for us to review indicates problematic behaviour from both users -- which is very common at AN/U. I assumed he was an admin and now see his third admin request was opposed for being BITEy. If that means "don't bite the newcomers", as on Wikipedia, then this seems to be still a problem. I do indeed hope Jeff takes this on board, particularly when participating on forums that deal with newbies. I would continue my advice to close this AN/U. -- Colin (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Most of this is really offtopic, so I'll try to be brief. Jeff (who is not an administrator) spends more time and energy than anyone else on this project responding to newcomers at the help desk and the blind alley that Commons talk:Abuse filter has turned into as a result of the cross-wiki upload misfeature. It's quite telling that he, as opposed to the subject of the discussion, has engaged with feedback given above and adapted his approach. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Where the 13th instance of the “warning new editors to sign is hopelessly pedantic” comment can be found? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Here is the link from my first comment again: Special:Diff/344368997/344411446. The text says "12 intermediate revisions", meaning the diff shows a total of 13 edits. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- The inferred meaning, obviously, should be that Incnis Mrsi ignores the words “intermediate revisions”, can’t count to 13, or is otherwise a bit stupid. Look at Special:Diff/344368997/344411446 #How to upload photos on behalf of an amateur photographer – who can’t count to 13 here? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Right, edit 11/13 was different from the others, instead basically turning to encouraging Flickrwashing, which is another bad habit of this user. My mistake. Sorry for disappointing you with my stupidity. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- The inferred meaning, obviously, should be that Incnis Mrsi ignores the words “intermediate revisions”, can’t count to 13, or is otherwise a bit stupid. Look at Special:Diff/344368997/344411446 #How to upload photos on behalf of an amateur photographer – who can’t count to 13 here? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Here is the link from my first comment again: Special:Diff/344368997/344411446. The text says "12 intermediate revisions", meaning the diff shows a total of 13 edits. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- That just isn't true. All but two of comments made by Jeff addressed the original question. In those other two cases, the question had already been addressed by others. Meanwhile, thirteen out of thirteen troll comments by the subject of this section were entirely unhelpful and disruptive for the purpose of making a point. Discussion is fine, but the subject of this discussion has acknowledged no wrongdoing, and there is no reason to expect that they won't continue to disrupt, as is to be expected from someone who is – as it says right there on the label – just here for vengeance. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Relevant diffs
Slowking4 made 12 identical contributions to the Help desk on 31 March which were about signatures. One other edit on the same day was made about Flickr, not signatures.
- 2019-03-31 02:15 Commons:Help desk /* File uploads */
- 2019-03-31 02:15 Commons:Help desk /* Why is my page not being pubilshed on Wikipedia? */
- 2019-03-31 02:13 Commons:Help desk /* Commons:Email templates - Using the Interactive Release Generator */
- 2019-03-31 02:12 Commons:Help desk /* Want to contact artist to purchase an image? */
- 2019-03-31 02:11 Commons:Help desk /* Copyright issues */
- 2019-03-31 02:11 Commons:Help desk /* All my stuff has been deleted */
- 2019-03-31 02:11 Commons:Help desk /* Image deletation issue */
- 2019-03-31 02:10 Commons:Help desk /* file not uploading (href unsafe data) */
- 2019-03-31 02:09 Commons:Help desk /* Simon Hammelburg portretje */
- 2019-03-31 02:09 Commons:Help desk /* wiki loves love 2019 */
- 2019-03-31 02:09 Commons:Help desk /* picture */
- 2019-03-31 02:08 Commons:Help desk /* JOHN TEMPLETON SMITH (AUTHOR) */
A full search of Help desk edits since the beginning of 2018, shows that Slowking made one edit to that noticeboard in August 2018 about 'colorization' and has contributed there on no other days. Or in other words, 13/14 different edits in the last 16 months were in responses to Jeff. --Fæ (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
History
I have a long history of trying to constructively interact with @Slowking4, starting in 2016 with this edit which culminated in the exchange documented here.
Our next involvements, in 2017, centered around the excessive length of his talk page, starting with @Steinsplitter's #Template include size is exceeded and continuing with my #User talk page length (in which I measured it at 1600 kB file size and 295 kB wikitext), my request to fix the problem with @JuTa's notifications not working, and my reply to the his section about "ip archiver", to which he replied that I had a "bad attitude" and I should "stay off of [his] talk page" in this edit.
I next delivered a {{Be civil final}} warning in this edit and was promptly reverted in the next edit with summary "do not sea lion me - do not template the regulars". He then proceeded to remove the archiving template and restore from 3 archives in the following 4 edits. I then delivered a manual (due to page size) civility "Final warning" in this edit and was again promptly reverted in this edit with summary "no you are sea lioning. you do not have a civil space. do not patronize me". I don't fully understand this "sea lioning" accusation. Thankfully, in the next edit, he re-enabled archiving, but with a surprisingly low 1 day cutoff.
I then in 2018 notified him about Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cosplay of Elsa (Disney) in this edit and got no response.
I then notified him about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adminpedia-image.png in this edit and got no response.
I then started what became Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 68#Slowking4 (in which I referenced Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 33#User:Slowking4, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 61#Slowking4, and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 64#User:Slowking4, all of which did not involve me) about his incivility, and notified him about it in this edit, and a discussion culminated in the section here. The welcome was here.
We then had a congenial discussion which culminated in the section here.
I then notified him of the need for a source for File:Flag, Detroit, Mich. 1a35405v.jpg in this edit, with no response.
I then started what became Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 72#Slowking4 again (in which I referenced the above mentioned Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 68#Slowking4) about more of his incivility, and manually notified him about it in this edit, with no response.
I then notified him of the possible copyright violation at File:Advertising for Donald Duck (Anders And) on the tram in Copenhagen 1960.jpg in this edit, with no response.
I then warned him about adding {{FlickrVerifiedByUploadWizard}} in these edits, and a discussion culminated in the section #Warning.
That brings us to 2019 and the current section, which I notified him about in this edit, with no response from him.
More recently, he made these edits to a closed VP section bounded by {{Atop}} and {{Abot}}. He has never posted on my user talk page. I copied the above here at @Colin's suggestion. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Someone want to look into helping this guy?
I suppose he is not trying to have so many problems but I randomly clicked on the user page and it was a STREAM of deleted photos for copyright violation. Someone should look into trying to contact user about changing behavior or something? I'm not sure how that works just thought I would say something: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%E6%B1%9F%E6%88%B8%E6%9D%91%E3%81%AE%E3%81%A8%E3%81%8F%E3%81%9E%E3%81%86
Nesnad (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Ffwiki22
- Ffwiki22 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
- NeelixIT (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Ffwiki22 is abusing multiple accounts to upload already deleted files by NeelixIT related to it:Francesco Franchi. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Done Both blocked. Yann (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Xerneasthebest has started creating categories for Pokemon characters. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Female midriff2.jpg. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Done Indeffed as clearly NOTHERE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
vandalism
Hello, I draw your attention to the fact that for a few weeks the Huldra carries out hundreds of renaming and modification of files to remove everywhere in a systematic way the name "Israel" and replace it with the name "Palestine". I think this behavior is not acceptable. May be remembered what is indicated in: Commons: Disputed territories A double categorization would be acceptable but not to replace one by the other. It seems to me particularly unacceptable to change the name and the original description of a file, against the advice of the uploader himself, which is the case here: the uploader User:Godot13 complained to Huldra on his discussion page, but without result Djampa (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- The changes are extensive. In some cases user categories and uploaded original descriptions are having "Israel" changed to "Palestine" in apparent contentious ways without reference to an existing consensus, such as moving the content of Category:User:Mattes/Contributions/Topics/Israel to Category:User:Mattes/Contributions/Topics/Palestine. The changes below are for the last month alone.
- Clearly, mass changes of "Israel" to "Palestine" require a consensus, especially for historic photographs where the original descriptions say otherwise. --Fæ (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- These are not simplistic "mass changes". They're historical images of the Middle East, at times when Palestine and Jordan are the correct terms to apply. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Diffs for the last month showing changes of Israel to Palestine by Huldra |
---|
|
- This is clearly unacceptable. See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 73#Israel to Palestine. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- There's a thread about this at Category talk:Photographs by Willem van de Poll#Israel. Djampa has repeatedly been invited to take part in the discussion, but has ignored it. User talk:Djampa#Bulk categorization reversions of Willem van de Poll photographs in East Jerusalem Instead they preferred to issue warnings to people: User talk:Andy Dingley#Commons:Disputed territories They were invited just yesterday to join it again, after their latest batch of reversions, but their response instead has been this fake complaint of "vandalism".
- My involvement with this has only been with the Willem van de Poll content in Photographs by Willem van de Poll and below. Tens of thousands of photographs to organise, which has been progressing fairly well and with a remarkable absence of dispute, until now. Several editors have been involved, and those most familiar with particular countries have been working on particular aspects (anyone knowledgeable about revolutions in what is now Indonesia in the late 1940s would be much appreciated). Djampa's reversions have been to revert all categorization and to return photos to the simple "Photographs by Willem van de Poll" starting point – far from constructive. [1] [2]
- The historical categorization of Jerusalem images is obviously fraught. I've done little of this myself, as I know that I don't know the boundary changes and dates offhand. Huldra seems to know more about this than I do. It's entirely possible that they've made mistakes in these, even that they're some terrible POV-pusher inserting deliberate errors (I have no reason to think so, but we know that such edits do go on). However if there are any such errors needing correction, the way to go about that is to raise it on the relevant talk: page first and clarify the precise problem (if one street was in Jordan until a particular date, then we can source that and go forwards accurately with such information). So far any such discussion has been cordial and reasonable. Any questions have been addressed and acted on – but Djampa has ignored all of this.
- The way to react is emphatically not to bulk revert (way past the contentious issue), to repeatedly edit-war, to refuse to engage in discussion, to throw around vacuous warnings and then to raise false claims of "vandalism" here. Djampa's actions are not acceptable, and we're getting to a point where blocking is appropriate. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- With mass changes that are likely to be seen as contentious or "obviously fraught", the edit comment should link to either a project page or a consensus that supports the specific mass changes. Edit comments which vaguely refer to an authority of the "international community" or just say "correction" or "nope" are not sufficient. In your rebuttal, you refer to your talk page as the locus for community discussion, that does not appear a good solution. Please create a community discussion or a proposal to back up these mass changes so that future complaints can be rebutted with a convincing established and wide community consensus, especially for historic images like those above taken in the 1950s, where 1950s terminology should be respected, rather than the most recent views of an "international community". Mass changes to user defined user categories should be avoided in all cases, retrospective renaming and redirects seem argumentative unless a community consensus agrees that the existence of the original user categories is against policy.
- It may be worth establishing a consensus for Commons:Disputed territories, and elevating it from an informal essay to an essay backed up with a community consensus that this will be the norm for disputes on this topic.
- Though the complaint of "vandalism" may not be valid, the basic complaint raised here is worth paying attention to and should be responded to in a way that decreases the drama for future mass changes. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, but have you paid the slightest attention to anything going on here?
- Which "1950s images"? They're 1940s and 1960s. This doesn't change much (although actually it does), but that sort of comment reinforces a suspicion that you're knee-jerking, rather than actually looking at the details. When you claim, "you refer to your talk page as the locus for community discussion" (no, no-one said any such thing) then yes, you really are just not paying attention.
- This is not a simple "mass change". It's not even a "change", it's an addition in a previous absence of any categorization. It's a carefully thought out and historically accurate description of specific and dated images, within the context of the changes in effect at those times. If anyone has anything constructive to add to such a discussion, then please do at the relevant talk: page: Category talk:Photographs by Willem van de Poll#Israel. But neither you nor Djampa seem interested in such, just making up false allegations. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Andy, focus on the evidence please, rather than what you think is the evidence.
- There are over 400 diffs above, clearly files like Church of the Holy Sepulchre are nothing to do with "Photographs by Willem van de Poll", so criticising everyone else for daring to discuss these edits here, rather than on the Willem van de Poll talk page, is bizarre.
- Your claim that "it's an addition in a previous absence of any categorization" is demonstrably false. Please examine the evidence above.
- Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- As noted, I'm only here for the Van de Poll stuff. I commented last night, to dissuade Huldra from filing a (justified) edit-warring complaint aganst Djampa suggesting that we give them another day to join the discussion. They haven't, instead they filed this pre-emptive "vandalism" complaint, which you seem happy to join in with.
- Now that you've brought up the page move, it's from the contentious "Jerusalem, Israel" to "Jerusalem" alone. Which is just what Commons:Disputed territories §2 recommends. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sure. Why do you think I recommend that if you and Huldra wish to continue with these systematic mass changes of Israel to Palestine in descriptions, filenames and categories across Wikimedia Commons, then you must:
- Establish a credible and wide consensus for the changes, possibly using Commons:Disputed territories as the proposal
- Ensure that all future changes refer to that consensus to avoid repeated disruptive disputes
- However if you prefer setting bear traps by making apparently controversial changes with comments like "nope", arguing the toss ad infinitum, and disrupting this project to prove a point, you carry on.
- By the way, please avoid cherry-picking changes giving a false impression of 'non-contentiousness'. Literally seconds after the edit you quoted trying to prove that these changes were undramatic change of "Jerusalem, Israel" to "Jerusalem", this change to the same image page by Huldra changed the location in Category:Statues of Mater dolorosa in Israel to Category:Statues of Mater dolorosa in Palestine. If the intent was to only make non-contentious changes then you would agree to make neutrally worded categories to move to. --Fæ (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Cherry picking? I cited the file that you gave.
- I'm also (still) waiting for any constructive input from either you or Djampa at the discussion thread (open for over a week now). All we get instead is edit-warring and false accusations of vandalism. Why are you (who has been here long enough to know better) supporting that? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Take some time out.
- Read the "constructive input" I have written here, rather than the "false accusations" you think I have written.
- Stick to the evidence and consider taking action to resolve the dispute rather than entering war games of allegations and counter allegations. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not the one making allegations of "vandalism". And as someone with an awful reputation for inciting drama in every possible situation, just why are you even here? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have a great reputation for resolving difficult disputes. Stick to the evidence please, avoid making more unpleasantly personal ad hominem attacks. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not the one making allegations of "vandalism". And as someone with an awful reputation for inciting drama in every possible situation, just why are you even here? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sure. Why do you think I recommend that if you and Huldra wish to continue with these systematic mass changes of Israel to Palestine in descriptions, filenames and categories across Wikimedia Commons, then you must:
- @Djampa, why are you complaining of changes like this: [3], replacing "Jerusalem, Israel" with "Jerusalem"? And then citing Commons:Disputed territories to "back you up"? Firstly, that's an essay, not even an accepted guideline, and certainly not binding policy. Secondly, §2 of that specifically supports this change, "Categorization should either be neutral (ideally), or double. ". i.e. If "Jerusalem" is adequate and unambiguous, then use "Jerusalem" rather than the potentially contentious "Jerusalem, Israel". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, so there are (at least) three issues here:
- 1. Pictures, taken by van de Poll before 1967 in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and moving them from "Israel" to East Jerusalem, or to various West Bank Governates. This is what we have discussed at Category talk:Photographs by Willem van de Poll, and this should be 100% uncontroversial, still Djampa has undone me twice, without taking part of the discussion. I find this unacceptable. (For those of you unfamiliar with the issue: between 1948 and 1967 the West Bank, including East Jerusalem was ruled by Jordan. This is undisputed. After 1967, the same areas have been occupied by Israel. Israel has unilaterally annexed part of East Jerusalem (but NOT the rest of the West Bank); alas, that annexation is recognized by 0 other states.)
- 2. Pictures, taken in East Jerusalem after 1967. Many, many of those were labeled "Israel" (a notion which NO nation, ecept Israel, accepts.) I moved some of them to "Palestine", but after that was challenged I have moved them to "Jerusalem" or "East Jerusalem". This should be uncontroversial. (I would claim that "East Jerusalem, Palestine" would be 99% correct, alas, that is not 100%, so better without);
- 3. Pictures, taken in the West Bank outside East Jerusalem, (say, in Bethlehem, or Hebron), after 1967. These are areas under military occupation, but they are NOT annexed by Israel. Ie, not even the Israeli govenment says that it is part of Israel. It should be completely uncontroversial to say that they are in Palestine, or Palestinian territories, (and 100% WRONG to write "Hebron, Israel" etc). Huldra (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- I hope we can come to some solution, at least so that I can rv Djampa (for the 3rd time), without risking seeing it undone. (Most of Djampas changes was in no. 1 category). As I said, no 1 and 3 categories should be easily resolved, no 2, "East Jerusalem post 1967", is less so. Perhaps we should open a special discussion just for that, Huldra (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Also, when User:מרינה רינה ודינה and User:בנימין שמלץ adds "Category:Photographs by Willem van de Poll in Jerusalem, Israel" to the "Category:Photographs by Willem van de Poll in East Jerusalem", here and here, then this is complletely FALSE. All the photos in this cat was taken between 1948 and 1967, a time when East Jerusalem was undisputed Jordanian territory, Huldra (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, The 3 points above look fine to me. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Removing "Israel" from attribution text and templates
In the example file File:PikiWiki Israel 30800 Religion in Israel.jpg which has been moved by Huldra to File:PikiWiki Palestine 30800 Religion in Palestine.jpg, changes to the image page have included changing "Israel" to "Palestine" in the original description and changing the CC-BY-2.5 attribution requirement from "lehava nazareth Pikiwiki Israel" to "lehava nazareth Pikiwiki" diff. Correcting the text can be argued about, but changing a correctly worded attribution statement, made by the uploader Pikiwikisrael 6 years ago, is unacceptable. There are several similar changes like this in the last month, as shown in the diff list above. Information about the "Pikiwiki Israel" joint project is available here.
There is no "PikiWiki Palestine" project, so the file move was mistaken and the moves should be reverted.
Invalidating an attribution in a copyright release may be accidental or thoughtless, but the fact is that it is equivalent to vandalism, and all changes like this need to be reverted. --Fæ (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- User:Fæ, to name a place in Bethlehem for "Religion in Israel" is extremely provocative. From my understanding it is uploaded by the en:Lehava organisation. Huldra (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, so what? That has nothing to do with the issue I have raised in this thread. If you want to change text per an existing consensus, establish the consensus and then make the change referring to that consensus.
- Please stick to the single point being made in this thread, that "PikiWiki Israel" was the name of the joint project which should stay in the filenames and should stay in the legal release statement as an attribution. If you think that those have been incorrectly hosted here for the last six years, then establish a consensus to purge "PikiWiki Israel". Mucking up attribution statements, then creating tangents here to avoid addressing the issue, is starting to look like deliberate disruption.
- If you believe that a WMF funded chapter has been partnering with a far right political organization, this is not the place to raise your concerns. Raise the matter with WMF Legal and stop editing the files.
- Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- I haven’t followed the larger dispute, but on this point I feel quite strongly that it should never be acceptable for anyone but the licensor to alter the attribution in a CC licence that contains BY terms: titles, descriptions, disclaimers, &c. are negotiable but not the licence. If it’s seriously offensive or misleading, better to nominate it for deletion than to misrepresent the licensor.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Done Huldra (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC) (I also hope you will comment on my 3 differnt types of photos above, and how to treat them, Huldra (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC))
- Sanket surve (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Sanket surve account only for advertising. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 11:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Not done Notwithstanding any other problems, we allow contributors to have images of themselves on their user pages. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Shib.maroc
- Shib.maroc (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
User changed his name but it's still copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Blocked for one month. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Tatianags
- Tatianags (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Only out of scope images. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Done More copyvios than strictly OOS, but not a good contributor nonetheless. Blocked for three months. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- What? Somebody claiming to be Patrick Rogel apparently used the
section=new
(a.k.a. [+]) thing to post to a noticeboard (note the edit summary). Perhaps, CheckUsers should look whether the account is compromised. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Hoang42006
- Hoang42006 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
The user, already having a plentiful copyvio record (see also delreq), evidently does not intend to take Commons:Licensing seriously – «Ảnh sưu tầm từ internet» means “images collected from Internet”. May we block ’em for the time being? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Done Numerous warnings. Blocked for a week. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Lopezmarianap
- Lopezmarianap (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: COM:BLOCK says that we need to warn a user before blocking them. This hasn't happened - they have only had notifications of possible deletions and your ANU notification. I am going to give them a final warning Gbawden (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done User warned Gbawden (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Redirect to an updated map is not working
Redirect of File:Map AP dist all shaded.png to File:Ap-districts.png (an updated map) as suggested in Help:File redirect did not work. It is introducing redirect text as part of existing description. Request User:Jcb or other admins to help.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Arjunaraoc: That only works if the original file is first deleted. Is that what you want? If so, why? Why not convert one or both to svg? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Jeff G. Should I overwrite the file, as the content is outdated? Is there any other alternative to replace in all the pages linking to it by the new version.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Arjunaraoc: That should be discussed on File talk:Map AP dist all shaded.png. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Jeff G., Thanks. I started the discussion at File Talk:Map AP dist all shaded.png.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Arjunaraoc: You're welcome. I started Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop#Maps of districts of Andhra Pradesh to spur production of more scalable versions in svg format. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Jeff G., Thanks. I started the discussion at File Talk:Map AP dist all shaded.png.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Arjunaraoc: That should be discussed on File talk:Map AP dist all shaded.png. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Jeff G. Should I overwrite the file, as the content is outdated? Is there any other alternative to replace in all the pages linking to it by the new version.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Jing-Singapore
- Jing-Singapore (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Abusing multiple accounts. See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Ffwiki22. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Done Gbawden (talk) 07:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Emma Stones
- Emma Stones (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Continues copyvios and flickrwashing after block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Done Blocked for 2 weeks Gbawden (talk) 07:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Cleaning company spammers
I nominated a couple of images from User:Activeofficecleaningsydney for speedy deletion as advertising. A brand new user (User:Cafe2007) then arrived to convert the speedy deletions into regular delete discussions. Meanwhile Activeofficecleaningsydney started Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pro Housekeepers.png for a rival(?) cleaning company logo. Then an IP arrived to change the signature from Activeofficecleaningsydney to the much less suspicious "TroyD". Can someone speedy all of the files involved and block all of the accounts involved (and the IP) while you're at it? Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Done All blocked. All files deleted. Clearly not here to contribute. Yann (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Alleged abuse of admin power
- Moheen (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Deleting File:JokowiAmin.png and File:PrabowoSandiLogo.png without any nomination and notification to me as original uploader of the former and to @Juxlos: as the latter, thus avoided us the right to argue. Both images had been tagged as PD-logo like File:Trump-Pence 2016.svg and File:Clinton Kaine.svg. – Flix11 (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- The images were tagged as copyvios by @Kenrick95: , who is the one who should have notified you ("if you tagged any content for speedy deletion, be sure to notify its creator" (COM:CSD)). These are not unambiguous PD-logo cases (comparison to the Trump and Clinton logos is disingenuous); while I would not have speedied these, Moheen has not abused "admin power" merely because you disagree with their judgement. One notes you've not genuinely bothered to discuss the issue with Moheen (instead, failing to assume good faith--"you just deleted them right away for made-up copyright reason. Do not abuse your administrator rank with this nonsense." [4]--and posting here before even receiving a response, and without notifying @Moheen: ). COM:UDR is available to you; continuing to disparage other users in this manner is not. Эlcobbola talk 14:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Undeletion requests are still available to you. There was an issue of questionable notability, and you know it is not always practically possible to see every user's talk page to check about the notification. ~Moheen (keep talking) 16:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- To me, a borderline eligibility-for-copyright case is not “copyvio” if the uploader didn’t lie about the logo’s provenance. Regular deletion has to be invoked in such cases unless Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion (other that copyvio) are applicable. The community should admonish the user who {{Copyvio}}ed images having disputable eligibility for copyright. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment File:PrabowoSandiLogo.png is clearly above COM:TOO, so not OK without a permission. File:JokowiAmin.png might be simple enough, but it is not obvious. I added a message to Kenrick95. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeu Phim Viet
- Yeu Phim Viet (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Continues copyvios after block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Done Indeffed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Jaheen3alam
- Jaheen3alam (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Continues copyvios after block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)