User talk:Rahul Bott

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Rahul Bott!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Deutz-Fahr[edit]

Hi, please don't try to enforce a proposed guideline. Jcb (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Is that not mandatory? I certainly remember accounts being blocked here because of group usernames. Although, I do not have problem either way. Regards, Rahul Bott (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
That differs from project to project. E.g. at NL.wikipedia (my mother language) a user with such a name would be blocked. But at Wikimedia Commons we normally don't care. Jcb (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, I checked the block log and came up with these entries for blocks on Commons:

  • 17:42, 10 May 2013 INeverCry (talk | contribs) blocked Yoga Federation of Russia (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (autoblock disabled) (Inappropriate username)
  • 04:41, 9 May 2013 INeverCry (talk | contribs) blocked CMI International Group (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Inappropriate username: promo acct)
  • 02:04, 8 May 2013 INeverCry (talk | contribs) blocked Linkproz (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Inappropriate username: http://www.linkproz.com/ - promo company acct)
  • 15:49, 1 May 2013 Jameslwoodward (talk | contribs) blocked Hconstruction (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (autoblock disabled) (Inappropriate username)
  • 07:53, 30 April 2013 Herbythyme (talk | contribs) blocked Mingle MediaTV (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Inappropriate username)

These are just a sample. There are certainly more as you can yourself check in the block log. Shouldn't the same criterion be applied to Deutz-Fahr. Regards, Rahul Bott (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm as puzzled as you are I think. These blocks shouldn't have been applied, because the policy has never been adopted by the community. I find it also very strange that in 4 of the 5 cases account creation has been blocked as well, which should at least not have happened, even if the policy would have been adopted by the community. Jcb (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I would point out that the CMI and Linkproz accounts were cross-wiki spammers, blocked indef on several other projects. The purpose of the accts here was only to upload promo images for use in their cross-wiki spamming. This is often the case. INeverCry 16:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) While this is not formal policy, it is clear that a wide variety of experienced Admins are enforcing it without objection from the community. I myself have blocked company names tens, maybe even hundreds of times. I think it is important to do so for several reasons:
First, using a company name, "Microsoft", for example, has exactly the same effect as signing on as "Bill Clinton". It puts words and actions at the doorstep of someone else without their authority. We require people who sign on with names of notable individuals to verify their identity through OTRS precisely to avoid someone putting words into the mouth of a famous person.
Second, it makes it impossible to discipline individuals. Suppose we allowed everyone at Microsoft to use the same name. How then do we block an individual who consistently creates problems?
Third, it prevents the building of trust. I know when reading a DR that I can trust the opinion of a number of other editors -- I may not agree, but I know that the information presented will be honest and generally accurate. A corporate account does not build this trust.
Finally, it makes licensing difficult. "Own work", by far our most usual source, has no meaning for an organization. The organization may own the copyright, but the author is still an individual.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I do completely agree that unless the user deserves a stronger block for some other reason, that all the check boxes on the "Block user" page should be unchecked except for "Watch this user's user and talk pages". There is a template for the user's talk page (in 26 languages) which encourages the user to open a new account, see {{Bian}}. Also note that although the template should be applied as a subst, it has 125+ uses without subst in 16 months. Presumably there are many more uses (including mine) that were applied with "subst" that don't show up in its "what links here list". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I understand there can be reasons to block a user name. But what to do in this particular case? This user has identified himself as a person, who is an employee of the Same Deutz-Fahr Group. I don't think a block is needed in this case. Permissions have been confirmed to OTRS. Jcb (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Even if Company X confirms that User:Company X is, in fact, an employee authorized to make uploads, what happens if the employee resigns or is fired? Then we either have a new employee acting as User:Company X, which fails my third point, or, worse, we have a person who no longer works for the company who still uses the company's name. Either way, it's a problem that can be avoided by prohibiting organizational names. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, thanks Jim for commenting. The discussion between you two was enlightening :-) So what decision have we reached? To me it appears that if, as per Jim, "User:Microsoft" should be blocked, then same should be the case with User:Deutz-Fahr. Rahul Bott (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Without a guideline, admins have to use their discretion. Alot of these company username accts are spamming other projects, or they're just uploading logos and promo pics for completely non-notable companies. I don't think it makes sense to just let it all go and have them do whatever they want simply because we only have a proposed guideline. The lack of a set guideline is a problem though. We should have a set way of dealing with these accounts, to avoid confusion and conflicting actions by different admins. INeverCry 16:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for participating in this discussion. Although I do not have problems in this being continued here, but from what it seems we are discussing more general Commons policies and not just specific to one individual/group user. In such a situation, will it not be better if we move this to a more visible place so as to have more opinions. Besides, shouldn't someone put COM:UPOLICY to vote or something like that to bring it into effect? Regards, Rahul Bott (talk) 04:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
We've tried. I don't see anything happening on this any time soon. INeverCry 15:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I am still new to these things but are there no deadlines for voting period? And since admins do seem to be following the policy anyway (although some take the contrary view) shouldn't the policy status be clarified on an urgent basis. Rahul Bott (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
If it were just a vote that was needed, it might've already gotten done. As it is, there's still a need for clarification and agreement on some of the details of the proposed policy. INeverCry 17:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
(editconflict) There doesn't seem to be consensus to agree or oppose this proposed policy. I've seen that I am not the only one who is sceptical about whether this proposal really resolves a problem. On the other hand, Jim is not the only one who thinks this should be enforced. Now there is no official policy, administrators will need to judge every single case they come across. And remember, nothing is final at Wikimedia/Wikipedia. If you see an admin action you disagree with, you can always start a talk about it. If that leads to a consensus against that action, it can be undone. One thing about Deutz-Fahr still needs to be explained: whatever needs to be done is an admin action. You can request it e.g. via Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard. Nominating the user talk page for deletion is the wrong procedure. Jcb (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Jcb, I did not know the procedure and would have certainly preferred something as quick as "Nominate page for deletion" facility. But nevertheless, in future, I'll try to post such requests at the page suggested by you. Rahul Bott (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Maybe it helps. Stanzilla (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Haha! Surely it does :-) Thanks for the thumbs-up. Much appreciated! Rahul Bott (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

please take notice of Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User Problems User:Rahul_Bott[edit]

Hi, please take notice of Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User Problems User:Rahul_Bott, thx and regards, Roland 18:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Will reply at the relevant page. Rahul Bott (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Jayananda Thakur in bliss.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Jayananda Thakur in bliss.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Fluffernutter (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I only uploaded a cropped version of the file and nothing else to remove the caption text. Best, Rahul Bott (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)