Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: COM:AN/U · COM:ANU

Community portal
introduction
Help desk Village pump
copyrightproposals
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections

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@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new report]
User problems
[new report]
Blocks and protections
[new report]
Other
[New section]

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 here.


Archives
10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
Commons discussion pages (index)


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.

PrinceNijam[edit]

User:PrinceNijam has repeatedly changed the author of files, such as File:Moju chowdhury hat.jpg, to themselves and then changed the licensing of the file without holding the rights to the file (also on File:Tara-masjid.jpg & File:Shat Gombuj Mosque (ষাট গম্বুজ মসজিদ) 002.jpg). They have been warned against doing so, acknowledged the warning, then continued to do it. The user also has claimed that they are a license reviewer or admin on images (that don't need Flickr review) such as File:Wikipedian Prince Nijam.jpeg, which I left as shown to be an example. I would like to request admin intervention, possibly even blocking the user, for these issues. Elisfkc (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a couple weeks. I deleted a few obvious copyvios. I guess Nijamahmed is an old alternate. The prince is certainly great at making a mess. INeverCry 21:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The prince claims, that his home wiki is en.wiki, but he is indefinitely blocked there as sockpuppet: en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mojuchowdhury-hat/Archive. I edited his userpage, where he claimed to be active since 2006 (correct is 2016), a steward and license reviewer. He added license in file:মোহাম্মদ নিজাম উদ্দিন.jpg, although the file does not look like selfie. Taivo (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I've created Category:Sockpuppets of PrinceNijam and blocked the 3 other socks. I used PrinceNijam as the master since it's the easiest name to remember. I've also deleted the above image as a copyvio. INeverCry 08:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

user problem[edit]

can not log in or create account with my user name Krassiyank —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 95.87.232.230 (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


User:Tuvalkin using mental illness as an insult[edit]

People with a mental illness/disorder are ill. They are not bad people. They have a serious disabling condition that is orders of magnitude worse for them than the little foibles we all have and get frustrated with in ourselves and others. So when people carelessly use mental illness (or other serious medical conditions) as an insult, it is extremely hurtful to who have to live with it. Labelling people OCD because they are a bit tidy or obsessed. Calling someone autistic because they have done something socially awkward. Or schizophrenic because they changed their mind. Or bipolar because their mood has shifted. Such behaviour might be accepted in school playground, but absolutely isn't acceptable in a community of adults behaving with any respect for others. If this is news to anyone here, I suggest Googling for "mental illness as an insult" and variations on that theme.

When Tuvalkin criticised Jcb's motivations on this project, and suggested he "need[s] to go", Tuvalkin linked to the Wikipedia article Obsessive–compulsive disorder. This is more than just a careless use of language, but a clear link to this medical condition when talking about another user. Either Tuvalkin is stating he believes Jcb has a mental disorder, or Tuvalkin thinks it acceptable to use a mental disorder as an insult to describe someone's harmful motive on this project, and why they should "go". This personal attack is such a huge breach of COM:AGF, which requires us to "avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence", and a breach of all acceptable discourse among respectful adults. Subsequent comments at the noticeboard do not demonstrate any understanding of what they have done wrong. A block seems necessary, for Tuvalkin to reflect on what he has done wrong and work avoiding a repeat, and this community should make it clear that such behaviour and language has no place here. -- Colin (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI This block of Stemoc is relevant, and where the community agreed that using mental health issues as an insult, or making claims that others have mental illnesses, is unacceptable and blockworthy. -- Colin (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

FWIW: recent failures of COM:AGF towards those with whom he disagrees, and veiled (and unveiled) insults/attacks, have not been limited to mental health:
  • "[T]hus unmask yourselves as moved by bad faith and disregard for the project" [1]
  • "Actually, I find it deplorable, not funny, but this kind of downplaying helps me keep some sanity when dealing with these cases of… lets go with «casual negligence», to keep me off admin bullying" [2]
  • "You and Jee read Fæ’s defense of a photo and immediately saw an opportunity for scoring points by favouring its deletion";
  • "[B]ecause Taivo, an admin, has no clue about what scope is — incompetence is also something I don’t enjoy witnessing";
  • "[C]ombined tides of deletionism of some (omg so many files we need to keep these numbers down!!) and the cronyism and vanity of others" [3]
(Note the last three are the same diff, just separated out to show a personal attack of Taivo sandwiched between bad faith.) While perhaps not egregious in and of themselves, these diffs should be considered in aggregate with Colin's comments above. Impugning the motives of others, personal attacks, and the obvious chip on the shoulder indeed undermine a "collegial atmosphere", a consideration in COM:BLOCK. Эlcobbola talk 19:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Blocked 2 weeks, as it is not the first time that he have such behavior. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Regardless of if there is a continuing issue with Tuvalkin, Colin bringing this particular complaint here, now, is simply forum shopping. The discussion of this statement at ANB was over twice as long as the original discussion, and Colin himself said "Several admins are present on this page, naturally, and yet Tuvalkin remains unblocked and without any warning." This was an implicit acknowledgment that several admins did not consider the comment worthy of action, and yet here we are. I submit this specific complaint has more to do with Colin and Tuvalkin's personal issues, without 'prejudicing' the evidence for a continuing problem raised by elcobbola. Reventtalk 21:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: Not to be rude, but such a block is unlikely to resolve the ongoing interpersonal issues. Short 'civility' or 'cool down' blocks are rarely effective. Reventtalk 21:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Then the blocks will escalate until one that is final. The price "useful contribution against undergo attacks and insults" is not a good deal for me... Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The beatings will continue until the moral improves. This is not a good approach, we need Tuvalkin to understand the issues with their comments and to appropriately modify their behaviour because they want to, not because they're forced to do so under fear of escalating blocks. Nick (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: (Edit conflict) I was not saying you are wrong, I have not looked at Tuvalkin's history in detail, and Elcobbola cited examples that had (apparently) nothing to do with Colin. I meant that such a block, which it might cause an editor to reconsider specific behaviors, will not resolve any long-standing history between specific people... it will, instead, possibly provide more ammunition for such a dispute. The original complaint brought here by Colin was, imo, purely personal. And what Nick said. Reventtalk 21:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually they should be indef'ed, as there is a long-term pattern of insulting behaviour. --A.Savin 21:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
To clarify, yes, the examples above are unrelated to Colin ("Elcobbola cited examples that had (apparently) nothing to do with Colin"). They are from UnDr and Jameslwoodward's talk page, both of which I watch. I was actively contemplating how best to address them when Colin made this post. As others have said, this is indeed a long-term issue, and additional examples from this month alone are readily available:
  • "Still clueless about scope, User:Taivo, I see." [4]
  • "Where were these zealous defenders when serial vandal Fastily wreacked havoc in Commons with his admin-bit powered deletionist agenda?" [5]
  • "I see that you now took upon yourself the task to dismantle what I did, and put Category:10 (number) back in its original state of disarray and unusefulness. Understandably, I’m not wishing you well in this endeavour." [6]
  • "[I]nsisting on deletion of this media item is mere vandalism." [7] Эlcobbola talk 22:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I wonder what could push him to want such a thing "modify their behavior".... The block has indeed nothing to do with Colin nor I want to resolve any long-standing history between specific people. The block is to stop the current behavior shown by all the links provided above, and this is far not the first time, see block log, past blocks take the warning role, my blocks excluded, he have been blocked several times for the same things. And how many times he has escaped blocks? He is far from "modify their behavior because they want to", therefore, and as he is not able to modify their behavior himself, we have to do it. I've not the right to say the things he says, you have not this right, and he have not this right. He is as experimented as us, (more?), and he know this is prohibed very well, therefore he assume now. Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: I was not saying the specific block was not justified, though I doubt it's efficacy....I was saying that the original complaint here was due to interpersonal drama, and a short block will not fix it. Reventtalk 22:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Guys, examine the facts, not the perceived motives for person making the criticism. For doing so is simply an ad-hominem and you fall into the same trap as Tuvalkin of questioning someone's motive without clear evidence, and demonstrating a lack of AGF. Revent's comments here, such as dismissing this as "interpersonal drama", are simply ad-hominem and a continuation of his blinkered and biased approach to obvious personal attacks made in his presence. My comment at ANB wasn't "implicit acknowledgment that several admins did not consider the comment worthy of action" but specific criticism and shaming of those admins present, including Revent, who choose to look the other way, or who, like Nick, throw ridiculous hypocritical obstacles in the way. AN/U is the correct forum and the original topic at AN/B concerned Jcb's admin actions, so it is precisely appropriate that this forum instead is the place to discuss Tuvalkin's insulting remarks. Nick continues to lecture us on what to do yet I see no attempt by him to counsel Tuvalkin as to what instead he should have said or what he should now regret. Of course Tuvalkin should not be "beaten" and "forced" and it is quite ridiculous and insulting on us to suggest a block does this. Tuvalkin is not forced to participate here and did not need to make the comments he did. Anyway, the stubbornness of an individual to mend their ways is quite irrelevant as to whether a block applies. That's why sometimes the community chooses to make it indefinite. This block confirms that this community will simply not stand for certain behaviour, regardless of whether the person being blocked is capable of amending their ways. I am pleased that some admins, at least, recognise when a line has been crossed. -- Colin (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Colin. I did not throw ridiculous hypocritical obstacles in the way, I've simply asked you to discuss your concerns directly with Tuvalkin, because I feel it would be beneficial. I was hoping the issue could have been resolved without the need for a lengthy block, and I had hoped Tuvalkin would have involved themselves in this discussion. That's not possible because of the two week block, but I will attempt to discuss the issues (as I perceive them) directly with Tuvalkin over the next two weeks. It's a great shame you're unwilling to at least explain to Tuvalkin your concerns with their behaviour, because I can only express my perspectives and my thoughts.
I also think it would be useful if you were to put some effort into improving your relationship with Tuvalkin, but it's entirely up to you whether you're going to engage with Tuvalkin.
I would also ask that you cease portraying any user who dares to disagree with you in such negative terms. The beauty of this project is we all have slightly different ideas on how best to achieve the same aims. I can see from your block log that some of your ideas didn't quite go to plan, I know that some of my administrative actions haven't worked entirely as I intended them to, but we all learn and move on. Nick (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
If you wish to discuss this further, then invite me to your talk page, otherwise I have already said and provided enough evidence of the "hypocritical obstacles" you posted on AN/B and have no wish to keep repeating them. -- Colin (talk) 06:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@Colin: That you attempt to 'shame' people who disagree with you, or do not do what you want, is a fair description of part of my objection to your long term pattern of behavior. Reventtalk 14:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Revent please don't mischaracterize my words. I have not shamed someone who disagrees with me or didn't do what I want. I say shame on those who behave shamefully. An admin who willfully ignores clear personal attacks, clear demonstration of bad faith, and clearly using mental health issues as an insult, is behaving shamefully. And your actions here have been nothing but ad-hominem attacks on me, trying to turn a discussion on a block on Tuvalkin into a discussion on me. I repeat. Shame on you. -- Colin (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The edit summary here by Colin is un-mellow and un-collegial. Needless to say that Colin is putting oil in the fire again and again. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Steinsplitter, this is a discussion on Tuvalkin's block. Not on me. Could you focus on that? Revent's series of ad-hominem attacks on me are absolutely forbidden in policy, and an attempt to make this personal about me, and detract from a serious issue. I did not make this discussion about me, Revent did, and once again slurs me about some "long term pattern of behaviour" in completely the wrong venue and without supplying any evidence. That's "un-collegial". You might want to address that problem rather than joining in with the "lets say horrible things about Colin" game. -- Colin (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
My series of 'ad hominem attacks'? Links, please. I have done nothing but criticize your behavior. Reventtalk 18:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Revent, I'm not going to continue your game of derailing this section to become about me, and provide an excuse for you to continue to repeat slurs about my participation here. The links are already on your talk page, and you know it. Now, unless you have something to say about Tuvalkin's use of mental illness as an insult, this discussion is over. -- Colin (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hmmm; only today I looked in detail on the comments that Tuvalkin made against me/my intentions. English is not my language; those comments are split into different places. This is not the first time s/he looked me with bad faith. (The earlier case was when I removed a PA from his talk page. He restored it even without reading what I removed.) I never came here requesting a sanction against people who insulted me. Little chances for that in future too. I believe it is duty of the colleagues (per DefendEachOther) which is what Elcobbola did now. What Nick and Revent doing here is disappointing. Jee 01:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  • And what about people really suffering from Obsessive–compulsive disorder or from other mental disorder? We let them read that a user is able to use their disorder to insult/harass other users?apparently no one here is suffering from this. People who are sick are suffering enough with their disorder, we must not categorize them and we must not use their pain to reduce other persons, the insult is there, and is at the level of the one who did it. This is currently intolerable and inexcusable, and must be stopped. Furthermore, as he took time to tie his sentence with the article in Wikipedia, I assume he found this funny and smart... but this is not. Feel free for the blocked user to contribute in a good way after the block expire. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. Thank-you, Christian. There is at least one admin seeing the facts of this situation without using it as an excuse to smear me. -- Colin (talk) 06:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Jkadavoor If someone insults you in future, I sincerely hope you would report it in broadly the same manner Colin has - just because Revent and I didn't immediately jump and block Tuvalkin doesn't mean we don't find the comment he made concerning, it's just that we were choosing to deal with the situation in a different way. Nick (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Nick, unless there's been some off-wiki communication between you and Tuvalkin, then you haven't been "choosing to deal with the situation in a different way" until 8:42 this morning which is 24 minutes after you posted the above, and long after I suggested that you might be the person to engage with Tuvalkin if you are so full of ideas about how to amend his behaviour. Unless, that is, your interpretation of "a different way" is to turn a blind eye. I note that in your post to his talk page, you suggest the problem was a consequence of humour that translated badly online. Not it isn't Nick. I suspect you still don't appreciate the problem. It's that a user here thinks that mental illness is something to joke about and that it is acceptable to use mental illness as an insult with which to attack a contributor here. There's nothing "online" or "translation" about the issue here. Perhaps you find it OK to joke about OCD with your mates, but it certainly isn't here, and in the UK I'm quite sure it would generate disciplinary action should an office worker complain to HR about the "jokes" they've been getting from colleagues. It doesn't matter what language people write in or understand. I hope that is clear, if it isn't, google a few mental health charities to read about the consequences of the stigma and hurt generated by people using "humorous insults" with mental health. I do wish you well in modifying Tuvalkin's behaviour, but you need to understand the problem with what he wrote, which you don't yet appear to. -- Colin (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Nick: just one word to clarify a bit. I've nothing against you or Revent, your views are defensible. I don't care about potential conflicts between Colin, JcB and Tulvakin or somebody else, nor I'm aware neither I want to solve this. However, discrimination is a terrible thing, and one of more serious harassment possible. What is discrimination? discrimination is a distinction made against a group of persons. No matter if it is about ethnicity, mental health, gender, or physical appearance... this is not acceptable. By insulting Jcb in that way he have insulted all persons who are really suffering about this. How do you know I'm not suffering about this? how do you know I've not also suffered to be a bit "different", and now, here on Commons, the answer should be "wait he stop himself?" and how do you know if Jcb suffer or not this disorder, and about a potential discrimination? And what? people suffering of that disorder are potentially inclined to do bad things? What is this fucking point of view? Damn not! we have not to wait he stop himself, he will stop that's all, in a way or in another. @Tuvalkin: you're are warned, if you harass someone else by using any kind of discrimination, you will be blocked exponentially. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Christian, you are ranting and choosing to add the word "fucking" when addressing someone you have blocked and cannot reply, is not why this noticeboard exists. Please take a wiki break and get some perspective. I respectfully recommend you avoid taking any further administrative action on this matter. Thanks -- (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
You're recommendation is well received and will be well ignored. To think people suffering about a mental disorder are potentially inclined to do bad things, and in any case are quoted pejoratively as an attack (or as an exemple to illustrate something wrong) is indeed, for me, a "fucking way" to think and in no way acceptable. I confirm. End of discussion for me. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for at least taking my advice and avoiding this discussion from here on.
I do not appreciate your defence of using the f-word to insult others when in your authoritative role as an administrator giving advice to other contributors they have blocked for being insulting. I do not appreciate the f-word word directed at me, even obliquely, this is never justifiable. It is disruptive and you have damaged the communities trust in your emotional capacity to comply with "Administrators are expected to understand the goals of this project, and be prepared to work constructively with others towards those ends" per COM:Administrators. When you have had time to get some perspective, perhaps you will be able to read this again and understand my point of view. Thanks -- (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Christian Ferrer, one word of advice from me. While the F-word is often considered to be quite innocent slang in non English countries using the F-word in some English countries can be seen as quite severe. US television even censors the word in series like South Park and Family Guy. It is best to avoid the F-word all together since it can be offensive to native English speakers while you probably see no harm when someone uses the F-word. Natuur12 (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Two points. Christian was talking to Nick when he used the F-word, he was not "addressing someone [he] blocked and cannot reply". Nor was Christian using the F-word "to insult others". The phrase was "fucking point of view" and the f-words was an adjective that referred to the idea "people suffering of that disorder are potentially inclined to do bad things". That is of course, a point of view we can all feel is totally unacceptable and one for which reasonable people might get angry and upset. And when people get angry and upset they can swear. The f-word was not used as an insult towards a person. It is clear Christian is upset with Nick not getting it. The tone police can stand down, and need to get a lesson in how to respond to angry people properly. Christian has communicated his opinion about this point of view with absolute clarity -- we all get the message he is angry and upset about it, and with Nick. When someone is upset they need to feel they are being heard and understood, and absolutely do not need some "calm down dear" public display of tone criticism. A quiet word is better here than some public shaming because someone who is angry and upset said a bad word. And no, swear words when angry are a totally different thing from what this section is about, which is someone who has unenlightened views on mental health, and a huge dollop of bad faith. -- Colin (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Although I don't wish to report any attack against me, I usually interfere when noticed anything similar to others. See this and how that user responded to it. Here this generosity is not happened from the user in question, unfortunately. Christian Ferrer, you need not take too much strain to explain/convince all. Your action is well justifiable. Jee 12:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: IMO, the question isn't if a block was justified, but if just 'two weeks' is likely to accomplish anything. Reventtalk 19:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I am not certain about the intentions of your and Nick's early comments here; but they look like an attempt to weaken the confidence of the acting admin (Christian) here. Fae, as with a usual tactics, made fabricated accusation that Christian accused the user who can't edit here and asked to refrain from further use of his admin tools here (which Colin well corrected/explained later). Anyway now I'm happy with the progress and thanks Nick for that. I believe in second-chance and hope Tuvalkin still has time to change and continue editing here. Good luck. Jee 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Correction - Jkadavoor, please take on board Christian's words "Fæ and Natuur12 are right", it's just below in this thread. I made no "fabricated accusation" of any sort and I am getting tired of seeing false allegations in discussions where I am being pinged, like I am a free Commons punch bag when no actual evidence is being supplied of any evildoing and there are no repercussions for attacking me. If you wish to waste your time making allegations, open a section and ask directly and unambiguously for administrator action against my account and supply meaningful diffs, not hearsay, otherwise what you are doing is tangentially misusing this noticeboard for false and defamatory character slurs. Thanks -- (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
See this. Re-read Christian's comment where f-word is used and check to whom it was addressed. There is separate part in that comment addressing the user now blocked. Jee 13:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
This is off topic, but it appears I need to explain further or appear tacitly to accept your allegation. You are stating that I lied, that's what making "fabricated accusation" means. Christian's words were hard to deconstruct, presumably a result of English not being their first language, so doubtless my understanding of the paragraph can be argued back and forth which I don't feel is in anyone's benefit. If you wish to pursue me for fabricating evidence and making false accusations, then create a thread, provide the diffs and ask for administrator action. Alternatively you could make a presumption of good faith and accept that Christian's apology closed the issue, as indeed I thought was the case. -- (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
, two aspects of your complaint about Christian are 100% factually incorrect in important ways, and I explained already why in my post. The statement "choosing to add the word "fucking" when addressing someone you have blocked and cannot reply" is simply untrue. He was addressing Nick, who last time I checked is unblocked and quite able to reply. Nor was he "using the f-word to insult others", but instead as an adjective about a detestable point of view. You may choose different language but it was not used as an insult of a person. Nor was the "f-word word directed at [you], even obliquely". Directed is of course incompatible with "obliquely" so the statement makes no sense. Once again, when Christian was addressing you, was describing a detestable way to think (equating mental illness with being a bad person), and not at all suggesting you think that way -- so absolutely not "directed" at you. Your text contains so many important errors that cause your argument to collapse. You could have simply said, please don't use swear words and left it at that. But by claiming Christian was using swear words to insult a person he has blocked, and thus abusing his role as an admin, is absolutely not supportable by the evidence and you should retract it. I also direct you to Christian's comment thanking me for my edit and summary of what actually was said/meant.
I agree that Jee's use of the word "fabricated" implies a lie and so should be retracted as bad faith. However, Fae, you will only develop a reputation for honesty by being careful when describing other's words faithfully and accurately. You have not done so here, and to claim this is Christian's fault because he is French is preposterous. The section is clearly label "Nick" and the other part clearly labelled "Tuvalkin". Any misunderstanding is yours. -- Colin (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Christian's use of that word is inappropriate and need to be redacted. But there is nothing difficult to understand there as he addressed people individually. He seemed frustrated on the fellow admins who didn't support him when there was a need. It is the most unfortunate moment when the confidence of acting admin is destroyed, especially by fellow admins. So they should be careful and only do so when the acting admin is critically wrong. Here his action is well justifiable considering the additional evidence by Elcobbola. That's why advised Christian "no need to take strain to explain/convince all. Your action is well justifiable." Here Fae asked Christian to refrain from further actions whereas Revent commented "It's up to the admin who blocked him, imo." How an admin can act on his free will when his confidence is challenged? Please avoid it. Jee 15:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: That I would 'attempt to weaken Christian's confidence', and then later say that I felt any further action should be up to him, is nonsensical, and to be honest, you're pretty much accusing be Nick and I of acting in bad faith here. Christian said to Nick, "I've nothing against you or Revent, your views are defensible." If he had no problem with it, there's little justification for you trying to make it an issue. Reventtalk 15:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, your comment here and all related discussions, including your talk page are full of nonsense. Jee 15:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I suggest, given that a block has been applied and it has consensus, that this section be closed. -- Colin (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • To all the community, I was indeed wrong to use the F-word, or at least this was wrong without further explanations, and Natuur12 are right. I added the sentence and the edit summary containing the F-Word after to have write the former sentence. At that time I was thinking not to insult anybody, but more to show to the community the reasons of my actions here, and in what extend I think the topic is not harmless. The F-word (in french putain) is sometimes (often) used as an interjection, specially in the southern France, I think this can be called an en:Ejaculation (grammar). Though I can not promise I will manage to temperate my feisty personality, I can promise, as this is ambiguous in some langages, to not ever use once again the F-Word. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Colin, it is indeed about a good summary, it is sometimes frustrating not to be understood. Though I am not angry about Nick, it is indeed true that I wanted to be enough expressive to be well understood. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to indef block due to Tuvalkins continued slurs on his talk page[edit]

A.Savin proposed an indef block above. I think we use indef blocks too little. Often an editor should not come back until showing a sincere will to change the behavioral patterns leading to a block. If that takes only a day, and it is convincing, fine, lift the block. If the blocked user keeps on with the disruptive behavior, maintain the block until a sincere will to change has occcured, to avoid further damage to the project. Earlier today on his talk page Tuvalkin made this edit, where he clearly singles out a single user (Colin) with a clear personal attack.

In my defense I can say that I think I would have retracted that unethical mistreatment of OCD sufferers later, either on my own volition or after being called off, but having been called off by that particular person blinded me from acting as I think I should have, as it was a case of obvious baiting: After all, this is the person who not only once got away with uttering the phrase «raging gay» (wich is always a no-no, regardless of context) but even had the gall to counter-attack, playing the victing for having been called a homophobe. Such people in our midst make it hard to maintain a collegial atmosphere above what would be otherwise mere disagreements about procedures and goals of Commons.

So, here Tuvalkin says Colin is baiting him, because Colin is the user first critizising Tuvalkin for linking to OCD. That is just a ridiculous claim, and it is Tuvalkin after all, who linked, yet he is just blaming Colin. Next they go on with the recurring raging gay conflict. As the analysis in the link shows, these two words were written by Colin in November 2015 in an "as if somebody" analogy and not intended as a direct personal attack. Later in November 2015, Colin apologized to Fæ for causing offence, an apology that was finally accepted by Fæ in July 2016. It is a case closed by both parties, yet Tuvalkin tries to dig up drama again. Let us just remind ourselves, that Tuvalkin has previously called Colin an "insufferable wanker" and never apologized for that personal attack. Next, Tuvalkin accuses Colin for playing the victim for having been called a homophobe. Totally disregarding that Colin has repeatedly been described by Fæ in a series of cleverly crafted association fallacies by all the traits and characteristics of a homophobic person, with a clever avoidance of not using that word explicitly. So, Tuvalkin just continues the bad prevailing habit of speaking bad about Colin, when Colin points out actions which are offending, thereby trying to censor Colin by singling him out. That is very uncollegial, and as long as Tuvalkin does not show the faintest sign of wanting to change this attiitude, I think they should be remained blocked. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I have asked Tuvalkin to redact their comment concerning Colin, which is clearly not acceptable. I guess if the comment isn't redacted in a timely fashion or there are further comments of this nature (or indeed, a combative attitude towards Colin) then an indefinite block would make sense and is something I would support. I really hope it isn't necessary, of course. I would ask that if the block on Tuvalkin is increased to indefinite, talk page access is maintained, so I can continue working with Tuvalkin, in an attempt to remedy their behavioural issues. Nick (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually, we have been discussing Tuvlakin's abuse of his talk page to continue attacks at User talk:Elcobbola#User:Tuvalkin's block. I did not want to bring it here, because I felt this page had already become derailed, and it was a separate issue from the mental-health-as-insult one. And because I am embarrassed to repeat Tuvalkin's insult. But here goes: "the smarmy ejaculations of a poseur who uses 100% of his Commons time to «harass and intimidate»". While User:Elcobbola is trying to assume translation difficulties are responsible for that "unfortunate" term, it appears the word has exactly the same meaning in Portuguese and so is a en:double entendre of the most offensive kind. One could not use that word in English without generating schoolboy sniggers, and unless a native Portuguese speaker can correct my dictionary lookup, I suspect it generates the same there too. I agree with Nick that it is worth waiting to see if his request for a retraction is met, however I do not support retaining talk page access if it is not. While Elcobbola argues this may merely be giving him en:WP:ROPE, it is also a public venue for him to continue to abuse me and others. I see no reason why Nick cannot conduct his remedial work off-wiki. -- Colin (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Not to try to get into dissecting Tuvalkin's statement, but it makes far more sense if you consider it as the 'grammatical' meaning of the word 'ejaculation'.... it's rather nonsensical the other way. It was still, however, clearly an insult, and that he would use his talk page access to make the statement while blocked is not promising. Reventtalk 21:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Revent, I think you've rather missed the point of a double entendre: "Typically one of the meanings is obvious, given the context whereas the other may require more thought. The innuendo may convey a message that would be socially awkward, sexually suggestive or offensive to state directly...A person who is unfamiliar with the hidden or alternative meaning of a sentence may fail to detect its innuendos." -- Colin (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@Colin: I know what the term means... it's just not particularly sensible, IMO, if taken that way. Irrelevant, really, since it was an insult either way, but typically in a double entendre the 'less obvious' meaning is the sexual one. Reventtalk 22:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@Colin: You are completly wrong about your statement that the portuguese ejaculação or ejaculation is a "en:double entendre of the most offensive kind". This word is never used in portuguese as an insult even if it has a [[:en:double entendre]. Try the portuguese expression "ejaculação mental", if you can understand portuguese, to understand what i mean. Tm (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Tm, it isn't used "as an insult" in English either. But in both languages it has the same two (or more) meanings, one of which is sexual. It's a perfectly fine medical term, but when utterly surrounded by insulting adjectives and comments, I'm not in any doubt, and have a hard time accepting that this rare word is the only non-offensive word in the sentence. -- Colin (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@Colin: Your getting around the issue. You said that the word ejaculation, in the context of the phrase above, "it appears the word has exactly the same meaning in Portuguese and so is a en:double entendre of the most offensive kind", yet "unless a native Portuguese speaker can correct my dictionary lookup". If still dont know i´am a native speaker of portuguese as i´am, as Tuvalkin, Portuguese, so thats the reason i´am correcting you as you asked.
As i said the word ejaculation in that context does not have a sexual inuendo when used in a portuguese text. Portuguese can be a very tricky language on its layers, contexts and subtleties. For example what in english would be usually a gross isult like m*th*rf*ck*er, in Portugal depending of contexts can be the greatest compliment or the greatest insult.
The word ejaculation, if you use a good portuguese dictionary of proferir or utter\pronounce or an acto de expelir abundantemente (ex.: ejaculação discursiva) or "act of expel abundantly (ex .: discoursive ejaculation)."=discursive blabbering. So, as you can see this word was not used as an sexual insult but a categorization of someone (stated to be a poser) using verbal blabbering to attack («harass and intimidate») other users. Let me state this again to you as i said a few months ago, Tuvalkin i and I are not in good terms, as we had previous clashes, but in all fairness his language can be harsh but he never has intentions to insult in our exchanges and, frankly, i prefer his harsh but straight, honest and to the point that other users that pretend to have concerns with other users behaviours or administrators do not follow Commons policies and when called to reason try to sweep said warning to under the rug. Tm (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Tm, the whole point of a double-entendre is that the word in that context has a perfectly innocent meaning, and if challenged, the writer can point to that meaning and claim innocence. It's the same in English: the word means a verbal outburst. But as your Portuguese dictionary shows, it also has the common alternative meaning, which unless one is discussing biology or porn, would be an offensive way of describing someone's contributions to Commons. English also has "layers, context and subtleties" and words that can be both friendly or insulting, such as "bastard", but I'm quite sure the word you cite could not be used in polite society, professional business, or against someone you are in angry dispute with, without the greatest offence being taken. It is one thing to use cuss words to ones mates in a jocular fashion. I'm afraid "he never has intentions to insult" is rather unbelievable given the abundant evidence, both in the other words in that sentence, in the paragraph that Slaunger quotes, and indeed, in the situation that got him this block in the first place. I am in agreement you that harsh honest language is acceptable at times and people whose sole complaint is that someone used an angry tone or bad word when upset are falling for big fallacy that says much about them. And I remind you of COM:AGF policy which requires to "avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence", and this is not what Tuvalkin is doing: no diffs, no specifics, no quotes, just general bad faith. -- Colin (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I can confirm the retraction was undertaken [8]. Nick (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, now that Slaunger threatens an indef block, Tuvalkin has blacked-out part of his talk page. Well, who wouldn't, if facing an indef block. Seems to me the most grudging possible "redaction", as the text is all still there. Black insults on a black background. Anyone reading the page only has to select the text and all is revealed. Really, Nick, Tuvalkin is just going through the motions. I'm not impressed. So I concur with Slaunger, A.Savin, that enough is enough. An indefinite block is not permanent, but it is up to Tuvalkin to demonstrate he has changed, not merely that he's capable of grudging responding to threats of longer blocks, and being spoon-fed by Nick as to what he should do and say. -- Colin (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I did ask Tuvalkin to redact the comments prior to the threat of an indefinite block hanging over their head/account, and I have to accept some blame regarding the redaction method - I neglected to explain how to redact comments (which is why I left a comment about the use of the {{redacted}} template). I don't know if their method of redacting an unacceptable comment is a sneaky way to retain the personal attack, or can be attributed purely to inexperience at redacting a comment, perhaps someone remembers if Tuvalkin has made a redaction previously and the method the used ? Nick (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but he only did so after Slaunger's indef block threat. Nick, come on, Tuvlakin has 200,000 edits according to Elcobbola, I don't think he needs to be spoon fed about how to do a retraction or is "inexperienced". You are making excuses for him. And what would Tuvalkin's previous "redaction"s tell you, other than that he tried the same game before. It is about as convincing a redaction as collapsing the page with the expand-text "Open here for a good laugh". -- Colin (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Tuvalkin claims not to have known about the {{redacted}} template - I'm trying to ascertain if that's the case, and to understand the circumstances any previous retractions have been carried out. Is he prone to rapid removal of comments only when threatened with administrative action, or are they likely to be co-operative and redact comments when issues are raised, for example. Nick (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
In all fairness, it should be noted though, that Tuvalkin also striked the text, so if you mark the black text, it is striked. Making it black and striked is for me almost the same as making the text grey and striked as the {{redacted}} template does. At least close enough for me, and I did not know of the redacted template myself, although I have been around for 9 years here. Whether the redaction is sincere or not is for me uncertain. I cannot read Tuvalkins mind. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'm prepared to accept the redaction was clumsy rather than, to use Nick's phrase, "a sneaky way to retain the personal attack". A lot of talk of AGF recently and I'll admit the evidence of a deliberate not-really-a-retraction is weak and so, well, I'm glad it is gone now. Thank you Tuvalkin and Nick for that positive step. There is still no evidence of any change of heart in the recent statements he's made on his talk page, and if "there are further comments of this nature" would result in Nick also supporting an indefinite block. -- Colin (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now, considering the progress (redaction in his/her talk). Let us give another chance. Jee 04:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I don't see enough reason for an indef block and I don't think it's the best way to resolve this issue. Wikicology (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Tuvalkin and Nick's recent positive actions. Hope this will not happen again and let's move on. -- Poké95 12:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose AGF allows for commonsense. Double entendres on a user's talk page are not grounds for making indef blocks, especially in the context of the same thread, we see the blocking admin using the f-word and we correctly accept their apology. Less drama please, and if someone wishes to make assertions about another volunteer, let's just stick to asking concisely for admin action, listing the diffs required to prove that administrator action is necessary and give them a trout slap and collapse any tangential discussion if allegations are made and unproven or based on he said/she said arguments. -- (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose AGF and agree with Fæ, Pokéfan95, Wikicology, Jee wrote above and Stemnock wrote below. Message placed above Stemnoc's to stay out of the subsequent thread. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose AGF and agree with Fæ, Pokéfan95, Wikicology, Jee wrote above and Stemoc wrote below. Message placed above Stemnoc's to stay out of the subsequent thread. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Meh, just Colin playing "I'm a victim, save me, save me" card for the umpteenth time.. nothing to see here, move along..--Stemoc 14:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You do realise, Stemoc, that the top-level section was created by me because Tuvalkin used mental illness to insult Jcb with . And this subsection was created by Slaunger when Tuvalkin responded to his block with more offensive insults to me. And Tuvalkin would likely have been indef blocked last night if he hadn't finally redacted his insults. Both, complaints per DefendEachOther, not as you describe and not "nothing". But then, why let the facts in the way of being nasty to me when the opportunity arises. -- Colin (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Well if you did not do this every so often, people would actually take you seriously, If Tuvalkin insulted Jcb, how is that your business? If Jcb was offended, he should have told Tuvalkin to apologize or redact his comments, who are you to get involved in this? Are you an admin? an elected police officer on commons? I don't think any admin would have indeffed Tuvalkin for his comments. It was OK and it would have been dealt with in a professional way but you had to exasperate the situation further by goading Tuvalkin which led to his block..I don't like talking to you because I think you enjoy the attention.... an advice though, as it is with life, You should learn to mind your own business and not try to add salt to the wound...as the saying goes on enwiki "drop the stick and walk away", Tuvalkin has been blocked hours ago, what more do you want?--Stemoc 15:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
It is quite obvious you did not read/understand the link I gave. Tuvalkin was blocked solely and totally on the words he said to Jcb before I even began commenting on the matter. I did not "goad" him into insulting Jcb. Stemoc, you need to get familiar with the facts, and stick to the topic, rather than just using the opportunity to mock me. -- Colin (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Stemoc, your comment here and here are full of errors and so self-humiliating. Jee 15:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Aww cute, A Tag team..shame, I prefer to work alone...You can't really use the same trick twice on me but thanks for trying and proving my point....toodles..--Stemoc 15:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I believe my proposal to indef block Tuvalkin is moot since they have redacted the comments I complained about. I opened the section stating I think we should use indef blocks more, and maintain the block until the blocked user appeared to have acknowledged the problem, and indicate it would not happen again. Tuvalkin has indeed done so now on his talk page. Some are concerned that it is not sincere, personally I am in doubt, but in accordance with AGF I think the block should be lifted now since what lead to the blocking has been acknowledged by Tuvalkin as not acceptable. I do not see any particular point in maintaining it for two weeks now. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, even though it's useless and too late... --A.Savin 19:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Tomthegg (talk · contribs)[edit]

User has received a last warning for copyright violations on , yet continues to illegitimately upload works without permission. Latest copyright violation was File:Carmella render.png, uploaded on . Previous copyright violation was on . No legitimate uploads from this account at all. 80.221.159.67 02:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the acct for 3 months. If there were more than 12 uploads, I would've indeffed him as a copyvio-only account. He'll likely end up indeffed anyways, but we'll give him one more shot. INeverCry 03:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)