User talk:Clevermercury

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Clevermercury!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Turgut Reis

The image you are uploading it`s worst. Don`t try to upload it once again or I will notice this problem to an administrator. Alonso de Mendoza (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Please, read carefully COM:OVERWRITE. If you feel a "better" version of a painting must be available in Commons, feel free to do it as a new file instead of overwriting existing files. Thank you for your understanding --Discasto _talk 15:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on the quality of either your proposal or the existing one. However, COM:OVERWRITE suggest the way forward: to upload any new version as a new file. As it seems as if you haven't read the official guideline I've pointed at, I've requested an administrator to explain it to you. Best regards --Discasto _talk 16:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I think COM:OVERWRITE applies. I've reverted to the original version (correcting my earlier mistaken reversion) and have protected that version. The other version if it satisfies COM:CB may be uploaded to a new file name. Please use the "|other_versions" field of the Information template to link the two file pages. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Portrait of Dragut - The Drawn Sword of Islam.jpg

File:Portrait of Dragut - The Drawn Sword of Islam.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet [False Accusation]

At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portrait of Dragut - The Drawn Sword of Islam.jpg you admit that you and User:Cdfi are the same person. Using two different account to make comments on the same DR is ballot stuffing and is a very serious violation of Commons rules. I am going to permanently block one of the two accounts. Routinely that would be this one, since the other is older. However, I will give you 24 hours to decide which one you want to keep. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no sock puppeting, I only voted once between the two accounts, and I have declared that they are both me. You have accused me of ballot stuffing with absolutely no evidence. Neither of my accounts is eligible for deletion. I created one account via wikipedia and one via wikimedia commons, I wasn't aware one account could access both. In any case do not delete either of my accounts. Thank you. --Clevermercury (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward I notice you are the same "other administrator" as mentioned by Ellin Beltz pinged to supposedly assist with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Portrait_of_Dragut_-_The_Drawn_Sword_of_Islam.jpg . I've found this article very interesting to read please share your thoughts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tag_team#Tag_team_versus_consensus-based_editing --Clevermercury (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Both you and Jim are falsely accusing each other; you must stop these bad faith accusations. Jim, Clevermercury publicly declared in the DR and their userpage that Cdfi is their alternate account, so Clevermercury and Cdfi commenting at the same time at the same discussion with their connection to each other declared publicly would not be considered as ballot stuffing. As Clevermercury said above also, they only used one account to vote in the discussion. What if one trusted user has an alternate account which is created for security purposes (like avoiding being hacked while in a public network) and publicly declared. In this situation, they used both accounts to comment in an undeletion request but only used one account for voting. Would that be considered ballot stuffing? Of course not, and I would prefer to edit using my alternate account while in a public network instead of risking my main account. As a bureaucrat, you should have thought twice first before going to such accusations.

Clevermercury, please assume good faith toward others. Probably you didn't read en:Wikipedia:Tag team#Accusations of tag teaming. A bad faith accusation against another bad faith accusation will just make things worse. I think that Ellin Beltz pinged Jim since Jim is a bureaucrat, which means they have more experience than most of the admins here. I would also like to note that bureaucrats are more neutral and impartial than admins, so it is better for a crat to close the DR you mentioned than an admin which Jim did. Ellin also asked only for a second opinion, not to agree with him/her.

Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 07:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Policy states clearly that DRs are not votes, so there is no such thing as voting in a DR. Expressing an opinion using two different accounts in the same DR gives the impression of more support for that side of the argument. While the closing of the subject DR was obvious, we close many DRs whereToO and de minimis issues are subjective and the closing Admin will usually weigh the opinions on both sides and close accordingly. In doing so, a smart Admin does not count  Delete and  Keep tags, because some users don't use them -- he or she counts up the users on each side of the issue. Hence our strong rule against sockpuppetry. The fact that this user has disclosed the fact that he uses two accounts is good, but not sufficient if he cannot keep track of them and use only one at a time. It is entirely unreasonable to expect every Admin to know and remember that CDFI and Clevermercury are the same account.

As for the accusation of tag team editing, both Ellin and I are very experienced Administrators as well as having been trusted with the role of Bureaucrat. As you gather experience on Commons, you will find that Admins often ask for the opinion of other Admins, particularly of colleagues that have experience in a particular field. You will often find that the target of such requests is a colleague who has a different take on things. For example, I often ask for Yann's opinion, despite the fact that he and I frequently disagree. I do this to ensure that we have a spectrum of opinion on the subject at hand.

On top of that, you said:

"I will be seeking administrator intervention should things continue to escalate needlessly",

and Eileen, being an Admin herself, responded by pinging me. You can't have it both ways -- threatening to seek out another Administrator and then complaining when Eileen did it for you.

Since it is clear that you cannot keep the two accounts separate and use only the Clevermercury account on Commons, I see no reason not to block the CDFI account here. That will have no effect on using it on other WMF projects. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

One last time, please read the guidelines on sock puppets, nothing I have done is against the rules, continue attacking at your own peril. I would also appreciate if both (Jameslwoodward) and Ellin Beltz would leave me alone - I feel harassed and want this witch-hunt to end immediately. Isn't there another part of wikipedia you can harangue newcomers on? Leave me alone. --Clevermercury (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words Pokéfan95. --Clevermercury (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I have been a Checkuser for five years, so I am thoroughly familiar with sockpuppet policy on Commons. Commenting on a DR using two different accounts is a serious violation of policy. You have done it twice, at

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pycckhcoz and at
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portrait of Dragut - The Drawn Sword of Islam.jpg

That is a clear violation of the rules and ordinarily would warrant blocking both accounts indefinitely. I am proposing to block only the one account which you say that you do not use here. I'll do that in order to prevent you from making the same mistake again. Since you have no valid reason for using two accounts on Commons, that is entirely within policy.

No, your logic is garbage and flies in the face of official sock puppet policy. Nothing I have done meets the definition of terms of service violation. I have a total of two accounts, one registered via wikipedia, one registered via wikimedia - they are linked to each other on their profile pages and have never attempted to hide the fact that they are both me, in fact I declared it openly. Again, isn't there a better use of your time than haranguing newcomers to wikipedia? Next let's start a vote as to whether your administrator privileges should be revoked for harassing newcomers. --Clevermercury (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Please note that your other account here is User:Cdfi, not User:CDFI. Caps and lower case are not the same in WMF page names. You should change the disclosure on User:Clevermercury accordingly.

I was not aware usernames were case sensitive, I have updated the links to reflect that fact. --Clevermercury (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Finally, although I cannot prove it, I note that for a user with a total of fewer than 140 edits on all WMF projects, you use our jargon and tools very easily and well. I would not be at all surprised if you have a history on WMF that you have not disclosed. That's fine -- nothing requires you to disclose any past history -- but since you started out here breaking one of our most fundamental rules, I suggest you take more care in the future. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward What a pathetic and desperate ad-hominem. There is your evidence of harassment right there. You can't find a legitimate way to close my account so you resort to accusing me of "faking being new"? A sad retort indeed. You clearly do not deserve administrator privileges. Get off my talk page, neither you nor Ellin are welcome here as you are gang stalkers, though of course you already knew that. --Clevermercury (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Warning

Hi, Stop posting on various admin boards. I agree totally with Jim here. This is the last warning before a block. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Yann - pardon? You certainly do not have the right, by any stretch of the imagination, to force me to "stop posting on various admin boards". As long as I am being mistreated I will continue to do so seeking help, your demand notwithstanding.

Caps for emphasis: I HAVE NOT VIOLATED TERMS OF SERVICE MY ACCOUNTS ARE DECLARED AND LINKED AS PER ACCEPTABLE SOCK PUPPET POLICY USAGE, YOUR CONTINUED DOGPILE AND/OR WITCH HUNTS AGAINST ME ARE UNJUSTIFIABLE AND CONSTITUTE VIOLATIONS IN AND OF THEMSELVES. THIS IS TARGETED HARASSMENT LEAVE ME IN PEACE. Cdfi (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked

You have been blocked from editing Commons for for one week. The reason for the block is for continuing to post inappropriate messages after being warned. (block log). If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Please take the week to settle down. This would be silly if it weren't a nuisance. You have twice (three times?) written a note on the Administrators' noticeboard asking to be defended from the entirely appropriate actions of three of the most experienced Administrators. Yann is also the longest serving one. Between us we have well over a million actions on Commons and we thoroughly understand the rules which you have broken. You may rant here on your own user page, but the next time you create similar nuisance edits elsewhere, the block will be much longer..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward How many edits you have is not relevant to your targeted attack and harassment of me for no valid reason. I'm glad you've taken the step to block my account because now you've revealed your unwillingness to listen to reason and accept the fact that I have complied with ALL sock puppet rules. I am entitled to post on administrator message board for incidents asking for help and your block of my account and posting privileges can only be seen as retaliation and an attempt to silence me before you get found out. Yourself and your friends (all of which referred to each other by name before each of you had posted, clearly in collusion and not a random sampling of admins) have blocked my first account indefinitely (absolutely not acceptable) and my second (declared) account for more than a week so that I am unable to call for help? You have written here that it is for intimidation and harassment - are we living on the same planet??? How can I be intimidating YOU on my own talk page???? You are harassing me!!!!! The more you assault and abuse your authority (including your accusation that I was 'faking being new') the clearer it becomes that you have each abused your administrator privileges and I intend to ensure there is a review of your admin rights as a result of this exchange. --Clevermercury (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: What a bad block with a false rationale. You claimed here that the blocked user "continued to post inappropriate messages after being warned". Yann warned Clevermercury after Clevermercury posted an "inappropriate" thread at COM:AN. After Yann's warning, the blocked user no longer posted a thread on any administrator noticeboard. Either you withdraw your claim here, or provide me strong evidence that the said user continued doing so after being warned. For the "intimidation/harassment" block reason, I don't see anything intimidating or harassment here by the blocked user, but that's my opinion. Furthermore, despite your explanation regarding the sockpuppet issue, I still disagree with you, still with the same reason. Yes, the "sock" name is not similar to "Clevermercury", but Clevermercury declared that the Cdfi account is theirs at their userpage. However, Clevermercury has also a fault here honestly, since they didn't either redirected the Cdfi userpage to Clevermercury's or provided a declaration at the Cdfi userpage. Still, I don't believe that it is not the intention of Clevermercury to confuse anyone, and they acted in good faith on commenting on the said DR using both accounts. I would also like to note that Commons don't have a policy regarding sockpuppetry (I think we should have one now), you may be referring to the sockpuppetry policy on the English Wikipedia. Finally, why is email disabled? Did the blocked user abused Special:EmailUser? Email should only be disabled when the blocked user abused it, per standard practice.

I trusted you Jim, since you are great in handling undeletion requests and complex copyright cases, but from what I am seeing here, I think I should reduce a little trust on you. Ignore this Ialready have little trust on Yann for the record (Yann seems to have a liking on that "for the record" phrase :)). Sad, but I must accept it. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 01:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward, we both proved we are human here. Humans make mistakes. You are correct that I misread the timing of the last rant on ANB. However, you are wrong about the misuse of two accounts. This user used the two different accounts to edit the two DRs without having disclosed it on March 13 and 14 and did not create the user page with the disclosure until March 19, after being called on the rule violation. Even now, he has disclosed it only on one of the two pages.

If he had simply said, "Oops, I'm sorry, I broke the rules", that could have been the end of it, but he has chosen to treat this as some sort of vendetta by Ellin, Yann, Taivo, and me and has repeatedly lied about the timing of the disclosure. He has created a great deal of drama and made no useful contributions. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward, Jameslwoodward, and Taivo: Just for the record. On March 14th, I asked Clevermercury and he duly admitted that both accounts were his. So, yes, he made comments with two accounts but never intended to deny it. --Discasto _talk 21:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

That's understood -- I acknowledged it above "This user used the two different accounts to edit the two DRs without having disclosed it on March 13 and 14 and did not create the user page with the disclosure until March 19, after being called on the rule violation". I might have added "by Dicasto" there, but chose to keep you out of the fray. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I admit you are correct that they could have stopped treating this as a sort of vandetta by "Jim et al." so that we won't have to argue over this. I am still uncomfortable saying that this user engaged in sockpuppetry, which is a bad faith action, but I am not gonna argue anymore over that, since it will create more drama. What I could advise to Clevermercury is to take a deep breath and calm down, apologize to the admins they accused of tag teaming, and find something that they can help in Commons (like reducing the backlog, photographing things and dealing with vandalism). Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 07:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

That's excellent advice, thank you. I sincerely hope that Clevermercury takes it. As late as yesterday he or she was creating drama on WP:EN. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Heh, I'm sure sister enwiki would handle it considering that there are a lot of drama happening there. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "Reasoning below on talk page under "Wrongfully and Maliciously Blocked"" Decline reason: "You edited two deletion requests without disclosing, that you have two accounts. You claimed, that you disclosed it, but this was not true. Cdfi has no userpage at all and Clevermercury had no userpage, when you commented the DRs (on 14th and 15th of March, but userpage of Clevermercury was created on 19th of March). It's bad, that you abused multiple accounts, but it's even worse, that you lied, that you disclosed your two accounts, when you actually didn't. In addition, you wrongfully accused some of our most respected administrators for their justified actions. You were blocked for only one week and this is maybe even too short time. If you continue accusing them, then indefinite block is not far. Taivo (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

2nd request

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "This is well out of hand; I never "lied", and you User:Taivo, accusing me of such and completely ignoring everything else I wrote down below under "Wrongfully and maliciously Blocked" is not only unprofessional, but constitutes abuse of your position of trust as an administrator and is a black mark on this community. You are pushing a narrative that fits your agenda for some reason unknown to me, as there is NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT I "LIED". By the way I was blocked for "INTIMIDATION and HARASSMENT" so why have you DECLINED my unblock request based on me having two accounts (WHICH I HAVE ALREADY DECLARED)????" Decline reason: "Nothing to add to the above rant. I agree fully other admins here. Talk page also blocked. Take this time to calm down and to read (again) Commons policies. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

Wrongfully and Maliciously Blocked

I have been blocked for alleged harassment / intimidation, when the exact opposite has taken place. Jameslwoodward and his friends have gang stalked me with the intention to force my two accounts into closure. As for my two accounts: one was registered on wikipedia "Cdfi" and one registered on Wikimedia commons "Clevermercury", being brand new to wiki sites, I didn't realize wikipedia accounts could access wikimedia and vice versa - so I registered two. Regardless, I own and operate two accounts and, as per the official wikipedia sock puppet policy, I declared and linked both accounts to each other through their user pages and was not in violation of any terms of service. I was wrongly accused of "ballot stuffing" by User:Jameslwoodward who was called in by User:Ellin Bettz. Ellin Bettz and I have a short history of friction over edits relating to two versions of a wikimedia commons media file depicting the Ottoman Admiral Dragut. The file which I uploaded was recommended for deletion by Ellin Bettz for supposedly being "copyrighted" however the other file (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragut#/media/File:Turgut_Reis_Admiral.JPG) which is also supposedly copyrighted... has still not been deleted, why? Ellin even posted on my Cdfi talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cdfi that "it's likely that the one you don't like will be the one which remains." - who said anything about liking or not liking? And why is this person the one to decide that ahead of time? Why has this editor made it a personal matter? My revert on the wikipedia article for Dragut was to maintain the status quo when the underlying commons image had been reverted to a qualitatively different version. It's already documented for anybody with the time to read it through. As I have explained previously, in the thread I was accused of ballot stuffing on, I voted only once and declared that both accounts are mine in that very same thread - which can be found here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Portrait_of_Dragut_-_The_Drawn_Sword_of_Islam.jpg . Others have agreed that I have been falsely accused ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pok%C3%A9fan95 on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Clevermercury). Jameslwoodward then accused me of having an undisclosed history on wikipedia on my talk page (complete fabrication with no evidence other than "I use the jargon and tools well") and despite being given all reasonable explanation as to how and why I had two accounts, and how I was PROTECTED by the sock puppet policy, he pushed ahead anyway and banned my account. Moreover, my other account has also been banned by User:Yann who was terse and attempted to intimidate me away from posting on the administrator notice board for incidents here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Clevermercury - here is the post that angered him enough to ban me: (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=237869384#Haranguing_Newcomers:_Welcome_to_Wikimedia). After I had posted on the administrator notice board for incidents asking for help, I found my account blocked for "harassment / intimidation", simply for calling administrator attention to my talk page, which was the scene of a grisly and unwarranted gang-attack against me. I don't know or care how long any of you have been administrators / bureaucrats / etc, what I know is that this is an open platform and not your own personal bullypen. All I have done since I signed up earlier this year was to improve the wikipedia pages I have edited.. please take a look at my edits. Everything I have done was in good faith and it is NOT wrong of me to interpret this coordinated attack as tag-teaming, because that is what it is. I would like an administrator/bureaucrat who does not know Yann / Jameslwoodward / Ellin Bettz to please look at the entire history of interactions between myself and these three individuals, you will see my treatment has not been inline with administrator code of conduct and deserves an inquiry into abuse of authority and how you treat people new to this site. Thank you, Cdfi/Clevermercury" --Clevermercury (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)