Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU

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 section] 		User problems
[new section] 		Blocks and protections
[new section] 		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 at COM:HMS.

Archives
23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
117, 116, 115, 114, 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
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
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
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

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.


Behaviour of User:Medium69

I have been preparing a re-submission of three undecided VI candidates. The process, as I understand it, is to remove the previous 'undecided' text and update the date. My edit, before it has even been re-submitted, has been reverted as copied below and I have been accused of vandalism. Other editors may be aware that Medium69 has said (in French) he cannot stand me, but he should not accuse me of vandalism. This editor is upset because I oppose nearly all his wildlife QI nominations. I do this because I genuinely believe they are not QI quality and am happy to have a third opinion from any wildlife photography specialist. I also oppose some of his VI nominations where I believe the scope is not worthy of a VI (animals in a specific zoo for instance). William opposes many of my VI nominations on spurious grounds (a few are fair opposes) as he does not seem to understand that live specimens have different scopes from museum specimens and that sub-species can have their own scope. Are there any sanctions that can be imposed, please, to moderate this editor's behaviour? Charles (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of three File:Female Galápagos medium ground finch.jpg Latest revision as of 12:20, 30 November 2015 (edit) (undo) (thank) Medium69 (talk | contribs) m (Undo revision 180638822 by Charlesjsharp (talk) This is vandalism ...)

  • I denounced your vandalism of several votes completed or in progress ... So find my own acts of vandalism? I can not stand you, certainly, but I remain impartial unlike you. Juste read this! There is a procedure to rename an image ... and it is certainly not by erasing a previous vote is vandalism. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 12:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I realise you do not have a good command of English, William. I did not accuse you of 'acts of vandalism'. I have been accused of vandalism by you (see above) which is a serious accusation. Also, you are not impartial. You close my nominations earlier than you close anyone else's. Legally for sure, but not impartial. Charles (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It takes little for everyone to understand. It is true that User: Medium69 closes the images quickly, sometimes even when the discussion is ongoing. But it has the right he made no mistake. Charles took a bit too many pictures in competition. He understood and corrected this. Many undecided images can be replaced. But for that we must respect the process and wait until the vote is closed to restore the image in competition with the incumbent. He was wrong by changing the dates of the current appointment which is not allowed. I think he will easily understand this point. There are blunders but not vandalism. We would do so many useful things if all trying to take a step towards each other. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I waited 'until the vote is closed to restore the image in competition' i.e. to resubmit. I did not change the date of the current nomination. Here is the renomination process:

Step 1: Edit the candidate subpage you intend to renominate. All declined and undecided VICs are placed in either Category:Declined valued image candidates, or Category:Undecided valued image candidates and sorted by the date of the previous nomination. Step 2: Replace the previous nomination date and time by pasting in. On one of the images file:Fridericus spreadwing (Ouleus fridericus).JPG where I solely changed the date, and William reverted it, I had never even nominated it! What is his justification for doing that? This is the process I have followed. Please tell me where I blundered. Charles (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He missed very little: recover the image at the bottom of the list, and report the results of the previous vote. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I moved this debate where it should be. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 23:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The behavior of Medium69 has deteriorated further and he is disrupting the VI nomination process with a vendetta against me based on either a lack of knowledge or wilful behavior. Please check out his opposes on the VI candidate page. Please also feel free to analyse my opposes of any of his nominations. I would be very grateful for a third party to intervene please. Charles (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hoped that someone would help resolve the issue of User: Medium69's behaviour on this Administrators' noticeboard - which is where he moved it from the Valued Imaged Candidates discussion page. If this is not going to happen, would someone be kind enough to explain how I can escalate this issue so that someone examines the facts and can form an opinion. Medium69's unreasonable opposes of my VI candidates can be examined on Commons:Valued image candidates and on Category:Undecided valued image candidates Charles (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You do not seem to understand ... The goal is not to remove judges who oppose you arguing, but having valuable pictures that are really valuable pictures .. . And it is no use asking others to vote. For 10 years I've Commons, you are the first who dares to ask the judges of the note (understood positively)! --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 01:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
William, it does not appear that anyone else in the Commons community is interested in intervening in our dispute. I assume they consider it too trivial. In an attempt to resolve this waste of time for both of us, I intend to stop making any edits on your VI, FP, VI submissions or on any other submissions where you have made comments or voted. Charles (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, That's a sensible thing to do, and I ask Medium69 to do the same. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I do not waste time to participate in the VI projects, QI and FP. As nothing compels me to vote or abstain, so I continue my participation in these three projects. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 01:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Medium69: Yann is right, I think you should do the same and ignore Charles' submissions for a while. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More bulk category changes (truck -> automobile) and socking

See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_55#94.3.164.161_and_bulk_category_changes (just over a week ago). Now back as 5.69.17.191 (talk · contribs) (same ISP) and the same edits. No discussion when asked. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User keeps deleting other users' comments.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Louvre_Museum_Inverted_pyramid_01.JPG&action=history shows an involved user has, four times, removed other users attempts to re-open a deletion discussion, AND the four edits that are marked minor AND have no edit summary. As I understand it, our deletion policies do require this be deleted. The pyramid has been used as an example in our discussions of FOP - noting that it cannot be included unless de minimis. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Louvre_Pyramid-related_deletion_requests shows 80% of discussion result in a delete. I see this behavior as inappropriate. --Elvey (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Denniss: Can you explain to us why you keep removing the second deletion request? Everyone has a right to nominate a file for deletion. If you disagree, then vote for keep and explain, not removing it. Thank you. ★ Poké95 00:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No new arguments have been brought up + there's nothing copyrightable in this image thus I will close it as keep some time next week. --Denniss (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My unsolved problem!

Hi. I uploaded many valuable free images from a website. But there is a freaky text in their exif data! An user suspect the pictures and wants delete them. I opened a topic in the village pump, but nobody didn't find an answer! If I can't find a reasonable answer, one of you will delete my recent uploads from . Please help to save the pictures by finding an answer for the question. Thank you.Saman-1984 (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since all of the DRs revolve around the same anomalous Michale Nagle copyright notice in the Exif, I've left a note on each of the related DRs asking that discussion take place on the first of the DRs (namely Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sukhoi Su-25 belong to AFAGIR (2).jpg). I also added a note to that DR pointing to the earlier discussion of the Exif at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#weird_EXIF_data.21 and the related earlier discussion regarding ypa.ir's CC-BY license at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iranian Velayat-90 Naval Exercise by IRIN (4).jpg (which was kept).

If possible, I'd encourage you to contact ypa.ir to see if they can offer an explanation for the Exif metadata in the photos from their site. —RP88 (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @RP88: . I will try. I hope they have a good answer.Saman-1984 (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed topic ban for User:Fæ

User:Fæ has a long track record for claiming anti-LGBT-bias in others, using it as a weapon against users with whom he is in dispute. Despite some evidence that he had accepted his past behaviour on this wasn't acceptable, he has returned to form. I have been subject to this harassment for two years (note: I'm not using that word in the legal/criminal sense) and will be making a complaint to WMF.

As a liberal-minded Guardian-reading user, I believe anyone on Commons should be free to state their beliefs, gender, sexuality, age, race, etc. These things are irrelevant to our participation here and nobody should be abused because of them or seek some gain because of them. Whenever we are asked to make judgements (deletions, appointments to admin, reviewing quality images, etc) these aspects of ourselves (no matter how important they are to us) should play no part.

Fae's harassment of me has been going for two years now.

  • November 2013. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kelvin and Aren.jpg. This clearly gay art nude (NSFW) was posted to Featured Picture candidates. Several users opposed since it is obviously technically flawed (bad focus). I replaced the 5"/5" preview image with a placeholder since it made the whole of FPC NSFW. Fae objected both to this "censorship" but also to the (quite normal) marking by others of the image as a "no hoper" (FPX) that would quickly be removed from FPC. On the FPC page you can see how Fae turns this into a LGBT issue. He clearly accuses me and others of anti-LGBT bias. "[non-gay works] I doubt would be suppressed due to arbitrary claims of being NSFW"..."I would be interested to know if if alternative gay related photographs published on Commons under Category:Files from Sasha Kargaltsev Flickr stream that feature nude or semi-nude gay men would also be subject to censorship if I nominate them here".
  • I post to Fae's talk page a friendly note about the use of a blank placeholder at FPC. Fae complains of censorship and anti-gay bias. He makes a clear threat: "you might have been better off not suppressing an obviously gay artistic image proposed by someone as openly gay as me". Further rants accusing me of acting like an opressive government: "If we are in the position that explicit homoerotic artworks such as the Warren Cup can be put on public display by the British Museum, in full view of children ... yet on Commons any gay related nudity would be censored, then the Commons starts to look more oppressive than most governments."
  • In a discussion on FPC talk, Fae once again accuses me: "Colin's unsupported action in censoring an LGBT artwork"..."We now know that this one incident of censorship in the years that FP has been running on Commons has only ever occurred on this image, and it "just happens" to be an obviously gay image by a gay artist." Fae plays the victim now "I find this evidence disturbing, and I hope the majority of the Commons community is equally disturbed by this action of suppression of a gay artwork...with repeated attempts to blame me in various ways for having the temerity to object to censorship". 'crat User:Dschwen replies "Uh.. what? Are you trying to pull the "homophobe card" here? Per Occams razor I'd say it is pretty clear that this image would qualify as NSFW because the guy has his freaking dick out for god's sake! I fail to see how the LGBT aspect is even remotely relevant in this matter" Further playing the victim "This sort of treatment is what puts off our editors from being openly gay on our projects or raising concerns when they have legitimate questions about bias on our projects"
  • What developed from that discussion was an opt-in NSFW tag that could be used at FPC by those people who wanted to use it. This was overwhelmingly supported at FPC. It has been used since then on a number of occasions without problem. The template that enables the facility was discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Nsfw and got wide support.
  • Fae goes to the Village Pump Commons:Village pump/Archive/2013/11#How LGBT friendly is Commons' featured pictures process? to accuse all at FPC of anti-LGBT bias. Fae believes we should have "greater than 20 or 50 [Featured Pictures] to be LGBT related". The statistical incompetence on display in that discussion is breathtaking, but just adds further that Fae's judgement in this area is extremely poor. He sees bias, and accuses others of bias, where there is none.
  • Last month Fae attempted: to accuse me of attacking him with anti-LGBT language. He fails to mention the text is in quotes and is an example of unacceptable language, not language I myself used. The whole point of my comment at VP was that attacking and dismissing users for being Wikipedians (and making nasty remarks about them) should be no more acceptable than attacking users for being gay (and making nasty remarks about them). I accept I was clumsy in the way I worded it, and I apologised to Fae for that, but the reaction is unacceptable. Fae did not accept the apology.
  • On User talk:Fæ he accuses me of using homophobic language and claims it is "easy to understand" why I did that: "You (not me) deliberately injected the abusive use of anti-LGBT language into a discussion that had nothing to do with LGBT issues. It is easy to understand why you did that in response to an openly gay contributor. As a founder of Wikimedia-LGBT+, I will not gloss over the use of homophobic language by others, as well you know.".
  • I formally warn Fae that if he continues unfounded allegations of homophobia then I'll regard that as harassment and take it higher.
  • Now today at the Commons:Village pump, Fae attacks Jee: "I have not mentioned LGBT rights here, neither does the web application. You appear to be attacking me as you know I am a founder of Wikimedia LGBT+, rather than sticking to the facts. Don't do that, it is harassment and it is highly inappropriate.". This is absolutely typical. Nobody can read what Jee wrote before and think anything remarkable about it. Yet Fae turns it into a claimed LGBT attack and harassment.
  • When I close the discussion (which is about WMF job application for goodness sake, not Commons at all) Fae and others continue bickering. A closed discussion should have nothing further added. Fae objects to his text (added after it was closed) being removed he reverts and leaves a message on my talk about ‎Reverting an LGBT related objection. He threatens me with further LGBT harassment: " where I will be only too happy to join the dots to my LGBT related complaint about you"'.
  • Fae's lengthy block and then topic ban on Wikipedia (in images/BLPs related to sexuality) are further evidence that Fae is unable to use good judgement in these areas. Too often he sees anti-LGBT bias and attacks where there are none. This is used too often when Fae is in dispute with editors for this to be accidental. Instead I believe he is deliberately using this as a tactic to harass others and gain advantage or detract from the topic.

As a minimum, I suggest Fae is topic banned on Commons from making any complaint or negative comment that features LGBT. Clearly he will object that this prevents him making complaints in genuine circumstances. Therefore he may make his complaint, off-Commons, to a bureaucrat who will determine if it merits taking further. I think is is a measured and appropriate response. He will object that this will discourage others from making complaints about LGBT bias or harassment. Quite the opposite. All these unfounded complaints make it less likely that genuine problems will be dealt with appropriately. By removing this noise, the community will be able to spot and have care for those with real issues.

I specifically reject an interaction ban as I believe that is a cop-out to resolving the real problem. Further, Fae's problems with LGBT complaints extend beyond me but to several individuals, such as Jee recently. It would be hard to manage anyhow since there are areas where we are all active. I hope instead this minimal topic ban will lets us all continue to work on Commons and discuss images, and videos and illustrations and copyright and bots and so on.

So I ask the community to make a decision. If you read the above and agree with Fae that I've spent two years harassing an openly gay contributor with homophobic language and attempting to suppress and censor LGBT images then just ban me now. Such a person has no place on this community. But if instead you agree with me that these complaints are groundless and are themselves harassment then I hope you will agree some kind of ban or block is required. Please do not use this forum as an excuse to write mean things about either Fae or myself that extend beyond the specific issue of complaints of LGBT-bias/attacks. If anyone has anything to say outside of those areas on either of us, then open a separate discussion some other time. Let's keep it focussed. Thank-you. -- Colin (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was just two weeks ago (not 2013 and not on Wikipedia in 2012!) that Colin injected "more dramah from an editor [Fæ] who, based on his contribs, is obviously a raging gay with a huge chip on his shoulder" into a discussion that had nothing to do with LGBT issues. Now, precisely the same thing happens when Jkadavor responds to me with "You cry for LGBT and/or other equality rights" in a discussion that had nothing to do with LGBT rights or equality, and Colin has decided that he must be the one to jump on me and now escalate to AN/U.
There is a pattern here, and it is blatantly not me that has been turning discussions that have nothing to do with LGBT issues into an opportunity to troll and grief one of the most widely known openly gay contributors to this project.
BTW, "unfounded allegations of homophobia" is false and a parody of the facts. I have made no such allegation. I refute the numerous allegations of harassment and worse made in the ranty 1,628 words above. If anyone is interested they should carefully review the original discussions rather than rely on these repainted and cherry-picked events spanning four years. --Fæ (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I hate to comment on a topic which was closed by two admins as "off topic". But I can make a generic comment on the non discrimination policy. I'm a strong supporter of it which is not limited to sexual orientation. It is approved by the Board to apply on all WM projects and marked as "it may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by local policies".

Here in that WMF job application, I believe, it is fully inline with that WMF policy. So the arguments raised by Fæ is surprising and negative to the affected. That's why I questioned his genuineness as claiming part of the "affected"; still making negative arguments.
The problem of Fæ is well explained by Odder in his RfB: "You have repeatedly mentioned the fact that you are gay in many such discussions, and many people before me have confronted you about it; many (or at least some) find it unnecessary and believe that you are somehow using this to suggest that people treat you the way they do solely because of your sexual orientation, and not on the basis of what you actually say. I have already told you this is not true, and I stand by my comment. odder (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)" I've nothing more to add that. I don't care what Fæ; but what he says. He may be open and a founder of something. But it doesn't make all his arguments friendly and useful to that community. The truth is, most of his words and actions are negative for them.[reply]
I alredy mentioned my stand on LGBT matters in my first discussion with him.
See another neutral opinion on Fæ's arguments.
I have little expectation that Fæ understand his mistakes. Not much hope in "topic bans" or other admin/crats involvement as no one want to be hounded by him. He is prone to follow people in multiple wikis through user contributions or using automated tools. See the collapsed off-topic discussion "Disruptive campaign" at BN. He may be a very talented programmer; but the way he used his tools is disappointing in many cases. He has a bad habit to "investigate" on the activities of users (like admin actions, license reviews, OTRS activities) to whome he disagree. At firts look, it seems acceptable; but very negative and put pressure on people to quit. Who want to loss their mental happiness for a non-paid voluntary work?
I had stopped commenting on VP and Help Desk due to this continued attack. It was escalated, affecting the innocent users too, for the sake of me where I commented. It seems the same "issue" is going to repeat. If true, I'm happy to stay away from those boards, again. Jee 03:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jkadavoor links to several pieces of evidence, taking these in turn:
  1. My question to odder was over 22 months ago. The question was "Speaking as a 'crat, do you support my freedom to identify myself as gay, in the same way as a female contributor would be supported to feel free to identify herself as a woman in our on-wiki discussions?". The question and odder's first response (it is worth reading the original thread) makes a presumption that an editor is spontaneously identifying themselves as LGBT in a Commons discussion. For the above linked "raging gay" comment by Colin, and the "You cry for LGBT and/or other equality rights" by Jkadavoor, this is irrelevant as it was not me introducing my being a gay man in discussion over the last two weeks, it was clearly Colin and Jkadavoor. You cannot have it both ways, forcing an editor to never express any opinion as a self-identified LGBT person, while at the same time injecting it in discussion as a tactic for argument, that until that point never mentioned LGBT issues, nor even identified anyone else as LGBT.
  2. The links to discussions about the NSFW template were in 2013. This is so long ago I do not think it of any value to rake back to respond in any detail. My objection was related to the hiding of images from view based on woolly definitions of what might be safe for work.
  3. My objection to Colin and Jkadavoor's disruptive campaign, amounting to repeated tag-teaming and forum shopping, which can be seen in that same thread, is more recent being June this year (six months ago), however it has nothing to do with LGBT topics and is irrelevant here apart from illustrating past disruptive tag-teaming behaviour by them.
--Fæ (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"You cry for LGBT and/or other equality rights" doesn't check whether or not you are a member of that community. It only talk about for what you arguing. I can argue for "equal rights" for any side tracked community even if I'm not part of it. And it makes no difference (other than some experience) on the weight's of once arguments. It was you try to escalate any discussion by stating you're open and founded something. Just remove any traces of it; if you don't want to be open. In my memories, I never quoted you as a member of a particular community. I repeat, being open doesn't make you are right in an argument. In fact, most of your arguments are utter nonsense and unhelpful for that community. Jee 04:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly, unambiguously and intentionally introduced my LGBT advocacy as your first unprompted edit on an established discussion which up until then never mentioned any LGBT issues. This was your choice, not mine. I am not responsible for your behaviour, and I do not accept for one second that your doing this is a reason for anyone to conclude that I was harassing you. --Fæ (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"...I do not accept for one second that your doing this is a reason for anyone to conclude that I was harassing you. " I think I'm strong enough to survive from any such attempts. I had survived comparatively more severe attacks in my OTRS time. It is up to the community to decide whether it is beneficial for the community (not for me; neither in my expense) to stop you. Jee 05:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just weighing in here to state that I personally value Fae's contributions on Commons so highly that it would really deeply upset me to see him banned in any way shape or form on this project. Reading through all of the comments and clicking on the links etc. etc. all I see are frustrated comments of people who are trying to make a storm in a glass of water. I don't see anything dangerous to the project happening, and I certainly don't see any evidence of harassment, though I of course accept the fact that people may perceive it as such. Considering the value of Fae's contributions, it may well be worth spending some actual money to let Colin and others actually meet Fae in person so they can finally see that he's a nice guy, though he may be a bit "quick at the keyboard" on hitting the reply button. --Jane023 (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jane023, I have no doubt that Fae can be a "nice guy" and possibly gets along with people better in real life than online. I do recognise that Fae can make valuable contributions to the project and realise that would cause great reluctance to ban him. But I have no doubt this is harassment and that yesterday he also attacked my friend which is the last straw for me. You think this is small then perhaps you are quite comfortable to have your name repeatedly linked to anti-LGBT bigotry at every opportunity. Would you like "Jane's censoring of LGBT artwork" and "Jane's abusive use of anti-LGBT language" and "Jane, I have not mentioned LGBT rights here, this is harassment and highly inappropriate", and so on, all over the project? Is it small then? -- Colin (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The blue bold text above, that Fae wishes to associate with me, are not my words. Fae wants them to look like my words and by doing so demonstrates clearly how dishonestly and harmfully he handles disputes, and tries to pin anti-LGBT sentiment on others. The link isn't even to the original text, but to a place where he once again puts words in my mouth. The actual diff is [1]. I was responding to Fae's remark "this thread appears mostly sustained by folks with a large footprint on the English Wikipedia and a much smaller toe on this project (based on sampling a couple of global contribution stats). Please keep in mind that it is bad form to import English Wikipedia dramah to this project" and "serious Commons discussion getting distorted by importing drama-du-jour directly from the English Wikipedia". Fae is clearly telling Wikipedians they have no place on Commons and ridiculing their concerns by using the word "dramah". Well you can read my response in the diff and see which bits are in quotes. The "dramah" word isn't in my vocabulary (it's mirroring what Fae said) nor is anti-LGBT language. Ever. I was giving an example of an offensive remark that someone else might make. It was clumsy but not an LGBT attack. The clear message from my text is "don't be bigoted" and Fae is an intolerant bigot wrt Wikipedians. But in order to detract from the real issue (Fae's intolerance of Wikipedians on a discussion they have every right to take part in) he diverts it into an anti-LGBT attack. Same with Jee yesterday. Fae's response to my text just shows how incapable he is of judging what is and is not an LGBT attack: that someone saying "It is no more acceptable to be bigoted towards Wikipedians than it is to be bigoted towards gays" (which is clearly a pro-LGBT comment, making it utterly clear that anti-LGBT sentiment is intolerable) gets their words twisted. It has to stop. -- Colin (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, my problem is that I agree with both of you, and as I said before, I have no doubt that both of you perceive the offences you both so eloquently type. Frankly, though I agree I would be horrified to see my username bandied around as an anti-LGBT person, I must also admit that the number of people who would see that on commons is increasingly few, and the number of people who would see that, and be able to interpret it the way you and I do are so few as to be probably restricted to the people I have had interactions with here and on enwiki. At the end of the day, the number of people who can navigate to this particular conversation in this particular space are few and far between, and have probably met each other in real life at meetups. I guess over the years I have adjusted my perception of what is intolerable. --Jane023 (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jane. Colin is painting a picture to make it appear I have called him a homophobe or claimed that he is anti-LGBT. This has not happened and none of the links and diffs above shows that. If someone uses misogynistic language against a women editor, then she should be free to point that out on the project and call it what it is. Colin's "raging gay" comment was directed at me, nobody else, and he got away with it by wrapping it up as an example of homophobic abuse against me in a discussion that did not mention LGBT topics or homophobic abuse but just because I was there. Just as misogynistic or racist language should be able to be called what it is, without a immediate group-think assumption that the person pointing out the language is inappropriate is making personal attacks, the same should and must be true for anti-LGBT language if our anti-harassment policies are to protect and encourage LGBT editors.
Keep in mind that I have not raised this thread on AN/U, neither did I turn the discussions with Colin and Jkadavoor into being about LGBT issues, they did that themselves. --Fæ (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is pretty obvious what you are doing Fae, despite your claims otherwise. I didn't use anti-LGBT language "against Fae" or to "attack" Fae. Fae claims I "wrapped up" an attack in a quote. How about "it's just a quote" and assume good faith? Honestly, it is like punching the newsagent because you don't like the headlines in the Daily Mail. His argument seems to be that nobody can mention LGBT ever without him regarding that as some kind of attack or harassment. His judgement as to whether such a mention of the word is reasonable or not is simply lacking. That is why I seek a specific topic ban. It seems the least impacting option while dealing with the root cause. I don't see how Jane can agree with both of us. And I don't accept the argument that because there are relatively few Commons users, this isn't a big deal. This isn't a private wiki, but a forum readily discoverable by Google. How can a situation you would be "horrified" to be in be called "a storm in a glass of water". -- Colin (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fæ, you've accused him of using homophobic and anti-LGBT language though, which is nearly the same thing. It's easy to claim "I never said that" when you didn't use precisely those words, but the intent and the meaning is virtually indistinguishable and you're being a bit disingenuous by throwing your hands up and denying it ever happened. And I still think you're also being disingenuous by failing to differentiate between Colin giving you an example of a homophobic slur that you would be offended by in the context of a wider discussion, and Colin actually attacking you with that slur. I respect your work here on Commons generally speaking, but it does seem like you fall into the role of victim too readily when LGBT discussions are involved. Diliff (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How else would you highlight that using the word "gay" offensively in a deliberate slur targeted against another editor is anti-LGBT, apart from calling the words "anti-LGBT"? It would be shameful if this project forces LGBT contributors into the closet before they can contribute here, just in case they are hounded and targeted and then bizarrely and repeatedly accused of harassment, bigotry and victimization when they factually object to offensive language, or deliberate trolling/unnecessary outing. Just look at the facts, I did not turn discussions that had nothing to do with LGBT issues into discussions about LGBT language, I did not approach Colin or Jkadavoor to take part in the original discussions, I did not even identify myself as LGBT in those discussions, I did not even escalate the issue to this noticeboard instead I have been dragged here to respond to lengthy hounding allegations using links dating years back and from other projects. This was their action, not mine.
As said above, when inappropriate language or hounding that personally targets LGBT contributors just because they are part of discussion, then it must and should be legitimate to be able to point that out accurately, without punishing the whistle-blower for stating the facts.
Nobody has been called a homophobe by me, but I have been deliberately targeted by Colin and Jkadavoor as a known LGBT person when it should have remained irrelevant. I find it gravely disappointing that I have to keep on spelling out the facts, and that this problematic offensive anti-LGBT behaviour is not taken more seriously by the wider community. --Fæ (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem here, IMO, is that you're taking offence to things that should not really be offensive unless one is simply over-sensitive and prone to playing the victim which IMO you are at times. We are not and should not be given immunity from taking offence in any case. There are many things in life that people find offensive. Some people find the support for abortion offensive. Some people find the denial of a woman's right to her body offensive. You cannot simultaneously avoid offending both sides of that issue while actually maintaining a position on it. Please note I'm not taking a side on that, and I'm not saying LGBT issues are the same thing, I'm just saying the bottom line is, it's inevitable that you're going to find something offensive in your lifetime, and you cannot scream bloody murder every time that happens. Now I'm not saying that means open season with abusive slurs. Of course we should do our best to avoid offending someone else where possible, but not at the expense of robust discussion that just may happen offend sensitive personalities. Colin cites an example above where your immediate position was to assume that there was an anti-LGBT bias on FPC where I don't think there was any. All I see is a pattern of playing the victim and assuming bad faith towards Colin's motives and language. You say you 'keep on spelling out the facts', but I actually see it as you being a bit selective with the facts and interpreting events with a victim mentality. It's hard to speak in generalities when each individual clash needs to be looked at on its merits, and I'd be happy to look at individual cases if you really think it's justified, but that's the pattern I see here. I've had more than a few clashes with Colin in my time too, and I admit he can be a bit of a red rag to a bull when tensions are raised, but I simply don't buy your argument that he's been spouting anti-LGBT/homophobic language. I haven't seen any examples of it beyond the cases that I believe you've (wilfully?) misinterpreted. Diliff (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should examine that "wilful" comment a bit more. I did not make this an AN/U case claiming harassment, this was Colin. If you are looking for someone bending the facts to claim victimhood, you are looking in the wrong direction. --Fæ (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the fact that Colin raised the AN/U case has any bearing on whether you're wilfully misinterpreting things or not. They're two separate issues. If Colin is also wilfully misinterpreting you, then feel free to state your case for that. Diliff (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, perhaps you'd like to respond to the rest of what I wrote above. Whether my 'wilful' comment was inappropriate and misplaced or not, the rest of the reply deserves the bulk of your attention. It's all too easy to take offence at one word and not see the forest for the tree. Diliff (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is developing into a realio trulio catfight, which is sad. I can't imagine a less homophobic place to be than right here in this discussion space. --Jane023 (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jane023 to come here and make some comments. But I wonder whether you understand what is going here. This is very long running story and I'm not much interested to type much. But I can make one more attempt. Fæ has a long history to pretend he is a victim of harassment whenever some one use that magic word LGBT. But he failed to convince any single admin in Commons so far. But he come back/jump in with new stories now and then. When people mentioned the old case, his typical reply is "wow! it was on 2013; two years ago. That was about you use that word. Now use this word." The truth is that he didn't learn a single word from years of experience. I have no hope he will learn it in his entire life. But he may be busy preparing another RfA, thinking that people forget all foolish activities he had done so far. He need to be warned for playing games. Then only we can hope he will stop this mimicry. Jee 14:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody would think it prudent to open an umbrella for a single drop of rain, and that is what a en:Chinese water torture could be mistaken for if you only look at it for a few seconds. --Dschwen (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I ran long, this is so you know where to aim now

This is one of those difficult situations for me to write about because I see and understand both sides. I'm all sorts of various categories myself some of which are included on this drawing (see note here).[2] I too have been accused things that I didn't think I did; and I also have felt passionately about things that others do not share the passion and may push against me for my advocacy. So Fae, I hear you... Colin I also hear you. I hear two people with a passion for the project picking on each other for artificial constructs of language when we all know that trying to communicate with each other merely in writing removes all the visual and social cues which usually permit smooth conversation. I hear two people hurt and upset. Therefore we have two people who are close to each other in all things but their words here. I see the point, truly I do. Over the vast sum of human history certain sub-sets have and continue to be discriminated against. Some of what I have experienced in terms of racial, sexual, social and interpersonal discrimination in my life is beyond belief, but most of it is just the normal unthinking behavior of people too shallow to question their worldview and effect on others.
While I wouldn't insult certain male friends by telling them that they usually don't and probably will never understand what it's like to be female, I may think it when they fail to be sensitive to it. The problem comes in trying to coax, cajole, persuade, and guide people to have more understanding; sometimes they get it, sometimes they don't. Worse, sometimes it's the same person alternating between getting it and not getting it.
I consider both people here cherished coworkers. Both of them have raised points with me over the time here which I hope are closed happily or not. Here, Colin was upset enough to complain, Fæ defends. We all know how short a distance it is from defense to offense and back again. It's like American football - boring as it is - I don't see that either defense or offense is moving the ball here, it looks like a right pileup on the 50 yard line and one without too much hope of resolution until after the referees blow the whistle and everyone stands up. It's impossible to think covered and weighed down with all that rigid body armor, gatorade infusion and testosterone. No one can even tell who has the ball until they get off it.
Here no one is in the right. We have all written things we'd rather we hadn't, and we're all growing during the time we work together on the project. Over the past, errors have been made all around, apologies offered, accepted or not, discussions written, images uploaded, voted on and deleted. It's life on the project, we do a lot of stuff together and occasionally blowups happen. In school we saw it a lot, especially at the "middle school" and "high school" years of raging hormones where it didn't take a lot to start fisticuffs. But what I also learned was that while some people might hold grudges and let them shape their lives afterward others stand up, dust off, smile shake hands, learn something from the shape of the pebbles on the ground and do everything they know how to avoid similar situations in future. Having taught for many years (early education through university), I've learned that it's often the biggest school yard fighters who end up the firmest of friends at the end. They fought because they were similar, not because they were different.
In this specific issue, I do not support an official block for language, because as a red-white-and-blue-blooded 'Murican Goddess with a blazing copy of my First Amendment Rights in my right hand pointed to the stars above, I am in absolute and utter solidarity with activists, self-identified Guardian readers and their expectations of free speech. Like everyone here, both users here have free speech - and seem to have used it . I'm in 100% support of their rights. But having lived in the real world my entire life with the largest percentage thereof before the internet, I know this can all come with a big price. Here at this point - the price is hurt feelings all around and a lack of forgiveness.
Instead of any sort of formal blocks, I'd like to ask everyone to consider that: While we all have free speech and we respect utterly each other's rights to it, and we all know that free speech aimed at other people isn't always free of personal and social cost. It might create or cost you a friendship, or a romance, a lover might leave, the boss reconsiders, but it's technically possible to exercise the right to say whatever at any time. Like the friend, the lover, and the boss, the rest of the world then has the right to agree, disagree or ignore you,
but we have to defend your right to say it whether we agree with you or not in order to keep our own speech free, too.
In return for that, the cultural quid pro quo is that one doesn't usually say anything to make big waves or rock the apple cart too far from side to side without a great social necessity. Nor shout "Fire" in a crowded theater when there is none.
Commons is volunteer work, so it constitutes to me a work environment. I think in a professional situation - as here - it would be best for all of us to continue to strive personally to produce more courteous behavior, less didactic speech and fewer walls of text, while scattering more barnstars, poking thanks, and supporting each other personally while continuing polite dialog on details.
Executive summary: COM:AGF. Kiss and make up. We need both of you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"I too have been accused things that I didn't think I did". Ok the clear implication here is you thought you didn't do but well, perhaps you really did. No Ellin I've been accused of things I really didn't do. And I see from above you think I'm probably "too shallow to question [my] worldview and effect on others". I'm supposed to put up with two years of being branded some kind of homophobic bigot who suppresses LGBT images on Commons and attacks openly gay contributors because free speech? I've got news for you Ellin, your precious free speech didn't help the CEO of Mozilla. And both Fae and I live in a country that makes no presence to having free speech [the UK is the #1 place in the world to sue for libel]. Is it a subtle "artificial construct of language" when Fae writes "you might have been better off not suppressing an obviously gay artistic image proposed by someone as openly gay as me" in response to me replacing his NSFW image with a link on FPC. Or is that a clear accusation that I have an anti-gay bias and this manifest itself by me "censor[ing] a photograph from an established gay photographer". Or did Jee "[attack Fae] as you know I am a founder of Wikimedia LGBT+" and engage in "harassment". It isn't really subtle stuff one can shrug off. Well thank fuck I live in a country where such picking on an openly gay colleague, and calling him a "raging gay" would result in my swift dismissal from employment. But I'm also glad I live in a country where false accusations of discrimination result in criminal sentences. You talk of regarding Commons like a professional work environment. My professional work environment does not allow editors to engage in anti-LGBT bias, but nor does it allow people to make repeated false causations. We aren't school kids still finding our way in the world. Either Fae has a case that both me and Jee are harassing him because is is openly gay (in which case we should be banned imo) or he's engaging in unacceptable harassment that actually makes it harder for genuine complaints to be heard. Tell me, Ellin, is it acceptable for Fae to quote those words (the big bold blue text) as though I said them? And repeatedly do so. I typed them, sure, but they aren't my words any more than the author of a book is as evil as the bad-guy he writes about. When you read what I said in context, is there any anti-LGBT sentiment or is it actually a pro LGBT statement? Please, I haven't been accused of attacking gay people with anti-LGBT language in my long life both offline and online by anyone other that Fae. And he hasn't supplied any evidence that I've started doing so on Commons. Yet multiple users (including two 'crats) have accused Fae of wrongly playing the victim and wrongly accusing others. Hmm. -- Colin (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, I'm sorry that accusations of homophopia cause you so much grief, no matter how mistaken they may or may not be, but I still wouldn't call you a "victim", because I don't see how they could affect your online reputation. This forum is just not very widely read, I'm afraid. Of course I would be sorry to see Fae banned, but I guess if this is the only thing that will give you any peace of mind, then maybe it should be done. Fae's work can be done later too, we don't have any deadlines here. You both probably should take a wikibreak anyway, judging from the amount of text typed here (yet another thing to measure: emotions of editors based on #words typed on talk pages). --Jane023 (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jane023, I haven't asked for Fae to be banned, precisely because I knew I'd get objections like yours. I have proposed a very specific topic ban related to the particular area that Fae has long-term problems with. I hope that solution would enable him to continue bot uploading pictures, etc. But your judgement is seriously flawed in two areas. Firstly that how widely read the forum is should have any influence. If I was racist or homophobic or made inappropriate sexual remarks, say, then I'd expect to be banned whether the forum was a local photo club of 12 members or an internet forum with hundreds of active users or a website with thousands or millions of readers. Similarly, if I repeatedly wrongly accuse others of such, I should be banned. It works both ways. Are you saying it's ok because my full name isn't published here for my future employer to find? And secondly it shouldn't matter if a person uploads thousands of images a month or a handful. If they are harassing another user (or multiple users in this case) they should see justice. Arguing that because Fae is highly productive he should therefore escape any sanction just stinks I'm afraid. Tell me, was my replacement of a NSFW image with a hyperlink an act of anti-LGBT bias and suppression/censorship of LGBT material and a hostile act against a known gay user? Or was my revert the other day of several off-topic comments by several users made to a discussion that had been clearly marked as closed, was that "Reverting an LGBT related objection" and "censorship"? Or were both actions utterly neutral and not in the slightest bit anti-LGBT. -- Colin (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jane, just to repeat a basic correction, there has been no evidence given of "accusations of homophopia", this would be a very different thing to objecting to anti-LGBT language. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fae is not just objecting to anti-LGBT language. He said I was "suppressing an obviously gay artistic image proposed by someone as openly gay as me". Of using "hostile anti-LGBT language" to "attack" him. And "You (not me) deliberately injected the abusive use of anti-LGBT language into a discussion that had nothing to do with LGBT issues. It is easy to understand why you did that in response to an openly gay contributor. As a founder of Wikimedia-LGBT+, I will not gloss over the use of homophobic language by others, as well you know." I suggest Fay thinks he's being cleverer than he really is, that he knows using the H word directly would be trouble. But he has done it all the same. If those aren't a clear accusation of homophobia then I don't really know what is. If those statements are in any way true, then I should be blocked. -- Colin (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More today. Block required?

Fae to Jee: "Find something else to do to entertain yourself, rather than following around and poking the gay guy. Thanks". Any attack on Fae isn't just because he's rather unpleasant at times but clearly because he's "the gay guy". You'd think someone at AN/U would keep their nose clean for a day or two, but to be actively harassing others with accusations of homophobia is well.. I do now think some kind of full block is required. -- Colin (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing is poking the bear until you get a response, then inflaming drama when you get one. Yes I'm a gay guy, yes you and Jee are following me about (not the reverse), provoking a response and driving me off this project. The community does nothing to ensure you behave better than this, and that is what saddens me. --Fæ (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dillif's talk page is on both my and Jee's watchlist as we are close wikifriends. No "following" required. Do you ever consider that the "grief" you get is because of other things than being "a gay guy"? Because, it really really is. And if you are "driven" off the project it certainly wont be because of your LGBT status I can assure you. -- Colin (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not bad a person make mistakes; but unwilling to learn a single bit from it. It is strange Fae seek for advice frequently; but run into issues to whom he trust to get advised. Or is it he just playing games? Or he lost his control in quick responses? I don't know; but his comment "Find something else to do to entertain yourself, rather than following around and poking the gay guy." is indeed very bad. My understanding is gay people are smart and nice as everybody. I'm not going to trust him; otherwise I lost the respect in them. His comment supports my argument that most his words and actions are unhelpful for that community. Jee 17:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You two keep doing this until it becomes clear to enough people (as it eventually become clear to me) who is to blame in this recurrent feud. It would be nice if you, indeed, found other things to do other than hounding Fæ. Because even if Fæ was as bad as you paint him, or even worse, it is obvious which side is devoting more of its edits and time to the bickering. I suspect that an interaction ban affecting all three would result in no appreciable drop in Fæ’s activity in Commons while making the other two almost invisible to most of us. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What you are suggesting is simply censorship. I don't think you'd regard this as "bickering" if you were the one facing two years of harassment and the most unpleasant and utterly false allegations. Tuválkin you are the very definition of bad faith towards me. Whenever you turn up it is always with spite. No actual analysis of the facts. -- Colin (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, according to you, Colin, when I suggest you an Jee be given an interaction ban with Fæ, that’s censorship, but when you suggest that Fæ should not be allowed to come near LGBT subjects — that’s all fine, hm? I can’t even…
You bet about “bad faith” towards you, but not as in prejudice: On the contrary, starting from a neutral/benign baseline from when I ventured in commons out of my BSicon cocoon, these few years I’ve been witnessing and experiencing the way you, Colin, deal with matters and treat other people, and I developed a fair amount of distrust and dislike to you, in spite of your collegial, polished surface — maybe I’m not the only one. I formed my opinion of pretty much everybody else here the same way, some ending up now with thumbs up and some with thumbs down, of course. My opinion of Fæ was originally clouded by the on-going smear campaign, and I was unsure of how much of it was fair and true. Turns out that, after also a few years of witnessing and experiencing the way he deals with matters and treat other people, I’m definitely counting him among the Good Guys. (And, avec ça, I bring my voice back to the OP.)
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK you can all cut the diffs now. Fae is on a well-deserved wikibreak. --Jane023 (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I suspect that an interaction ban affecting all three would result in no appreciable drop in Fæ’s activity in Commons while making the other two almost invisible to most of us. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:12, 7 December 2015" I noticed this before I went to bed yesterday; but decided not to make a quick response to it as I know this is just another random rant from Tuválkin as he usually do in VP.
So Tuválkin self declared that he and his friend are the most valuable contributors here and this make them eligible to ignore their mistakes. Tuválkin, I'm not questioning the volume and value of your contributions. But unfortunately it doesn't give you any preference to violate the basic code of conduct. It is applicable to the founder and follower. It is applicable to every "user" make a single edit here.
Regarding my contributions: I'm not the "#1" or "#top ten" contributor here. But I do have my shares. I'm a media contributor from a remote location compared to the developed countries and so my works have some value due to the reach than the quality they have. I'm not a guy sitting 24/7 in front of the computers in air conditioned rooms.
Other than a mere photographer, I spend time to understand my subjects which attracted a lot of academic interests. I can assure you that at least 100 new media contributors come to Commons inspired by my activities (not by my words). You can find some examples who publicly stated it in social media.
Other than silently contributing, I strongly supported the advantage of "Free Cultural Works" too in discussions. Unlike many file pages here with a warning "This work is not in Public Domain.", my pages welcome the viewers and re-users with a friendly note, "Thanks: Thanks for make use of my works; it is always appreciated."
I had constructively participated in license related public and in-wiki discussions and tried my best to provide a better and safe environment for both media contributors and re-users.
So Tuválkin, it is not my fault if I'm "almost invisible to most of us."
The above FB link shows the last photo I had taken before my camera (gifted by the Commons community) drowned in water when I fell into the water stream. I may come back or not; but I'm sure my existing works survive and widely used on and off wiki. Jee 02:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't vote. This isn't FPC or RFA. Solutions never come from voting. Discuss. This suggestion is simply censorship. I did nothing to deserve the homophobic accusations with the Kelvin and Aren photos (and was previously on good terms with Fae beforehand so there was no bad blood). Jee did nothing to deserve the homophobic accusations made against him. Who tomorrow? Perhaps Diliff is his next target, after Fae refused to respond to Diliff's questions, giving a "feeding trolling" accusation. Is everyone that Fae attacks going to be served an "interaction ban" to censor any criticism of him? This is a lazy solution or a convenient solution but not the correct solution. Fae's ongoing behaviour deserves a block and a long-term solution that addresses his failure to correctly identify LGBT attacks on this project. There's plenty evidence above and I am far from the only person Fae picks on in this way. But neither Tuvalkin or Kaldari have responded to these diffs, and Tuvalkin's comments are just spite. Are Fae's accusations correct or not? It isn't hard. -- Colin (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having been harassed by Fae in the same way he does Colin I can understand Colin's frustration. Fae uses ever means at his disposal to attack and vilify those who disagree with him. It goes well beyond waving the victim card. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=181317005"