If you are planning on sending me threats, please, check your spelling first. At least put in the effort, okay?
Civility barnstar 2.svg This page may contain some profanity. If you are PC Principal you probably shouldn't edit here. Try going here instead.

If this page is vandalized with a new message to insult me, please don't revert it. I can handle those, no matter how rude.
Oversightable material and disruption to existing content can be reverted though. Thanks.
🖕

Some YouTube channels with Creative Commons content that Commons isn't using much from:

Why don't you take some screenshots, import whole videos by downloading them with https://en.savefrom.net/ and import using video2commons, etc? Don't forget to tag your uploads with {{Licensereview}}! If you need help, just ask me! (or the folks at the helpdesk or village pump)


Adminpedia-image.png

Wiki Loves Africa 2020Edit

Contribute to Wiki Loves Africa and to how the world sees Africa! Contribuez à Wiki Loves Africa et impactez la façon dont le monde voit l’Afrique!
Dear Alexis Jazz

In the past, you contributed to the Wiki Loves Africa competition. This February, you have another opportunity to create beautiful photographs on the theme of "transportation" that could change how the world understands people and culture in your part of Africa. As with previous years, there are also many exciting cash prizes.

Wiki Loves Africa is an annual public contest where people across Africa can contribute media (photographs, video and audio) about their environment to Wikimedia Commons for use on Wikipedia and other project websites of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Images from the competition have helped millions learn more about Africa and see Africa more clearly from an African perspective. Overall, nearly 5000 people like you have contributed to this photo contest, and contributed 18,000 images about Africa.

When does it take place?

The 2020 competition will start on the 15th of February 2020 and close on 31st March 2020.

What should we contribute?

Pictures ! audios ! videos ! The theme for the 2020 contest is... Africa on the Move ! This theme encompasses a host of approaches and is intentionally open to interpretation. It encourages the submission of visual representations of movement or transportation, whether by path, road, sea air, by self-propelled, animal or mechanical means, or the historical or contemporary structures that have been created to facilitate movement or the transportation of people, goods, or animals.

In addition to the value your photos contribute to understanding and African visibility, there are several prizes on offer. The international prizes are:

  • 1st prize: US$1000
  • 2nd prize: US$800
  • 3rd prize: US$500

Additional categories are:

  • Culturally specific or traditional representations of transport or structures that facilitate transportation : US$500
  • Prize for best quality video: $500


Each winner will also receive a pack of goodies (proposed: a hat "I edit Wikipedia from Africa", a branded battery, stickers). Additional prizes will be available in some countries.

For rules and information about how to participate, or to join the contest, click on Contribute to the Wiki Loves Africa photo contest.

Warmest,

Anthere, for the Wiki Loves Africa Team


Cher ou chère Alexis Jazz,

Au cours des années passées, vous avez participé au concours photographique Wiki Loves Africa. Ce mois de février vous avez à nouveau l'opportunité de proposer de fabuleuses illustrations sur le thème du "transport", qui pourraient profondément modifier la façon dont le reste du monde voit l’Afrique et comprend ses habitants et ses coutumes. Bonus, comme lors des années précédentes, il y a plusieurs prix à la clé.

Wiki Loves Africa un concours public annuel où chacun est invité à partager des illustrations via Wikimedia Commons, en rapport avec le thème de l’année, illustrations qui pourront être utilisées sur Wikipédia ou les autres sites de la Wikimedia Foundation.

Les photos collectées par le passé dans le cadre du concours ont aidé des millions de personne à mieux connaitre et comprendre l’Afrique et à la voir selon une perspective africaine. Au cours des dernières années, près de 5000 personnes comme vous ont contribué au concours, un total de 18,000 photos sur l’Afrique.

Quand le concours se déroule t-il?

Le concours 2020 démarre le 15 février 2020 et cloture le 31 mars 2020.

Quelles sont les contenus attendus?

Des photos ! Des enregistrements audio ! Des vidéos ! Le thème du concours 2020 est ... Le transport.

Ce thème englobe de nombreuses approches, il est aussi intentionnellement ouvert à l’interprétation. Le thème Transport ! encourage à proposer des représentations liées au mouvement ou au transport, que ce soit par la route, ou l’air, ou l’eau, de façon auto-propulsée ou avec l’aide de la force animale ou mécanique, ou bien également les structures architecturales historiques ou contemporaines qui sont à l’origine ou ont facilité le mouvement et le transport des êtres humains, des animaux ou des biens.

En plus de la valeur intrinsèque que vos photos apportent pour une meilleure visibilité et compréhension de l’Afrique à travers le monde, il y a de nombreux prix à gagner. Les prix internationaux sont les suivants:

  • 1er prix: US$1000
  • 2ème prix: US$800
  • 3ème prix: US$500

Catégories additionnelles:

  • Transport ou structures de transport traditionnelles : US$500
  • Prix de la meilleure vidéo: US$500

Chaque gagnant recevra également des cadeaux supplémentaires tels qu'une casquette "I edit Wikipedia from Africa", une batterie portable, des stickers... Des prix supplémentaires seront offerts dans certains pays.

Pour plus d'informations, règles de participation et pour participer au concours, cliquez sur Participer au concours Wiki Loves Africa.

Bien à vous,

Anthere, pour l'équipe Wiki Loves Africa

@Anthere: "In the past, you contributed to the Wiki Loves Africa competition."
I did? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Apparently you did... I did not establish the list of former participants myself, but someone else did. He used a query to create a list of every editor who ever uploaded at least one picture currently tagged Wiki Loves Africa. But I am a bit surprised by your comment so I am going to investigate to make sure that he did not include in the list people who might have edited those images but not uploaded them... Thanks. Anthere (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello user:Alexis Jazz. This message is to let you know that we have investigated the issue (the issue being... you got listed as a former participant to Wiki Loves Africa and subsequently received a message on your talk page to invite you to contribute again... but as you indicated, you actually did not submit any image in the past as part of WLA).
Some context... WLA is taking place for the 6th year. This year, we decided to do an experiment to test the impact of an invitation message on former participants. You may read more about this research here : m:CivilServant's Wikimedia studies/Wiki Loves Africa Recruitment 2020.
As part of this experiment, a list of all former participants (uploaders of images) has been established. Then half of those participants were issued a message on their talk page immediately after the launch of the contest. The other half did not receive any message. This list has been established with a sql query. You happened to be identified as a participant and were selected in the half to receive a message. What happened is that using the SQL technique that we've been using from the previous years, the creator of the image is the last uploader of a version. According to our records your have submitted this WLA image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Musa_with_wheelbarrow.jpg. But in fact, you were not the original uploader, you just made a brighter version of the file and re-uploaded a newer version of that image. Checking our entire set, we could establish that this error of interpretation (of what a WLA participant is) in the sql query had two consequences...

  1. some people were wrongly misattributed an upload, when they only updated a picture but were not the original uploader. Note that the majority of those are actually involved in WLA somehow, often as local team leaders. Altogether, 53 people were attributed, but only a dozen were really not involved such as you. And only one reacted to the mistake - yourself :) ;
  2. and some people were forgotten on the original list set up, even though they uploaded an image as part of WLA. (actually, few were skipped though, since many uploaded several images, so were added to the list anyway due to the other uploads. We skipped 80 poeple).

Thanks to your report, we were able to react, investigate, and identify this mistake in the sql on our side.
We will remove from the research study those who actually did not contribute (such as you). And we will deal with the few forgotten to re-integrate them.
So... thank you for your involuntary help in making our experiment more accurate !

Cheers

Anthere (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Anthere: Thanks, that was interesting to read! I improve images mostly regardless of subject. Cars, Harry Potter, politicians regardless of political view, food, cosplay, etc.. So yeah, I'm "involved" with all that, but not really. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I hope you make this category one of your favorite avenue for the coming month :) Category:Images from Wiki Loves Africa 2020. There is a lot to do ! Anthere (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Fanclub1966MarianneFaithfull1.jpgEdit

 
File:Fanclub1966MarianneFaithfull1.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 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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Kept. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Beeld & GeluidEdit

41 images (incl. some very heavily used (+300 times) and several interesting photographs) were added to the B&G list. Check the source, if needed. I will check them all. Sometimes pointed questions are immediately rewarded. Vysotsky (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This looks awfully familiarEdit

Notice how much this looks a lot like this? (you're probably old enough to get the reference).

But in all seriousness, asking for your advice if creating a separate proposal for limiting the enforcements of these blocks, for example that any abuse filter block may be evaded if no actual vandalism can be demonstrated, something similar to the "escape clause" the Dutch language Wikipedia has would be useful? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: evade = ontwijken. Dus volgens mij bedoel je iets anders hier, want de ontsnappingsclausule heeft niks met het ontwijken van AF te maken. Het nummer Boten Anna herinner ik me nog wel, maar de referentie ontgaat me even. De Nederlandse versie vind ik beter. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Marnie the Dog celebrating St. Patrick's Day.jpgEdit

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

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


  • This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: The flickr upload appears to be a flickrwashing from the official social media account for Marnie the Dog [1]
Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans | العربية | asturianu | azərbaycanca | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | British English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Masem (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

This is unfortunate, but I have to agree. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

"Promotional" logo?Edit

Could you please see this, this was closed as being "promotional", I have no association with this organisation and have no idea why or even how documenting practitioners of Traditional Chinese medicine in the Netherlands would somehow make it "promotional", I want to request undeletion but stating that something is a national organisation with over 200 (two-hundred) members did not work the last time. I genuinely don't see how these images are supposedly "promotional". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 04:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

They're not, it's just more bullshit from poorly informed admins. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
The problem I have with this isn't the nominated category by itself, but the potential of lost hours it may cause when this behaviour is applied consistently. Generally, I take photographs all over the Netherlands and if I see a store, chain of stores, or other kind of organisation that is active throughout the Netherlands I will create a category for this organisation. Let's use "Category:Ziengs Schoenen" as an example, it doesn't have a Wikipedia article and the only reason it has a Wikidata item is because I specifically stated that it's an example of a Wikimedia Commons category without a Wikidata item and someone made it to prove me wrong that Wikidata's current notability standards hamper Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (SDC). I wouldn't have to worry about Scapino or Etos, but as Ziengs Schoenen has no Wikipedia article literally anyone can nominate these images as "promotional", "advertisement", and/or "spam" and say that a lack of a Wikipedia article means that they are not ready to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons, despite most of my images I see used on other websites are images that aren't used on any other Wikimedia website. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: you want me to fire the admins in question? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
LOL, no. This is not an individual issue, but a systemic one. The problem is that there should be a vague project scope that can exclude actual advertisers because otherwise the system could be abused by actual bad actors. The rule system is deliberately complex and contradictory, because trolls and other bad actors will try to wikilawyer themselves out of a very clearly defined rule system. The system needs to be reformed, but only in ways that still keeps abuse (by both bad actors and enforcers) to a minimum. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Special Barnstar
Just wanted to say many thanks for moving the list to DR as well as for your help today, Your help is greatly greatly appreciated so thank you very much,

Take care, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Normalize file extensionsEdit

What happened to this proposal: Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2018/12#Normalize_file_extensions_for_new_uploads?

I am especially interested in converting jpeg to jpg automatically. CropTool uploads files in jpeg extension, but Move & Replace script converts them into jpg (See history of File:JafarQoli Pirzade Nohuji 1354.jpg). This made my collection inconsistent. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: it was accepted: phab:T213484 Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 72#Archived proposal, accepted? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Considering phab:T31284 which has been open since 2011, the implementation of this proposal may take a looong time :-( 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: yes, developers give high priority to Use static php array files for l10n cache at WMF (instead of CDB) which may result in a performance increase.. or completely break all the wikis. Either way nobody has asked for it, it's possibly nice to have (if it doesn't break everything), no more than that. They didn't test it properly and rolling it out on production was blocked only a few days ago. Disaster averted. On the other hand, many tasks that the community would be extremely grateful for are left to rot and even medium priority is reverted for no given reason. It's just sad.
At least CropTool we should be able to fix locally. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: I'm not sure what you did (ToolForge is dead), but I looked at CropTool and it doesn't appear to be at fault. Instead, when uploading a jpg file without extension it's MediaWiki that will append the ".jpeg" extension.
Stupid MediaWiki. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
That's it. I remove the filename (including extension) entirely and write it from scratch without an extension; then CropTool/MediaWiki uploads the cropped file in jpeg extension.
File:Ettelaat 14739, 1354-04-01, p.4.jpg --> File:Qodrat-ol-Lah Vahedi 1354.jpeg
File:Ettelaat 14739, 1354-04-01, p.25.pdf --> File:Ebrahim Chehrazi 1354.jpeg
I do this because the name of the original file is not appropriate/descriptive for the derived file. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: Phabricator has memes. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's keep it rationalEdit

I know you hate abusive admins, but no need to accuse them of sockpuppetry and ask for a checkuser. That's for serious cases and serious allegations. Let's keep the heat as low as possible and discuss it at COM:AN. Thanks. pandakekok9 14:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pandakekok9: it's nothing personal. We've had really bad problems with admins and sources that I will keep anonymous have suggested there is still a socking admin active. If that's true, no idea. Who it might be, no idea. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

BabbelEdit

Your English box is green[2]. Are you a native speaker of English? 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: Ah Scheiße, I need a new color. Done. I don't want to assess my own language skill. All I can say is what I understand. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I like your English. You mostly use simple words and structures, but generate creative sentences with clear meanings. I would like to know if you have ever lived in an English-speaking country (and by that, I only mean US, UK, CA, AU, NZ, or IE)? If you don't feel comfortable responding to this question, you can email me or you can ignore me. I understand the importance of privacy. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  4nn1l2 (talk) 06:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

SomaliaEdit

Hi! It looks like you know about copyright in Somalia. There are some images in Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review that need a review. For example File:2018 03 26 New NIEC Compound-1 (27154516538).jpg but there seems to be other images from the same Flickr account. Do you have time to have a look? --MGA73 (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: {{PD-Somalia}}, I saw just four files, anything else? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! I have not counted but I thought of using a bot to see if there are other files from the same account. --MGA73 (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
@MGA73: insource:"UNSOM Somalia" incategory:"Flickr public domain images needing human review" - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Wow! Thank you :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

blockedEdit

 
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Commons. 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.
See the block log for the reason that you have been blocked and the name of the administrator who blocked you.

العربية | azərbaycanca | বাংলা | català | čeština | Deutsch | Zazaki | English | español | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | हिन्दी | hrvatski | magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | italiano | 日本語 | la .lojban. | 한국어 | kurdî | македонски | മലയാളം | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Trijnsteltalk 20:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Note: this is a group action/decision by the Commons CU team. Trijnsteltalk 21:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
fine, I'm sorry. I'm done

c:User talk:Trijnstel#Alexis Jazz

First of all, it was a FUCKING JOKE. "some people" means "Anton Mak", "interrogate" means "ask" (or just interrogate, as in questioning, obtaining information) and "ol' Betsy" is my goddamn imaginary horse, because we're talking about sheriffs and shit. The term is also often used for cars and firetrucks, but in this case I was referring to my imaginary horse. I'm now reading c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Block review: Alexis Jazz and apparently "ol' Betsy" is a Fortnite reference. I've never played Fortnite in my life (honest, I'm not interested in multiplayer), so this is new to me.

And the alternative account? I made it because the DMCA claimant is rather sue-happy, so thanks a ton for OUTING me and also NEVER asking for my side on the story. I hope you will NEVER be a journalist because you just broke every single rule in the book as well as the WMF ToS.

Side note: now I'm 100% convinced your block of Rafic.Mufid/Chyah wasn't justified either. I will never trust CU again.

Pinging @Donald Trung, 4nn1l2, GreenMeansGo, Majora, 1989, Zhuyifei1999. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

  •   Support unblock This is convincing. By comparing [3] with [4], it is obviously clear to a regular Commoner that User:Grilling the Sheriff is User:Alexis Jazz without any checkuser data. Alexis Jazz is smart (and wise). If they really intended to game the system, they could wreak havoc. They were just joking. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
    Agreed. Asking for AGF when not AGF-ing themselves, misunderstanding, without, even once, trying to hear, or even attempting to ask for, the other side of the story, even when the subject is an established user. Both block reason I suggested are void. There is no death threat. There is no abuse (COM:BP definition) of multiple accounts.
    @Elcobbola, Jameslwoodward, Krd, Magog the Ogre, Trijnstel: I formally request the CU team to reconsider the action. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
    By the way, CUs: some reading for you: en:Online_shaming#Justine_Sacco_incident this is what could happen with some misunderstanding. mob mentality and cancel culture are a thing. Yuck. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: What's even more stupid: when I saw this "blocked" message on my talk page, I thought it was a vandal who was impersonating Trijnstel. The thread title doesn't even start with a capital letter! Just "blocked", surely some LTA, but the page history showed otherwise. And I found that I was, in fact, blocked. So not a joke. But why? I figured a block like this wouldn't go by unnoticed so I checked Trijnstel's user talk and the administrator noticeboards, where I finally found the reason. To be clear: no, I never received any mail from anyone about this. How could anyone ever be expected to file an unblock request if they are never told why they're blocked? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Please use {{Unblock}}, Alexis Jazz, for the sake of formality. Otherwise, this may cause a technicality and your account may remain blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: What has been done here sickens me. If the CU team wants me blocked, they'll find a reason. If they have any integrity left, they will openly admit their mistakes and declare the block null and void. Not just unblock: null and void, it should have never happened. Considering Trijnstel decided to OUT me anyway, they could have equally started a discussion on COM:ANU, but they didn't. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The CU user block is perfectly fine as regard to the context. That don't means that an unblock is unthinkable, however all conditions must be met, the comments such as the one above necessarily move us away from these conditions. I urge my fellow colleague administrators, if they wish an unblock, to strive to meet these conditions. Those conditions which include of course the acceptance of the block, the understanding of the block, and even the gratefullness towadr the CH team who do this job at the risk of being unpopular, and of course which also include all the other conditions usualy necessary to a proper unblock. That said, I said nothing... Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
    The block was incorrect. You do not have to apologize for someone else's misunderstanding. Commons:Blocking_policy#Appealing_a_block Quote: An appropriate reason will almost always include one of the following: [...] An explanation of why the block is not appropriate based on this and other relevant policies and guidelines or is likely to be a mistake or an unintended side effect. This is the condition under this circumstance and the explanation has been given. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
All what I saw is "the CU team is not able to understand a joke, therefore this block is a mistake" → on that, I disagree. CUs are not here to judge the good taste of jokes. There is an (ab)use of multiple accounts in the purpose of being disruptuve, and if the user is not aware of the disruptive side then the block is fully appropriate. And that is apparently obviously the case. Jokes with violence, guns, ect... are to be strongly avoided online (specialy jokes that are addressed directly to someone), and are indisputably disturbing, even without multiple accounts, therefore when there is also the abuse of multiple acounts a CU block is appropriate. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: The intent wasn't even with guns. Quote above: and "ol' Betsy" is my goddamn imaginary horse. The user isn't even aware that is a reference to a gun in Fortnite; nor am I, before trying to Google what the meaning was. Interpretations of violence are speculations. Seeking for clarification comes before blocking, if what is implied is not crystal clear. I can't believe I have to state this. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
To clarify, where do you see violence, guns, ect... if "ol' Betsy" were a horse and not a gun? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
[5] + [6] + the ambiguous side of the sentence, included punctuation and ping + all this done with a sock. That is enough disturbing/ambiguous to be considered as an abuse. Do not consider it rude but I will likely not comment further, as I already said "indefinite" don"t mean permanent, and unblock is always possible. I still think than go in opposition to the CU team is not good for anyone, included for Alexis Jazz. I am not the one to convince here. EOD. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: I don't know what a Google link proves, as I said, I've never played Fortnite. I don't know what the ping proves either, I wanted to know if legal was working on this before trying to contact Anton Mak. I explained the alternative account, as Srittau also correctly identified, it was a means to indemnify myself against legal threats from the DMCA claimant. (obviously now proven more or less useless when CU decides to dox publicly) All this could have been resolved by mail or (when nobody cares about dox) in COM:ANU. I would have probably altered the message upon learning that people are connecting it to some video game weapon, because that ruins the joke. It's far funnier if you understand Betsy is a horse. Because how does a horse help with interrogation? The "interrogation" would just consist of me asking questions while my imaginary horse is.. looking real mean with it's googly eyes. That's how "interrogation" (with punctuation) works. It's almost word salad. I guess it's completely word salad if you've been playing too much Fortnite and project your own interpretation on it.
Also, one more thing. You ended your message on "EOD". You know I'm Dutch. EOD isn't very common internet slang for "end of discussion" (I have rarely if ever seen it before and had to look it up), but most Dutch people know perfectly what EOD means. It's the ExplosievenOpruimingsDienst. (bomb disposal unit) Actually as I'm reading the article, in the UK it stands for Explosive Ordinance Disposal, so it's even known in English. Wait a minute, are you threatening me?   - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support unblock - What a clusterfuck this has all become!, As I said at AN Alexis made what I would percieve now to be a silly joke and unfortunately created an account as part of that joke, Alexis is a net positive to the project and despite the bad joke I cannot and will not support indeffing over it, The socking ? .... meh undecided on that given socking is taken serious which leads me nicely on to the next bit -
Why on earth was the CU done as part of a team ? ..... We're not taling about INC or some noterious sockmaster who's created tons of socks .... we're talking about 1 editor who created an account as a joke...... so why was the block done as part of a team and not by one person ? ... Infact why didn't the CU team block for 48 hours and ask Alexis what the deal was?
Leniency and common sense should be used here and I truly hope it is. –Davey2010Talk 09:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Given they’ve explained the comment and it was not a death threat, I support having the duration reduced as indef is ridiculous. 1989 (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it seems reasonable to unblock Alexis provided that they agree not to use sockpuppets for comedic effect in the future. Vermont (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
@Vermont: I don't know if it'll matter at all. I made zero attempt to hide that account from CU or even any reasonably seasoned Commons user. I just wanted to write that essay, but figured it may attract the attention of the DMCA claimant. From there on, I decided to continue using that account for any further comment I wanted to make on the case. I guess it'll only be a matter of time until I get blocked again because I unknowingly reference something in a game or movie or whatever that I've never seen or played. You see Christian Ferrer just a couple lines above casually mentioning the Dutch and/or UK bomb disposal units. Do we expect everybody to know everything? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
@Vermont: Something vaguely like this happened before, but that time there was no CU team involved whose only tool appears to be a banhammer. I had mentioned "black people" and "apes" (or monkeys, I don't remember) in one sentence. (or two, whatever, the terms were close together) While in America it is a common phenomenon to unfavorably compare black people to apes, this isn't terribly common in the The Netherlands. (though in recent years football hooligans have been making up for it unfortunately) I wasn't aware this was even a thing. I never made the connection and someone told me this was inappropriate. Now that I'm aware, I'm careful not to mention the two in close proximity even when not making any kind of comparison. We just can't know everything and trying to teach people by swinging a banhammer around is unlikely to be helpful in any case. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
So this account that was just discovered isn’t your first undisclosed account, is that correct? 1989 (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
@1989: did you reply to the right post? I don't think I said anything like that here. The apes and black people confusion was not an alternative account. I can't even remember if that happened on a WMF project, it might have even been a completely different website. If it was here, it was under this account. Somewhere below I did say I've made alternative accounts for sensitive subjects. For extremely obvious reasons I won't disclose any of those. How many piercings I have and in what places exactly shall remain unknown. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for clarifying. 1989 (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Alright...well... There is a bit to unpack here. First off, the bits that aren't contentious. Alexis is a long-term committed user with more than a half-million contributions over more than ten years. Alexis has in fact, been at work for nearly the past month to help develop Help:Gadget-Restore-a-lot to the point where even luddites like me can use it. I don't see a good faith argument that Commons is better off without Alexis than we are with him.
Second, depending on where you live, there are probably more than a few of us that are a little stir crazy at the moment, where taking a car ride to buy bread is the highlight of your day, and suddenly a worthy topic for dinner conversation. That doesn't mean we throw policy out the window, but it's also not something we should necessarily put out of our minds entirely.
Horse or gun... Personally my first thought is a cow. At the end of the day, the CU tools can do a great deal, but they can't yet read minds. Alexis claims the sock was for privacy reasons given a litigious subject, but mind reading cuts both ways. What we can say is "User:Grilling the Sheriff" was pretty obviously registered with the subject of Web Sheriff in mind, and there's really not much indication that there was really any attempt at all to seriously hide from the initiated the fact that this was an alternative account of somebody. Alexis is well smart enough to know that no one is going to believe a brand new account starts suddenly (and correctly I might add) batch nominating copyright violations for deletion, participating in such a comparatively obscure page as DMCA, and making lengthy dissections of a takedown notice in relation to copyright law. It rather looks like Alexis may have actually forgotten what account they were logged into at times. At the same time there were several experienced contributors, administrators, and even staff that took part in that discussion that did not take this seriously enough to even file an SPI or an ANU.
It's not in fact exceptionally evident why CU was entirely necessary. As has already been pointed out, this is pretty obviously Alexis. When we see socks that are this obvious, it's normally just because they're kindof dumb. Show of hands here how many of us have blocked a Nsmutte sock, and/or several dozen of them. Alexis isn't dumb. He just looks like he wasn't trying. So this may have very well been resolved by a talk page message saying "dude, screw off the alt account already". Alternatively, by just blocking the sock, or by opening a thread at ANU, or any number of the things we routinely decline requests for checkuser over, per instructions at RFCU. I'm not going to stand here and pretend like I know better than apparently our entire cadre of CUs, but it's not at all clear that one of these alternatives could not have saved us significant community time.
So the entirety of the disruption that we are supposed to be preventing here appears to come down to the perceived threat, which is ambiguous at best. Everyone here seems to be playing the game of google "old besty" and see what the top results are. I don't play fortnight either, and I'm a generation away from most that do. But it was apparently not serious enough that it was redacted under REVDEL. It doesn't appear it's been made clear here whether this was forwarded to emergency, or whether they've expressed any opinion on the matter. At least per the log, the blocks were purely CU blocks, but it's not clear why these are CU blocks rather than blocks for indimidation/harassment if we're sticking with this interpretation of the comment. The comment itself does not appear to necessitate the use of an alternate account in the same way as !vote stacking. No one here appears to have asked the question what "Besty" was. We seem to have played the google game and run with it.
At the very least, simply dropping Template:Indefblockeduser for a veteran contributor is (mildly) less than ideal, so that another admin can try to decipher what the situation actually was, when no one could have seriously foreseen that this would remotely be an uncontroversial block. Given that the sock had gone days without making any edits at all, it looks an awful lot like this was about as much seriousness as the situation likely warranted, and seemed to have neatly wrapped things up. We get it. Wild west motif. Not really helping. Moving on.
So here we are. Are we going to take accounts like this one, indefinitely blocked across multiple accounts across multiple projects, and give them one month, while we indef one of our most dedicated contributors for making a crappy joke? GMGtalk 12:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your elaborate response.  
It rather looks like Alexis may have actually forgotten what account they were logged into at times.
@GreenMeansGo: you actually underestimate how devious I really am.. Newbies can't enable VisualFileChange as a gadget. I started it manually on purpose to clue you in. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
As I said a few days ago, The vague threats from a recently-created account are not helpful nor appropriate. I stand by that assessment. I complained about it on IRC instead of going to a noticeboard or COM:RFCU because I didn't have the energy to figure out Commons CU policies and procedures. Anyway, we're here now. In an attempt at humor, a vague threat was made, in a way that was unlikely to further the project's goals. That's now been made clear, and I think we can move on. The block was good, but I don't think leaving Alexis blocked is necessary to prevent disruption to the project at this point. Leave the sock blocked though, there's no need for it. Alexis, I'd suggest that you reevaluate your methods in the future, and stick to one main account and publicly-disclosed alternative accounts consistent with community consensus. Throw a {{Unblock}} on here, tell the CUs you won't do that again, and we can get back to stressing out about a global pandemic building a free media repository. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber: I use socks every once in a while for privacy on sensitive subjects, which is allowed. If anybody had asked anything, I could have responded. If you had left a message on Grilling the Sheriff's talk page to explain how the sentence was being misunderstood, I could have explained it and may have changed it too. But instead an indefblock has been dropped without explanation. (I had to search for the explanation myself) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't see any way that scare-quotes around the word interrogate in this context could be interpreted other than an implication of frontier justice. That implication's going to be disruptive, no matter the credibility of the threat or what account's used to place it. Sure, if you'd have used this account, it probably would have ended with you being told to knock off the theatrics. But you used an undisclosed second account to take actions in projectspace where it was not required (the DRs) and to create disruption (the implied threat). And sure, Trijnstel could have dropped {{Checkuserblock}} here like they did in the log entry. But if you're unable to see why your own behavior is problematic, you're not likely to convince any CU to unblock you. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber: But you used an undisclosed second account to take actions in projectspace where it was not required (the DRs)
Exactly what is the problem with that? That is allowed. We have a photographer from Hong Kong who creates a new account for every single photo they upload.
and to create disruption (the implied threat)
Once more, if there had been any communication to make it clear that this was perceived as an actual threat, I could have responded and may have changed it. For that matter, if Grilling the Sheriff had been a new user, indefblock would have also been inappropriate. Try talking first.
And sure, Trijnstel could have dropped {{Checkuserblock}} here like they did in the log entry.
That's what Trijnstel did? No wait, they used {{Indefblockeduser}}. I don't see how that is better in any way, it's equally non-descriptive. Trijnstel has explained absolutely nothing to me beyond Note: this is a group action/decision by the Commons CU team. That was all.
But if you're unable to see why your own behavior is problematic, you're not likely to convince any CU to unblock you.
The comment in question was made on 20 March. According to my calendar, that's 5 days ago. I hear nothing for 5 days and now get indefblocked out of the blue with no explanation. I don't even want to discuss the matter this way, while blocked. If we are talking about interrogation while being threatened, this is much closer to that. I am forced to apologize for other people who misunderstand a comment I made and failed to contact me about it, otherwise the CUs may or may not leave me blocked forever. No. Just no. If I am unblocked, we could discuss the issue and appropriate action (if any) on COM:ANU. I am not going to talk while under the threat of being blocked forever. Fuck that. I'm not going to kiss any CheckUser's ass to save my own. I think 4nn1l2 would understand why. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
But if you're unable to see why your own behavior is problematic, you're not likely to convince any CU to unblock you.
I am unable to see why Alexis Jazz behaviour is problematic. If there is a problem with Alexis Jazz, that is only the fact that they care too much about this bloody project.
Alexis Jazz, using {{Unblock}} does not mean that you should confess wrongdoing and apologize for that. You can just state your arguments in a rational and cold manner and remain optimistic. Use your Dutch power :)
I think you should get unblocked first and then ask for this block to be considered null and void. Good luck! 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @P199: sorry, completely unrelated, I noticed [7]. Tested it on beta cluster but no issues there. Please report it on phab:T174269. You can add {{tracked|T174269}} to your question on VPT. I'd do the latter myself but, but eh, not today it seems given the above. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Rhododendrites, Ahmad252, : can somebody please add to the COM:AN discussion that I have never played Fortnite and was referring to my imaginary horse? I'd also like to comment on As an aside, while I think the CU team got the block wrong, this kind of condescension to clarify that the linked "kind of condescension" was not written by me. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
    Added by Rhododendrites. Ahmadtalk 20:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Natuur12, AntiCompositeNumber: I am really quite uncomfortable with everybody talking about me on COM:AN while I can't respond to any of it. I can't really defend myself. Everybody just echoes each other and I have to ping everyone here.
Perhaps AJ could read Bedreiging (Nederlands strafrecht). They might want to reconsider his line of defense after reading the linked article.
Natuur12: even if we assume there was some sort of threat, w:nl:Bedreiging (Nederlands strafrecht) requires "Ook moet de bedreiging voldoende duidelijk en concreet zijn. Daarnaast dient de bedreiging van zodanige aard te zijn en onder zodanige omstandigheden te geschieden, dat bij het slachtoffer de redelijke vrees kon ontstaan dat het feit waarmee gedreigd wordt zou kunnen worden gepleegd." There are several problems with this.
  • Duidelijk en concreet: Any threat from ol' Betsy is meaningless when nobody realizes who or what ol' Betsy even is. You can't just guess and then call it a threat.
  • Daarnaast dient de bedreiging van zodanige aard te zijn en onder zodanige omstandigheden te geschieden .. de redelijke vrees kon ontstaan dat het feit waarmee gedreigd wordt zou kunnen worden gepleegd.: an anonymous loudmouth on the internet is making word salad and whoever it is directed at, they are most likely not reading it.
  • bij het slachtoffer de redelijke vrees kon ontstaan: well, that's just impossible, because nobody managed to guess correctly who the subject even was.
Also check w:nl:Theo Maassen#'Doodsbedreiging', De Vergrijzing en meer filmrollen (2004–2006) and [8]. No, he wasn't arrested.
The use of the alternative account, ostensibly created for privacy reasons, to file unrelated DRs while using an automated tool not normally available to new contributors is also disruptive.
AntiCompositeNumber: why? It's not forbidden, just unusual.
(As an aside, editing using a privacy sock on a page where you have already made very similar contributions is extremely unlikely to be effective. I'm not really sure what privacy goals were being advanced through the use of the alternative account here.)
Plausible deniability. It took you guys almost a week to figure this out apparently, it is doubtful the DMCA claimant would have been able to pick up on it if it wasn't for the CU dox. But even if they had, they couldn't do much with that info because they wouldn't have a single shred of proof it was me. They could ask the WMF to hand over that information, and the WMF would nicely tell them to go fuck themselves. They could also try to bribe a CheckUser to privately hand over the info, but frankly, that's most probably a crime in and of itself so most likely not worth it. Chances are such information would be thrown out as inadmissible evidence anyway. I suppose they could try to bribe a CheckUser to make the info public, as long as they're not caught in the actual bribery this would give them the info they want and as it's public, they wouldn't have to confess to bribery. If they did that, my hat's off to them. I doubt that whatever it would cost to bribe a CheckUser would even be worth it in this case, but if they did.. Extremely unlikely they did, but if they did, very clever. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Zhuyifei1999: "hon" is short for "honey", see wikt:honey "A term of affection." like "Honey, would you take out the trash?" Could be directed at both men and women, but in sarcastic form most probably directed at a woman. In this case, it should probably be interpreted as 1989 sarcastically addressing Trijnstel as if Trijnstel were their nagging/annoying/always-knows-better wife. But I'm extrapolating a bit here, I'm no mind reader either so only 1989 fully means what it meant. If 1989 and Trijnstel are reasonably close friends (online or offline doesn't matter), it could be appropriate. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, I don't like trying to read any more than it's its surface meaning and try to figure out what it imply, and let's not do it here. We all know what misunderstanding can cause ^. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: exactly, that's why I made it clear I'm extrapolating. And I realize I was in fact (kinda) wrong. I did just notice in the conversation that 1989 asked Where’s the diff? and Trijnstel replied with "Can you please provide me the diff, Trijnstel?" Of course I can.
I actually thought Trijnstel was quoting the question from IRC or something off-wiki, but only now do I realize that Trijnstel was telling 1989 they should say "please" when making a request. Trijnstel, you don't deserve a fucking "please", you misbehaved and were asked to explain yourself. In this light, 1989's response I asked you a simple question hun. was 100% appropriate. My response would have included swear words. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Old Betsy is het geweer van Davy Crockett. (Old Betsy is Davy Crockett's gun). Enige andere interpretatie zal als je Ockhams scheermes toepast in eerste instantie niet de voorkeur verdienen. (Fortnite is voor console peasants, dus dat telt niet). Maar mijn punt is dat je jezelf op glad ijs begeeft met je gewaagde grapje want om een bedreiging te maken hoef je niet te denken van goh, laat ik die en die eens bedreigen. Ook kan de drempel best laag liggen. (My writing in Dutch isn't relevant for the block/unblock discussion). Natuur12 (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
@Natuur12: Interessant. Gegeven dat jij wel de eerste bent die nu met Davy Crockett komt is het de vraag of Ockhams scheermes vandaag de dag nog steeds uitkomt op Crockett. (buiten de VS) Desalniettemin, gegeven de oorsprong van de term (en hoe die in de VS mogelijk een sterker verband heeft met Crockett) kan [9] wat mij betreft weg. Het is sowieso al niet meer echt relevant na de outing van CU. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Colin wants my head. In other news, rain is wet. Let's block Colin for his everlasting smear campaign against me and try to make him beg on his knees to be unblocked instead of discussing the matter like adults. Indeed, that wouldn't be right. Discussion comes before a block, not the other way around. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Christian Ferrer: +1, and the other administrators should set an example and encourage AJ to seriously question, instead to reinforce him in a line "this block is a mistake, CUs are wrong, ect, ect..."
We are all volunteers here. With organizations like Web Sheriff, I will detail the matter in an informative but humorous way. Pay me and I'll deliver my contributions exactly the way you want them. I'll be bored, but hey, if you were paying me, I guess it'd a job. I'm rather expensive though.   If you want to discuss behavior, there's COM:ANU for that, not indefblocking someone to try and force your will upon them. I'm not interested in bending over for that. Also, just above you casually mentioned the bomb disposal unit. And now you are casually suggesting electroconvulsive therapy. I don't wanna be lobotomized! - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Apparently, this is a big misunderstanding. We all thought the "ol' Betsy" was a Fortnite weapon, not a horse, car or something. I was rather shocked when I saw the ANU thread. If a well-known editor wants to disrupt the project, they would create a sock-farm, or at the very least, they would try to remain undetected. But this, this "Grilling the Sheriff", was rather too obvious. I assume that the CheckUser team checked that account, tied it to your main account, and, because they considered Special:Diff/405678602 to be a threat, decided to block both accounts. From that point of view, the block can be reasonable: someone threatens someone else to death, that can be considered as disrupting the project with a sock, and this starts. But "ol' Betsy" as a horse can't be a threat, in my opinion, given the context. I think we don't have this here, but at the English Wikipedia, at w:en:WP:SOCK#NOTIFY, it reads "Editors who have multiple accounts for privacy reasons should consider notifying a checkuser or members of the arbitration committee if they believe editing will attract scrutiny". I think that's a good approach. CheckUsers have access to the private data, so they can be trusted with the information. I know it's not a policy, but still, it can be helpful (in this case, if one of the CheckUsers was aware, they could inform others and ask you first). I think using {{Unblock}} is a good idea, because you can summarize the long discussion, and explain why you think the block is unjustified in one place. And because it's purple/blue and it categorizes the page, it will also attract more attention to the main thing. Ahmadtalk 20:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I am strongly opposed to an unblock. Alexis is one of our most experienced users, knows policy reasonably well and cannot possibly have been unclear about the actions they were taking and the response that was certain to occur. There will need to be, invariably, lengthy discussion and significant demonstration of contrition, followed by a lengthy period of reflection before we can consider unblocked Alexis. Blocks are preventative, unfortunately I do not feel at all comfortable currently that we can trust Alexis not to engage in such underhand and deceptive behaviour based on their comments elsewhere here. We will need to see, in the weeks and months ahead, a trustworthy demonstration from Alexis that we can trust them to behave appropriately and that a block is no longer necessary. Nick (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • +1 with Nick. Alexis, personally attacking others in your unblock request does you no favours. I do not want your head or to smear you, as you claim. I want you to behave like a professional grown up, to treat others, including those you disagree with and those who do not have accounts on Commons, with respect, because we are all humans. If you want to demonstrate your literary skills at writing foul mouthed mocks and insults of people, and playing games with a community with multiple accounts, 4Chan and Twitter are available. --Colin (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
    A question for you, Colin: How does asking a person to "grow up"[10] help them to "behave like a professional grown up"? Don't you think your word choice is contrary to what you advocate? 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • 4nn1l2, perhaps there's a language difference for you, but "grow up!" is a common idiom to say someone is acting immaturely and need to change their behaviour in a way that shows aspects we associated with maturity. It isn't literally a request to get older, or to wait till you are older. So, it seems a perfectly ordinary request. I see from your comments too that you also fail to see any problems with his behaviour. Hmm, I think you'd react differently if an account with "(WMF)" in their username behaved like Alexis. There'd be an army of Commons asking for them to become unemployed before the day was out. -- Colin (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
    Colin, from en:Wikipedia:Civility: "Avoid condescension. No matter how frustrated you are, do not tell people to 'grow up' or include any language along the lines of 'if this were kindergarten' in your messages." So, no, I don't think there's a language difference for me. Telling people to grow up is a kind of condescension in English. I don't see a specific victim in the comment[11] made by Alexis Jazz, so I don't think there is a problem that needs to be resolved. No need to go to IRC or whatever in order to discuss this joke and somehow help in making all these wikidramas. Users are expected to mind their own business and do something useful in this project. Few people do what Alexis Jazz does for this project. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • 4nn1l2 I'm not referring to the link you gave, but to other posts which are offensive and childish. We aren't having a content dispute on Wikipedia, with all the emphasis on "content not contributor", but assessing whether an editor's behaviour crossed the line and what should change for them to continue engaging with the community here. In that regard I think "Grow up" very much sums it up, and I don't think it is at all in dispute that Alexis behaviour falls into the category of "not grown up". This is Alexis's unblock request, so please try to stay focused on that, and not start attacking other editors, or going off on tangents. -- Colin (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
    Colin, "Attacking other editors"? Exactly whom? This is you who is conjecturing how would I react to an account with "(WMF)" in their username in an utterly tangential topic. Kindly practise what you preach. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I am strongly opposed to an unblock too. A user who makes a parasitic load on other participants, creating a lot of unnecessary discussions like trolling. Sock - this is the last trick. For an experienced user, this behavior is unacceptable. -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Unblock. Reasonable unblock conditions because of the stupidity of actions are a matter of commonsense, but we must steer away from punishment or bad precident. -- (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I think sanctions can be discussed after the unblock. Sanctions could have been discussed before the block was even placed. There was never any opportunity for discussion before all this went down. I'm not even saying there shouldn't be sanctions, but any sanctions should be the result of a healthy discussion that hears all parties. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Eatcha: I didn't expect Alexis to use socks without using VPN and with the same user-agent
Who says I haven't? If I want to protect my privacy from everyone including checkusers on sensitive issues.. As I said above, how many piercings I have and in what places exactly shall remain unknown. I didn't believe CU would have any grounds to investigate that account, so why hide? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Everyone who doesn't suffer from Corona fever is suffering from cabin fever. Basically everyone is making mistakes right now, and yes, that absolutely includes me. And I found a reset button. I have made the CU-team an offer. If they don't take it, I will present that reset button to Zhuyifei1999. Zhuyifei1999 may or may not decide to press it, that'll their choice. If the CU-team does take the offer, I will take the story to my grave. They have my word on that. End of drama. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support unblock per Davey2010 et al. Stupid sock, stupid joke, overreaction to bad DMCA notice, but not intended to harm, not worthy of indefinite blocking. --GRuban (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • why even create socks to fight with a DMCA complainant. It also makes no sense to argue with a DMCA complainant. It's best if DMCA is handled by WMF, there are lots of paid editors working on Wikipedia you can't stop them all. The weeknd is trying to advertise his upcoming albums, why do you care to stop him and keep Wikipedia neutral ? You have done more harm while trying to stop their advertisement on Wikipedia campaign than good. There's a ongoing pandemic and commons is already short on admins. We are loosing 2 experienced editors (including a very experienced admin) because of your lack of judgement, Alexis.
@Eatcha: I wasn't fighting the DMCA claimant. I just wanted to write something public to inform everyone about their practices. I do not intend to stop the DMCA claimant, I can't. I can only inform people and Legal to give them an opportunity to fight back and ask questions when confronted with legal bullcrap. I'm not interested (on that level) in keeping Wikipedia neutral either. If The Weeknd sends their photos/permission to OTRS, creates an account and (for Wikipedia) discloses their payment, I don't mind at all if they replace their infobox image. It is unjust deletion of freely licensed content that I oppose. Finally it is not my lack of judgment that has caused all this drama. The CU-team has been careless. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support unblock (not that this is a vote), at "w:en:Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses" reads "Privacy: A person editing an article that is highly controversial within their family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area. Although a privacy-based alternative account is not publicly connected to your main account, it should not be used in ways outlined in the inappropriate uses section of this page, and if it is, the account may be publicly linked to your main account for sanctions. If you are considering using an alternative account under this provision, please read the notification section below." As Mr. Jazz stated his fear of being persecuted by a sue happy person, as someone who is currently in four (4) different lawsuits (unrelated to my volunteer work here) I can understand how stressful a lawsuit can be and I fully understand why they don't want to risk it. And "Humo{u}r accounts: The community has accepted some obviously humorous alternative accounts, for example User:Bishzilla, User:Bishapod, User:Darwinbish, User:Darwinfish, User:Floquenstein's monster, and sometimes Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late)." Alright, this doesn't entirely apply, but Mr. Jazz is quite a humourous person I can see why they wanted to do it. I do not hope that any sanctions placed on them will be unrelated to the current block reason, they're a net positive to the project and from what I can tell they were legitimately using an undisclosed account to avoid any possible legal ramifications. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Response to AFBorchert's proposalEdit

According to Alexis Jazz' statement the use of the sockpuppet should be considered to be a “joke”, followed by the excuse that I made it because the DMCA claimant is rather sue-happy. However, Alexis Jazz wasn't afraid to use his main account to address the DMCA claimants as stupid noobs, morons, and dumb shits.

@AFBorchert: they can't sue me for calling them morons. That's freedom of speech. While the essay is also covered by that, it is slightly more risky because it attempts to factually attack their takedown notice. If they tried to sue over that, the case may not be thrown out right away. (if you try to sue anyone because they called you a moron, you have no case) You wouldn't win it, but it probably wouldn't be thrown out right away. In hindsight, I did wish I had responded from the get-go using the alternative account, but I didn't fully realize the scope of what they did until later. That was sloppy of me. The particular comment that has been constantly referred to, or to be more precise the way it was written (with western-style language), that was a joke/humorously intended. Not the entire account.

According to Magog the Ogre, the comment by the sock was interpreted by the CU team as death threat. Alexis Jazz denies this intention. Honestly, I had no idea before what an “ol' Betsy” could possibly refer to. And this is exactly the problem on a multi-cultural environment such as Commons. There is a huge potential that such phrases and terms could be easily misinterpreted in an already heated and provocative context. Alexis Jazz should be well aware of this as a long-term regular. In summary, I am not surprised that the CU team was investigating this and blocking the two accounts on base of the CU results.

When Natuur12 told me about the origin of the term and what it is more likely to be associated with in the US, I asked Natuur12 to redact the comment. He has. If I had known how the comment would be interpreted, I wouldn't have written it. Obviously. Also in case anyone missed it: I have never played Fortnite. (also, Fortnite is not the origin)

I do not think that the simple replacement of the indef'd block by a block with a fixed period cuts it. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive and indef'd blocks allow to wait until a serious problem is addressed such that the assumption is not unreasonable that the matter is resolved. Alexis Jazz is a prolific and valuable contributor. I would be happy to see him contributing again as soon as this issue has been resolved.

I'm not using any alternative account right now for any purpose. And while this discussion is going on, I won't. That should be enough reason to unblock me so I can actually participate in discussions about me.

Addressing your points:

Alex Jazz addresses the abuse of multiple accounts in a way that raises hope that this will not repeat.

Obviously something has gone wrong. I'm still contemplating on how to prevent this in the future, because it was all based on a misunderstanding. If I had been contacted about how people interpreted it, I could have redacted the comment myself. I have never been given that chance. I can't make other people contact me about perceived issues before escalating them. Even if I am more careful, there is always the possibility that I (or anyone) will say something that is interpreted different from how it was intended. If we don't address such issues but go straight to indefblock, I don't see how we will ever be able to resolve any conflict without major drama.

Alex Jazz reconsiders his style of communication and acknowledges that Commons is not a space where external parties are to be insulted even if their approach appears to be questionable and dubious.

I protect freedom of speech. I am the worst, so others don't have to. As long as I am allowed to contribute, a certain level of freedom of speech is ensured. Ban the dissonant voices and you may find yourself on a slippery slope. Freedom of speech will stretch only as far as the worst that you allow.

That's why I am the worst. Now you know. My big secret. I don't want Commons to become a place where people could be banned for dropping a swear sword. I don't want Commons to become a place where files that depict sexuality are banned. I don't want Commons to become a place where only professionals are welcome. You may or may not have noticed, but my foul language has never, and I mean never been directed at a newbie, nor does it pop up in the File: namespace. (incategory:"Files uploaded by Alexis Jazz" insource:shit, incategory:"Files uploaded by Alexis Jazz" insource:fuck)

This doesn't mean you should allow me to say anything, if I cross a line, that should be addressed. But dropping an indefblock is not "addressing" any issue.

Alex Jazz is banned from contributing at Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices for an indefinite period.

Seems like a serious loss to me. I suspect Legal will agree.

Alex Jazz is restricted to one account only at Commons.

Well no more piercings I guess.

Hi Alexis Jazz, thank you for taking the time for a response to my proposal. Your response uncovers a major misunderstanding. This is not a freedom of speech issue. You do not have the right to misuse Commons to harass or insult others even if that would be still covered under the freedom of speech. The terms of use ask you to support a civil environment. This is not just restricted to other users of Commons but also to be considered for third parties. This does not mean that you aren't free to raise your critical voice. This can be done while still being civil and respectful.
You are stating I'm not using any alternative account right now for any purpose. In my opinion, this is not sufficient. There was a serious lack of judgment when you created an abusive sockpuppet for re-entering the discussion which was already heated up by your previous comments. Nothing was contributed by that sock to the discussion which was in any way helpful. Instead, the sockpuppet was used for an inflaming disruption. And in this context you should also take responsibility for phrases which could be misunderstood even if it wasn't your intention. You created yourself the heated context that made this interpretation plausible. You are writing that it was all based on a misunderstanding but the disruption of a discussion and the creation of an abusive sockpuppet goes far beyond that. Instead of addressing this you are attacking the CU team with your statement at Meta. Quote: This is the choice you face now: go quietly or go in a firestorm. Because rest assured. This is still standing and will not help your case.
The indefinite block is a common reaction for using an abusive sockpuppet. This crossed a red line. Once we have CU results confirming this, there is usually no discussion before a block. And I do not think that there is a consensus forthcoming for an unblock without you addressing this in a way where we find a mutual understanding. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
@AFBorchert: thanks for taking the time to attempt to defuse the situation. The full quote from the ToS is as follows:
We encourage you to be civil and polite in your interactions with others in the community, to act in good faith, and to make edits and contributions aimed at furthering the mission of the shared Project.
Attacking any community member wouldn't be civil, and I don't do that. What is polite is subjective. Some people find it impolite to eat with their mouths open. Some people find it polite to burp after eating, as a sign that they enjoyed the meal. Politeness, in the end, I believe comes down to treating others with respect. Either way, the ToS encourages us to be civil and polite. We are not required to be. We are allowed to be outraged when something bad happens.
As for the CU-team, they did not show any respect. They didn't attempt to contact me to try and resolve the issue before blocking. They didn't consult the community before placing a controversial block. I wasn't warned before the block was placed. Trijnstel didn't provide me with a block reason while blocking. And no checkuser ever replied in the discussion here. That shows no respect, and if Commons doesn't deal with this, community health will continue to deteriorate.
If you guys are going to continue pretending the CU-team has done nothing wrong, this entire discussion is moot. The question is not "what restrictions should be placed on Alexis Jazz before we allow them back?", the question is "how are we going to stop all this from getting worse and worse and how will we convince contributors to stay?"
If you prefer a Commons with a corrupted CU-team that won't be held responsible for its actions and without some highly valued contributors, why not cut the crap. Give the CU-team a medal for detecting a DUCK and harassing a long-time contributor and make my block final. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Sorry but you are still not addressing your responsibility in creating an abusive sock. Instead, you are attacking the CU team instead of inspecting your own behaviour. While the CU team followed standard practice you are choosing to call them corrupt and you are still demanding the CU team go quietly or go in a firestorm. This is hardly a civil communication. And the requirement of a civil communication is not restricted to colleages at Commons but to external parties as well. Insulting rants about DMCA claimants do not belong at Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices. It's your choice but I do not think that this attitude is likely to be helpful in finding a consensus for an unblock. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
A dropping of the rather conspiratorial aspects of their "the CUs are out to get me" defense would be an appropriate course of action. I want Alexis to return to editing. I really, really, do. But there has to be some realization on their part that their actions were not in the best interest of the project. I really do hope that they can do this so we can put this all behind us and move on.
@Majora: you (and others) are barely in the position to make demands. If the CU-team won't be addressed in any way, there is no incentive for me to continue contributing to the project. Discussing restrictions, apologies or anything else that I am expected to bring to the table is moot if there's nothing for me on the table. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry you feel that way. I truly am. But it appears we are at an impasse. The checkuser team blocked a sock that was being disruptive and blocked the sockmaster along with it. That is what we expect them to do. There doesn't have to be a discussion beforehand to do so. The only thing that would ever, potentially, need to be talked about with the checkuser team is the length of the block. The block itself was a good block in my opinion. The length was excessive, sure, but the block itself was within the checkuser's remit to perform. If you can't even see the possibility that that might be true we really are so very far apart and I'm not entirely sure I can help you here. I am sorry, Alexis. Really. Choosing to stick by this is your choice to make. I just can't see how it is helping anything to do so. --Majora (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

YGMEdit

--Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletionEdit

 
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue.

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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Elisfkc (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletionEdit

 
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue.

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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, AFBorchert (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

COM:MISSEdit

Just in case you get unblocked and come back, Tuvalkin added you to COM:MISS, so don't forget to remove yourself there if we forget to do so. Regards, pandakekok9 02:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  • I too miss you. You're one of the people who has actually thought about the proposals of policy changes rather than just saying what will make you popular. Even when I disagreed with you, I could see that there was something to disagree with. By the way, I also almost left Commons due to this whole fiasco... Having said that, I do believe that some of your statements were wrong in this case, but that is a constructive criticism in hope that something like this won't happen again. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 05:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Me too :-( 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Me three :(, I'll never forget the help and guidance you've given me over the years and I'll forever appreciate those too, Commons is and will continue to be worse off without your help here, Hope you're okay Alexis, Take care, Dave /// –Davey2010Talk 19:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletionEdit

 
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue.

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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, VLu (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletionEdit

 
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue.

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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Jonteemil (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

File tagging File:ABT Logo 4C.svgEdit

العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | polski | português | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:ABT Logo 4C.svg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:OP}} on file description page.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

Unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, Jonteemil (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Files_with_two_question_marks_in_the_filenameEdit

Estopedist1 (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)