Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 8

< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard‎ | User problems

User:Sazan

Hello. A while ago I brought up the case of Sazan (talk · contribs) (en-wiki user en:User:Albnaian), see archived thread), an apparent serial copyvio uploader. I was asked to contact the user and see how he responded. I did (on en-wiki), he ignored me, and has continued to upload more of the same sort. I also notice his old images are still here. I identified the copyvio sources for a couple of them back in December, so I think it's safe to assume that they are all of the same kind and need to be all deleted. --Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Just after having a quick look at the uploads, I encountered metadata of 8 different cameras. All images have web resolution and most of them don't have metadata. This really looks like a user just pulling images from the web and putting them on Commons. If nobody objects, I suggest nuking all the uploads and blocking the user for at least 2 weeks. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  Deleted & blocked  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Baddin / Guzzzz / Arthur Nunes

Can I get an admin who speaks Portuguese to help out with User:Baddin? I went to delete some images that had been uploaded by him which had previously uploaded by User:Guzzzz and were deleted as copyvios, but from his comments here it looks like he could be the copyright holder. I don't speak Portuguese, and it's apparent English is not his first language... Tabercil (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at the images uploaded by Guzzzz (talk · contributions · Statistics), Baddin (talk · contributions · Statistics), Scoobydoo (talk · contributions · Statistics) and Augusto Penatti (talk · contributions · Statistics). Most of the images they upload are copyrighted. Now, the user has reuploaded some of these images on Flickr with an "attribution license", but in fact the images are not even his! I believe it's an old case of sock puppetry: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]. The users Guzzzz (talk · contributions · Statistics), Baddin (talk · contributions · Statistics), Scoobydoo (talk · contributions · Statistics) and Augusto Penatti (talk · contributions · Statistics) cannot be trusted. Could you do something about it. I'm tired of looking for their copyrighted images over and over again. Best regards, --Juninho01 (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Polovilho (talk · contribs)

Portuguese-speaker also needed for this new user, who uploaded some low-res portrait without any EXIF data and all "malhação" as source. --Túrelio (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The images uploaded by Polovilho (talk · contribs) are copyrighted: [7]. They should be deleted. Juninho01 (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the successful research. Files cv-tagged and user blocked for 3 days. --Túrelio (talk) 08:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Per CU finding on pt.wikipedia, this is the same user as Peterzinho (talk · contribs). I'll increase the time to indef, he will still have his Peterzinho account unblocked on Commons. Patrícia msg 11:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

AshGreen uploaded images

User:AshGreen has uploaded a number of images from RMIT University. The "Conditions of Use" http://www.rmit.edu.au/browse;ID=pm79apy2vaxx states that
Where a photographer’s name accompanies an image, the following caption must be used: “Photo courtesy RMIT. Photographer: (Insert name).”
 but really doesn't state any free-use licencing. Should these image be allowed to stay? In my view I feel we need and ORTS request for the RMIT University to confirm that the images can be used for any purpose without any restrictions. Bidgee (talk) 11:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that an ORTS from RMIT University granting use under a free license acceptable to Commons is required. Please see Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:RMITBundooraBuilding200.jpg, also. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack?

[Please note, the following is being copied to this board from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard due to the issues that are arising on a deletion debate and the addition of unprovoked personal attacks by the nominator because his/her nomination is being opposed. This is unacceptable behavior. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC) ]

Could someone please take a look at the unprovoked comment of User:Dvdplr, to wit:

User:Wildhartlivie may be gay who loves User:Ed Fitzgerald sickly.

The comment was posted twice, here and here. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Please try to resolve this with the editor in question. I've now asked that they comment here.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really thinking that there is much chance that this can be resolved with the editor in question. It is an unprovoked personal attack which is entirely out of line in any situation, but especially when the attack occurs against two editors who disagree with a deletion nomination in the absence of any previous contention. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Mike: I'm not quite sure what there is to "resolve". What do you suggest? Ed Fitzgerald (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I note that Dvdplr has now changed his comment, inserting the word "potential" before "gay", perhaps under the impression that this in some way ameliorates his attack, which, of course, is not the case. (He or she has also made other changes to the comment, and continually changes the original IfD notice to correspond with the ebb and flow of the deletion discussion.) Ed FitzgeHowrald (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

So, in the four and half hours since I posted a notice on User talk:Dvdplr about this entry, the user has made 27 edits, including the changes noted above, additional changes to the IfDs, and a [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deleigh school students with a reading comprehension problem... everything except coming here to explain their edits, as requested. Ed Fitzgerald (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
For the record, this is not acceptable behaviour by that user. I will investigate further, and if the behaviour has continued, a block will be issued. Apologies that there has been a delay. I'm not sure why, exactly. Note for future reference: it is usually better to crosslink rather than copy, so the discussion stays in one place. ("coming here to explain their edits" in your discussion... is that "here" or "there"? Copying can cause confusion.) I deleted the other discussion and pointed here. ++Lar: t/c 15:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks and apologies. I'm not used to separate ANs. I notice the editor hasn't worked on this site since prior to your request for response, nor has the account we rather thought was this editor's on en:WP. With the holiday weekend over, perhaps we'll hear. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Let us hope. If this returns to being unsorted, please ping here, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 18:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Serial vandal at Wikipedia found me over here

Hi. I haven't swung by here in awhile and I logged on to upload a photo. I found my user and talk pages vandalized by a serial vandal from Wikipedia. I'm an admin there as well, a bureaucrat on the radio control wiki and an admin on the Christmas specials wiki. How would I go about getting admin privileges here to help out over here? Thanks! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi PMDrive1061, as every other project, Commons has certain project rules. To be familiar with those and to actually be able to help out with admin work, you should contribute to the Commons on a regular basis. I had a look at your contributions and you have made about 20 edits so far. Sorry, but this is certainly not sufficient for adminship. We don't have hard criteria for admins, but a firm recommendation of at least 200 contributions to the Commons. Requests by users with less contributions are normally closed right after opening. Commons:Administrators has more info on that topic. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
If you still want to become a admin on this beautiful project you can use this link Abigor talk 21:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I forgot: If this should happen again, feel free to request semi-protection of your user page. I'd like to go without protection of your talk page for now, but if this happens several more times, I guess we could consider that as well. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Drork

Please stop User:Drork from accusing me of being responsible for calling for lethal violence and spreading hatred and of being here to promote antisemitic propaganda. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Posted on talk.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 20:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I blocked Drork for three days. I think they just need a short time out. Hopefully they will be more civil after the block expires.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

More personal attacks by Drork here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked him one more time to remain calm and collegial. Abigor talk 16:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Le riducule ne tue pas. Just think on the en:Black Knight (Monty Python) or Black Knight scene on YouTube. --Foroa (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Accused me of "hate propaganda"[8] and "continuous attempt to abuse the Commons"[9] // Liftarn (talk) 11:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Liftarn,Drork is absolutely right. You wrote this in the image permission: "Once again I beg you reader, my brothers and sisters-in-arts, to spread these cartoons. Reproduce them in posters, newspapers, magazines, zines, blogs, everywhere. Let's make the voice of the Gaza people to be heard all around the world. Thank you, in the name of the Palestinians of Gaza." Don't you think that this could be considered as an attempt to turn Commons to a propaganda site for hateful lies by latuff? BTW next time you talk to latuff please do tell him that his caricatures would have had a much bigger effect, if they were at least 20% as truthful as they are lies now. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Quoting the artist's permission can hardly be called "propaganda". // Liftarn (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I am afraid you do not understand what does the word permission mean. Please take a look Commons:OTRS. What you wrote in permission has nothing to do with permission. It is propaganda, and because the image itself is a hateful lie, the propaganda you wrote could also be called hate propaganda.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
a) Please don't change the subject. b) What about your agreement to stop spreading hate? // Liftarn (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
a)I did not change the subject, you did. b)I possibly could not agree to stop spreading hate because I've never been and never will be spreading hate. I fight it.Please do understand me right. I asked you to accept my apology not because I believed that what I said about you uploading the hate propaganda images was wrong, but only because I thought for a moment that I might have been wrong about your intentions, but no matter what your intentions are the result is still the same.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of File:No Israel.svg with text "YEAH, NO ISRAEL" by User:OsamaK

I am bringing here for wider community consideration a discussion that has been taking place at User talk:OsamaK#A concern about File:No Israel.svg and its use on your user page. OsamaK has delined to remove the image and associated text from his userpage on the grounds that it is "policy-compliant". I have argued that his userpage fails to comply with Commons policy as set out at Commons:Project_scope/Pages,_galleries_and_categories even on the assumption that the image itself is in scope (it may be noted that it was created and uploaded by the same user).

Users' personal political views should be respected, whatever they are, but Commons is not the place in my view to push those political views, nor to make statements which (whether intended or not) many will consider an attack, if not against specific individuals at least against a state. Commons is not a free soapbox where anything goes: it is a free file respository with very specific aims that we ought to focus on. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

See also User:Yamanam\My_Political_View and User:Die4Dixie. Do we have a policy somewhere that states it's not ok to express (potentially) divisive political opinion on a userpage? J.smith (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Userpages are covered by Commons:Project scope/Pages, galleries and categories, which does not explicitly mention political opinion; probably for the future it should. For now, we would have to rely either on general community opinion or on the fact that according to policy, non-allowable content is said to include: Content that does not advance Commons' aims ... and anything apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
As much as I detest this particular matter I'd rather have people be upfront about their political opinions rather than sneaking them in through the back door. Is that flag an insult to Israel? Maybe so. I think it is rather childish though. --Dschwen (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll not discuss this issue outside my user talk because it'll not help uniforming the whole issue. Please go there, read my comments (and other's) and please don't repeat things, it's just time losing. Thank you all.--OsamaK 18:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
We need to discuss this beyond just your talk, since you're not convinced that policy already is clear on this. ++Lar: t/c 18:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
yeah, but we 'discuss' many stuff on my user talk, so let's complete there. it would be very boring to re-point and re-answer same issue. So please talk there.--OsamaK 19:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't think that's a good approach. This is not about your page alone any more. This is about the wider question of policy, and how best to reaffirm that the image is outside the intended scope, and the use of it is outside the intended approach, since telling you this hasn't been sufficient. Policy apparently will need to be made more explicit in this area. Which is always unfortunate. ++Lar: t/c 21:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Fine. No problem. I'll help making this discussion successful. In the other hand, I'll try not to make it a big deal as some try, remember that they're tens thousands of bad uploaded images, and the only reason because of it I'm not involving right now is such issues.--OsamaK 03:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
We may not exactly have an explicit (in so many words) "anti anti" policy but it's looking more and more like we need one, since just referring to COM:SCOPE hasn't sufficed... That flag is, to me, clearly out of scope, as is just about every other image that is "anti-" or "no-". There is a difference between respecting views (which we must do) and enabling advocacy of those views (which is out of scope). The flag is not necessary to explain what the view is, and has no intrinsic educational value. Gentle explanation was not effective so stronger measures may be needed. ++Lar: t/c 18:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a difficult situation. I fail to see how this image on OsamaK's userpage furthers the work of the project, in fact it seems to be doing the complete opposite, generating controversy which is distracting us from the real things we should be doing. I therefore support the calls for it to be removed. Commons userpages are not for users to anounce their political opinions. Adambro (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Nothing generating problems except the high unbelievable caring about the Israel flag. Everyone knows that anti-states were available since -at least- two years ago. I haven't attacked any Israeli contributor, and I'll never. Sorry, but how simple is that.--OsamaK 03:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, can I ask what the difference is between OsamaK's anti-logo, and the two anti-logos I have on my userpage, which also express two distinct views which might be considered political and controversial?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't you rather be answering this question than asking it? After all you put those logos there. So what exactly was your intention in doing so? --Dschwen (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any difference. They too seem to have no real value in furthering the project. Adambro (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Exactly so, Adambro. Why DO you have those there, Mike? I've been wondering that some time now. They need to go too. ++Lar: t/c 21:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
They don't, really - just decoration. Those wishing to know the views which were being represented can ask me. If something that mild is considered to be a problem by not contributing to Commons' proper functioning, then I'd urge OsamaK to reconsider his own userpage, which certainly falls in the same category.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Stating "This user speaks Canadian English at a godlike level.." is an insult to American English speaking people and blasphemy. I protest against that. --Foroa (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
You can choose to be offended at anything you like. Being offended is a choice, after-all. J.smith (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
My opinion on this issue... User:Esby/anti...
I think some drawing are better than a long text...
Esby (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Good enough. Thank you.--OsamaK 03:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
This seems permissable as a user profile. --Swift (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Because I was asked to comment on this, people can read this. I don't have anything to add and am surprised this has to be discussed even... --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 14:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I am going to go "per birdy" here. I fail to see the point on any hate/anti media. It does nothing to enhance the project at all. I take J.smith's point that being offended is a choice however - to me - these serve no useful purpose to this worthwhile/valuable project. This is not about any specific image but the whole range of them. --Herby talk thyme 16:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
When I upload my images to Commons, I get a this screen. In the "Other tips" section I read "Wikimedia Commons is for educational or informational content." I would appreciate very much, if somebody would be able to explain to me how the discussed image (as well as most anti logo images for this matter) could be considered either educational or informational. Maybe, if no good explanation is given, it would be a good idea to delete almost all images from anti logo category? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Is Commons is not censored a good reason? You might find that kind of use hateful, however if you don’t like it, stop visiting the user’s userpage. That’s my point of view though, I’m more tolerant than other people. →Diti the penguin — 17:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I am afraid it is not a good reason. I am not talking about image to be hateful, I'm even not talking about this particular image. I asked you how anti logo images could be considered either educational or informational, and you responded because Commons is not censored. It is almost like, if I asked you for example to explain to me why summers are usually hot and you responded "Summers are usually hot because Commons is not censored". IMO , the fact that Commons is not censored cannot explain why Commons should host the images that are neither educational nor informational. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
You commented: “Maybe, if no good explanation is given, it would be a good idea to delete almost all images from anti logo category”. I gave you an explanation of why it should be kept. Also, see my other comment below to see why such images doesn’t need to be encyclopedic or informational. Is that image of mine within scope? No it’s not, but the file can be kept. →Diti the penguin — 21:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

All Wikimedia-Project will teach the world. The whole world. This only works with peace and understanding. For me one of the main pillars of the project is the positive respect for all kinds of thoughts. A personal site isn't a point for personal propaganda. If he would write something in a comercial kind the text would be deleted. The Problem isn't his opinion. Every kind of such opinion and such abuse of the project isn't to tolerate. The same would be not acceptable in the other way. If someone would write something against Palestine or Iran, the USA, Mezedonia, Serbia, etc. it would not be OK. Commons is like all other Wikimedia-Project not a political propaganda-plattform. Who want's to say such things should blog outside Wikimedia-project. OsamaK spits on the neutrality of the WMF-projects. Yes, Commons isn't censored. That's correct and I ever will fight for. But to write hate isn't the Freedom we should want. We don't censore. But this is much out of project scope. As far as I can see is, OsamaK's only wish is to show his hate propaganda. If I imagine his reaction, if someone would have such a image against Palestine... Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Marcus Cyron is making personal attacks here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Frankly Pieter - rubbish. Marcus's view is perfectly reasonable. You are far too free with your accusations of personal attacks. Of course that is only my opinon. --Herby talk thyme 18:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Stating that somebody's "only wish is to show his hate propaganda" is in my opinion just not acceptable. It is rather surprising to hear that it is "reasonable" - of course it is rubbish and nonsense. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, first of all welcome Marcus. Please stop such drama methods, we know that opposing isn't same as hating or attacking . Yeah, in the real life I do hate Israel, but I've never mentioned that here before and I'll never add it to my userpage.. go! see the logs, that -again and again- shouldn't mean that I hate or oppose or attack the good Israeli contributors, I've been always working with them, and I'll continue. You can anti whoever you wish, adhere to the policy, work hard for the project, and you'll have a space of freedom to express your point of views on your user page. Please note -again- that I'm not new at Commons, I'm not new with these methods, I do understand the policy of "not to attack" and I've been working hard to apply them on Arabic Wikipedia and surely I'd do the same here on any attack. It's not my problem if you don't know the actual history of mine, and the actual meaning of the policy. Please note that I don't care how many people anti-"no israel" as long as they don't have any valid reason. Let's face it: I can create sock puppets as some did, but I won't, I can call many people who hate Israel publicly to come here and give the support for the flag, but I believe that this is not the spirit of discussions that I know.--OsamaK 18:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
This "good Israeli" after admitting hating Israel sounded kind of familiar, and then I knew why.It reminded me this "The only good Jew is a dead Jew."--Mbz1 (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Would you stop such method? I said it clearly, "good Israeli contributors".--OsamaK 03:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Mbz1, please don't take comments out of context. Assume good faith, and ask for clarifications if you're confused. This sort of accusation isn't helpful. --Swift (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Pieter, I have a problem with you comment. It is interesting, that, if a user makes PA against other user/s, the user gets blocked (and it is the right thing to do). If a user is making a constant PA against the whole country, this user almost gets adminship supported by "twenty-nine trusted contributors". May I please ask you to notice that in no way I suggest blocking osamak? I would not like to create another martyr and besides I've heard there are no more virgins left.:)--Mbz1 (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Mbz1, please refrain from belittling your fellow Commons contributors. It doesn't do your standing as the defender against offensive material any good. --Swift (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
"But to write [...] isn't the Freedom we should want." Marcus, this is the very argument used by every censor. --Swift (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand. Those so-called anti-logo's and hate-images, to me they are just naive statements from people that hope that their images will change something. I just catalog them as (sometimes very bad) naive art and that's all. --Foroa (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Expressing Hate vs Expressing a point of view

Please excuse the new section... I wanted to separate it out a bit since I feel it's a bit of tangent to the conversation. Currently there seems to be some confusion over what is an expression of hate and what is an expression of a point of view. The simple statement, "I oppose X" or "I support Y" are neutral expressions of fact. There are many reasons why someone might support X or oppose Y, but there is no possible way to draw any conclusions as to why from those statements. On the other hand if the statement is "X should be {destroyed|preserved|revered|reviled}" or "Y is {evil|good|best|worst}" then you have a non-neutral expression of opinion. It might (or might not) express hate.

So what do we want to do? I can see the need to limit controversial "non-neutral expressions of opinion." It's just not what this project is about and the arguments that ensue can lead to a detrimental impact on our goals as a project. However, where do we draw the line for "neutral expressions of fact" about one's self? Can I mention my beliefs on any geopolitical subject? What about controversial domestic issues? If not, what beliefs can I talk about on my user page? What guideline can I apply to my user page to determine if I am in compliance? --J.smith (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO you could mention any beliefs of yours by adding an image or two to your user page as long as the image added is either informational or educational or both.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hum, as soon as an image is used on an userpage, it doesn’t need to be within scope. See {{Userpageimage}}. →Diti the penguin — 21:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that "I support Y" will always be neutral. It's not the syntax which matters, but the intent and the meaning understood by others. If a user says "I support Hitler's final solution", doesn't that necessarily imply "Jews should be destroyed"? However it is phrased, such opinions should not be posted onto user pages, not simply because they are obnoxious (although that is of course the case in the example I have given) but because they are not relevent to Commons' aims and the work we are trying to do here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that Diti is incorrect. An image whose only perceivable use is in illustrating a user's page and is being used in such a way is in scope. The project scope includes hosting of a small number of such images. You are correct in the sense that it doesn't need to comply with the requirement to be "be realistically useful for an educational purpose". However, the hosting of individual userpage images is always open to discussion, an image being used on a userpage doesn't mean it cannot be deleted and it can be considered beyond the scope of the project if the community consider it to be beyond what is reasonable content for a userpage. Adambro (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, I agree with you. But that's why I used the argument “Commons is not censored above”, as we are discussing about whether this file should be deleted or not. Oh well, [#Proposal to change allowable scope of userpage content|the section below]] may solve the problem anyway. →Diti the penguin — 08:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to change allowable scope of userpage content

On the basis of some of the comments made above, I have made a proposal to specify more clearly what is and what is not allowed on usepages. Since this is a scope proposal, I will also request further input at the VP. Please comment at Commons_talk:Project_scope/Pages,_galleries_and_categories#The use of userpages to advance personal political opinions. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Mbz1

Mbz1 (talk · contributions · Statistics) is consistently using deletion discussions to advance personal political opinions, most recently here. It would be much less disruptive if he would use his user page for that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be much less disruptive if he simply kept it off Commons altogether. Adambro (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I see the hounds are about again offering their views that folk who they do not agree with should not be here. (btw do not bother with the de-admin request - I shall do it myself shortly & then I can say what I really think). Thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, some people truly are concerned only with the poor behaviour, and some see issues even with those with whom they share an opinion. I'd be one such person. Unfortunately, it seems nearly everyone here is wrong; I'm not sure mass-banning people will improve the situation, though one could name off candidates. Could we instead please try not to antagonize each other - doing so is the real cause of these conflicts. There is no need to re-enact the cycle of violence we see in the real world on Commons; the images are instructive enough already. Please folks, Live and let live.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet case on Wikipedia, users over here as well

Hi there, I'm not sure if you guys block users based off of CheckUser findings at enwiki (or any other wiki for that matter). The case is at . It appears that Rubohcity (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth), Sleepydre (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth), Dreadys15 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) have all been active on Commons as well. I hope this information is helpful in stopping the spread of phony accounts across Wikimedia. Stepshep (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploads by User:Sendker

Hello everyone, I just came across User:Sendker and I think we might have a major copyright issue here. This user has uploaded about 1k images, mainly in 2008. Most of them are from 1900-1950 and tagged as PD-old (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and many more). This is an assumption not to be made without further info, as basically all of these images don't have author information. Sendker has put his own name in the author field, which is surely incorrect. However, there are some images that really qualify for PD-Old (e.g. File:Huldigungsfeierlichkeit.jpg) and some own work images (File:Glane03.jpg and about 20 more) from 2007. Also he uploaded images from some archives (1, 2, 3 and loads more) with some kind of permission. I think those will have to go as well as we neither have the permission nor do I think that the archives actually hold the rights to the displayed images. If we are to keep them, we would need OTRS confirmation for that.
From a quick browsing through the contribs, I'd say about 80% of the images will have to go. This means that we will have to delete about 800 images. I don't think opening a mass DR for so many images does anyone any good. Neither do I think we should nuke them, because that would also mean deleting the actually useful ones. How do we handle such cases? Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no good reason to delete old postcards from Königsberg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
As I said, they originate from some archives. I don't think the archives are the copyright holder, so they cannot hand out permission. On the other hand the cards are too young to just assume PD-old. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Your examples were old. According to de:Bildrechte#Deutschland, the German law from before 1940 gave protection to photos for 10 years. That means that the rights on photos from before 1930 had expired when a new law with longer terms came into effect. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
In Germany we love retroactive copyright laws. sугсго 22:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Juvntux (talk · contribs)

This user uploads images with a doubtful source, he wrote "Yo" ("Me" in Spanish) as source in some images, in others wrote "Internet" as source. I noticed in his talk and the Spanish Wikipedia, but he ignores me and upload more images. Please he needs attention. --Taichi (talk) 07:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

All gone. Thanks for the report. Giggy (talk) 09:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris pinto (talk · contribs)

-- 85.177.47.70 20:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

  Done i think, some of them are already gone, the rest is covered with deletion requests. --Martin H. (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Am I a vandal?

I've been called a vandal several times tonight, in edit sumamries and on my and another talk page, for trying to fix broken and bogus metadata in a template, and told that I should create my own template. Andy Mabbett (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I read your talk page and it seems that J Messerly is trying to be reasonable. However, I have no idea what this argument is actually about. Could you please summarise it? -mattbuck (Talk) 03:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
He calls me a vandal four times or more and that's reasonable? He created {{Places by decade}} which emits several microformats, badly, as detailed at Template talk:Places by decade#Microformats. I have described the problems, and tried to fix them, but editing a sub-template {{Place/doVEvent}} and been reverted three times in a few hours, despite making different edits to try to accommodate issues raised by J JMesserly, who has also referred to the template as "his" and suggested that I should set up "my own" and get "an independent body" to arbitrate. Andy Mabbett (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I read through the talk page and your user talk pages, and left a comment. Your edits were in no way vandalism as you clearly are trying to do good. J JMesserly was out of line on that. Keep in mind, however, that there is clearly a disagreement about the approach. Editing (or "fixing") the template before sorting things with your co-contributors is asking for trouble. --Swift (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree I was out of line by interpreting the breakage of interoperability with Google and Yahoo maps as vandalism. I tried to explain that they no longer worked after your "fix", but I obviously did not do a good job. I am in complete acceptance of Swift's proposal on the Template talk page, and elaborated on this matter there. I am sure we can work this out. -J JMesserly (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

inconsiderate behaviour on the featured picture

The most relevant material that is uploaded to Commons are the restorations of old material. The encyclopaedic value is enormous because it is the only illustration we have for many subjects. When Karel decided to spout this type of serial message;

  •   Oppose Could you, please!, stop with nominations of almost every your new image for FP. Your self-confidence must be great but if everybody here will do the same, there will be around 100 000 nominations per month on this page. Please, try to find among your images these, which you consider to be the best and nominate only them. Thanks. --Karel (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

He may destroy our fledgling restoration efforts. This guy is a photographer and while there is a need for all kinds of photos, great photos, quality photos, there are plenty people who can snap their shutter. It takes skills of a different dimension, skills that are rare to do restorations. When you consider the effort that is taken to have a diverse spread of material that is relevant to many epochs and cultures, we need more of this and we cannot have this type of disruption. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone brought it to my attention that Karelj has been cut/pasting the same message to a number of featured picture candidates, specifically singling out historic material for spammed opposes.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] This creates a hostile environment for volunteers who work with media other than digital photography; some of the people he's singled out for these belittling remarks actually do meticulous restorations and have dozens of featured picture credits on sister projects. His conduct is inappropriate. Durova (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing disruptive about a (friendly) request to spread nominations on FPC. When a photographer does a similar thing it is also frowned upon. And Durova, whether a an image is featured on a sister project, is completely irrelevant here. Sister porojects have different rules and standards. Lycaon (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
About the comment itself, what you say might be true, but here they also are systematic oppositions, with a reason that is not related to the picture itself. I don't know much about FPs, but this looks a bit "wrong" to me. It's not the same as putting the message on the uploader's talk page, for instance. I think that maybe this issue should be settled within the FP project. --Eusebius (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Bear in mind, Lycaon, that some of the recent candidacies for my work were actually nominated by other people--I even abstained from those. I have 141 featured picture credits at en:wiki, yet only 29 featured credits locally. That means dozens of potentially featurable restorations hosted at this site. Which is a bit different from nominating every upload indiscriminately. On the one hand I've been under considerable pressure to nominate more work here--some people don't even bother to ask anymore and nominate it regardless--while on the other hand rude responses come when I do. What matters is the quality of the output: the overall goal is to generate useful illustrative material, and it runs counter to that to countenance rude and discriminatory behavior toward productive contributors in particular visual genres. Durova (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I've nominated four images in the last two weeks, only two of which are my own work (the other two are things I thought particularly noteworthy by other people, as part of an attempt to recognise good content). I still got her message accusing me of spamming. Furthermore, it was his behaviour in my FPs that put me off such work for several months last year. (Details when I get back from Uni - only here because I forgot my wallet) Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


He has, in the past made his views clear:

Even earlier this month he was making the same claims.


But now we're supposed to believe that this has nothing to do with his obvious hatred of historic media, he just feels that the users are the problem. So, instead of him "merely" attacking users' right to work in types of images he dislikes and get credit for them, he now wants to attack the users themselves. How many people who could have contributed historic media have been driven off by his and others' behaviour in this last year? Nor is his behaviour particularly polite even in photographic media. He should be banned from doing anything but nominating things at FPC. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Karel has withdrawn his comments, so striking through mine. Thanks for the attention. It's about content, not egos. Best regards to all, Durova (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Scopritore

I believe that Scopritore (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Lorenzop (talk · contribs) (see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archives/User_problems_5#Lorenzop_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29). You can find some reasons in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Renato Soru.jpg but there are more: File:MAO Torino.jpg was uploaded here on Commons on 9 December 2008; a few minutes later it:User:Lorpre87 inserted in on Italian Wikipedia, so it's clear they're the same person; Lorpre87 is a sockpuppet of it:user:Lorenzop: compare user pages; moreover, another SP of Lorenzop was called Lorpre, and he had 87 in many user names, e.g. it:user:Laurentius87. Soru's photo I've asked to be deleted was inserted in the article by an anonymous user (again, a few minutes after it was uploaded on Commons), but a few minutes before Lorpre87 has modified the article: coincidence? Maybe not. Other images uploaded by Scopritore here on Commons should be checked too... --Jaqen (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: it seems that also File:Walter Veltroni 2.jpg he uploaded is copyvio (but not Flickrwashing). --Jaqen (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked the user. Will look at the uploads shortly.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate redirect of an IP address page to userspace, and inappropriate username

  ResolvedTalking to the user works - go to it.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

A new registered account called IP68.213.169.171 (talk · contribs) has redirected an IP address talk page to the user talk page of their registered account. This is inappropriate, as IP addresses change, and should not be claimed in this fashion by a registered account. In addition, the choice of name of the account as "IP68.213.169.171" is also inappropriate for the same reasons. Requesting another administrator look into this. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that's inappropriate. I think the username is also confusing; I'd ask that user to please choose another username, and undo the redirect.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Update: I undid attempts by the new registered account IP68.213.169.171 (talk · contribs) to wipe out message to the talk page of User talk:68.213.169.171. Again, the redirect from an IP address talk page by this newly registered account IP68.213.169.171 (talk · contribs) to its userspace is inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Martina Nolte

Martina Nolte and other german users are trying to point strongly to a stricter usage of COM:PEOPLE. As such this is a noble purpose. First they filed deletion requests on almost every picture in Category:Peter Klashorst, which have been kept (almost all of them). But filling the deletion requests archive with undiscussed and unwanted oppinions shouldn't be tolerated.

I have the feeling this operation gets out of hand and could disrupt the workflow at Commons seriously. Could some admin have a word with her? (She speaks German and English.) --Yamavu (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to report the same thing. This behaviour is definitely unbearable. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Mauls edits

More attention would be appreciated on a particular problem. While I was assembling a 'before and after' demonstration of image restoration, I chanced upon an 'unrestored' version of a historic image that's featured on a sister project which had actually undergone a radical edit. The file is File:Waldorf-Astoria 1904-1908.jpg and the radical edit--which remained live for nearly a month-- is this (the featured version is File:Waldorf-Astoria 1904-1908.jpg. The upload notes clearly state that the image is retained for comparison against a restoration, but the re-uploader ignored that. He has also done numerous other radical edits upon other historic material, which tend toward weak cropping and blown whites. Requesting fresh eyes to review and selectively retain/revert as appropriate.

In a larger sense, this instance demonstrates a gap in our policies. Radical edits are being performed upon our historic material with no documentation and no tracking. For instance, the map that was once this now appears as this with no other upload notes than improved image quality. 'Improved' in what way? We even host a radical edit on Raphael's Sistine Madonna (originally this) with wholly undocumented changes. And that radical edit is live in 50 pages on 29 projects.[22] For most of 2008 we were hosting this radical edit of Sandro Boticelli's self-portrait until I reverted the absurd change to its original state. That self-portrait is used on 149 pages at 38 projects.[23] And we don't know how much other great artwork and historic docments are getting damaged this way.

We need a 'best practices' writeup for edits to historic material. Most readers have no idea how our hosting works, and random distortions of historic material are getting published as a result. We must develop at least some basic guideline--such as an expectation to upload radical changes with meaningful edit notes under a new filename--in order to address the problem. Durova (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Related to this problem: I often encounter replace (and subsequently delete) requests for works of art on CommonsDelinker. So far I have declined (removed the template) of such requests if the two version differ (even a slight colour difference). How am I indeed to know which version reflects most the original? Should there be a colour standard photographed with every art reproduction? Until there is a fixed (by consensus) rule, written by specialists on the subject, I won't send these files to the delinker. Looks like there is more work for the Durova's and Adam Cuerden's of this world ;-). Lycaon (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Durova, perhaps you should write the best practices you want written down - you're (AFAIK) the person who would know best what they should be. I find I cannot disagree with you on this issue.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you; regarding cleanup it would be good if someone less close to the subject follows up. Some of this editor's changes might be for the better, on low resolution material. It's a case-by-case issue. Durova (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Sherurcij

User:Sherurcij has accused me of "revisionism" [24]. Notwithstanding that this is extremely insulting (in line with his "your insanity" above), public expressions of revisionism constitute a felony in my country of residence. Therefore, this is downright libel. I have given opportunities to User:Sherurcij to this take back and apologise, but he explicitly refused to do so. This leaves me no other recourse than to fill a complain here. Rama (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, there is no libel, but you seem to want to sanitize history, with your talk of "morally repugnant" uploads. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Sherurcij is accusing me of a felony. That is libel. How I seem to you or him can certainly be expressed without accusing me of a felony. Rama (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you live in Saudi Arabia and I accuse you of being an apostate from Islam, is that also criminal libel alleging you've commit a felony? You've spearheaded a campaign to delete pictures showing people after death claiming it's "morally repugnant", trying to have photos showing US Soldiers, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and even the Goebbels removed from the project. I asked you whether this question of "morally repugnant" would apply to a photo showing JFK's autopsy photos, or King Tut's preserved body, and you simply answered by saying that I was committing a felony by suggesting you were trying to rewrite history by removing all photos showing war-dead. Sherurcij (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You have accused my of "revisionism". Besides being rude, insulting and out of order, it is libel and defamation. I demand an apology. Rama (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Quick question, how the heck are you an administrator? And since I have no regrets for stating that you were engaging in historical revisionism by demanding that photos of war-dead be "sanitized" from ou project -- I don't think an apology is in order. Please grow up and stop bringing your childish disputes to public forums Sherurcij (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no accusation of any felony. Either you really do not understand what Sherurcij is trying to say, or you are constructing a straw man. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand revisionism, exactly as Sherurcij means it.
Apparently, in addition to practicing intellectual terrorism, Sherurcij does not have the courage to take back such insults. Too bad. I will find sollace in that I can disagree with him without calling him a necrophilic pedophile, and ignore that individual. Rama (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Please, both of you, discuss deletions without attacking one another. Sherurci, please don't do this again.[25] Rama cited a guideline and an example in support of his view.[26] An appropriate response is to cite example(s) in support of your opinion,[27] to cite other policy or guidance, or to explain why you think Rama's interpretation of the guideline is incorrect or inapplicable. Administrators are expected to set a good example and not to respond in kind, even obliquely or by implication.[28] Sherurci, if you feel strongly about such subject matter, perhaps other topics could benefit from your attention for awhile. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa, he accuses me of terrorism and I accuse him of revisionism, and I am the one at fault? All I said is that he's imparting his personal view on Deletion discussions, saying they're "morally reprehensible", when clearly we aren't going to try and legislate morality and what images are and aren't "too gross". Every policy across every WMF project supports that. Sherurcij (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I accuse you of intellectual terrorism, not of terrorism. Do not deform what I say. Actual terrorism requires a dedication to a cause, an intelligence and a degree of courage of which I think you would be incapable. Rama (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I support Sherurcij, if anyone is out of line it is the venomous responses Rama has when people disagree with him. He personally struck out my comments stating my opinions was irrelevant, and stated many others opinions was irrelevant. Effectively saying only his opinion matters. This is not the actions, in my opinion of an administrator of a project of this scope. I hope someone higher up sees this and agrees. Raeky (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
1) Your comment was truck out because you had very few contributions on Commons, not because it was irrelevant.
2) I said your arguments were irrelevant because they do not address the issue at hand. This is a remark about your comment not about you personally.
3) I said that your arguments were irrelevant, not that you were a revisionist. There is a difference between criticising the opportunity of a comment and accusing one of revisionism.
Rama (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
As it was pointed out that striking out someones comments (regardless of level of participation in one wikimedia project) isn't an established practice. There is no policy saying you have to meet some level of participation for your opinions to matter. That was the issue. You didn't like another different opinion so you tried to out-of-hand dismiss it. That was not the behavior of an admin, imho. Likewise just out-of-hand responding to someone's opinion as "irrelevant" is rude. Your behavior is not becoming of an admin. As for the comments on revisionism, I don't concur that your damaged by them. Because you live in a backwards repressive society who doesn't understand the concept of "free speech" doesn't mean that the rest of the world can't exercise their rights that your deprived. My opinion is you are trying to rewrite history by hiding evidence of events you don't like. If you want to call that revisionism then thats your prerogative. The company and website is based out of the united states where we have freedom of speech and things like "revisionism" are not illegal. Your argument here seems like something that you'd see in a school yard, and your behavior in previous encounters I've had with you is not admin like or even civilized. Raeky (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Striking out comments of singe-purpose accounts is not uncommon, and there are numerous policies regarding singe-purpose accounts.
You do not know where live, so I would appreciate if you could keep your comments for you. For your information, even in a wonderful society like the USA, the concept of libel exists.
I am absolutely not hiding any "evidence" of anything, I am merely contesting the opportunity of hosting what I regard to be snuff pornography on Commons, given that we have a policy to be cautious in this respect, and similar images have indeed be deleted. I think that Commons should be consistant and humane. You are free to disagree with me, but I think that discourses about "censorship" are irrelevant, because this are not the issue, and I refuse to be insulted with terms like "revisionist". I am not calling you a child killer of a pedophile necrophile for your apparent taste in photographs of dead kids, am I?
Finally, Wikimedia is not a "company". Rama (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think User:Rama should be blocked for this kind of comments. Totally unacceptable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper, you are very kind, but I do not think that I said anything very remotely as much insulting as accusing one of revisionism. Since you are not even considering telling User:Sherurcij that his accusations are not acceptable, I find that this call of yours is singularly one-sided, and gives some perspective on your previous comments. Rama (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I now see that you are an administrator here. I started a new section about your behaviour, see below. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow what a classic Rama venomous response. By your stating revisionism is against the law I'm going to assume your from one of those countries. Sure libel exists in the USA but it takes something SIGNIFICANT to be charged under it (and its rare), and it's a CIVIL crime not a CRIMINAL one. Big difference. I've never stated I _like_ the images I oppose you wiping from the archive, ever. I've stated that I feel it is against the policies this archive was setup on to delete such images. What you define as "snuff pornography" is way vastly insanely beyond any reasonable persons interpretation of what "snuff pornography" would be that it's laughable. You seem to elicit personal attacks in every response you make. If someone disagrees you insult them, are rude, and then if that doesn't work you start the personal attacks. I really REALLY don't think you should be an admin. Raeky (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
And I'd also like to inject that it's pretty darn clear my account isn't a "singe-purpose account" if you did ANY attempt to verify it. Which leads me to belive you didn't do any attempt to verify a "singe-purpose account" and just attempted to squash an opinion that wasn't what you wanted to hear. Raeky (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I have been called a revisionist by you and User:Sherurcij; you, personally, have called 10 countries (most of them in the European Union) "backwards repressive society who doesn't understand the concept of "free speech"", called me "uncivilised", repeatedly questioned my integrity as a Commons administrator while no admin action from my part has been questioned, and I am making personal attacks? Rama (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
If you can be arrested for just speaking or writing an opinion, then yes, thats 'a backwards repressive society' in my book, and yes you make personal attacks. To be honest. Raeky (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The notion of civility is precisely about keeping such "books" to oneself. I grant you your contempt for entire populations who just happen to live in countries where Nazi parties are forbidden can hardly be said to be a personal attack, and is more akin to downright prejudice. Nevertheless, making massive insults along with personal ones is not more acceptable than personal ones alone, and makes your accusations of personal attacks on my part only even more bizarre. Rama (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm entitled to my opinion on the legalities of the "Holocaust denial" laws, agree with the person or not, I hardly think speaking an opinion is a criminal offense. But then I guess I'm spoiled with regards to the legal freedoms granted by my country. I'm also a little ticked about how you glossed over and ignored my initial contributions when I first ran into you, taken as "who the heck are you, you insignificant nobody, you don't matter, go away." That _personally_ offended me and tainted my opinion of you in a way that would be difficult for you to recover from (even more so since your an admin!). As for your 3 year old rant (as it seems to me, and apparently others on here) against the "zomg! he called me a nasty name!" doesn't do much to improve my opinion of you. The calling the Goebbel children's picture "snuff pornography" is also offensive to me. Sure it's distasteful, but I think historically relevant so it should be kept. You seem to be against the concept of 'historical revisionism' but your actions of deleting ugly evidence of past crimes will only strengthen the arguments of people in the future who wish to do 'historical revisionism.' If there was a whole ton of people like you after WW2, there might not be much evidence left of the Holocaust which would make Holocaust denial a lot stronger of an argument. You can't just wipe things you find repugnant from image archives. Resources like Commons stands a good chance of being a _valuable_ resource for historical media in the future. I find it hard to just stand by and watch people like you undermining the value of such an archive for your _personal_ opinions. Any attack that I've made against you, on the personal side, probably is uncalled for, just as I feel many of the ways you've conducted yourself in these conversations is equally uncalled for. Raeky (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I happen to think that photographs of dead children has no particular interest per se, and I have specifically mentioned photographs of victims of Nazi genocides as document which do have an interest, in contrast. I think that I am entitled to this opinion as much as you are to yours. I furthermore think that crying "censorship" over such matters is not contributing to the discussion and that "irrelevant" is the exact term for this.
I am happy that you manage the cognitive dissonance of living happily in the USA and calling countries like Germany "backwards repressive society who doesn't understand the concept of 'free speech'". I am a bit disappointed as well, though, because with such stringent criteria on standards of societies, seeing you describe a country where over half the population believes in creationism and where infant mortality rises amongst some populations might have taught me a new superlative for "backwards"; and your term for a country that tortures and detains its own citizens without any form of legal process, one for "repressive". Rama (talk) 08:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

User Domaleixo

As posted here, user Domaleixo ( local | logs | global ) is trying to impose his POV in two files:

He has already been bloked at WP:PT for the same reason and continued the war edition here. Thanks. --Tonyjeff (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The file 'Brasao de Belo Horizonte.jpg' whatever version your trying to keep him from reverting is corrupt, it just displays a broken image. The version he's replacing with works and looks "ok." The file 'Brasao cg ed.jpg' the version your trying to keep is VERY low quality with a colored background, the one hes replacing it with is a neutral white background and much better quality. What exactly is his "POV" that differs from you? You for broken poor images and hes pro-working images? I don't understand. Raeky (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The broken image was working until now; I am going to review it. Anyway, the point is not the quality: he is trying to impose a different version, which is not the official symbol adopted by the city administration. It is not simply a matter of "higher-quality-version" of the same image, it is a distinct image created by him, which, by his mind, must be the one to be used. This kind of edition is not consensual in WP:PT, and what he is doing here is just a way to keep the war he started there, since he was blocked in WP:PT. --Tonyjeff (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea which version of these files is the correct one, but I would just like to point out to Raeky that Brasao de Belo Horizonte.jpg works fine for me, so I don't think that's really the issue here. And Tonyjeff, it would be nice if you could provide an official source or reference that shows how these images should look like. --Tryphon (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
It shows as a broken image in Google Chrome, so something about it is very non-standard. Raeky (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Can I ask what the purpose (are you using it in a project somewhere?) to upload it to Commons? If they are truly different then sure he shouldn't be replacing the 'official' (even though it looks like a web image example of the 'official' one) logo with something unofficial. Have you attempted to discuss this with him on his talk page (usually your FIRST course of action before you seek higher-up involvement). I'd also like to recommend that much of what I saw you uploading is VERY low quality pixilated images, try to find better (vector if possible) versions. As for the 'Brasao cg ed.jpg' file the one he is uploading looks IDENTICAL to the one your uploading, except much better quality, what is the difference that you object to? Raeky (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually I can see subtle differences, either way though the copy your uploading is very poor quality. So I ask again what purpose are you adding it to Commons? Raeky (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC
Raeky, these blazons are used in every article of Wikipedia related to Belo Horizonte and Campo Grande. Indeed, me and others have already discussed with him at WP:PT, where he shows unnecessary aggressiveness. Actually, that is why he was blocked at WP:PT.
He thinks that these blazons should be "corrected", despite being officials, according to what he believes is the "correct heraldry": changing the crowns over the shields. Look carefully, please: they are not identical.
In fact, he has already uploaded these images here and here. However, since no other user at WP:PT agreed to use these images uploaded by him, he is trying to impose them by substituting the original ones directly at Commons – what is a clear violation to the "good faith attitude" we should expect here.
what purpose are you adding it to Commons? (Raeky) (Please provide the title of the work) – I am not adding anything to Commons, due to the simple fact that they were already there. What I am trying to prevent is the arbitrary substitution of one image for another that is already uploaded somewhere else at Commons.
I will be happy to create vector versions for these blazons, but no matter the quality of the image, it should not be substituted by a version that is not identical – specially when it is not a consensus. --Tonyjeff (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
If they're widely used, best you can get, and the official versions, then theres no reason someone should be replacing them with unofficial versions. I'm not an admin but thats my opinion on the matter. :P Raeky (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

محسن عبدالهی (talk · contribs)

This new user has vandalized Commons:Welcome, though eventually in error. But when I tried to leave him a note on his talkpage (User talk:محسن عبدالهی), I was redirected to a gallery (بحث کاربر:محسن عبدالهی). Not sure whether this is acceptable as it's quite irritating. --Túrelio (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not acceptable, he did the same thing to his user page. I moved it back, but didn't check the talk page. As the user has already been indefblocked, I deleted the page in the main namespace instead of moving it over the current talk page. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Bpeele (talk · contribs)

Hi. There is a user who appears to be claiming to be the same as a certain Mr. Barry Peele. How would we go about verifying that on commons? Thanks. 68.32.4.225 20:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's really astonishing that "his" heavily used professionally looking File:Natalie-Imbruglia-Barry-Peele.jpg was never questioned. One might contact the alleged photographer here: barry@barrypeele.com --Túrelio (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
O.k. I sent a mail to Mr. Peele. Let's see what he has to say. --Túrelio (talk) 07:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
His immediate reply: No I did not put the photo of Natalie up, nor is it available. Please remove it from the site. Done, apologized to Peele and blocked uploader indef for pretending to be Barry Peele. --Túrelio (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hanita123 (talk · contribs) sock-puppet

User:Hanita123 seems to be sock-puppet of Hanita16 (talk · contribs). He twice left a rather insulting comment[29],[30] on my talkpage claiming he hadn't violated copyright and asked for returning some "Rebelde images". As there was no deleted image in his upload history, first I didn't know what he was talking of. But when I traced his only uploaded image (probably also a copyvio) to :en, I first found it had been inserted by en-User:Hanita16 and second that the same user had inserted images in en:List of Rebelde characters, that had been uploaded to Commons by User:Hanita16. And some of these images had been tagged as copyvios by User:Mizunoryu and been deleted by me. --Túrelio (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Block as needed based on behaviour.  — Mike.lifeguard 17:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Djreichsfuhrer (talk · contribs)

Probably qualifies as "inappropriate username". --217.186.191.174 03:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree. --David Shankbone (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I've asked him/her to choose a different username.[31] Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
You were quite cautious in the cited allusions. Reichsführer meant usally en:Reichsführer-SS.--Túrelio (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. This isn't a kind request. They should be blocked until they register with a new name. --David Shankbone (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User Rama

I see now that Rama (talk · contribs) is an administrator. In this edit he wrote: "I am not calling you a child killer of a pedophile necrophile for your apparent taste in photographs of dead kids, am I?"

Just because somebody is against deletion of a photo of the Goebbels children.

Unless he retracts this kind of accusations (the paralipsis should not fool anybody) and apologizes, I do not see why he should be allowed to be an administrator. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you really need to try to resolve your interpersonal disputes before coming here. This is something you can solve yourself and doesn't require administrative intervention. If you feel you need help to resolve the situation, ask someone who you think can help on their talk page perhaps.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not accusing anyone of being any such thing, in any manner. I am pointing to the fact that I am not making ridiculous attacks against fellow contributors, as those who have accused me of "revisionism", in a very direct manner, have done [32] [33] (I have also been called "insane" and other nice words before that, but I won't react to merely cretinous behaviour; "revisionism", on the other hand, I regard as an utterly intolerable attack). "Child killer or a pedophile necrophile" is an example of an attack which I do not do because I see it as much without merit and as much insulting as I ressent "negationist".
If this reminder of mind has really been, honestly, understood as an actual statement that Raeky would be a "child killer or a pedophile necrophile", which I do not think, then I apologise for the misunderstanding.
I would be curious to see whether Raeky and most of all Sherurcij would apologise for their very direct and unmistakable accusations of "revisionism" against me. I think that they will not, but maybe will they prove me wrong by far exceeding the moral standards that I expect from them.
As for Pieter Kuiper, how does my adminship has to do with anything? I did not use administrator privileges to complain about being called a "revisionist", did I? I furthermore protest your singularly myopic attitude here, which allows you to infer elaborate rhetorical constructions from my part when I do not say something, and yet fail to see base and dishonourable accusation by Sherurcij when they are made in a very plain and direct manner. Rama (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
@Rama: I do not think you have been called a negationist. Even if you had been, it does not justify your venomous attack.
@Mike.lifeguard: I am not a party in the dispute. I see an administrator here making this kind of outrageous accusations, I commented on it, and User:Rama gave an unapologetic reply. Ordinary users have been blocked for less, I think. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
"I'd suggest it's your blatant POV and revisionism that's so repugnant. Sherurcij (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)" [34]. Pieter, would you be so kind as to explain to me how you can be subtle enough to construct me accusing people of really, actually being "necrophile pedophiles", and fail to see the direct, unambiguous accusation in Sherurcij's attack? Rama (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that all I said when it comes to your unfair free speech issue in your country is, "My opinion is you are trying to rewrite history by hiding evidence of events you don't like. If you want to call that revisionism then thats your prerogative." Clearly I'm not calling you this silly name that has no legal stigma in my country. Raeky (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
With less Byzantine subtlety than the amount that Peiter demonstrated, I actually had understood it as you joining the spit chorus of Sherurcij's. But if you are retracting the term then fine. I asked no more from you. Rama (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
My opinion still holds, how you want to interpret it is your choice. I never used the word you seem to be offended by, only offering it to you as a choice for your own interpretation of my opinion. Raeky (talk)
Well that is not a retraction, much less an apology, and it is cowardly. Rama (talk) 08:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Without examining the issue of "personal attacks" (which it seems are often quoted out of context and with certain key phrases preceding and following them deleted surreptitiously to make them seem more sinister...) -- I find Rama's desire to delete all photographs showing corpses to be inappropriate for an administrator, and his attempts to strike-out comments and encourage others to ignore people who point out flaws in his argument to be counter-productive to the project as a whole. I would sternly warn anyone for removing somebody else's (non-vandalism) comments on a Deletion Review...for an administrator to do so is inexcusable. Sherurcij (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please provide diffs for examples of bad behavior if you wish anyone to review them. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Being an administrator does not strip me of my right to have opinions any more that it is a vow of chastity. As a contributor amongst others, without making any use of my administrative tools of any sort and without mentioning being an admin in any way, I have a right to deem some photographs inappropriate, just as much as Sherurcij has the right to hold an opinion. And people have a right to disagree with me if they so wish, and I have a right to disagree with them. This anti-administrator outrage has absolutely no merit whatsoever. And how this authorises Sherurcij to accuse me of "revisionism" is beyond me.
Furthermore, Sherurcij misrepresents my view again, since I did not call to "delete all photographs showing corpses". It is only gratuitous and complacent displays of gore that I find distasteful and fit for deletion. I remind that we have policies [35] on the matter. Pretending to ignore the issue of unnecessarily gory images, or trying to dismiss the point by assimilating critics on specific images to "delet[ing] all photographs showing corpses" is in conflict with the policies of Commons. Rama (talk) 08:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Rama commented against deleting a Public Domain photograph of dead American soldiers noting that it "would have troubling implications on our ability to document History". When the file was deleted (most recently with an 11-2 Keep vote, still under review), he stated that the reasoning for the deletion was "brain-dead", but noted that several people made reference to how the image was no more "distasteful" than the photo of dead al-Qaeda members such as File:Zarqawi dead us govt photo.jpg - and to make a WP:POINT, nominated it for deletion giving no reason except "photograph of recently deceased person". When somebody suggested his calls for deletion amounted to "sanitize violence, war and death", Rama responded that he should stick to "the issue at hand -- respect of the dead, usefulness of the image, consideration for the family". When another user simply said that 2.5 years was not recent and the image was widely used on Wikipedia and other projects, Rama simply deleted his comment stating that it didn't matter because the user had 'less than 50 edits' (which isn't true, the user has plenty of edits across a variety of projects). When it was questioned whether the call for deletion was consistent "the spirit of Wikimedia", Rama stated that it was irrelevant, all that mattered is that the photograph wasn't "humane and tasteful". When yet another editor pointed out that no Human Rights organisation seemed to take up the cause of 'removing such images from the public sphere' to help grieving families cope, Rama responded that the analogy was "deluded" and "arcane" and drew a parallel to Flight 77 ramming the Pentagon. Again, when Raeky asked whether this would extend to deleting photos showing the war-dead from World War II, Rama confirmed he was in favour of deleting images of wartime soldiers and their bodies, and voted to delete a photograph of Joseph Goebbels murdered children stating it was "morally repugnant". Sherurcij (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Without coming to the details of your tendentious summary, how would this justify calling me "revisionist", exactly? Rama (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This "tendentious summary"'s purpose was not to say you are a revisionist, it is to say that you have behaved incredibly poorly even for a completely new member of the project - you would likely receive a stern warning for deleting other people's comments for example. The fact you are doing so as an administrator is what gives me (and apparently many others) grave concern. Administrators should be those few elite who are above the petty and POV squabbling of the proles -- not the ones who are trolls themselves, making veiled references to threatening lawsuits against other users, calling for the deletion of photographs simply because you find them "morally repugnant". If an administrator was trying to have all photos of Prophet Muhammad deleted, or all images of vagina-diagrams showing the position of the clitoris, I would be equally concerned. "Normal people" are expected to be rhetoric-pushing mules -- administrators are not. Sherurcij (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
And if you insist on knowing why I think you're crossing the line into historical revisionism, let's view the 'context of my quote that used the word "revisionism". "You can't really point to a policy about interfering in private family matters as relevant to somebody who's been dead more than fifty years...can we show the body of JFK? King Tut? Where will your insanity end? You've tried to have photos of Goebbels, Al-Zarqawi and American soldiers all deleted from the project because you consider them "morally repugnant",". You never responded to it, you just started saying "omg, it's a felony, omg it's libel, omg I'm going to take action if you don't apologise." Feel free to actually respond to the issue. Sherurcij (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely never have I done or suggested anything remotely resembling revisionism. I have specifically mentioned photographs of victims of Nazi extermination camps as photographs that do have an interest and that should not be deleted. Accusing me of revisionism is utterly unwarranted; it is deeply insulting; because revisionism is a legal offence in several countries including where I live, it is a grave accusation and it constitutes libel; because it consists in an outrageous straw-man argument that attempts to throw your opponent into a hateful categories of people, it is intellectual terrorism.
You have never managed to oppose any serious argument to the thesis that the images in question are gratuitously gore, all you managed was a chant against "censorship". The fact that you have no serious argument to defend your promotion of complacently gore photographs is not excuse to accuse people of "revisionism". Yes, accusing someone of revisionism is libel. No, I have never threatened you with legal action, and I do not intend to do that; I merely think that people should advise you that your behaviour is simply appalling. Rama (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Of course censuring the image of the Goebbels girls is not a criminal offense and it is not libel to compare Rama's deletion request to revisionism in the sense of sanitizing history. Rama just wants to take offense, his shouting "libel" is a straw man. That is appalling behaviour of this administrator, who is still characterizing opposition to a deletion request as "promoting gore photographs". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I do take offence at being called a "revisionist". Would you not?
Being an administrator or not had nothing whatsoever to do with the matter. One is entitled to his opinions whether he is an admin or not. This anti-admin creep borders on populism, and is consistant with the use of terms like "censor" or with attempts to justify accusations of revisionism.
One more thing: we are taking about revisionism or negationism. Raeky confirmed the point when he cowardly gave the definition "trying to rewrite history by hiding evidence of events you don't like" [36] instead of the actual word "revisionism". I am demanding apologies from Sherurcij and Raeky, not an attempt by a third party to water down this repugnant, libelous attack. Rama (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Cowardly? WTF. This is a prime example of how your unfit to be an admin due to your inability to be nice. Insult after insult. Unwarranted. Raeky (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not watering down. Please do try to understand that Category:Altered Soviet photographs is the prime example of revisionism in the context of historical photographs. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I have to say that this type of behaviour by an admin is shocking. Administrators should be trusted by fellow contributors to handle sensitive tools which are granted in limited number for the very reason that not everyone is able to handle them responsibly. Rama certainly does not have my trust and I would support a move to remove his tools. He's free to participate in the project, but has not shown wisdom in his use of administrative tools. --Swift (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I have not used administrative tools in this context, what are you taking about? Rama (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know... but you really need to calm down. So do others involved here. Please take some time off and come back when your pulse stops racing.  — Mike.lifeguard 17:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I know you didn't. I'm talking about the fact your behaviour is not one that I would expect of an administrator. The criteria for sysop isn't just that there is no demonstratable evidence that you will abuse the tools. These tools are granted to people who the community agrees are reasonable enough to be able to make wise decisions in difficult situations. You don't seem to fit that criteria. That is what I am talking about. --Swift (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Juansito21 (talk · contribs) and Manizalita11 (talk · contribs)

Apparently, those two users are the same person, uploading exactly the same pictures that are mainly (only?) copyvios. For example, Juansito21 uploaded File:Deportes_caldas1950.jpg and File:Once caldas1998.jpg (which have been deleted), and later Manizalita11 uploaded File:Deportescaldas1950.jpg and File:Oncecaldas1998.jpg, which (if I remember correctly) are exactly the same files. I think the contributions of both users should be deleted, and the owner of the accounts blocked/warned that this behavior is not acceptable. --Tryphon (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Some images deleted and two of them tagged with {{Npd}}. Users warned. Thank you. KveD (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of it so quickly. --Tryphon (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Help for Poland

Could someone give some categorisation help with this user: Special:Contributions/Timaska, probably from Poland and creating categories that I don't understand. --Foroa (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Already taken care of. odder 09:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Utopies (talk · contribs)

As already explained elswhere (details on his talkpage), this user has copied from :en quite some images taken by others, then (in most cases) changed the licensing from PD to GFDL, put his own username in the author entry, removed the original meta data, replaced the usually english description by a french one and changed the photo date to his upload date. It was only by chance that this was detected before the original images and their data had been deleted. While author names and photo dates have been corrected already, the correct licenses (as being a legal act) and the file versions containing the original meta data still have to be restored. I'm not sure whether such a behaviour merits a indef ban.--Túrelio (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As he repeated this behaviour after a warning, I blocked him for 3 days.--Túrelio (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I know the person. Utopies doesn't read English at all… It's as implicitly shown on their userpage as mine with my Spanish level. I'll try to talk to them on IRC. →Diti the penguin — 16:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Diti. If that is the problem, he should totally refrain from transfering files from :en to Commons.--Túrelio (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

InSegment

I have username blocked InSegment (talk · contribs) over at en.wiki. I noticed that this user has uploaded copyrighted photos that qualified for speedy deletion over 10 days ago. Just bringing this to admin attention over here. Thanks!-Andrew c (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Gone :) thanks (& looked promotional too). I see the user has had a final warning so I'll do the AGF bit & not block but others may see it differently! Cheers --Herby talk thyme 19:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of admin tools by Odder

Hi guys, i'm uploading a lot of images. All images are in scope and have proper permission. Odder decided he didn't like some of them (you can see a gallery here). He asked me at irc if i agreed with deletetion (i didn't) and removed the images anyway. I don't see any grounds for speedy deletion so I asked him to undelete the images. He refused. I'm an admin so i can (and will) undelete these images, but i don't like this kind of misuse of admin tools. Opinions please. Multichill (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  Comment I have to say I don't see any reason for a speedy deletion. Abigor talk 20:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Second Abigor here, I'd like to see an explanation from Odder about this (some kind of misunderstanding?) Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Those images are out of the scope, please see Commons:Deletion requests/recent uploads of BotMultichill if you don't agree with the speedy deletion. odder 20:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
All right, I've voiced my opinion there and suggest we keep the discussion about if these images are within scope there. I'd like to add though that even if the community should declare these images as outside of scope after a deletion request, going speedy delete on them after asking and not receiving permission from the uploader (a fellow admin) is not the way we're supposed to use out tools. Since Multichill took the bother to upload them, the images was obviously considered by an experienced user to be within scope, and thus not obvious deletions. May I suggest apology, shake hands, and sort this out at COM:DR. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
This is one of the most amazing things I have seen passing by during the past years on the wikiprojects. Having followed (and logged) the whole situation what occured, and reading this again it amazes me how someone uses his tools. This project is meant to be a storage facility for files, and users from other projects put their trust in this project with its community and admins, trusting them they would handle the files with care and removing those files which do not fit, according to the guidelines. What I have seen passing by was totally different, here an admin was in action who deleted other peoples files based on his own favour, and handling the admintools as "free to use tools" in the way he would fit self (undependedly from what other users think and have agreed in the guidelines). This is absolutely unacceptable behaviour for an admin, who has to guard the work that other people have put in it, and shows too much disrespect and arrogancy, for being an admin on this project. I assume good faith, but here I totally lost my convidence in this admin. I am sorry. Romaine (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Dominick1283

Hi everyone, an IP on the VP said that this user was a serial abuser from en.wiki. He has uploaded a lot of images to Commons, all tagged with own work, though some of those are certainly not made by him (e.g. File:Fake Bessie image.jpg). As many images have web resolution (e.g. File:Sri Lankan Devil Bird.jpg) and the user has not given any information about the source or copyright status of them and we cannot really figure out where they came from, I suggest nuking all the uploads. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

1, 2, 3 nuked. Abigor talk 09:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia username blocked in the Commons?

Hello: I'm registered as MASQUERAID (all caps) on Wikipedia, and I was trying to set up a mirror account here on the Commons that I could then merge with other projects via the global account system. However, this username is blocked at Commons because it has ten capital letters; could an administrator circumvent this block for this purpose? Note that the caps in this username were specifically agreed upon with administrators at Wikipedia. Thanks!

Taken care of. odder 16:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Jaimiko (en Español)

I ran across User:Jaimiko, who was uploading works of the Mexican government as PD-Self. From my reading of Public domain#Mexico, these works are not default PD, and there was no additional licensing information for those files, so I tagged them for speedy deletion. I then noticed that this user has a fairly extensive edit history and thought maybe someone more experienced with Mexican copyright and perhaps a Spanish speaker should go through this users history. I'd like to know if it was appropriate for me to tag those images as copyvios, and if any of this users other uploads were problematic so I can learn more for myself. Thanks for looking into this.-Andrew c (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Picture of the Year 2008/File:Wrist and hand deeper palmar dissection-numbers.svg

Here explanations about the issue--Vituzzu (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The issues are being discussed on the talk page, currently. --Kanonkas(talk) 16:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Issue resolved on talk page. --Kanonkas(talk) 20:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Elpadrino1 (talk · contribs)

This user has recently uploaded quite some images with random filenames and nonsense descriptions such as File:Teeeyy5454.jpg, File:Wrrw.jpg, File:Sdfsdfsdfsdfdfds.jpg, File:Dasdasdasdasdasd.jpg, File:Tete.jpg etc. As of the meta data at least 8 different camera models have been used (DSC-S700, DSC-W50, DMC-FS3, DSC-N2, DSC-S650, Canon IXY DIGITAL 700, DMC-LS75, DSC-S500). In addition, some of his recently uploaded files carry an in-image caption "Chocaviento 2009" that may link them to skyscrapercity.com user Chocaviento who has be banned from skyscrapercity.com (for reasons unknown to me). Also, File:Foodcourt.jpg, File:Golff.jpg, File:Totussssss.jpg and File:Ripleytrux.jpg carry a mysterious watermark "JJLB", that may actually mean "J.J. Linares B." as in File:Skylinetrujillo.jpg. Furthermore, File:Dsc00136vz6-1-.jpg and File:Malltrux.jpg carry a copyright (?) note saying "libidito copyright". File:Huubertt.jpg was said to be "own work", but at the same time "produced by Carlos Perez, a public Peruvian news agency", but has gone unnoticed since 2007. A spanish speaking admin colleague might take a look.--Túrelio (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Envao

Good morning,

I have posted a article on Envao, a surfwear brand on Friday 20 february 2009! (3 days ago!!) But I can't find it anymore! As I haven't saved it on my computer, i would be really thankful to you if you can find it! Otherwise, i will try to do it again!! Best regards and many thanks for this great job you're doing Pierre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Envao (talk • contribs) 10:19, 23. Feb. 2009 (UTC)

Did you mean File:Envao-bio-organic-fairtrade-surf.jpg or really an article? Here is Commons (not the place for articles), not Wikipedia. By the way, this page is not for problems that a user may have (go to Commons:Village pump for that), but for problematic users.--Túrelio (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


Krenaheav (talk · contribs)

This user who has only 15 edits overall, today has overwritten within 4 seconds 4 existing different images with the same (quite disgusting and totally unrelated) image. As his 11 earlier edits had been reasonable, could his account have been hijacked? --Túrelio (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitely, I deleted the disgusting revisions and changed the block settings in the hope that the "real" user reports to us... →Na·gy 10:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

J0S3M4 (talk · contribs)

Somebody with experience in computer games should check the contributions of this new user, wo has uploaded a lot images with random description and with somewhat dubious copyright.--Túrelio (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems that these are screenshots or presentation slides from Operation Sunrise or Operation Sunrise Extended (site), a Spanish mod of en:Battlefield 2. It doesn't look like free content to me. :) --Daggerstab (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, it seems that the pictures have been taken from the site (example - vehicles) and are "Copyright © by Página oficial del MOD ESPAÑOL EXTENDED All Right Reserved." --Daggerstab (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
All of the images are now deleted. --Kanonkas(talk) 16:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jerusalem panorama early twentieth century2.jpg‎, User:Karelj decided to close the FPC process by denying the request. This in the face of a majority in favour of making this highly encyclopaedic and detailed picture a feature project. What makes him closing this extra problematic is that he is one of the few people who voted against this.

He has been requested twice to reconsider. Thanks, 17:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GerardM (talk • contribs) 18:09, 26. Feb. 2009 (UTC)

I can't really see where the problem is. The picture has been given the usual review time, it didn't get the 2:1 support ratio, the closure looks pretty mechanical to me (anyone could have done it). I'm not familiar with FPCs, though, and I may miss something here. --Eusebius (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
GerardM, please read Commons:Featured_picture_candidates, something an experienced editor like yourself should have done before complaining against Karel in this manner. This is not a user problem, and it is not a conflict of interest. Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Commons FPCs are not closed on the basis of "consensus" as on the English Wikipedia; they are closed on the basis of a straight vote. Anyone can close, and as long as the rules are followed there can be no question of any conflict of interest. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I may be experienced in some ways. I am not really into politics and policies.. So Karelj may be right on one level, he is not in my book. When pictures of such value are denied for reasons that are just .. I become more then annoyed. Commons is a repository of illustrative material for Wikimedia Foundation projects. We can have thousands of pictures of the same bug, animal, building as it exists today. A panorama of Jerusalem like this provides perspective.

A sense of perspective is lacking in arguments like "lack of wow and contrast." If anything this is the best way of showing off the utter folly of some. A lack of wow ... really compare this picture with a modern one from the same spot ... you get a completely different view of what Jerusalem was, became and is remembered by. This contrast is what this picture offers. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


GerardM, I know how you feel. Please take a look at this File:Old Jew in Warsaw Ghetto.jpg and here is the excange at the nomination page:

  •   Oppose Avegrage value. --User:Beyond silence 09:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • A Jew in Poland during WWII is average value? I'm unable to follow your reasoning. User:Calibas 00:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a common jew is average without any happening or composition.--user:Beyond silence 08:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Should we say troll or ne'er do well ignorant school dropout? The Jews weren't very common after 6 million of them got slaughtered, and very few documents of life inside camps or ghettos survived the holocaust. --User:Pumpmeup 18:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

And the image was... not featured. One of mine icebergs nomination was opposed because "Icebergs look good like sunsets, so I don't buy the idea that it's extra special." Other person advised me to go back there and take a better image (back there was somewhere around North Pole). I could provide few more examples of funny oppose reasons. I used to be very disappointed, but now I collect them and laugh at them. So please take it easy and try to nominate the image again in few months. If I am not blocked by that time :) I will sure support it.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If you think that someone opposed to the nomination of a picture of yours for a “stupid reason”, I'd advise you to ignore it, as votes in FPC are often personal and subjective—“I don't like the topic of this photo”, for example is a valid reason to oppose, and you can expect people to like what they don't like. Anyway, you can read on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Old Jew in Warsaw Ghetto.jpg that the picture was not featured mostly because of quality, and I would have opposed too, for a personal reason: for me, it wouldn't make a good print. Oh, and I voted. :) →Diti the penguin — 13:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, about that FPC of 2007, trying to make it featured by resorting to emotional appeals (we must be sympathetic with the situation of jews during the holocaust, then any image related with jews during the holocaust should be featured in spite of everything else) was a rather poor argument; and to bring it here to an unrelated discussing to try to "prove a point" is an even worse argument. Belgrano (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

General remark: this page is not the right place to evaluate previous FPC decisions. A complaint about user:Karelj was brought here, appearantly because of a user being misinformed about procedures for FPC closing. The complaint has been dismissed as unfounded. That's it, basically. Discussion closed as misunderstanding hopefully sorted out. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Luv tennis15 (talk · contribs)

Luv tennis15 (talk · contribs) has uploaded book covers and other promotional material as {{Copyrighted free use}}. Since these images are readily available on the web, we would need more evidence that Luv tennis15 is the copyright holder of these images (OTRS). I'm bringing this to admin attention because all of this user's uploads are copyvios with no evidence for permission, so I believe they are all speediable (well... I'm bringing this to admin attention in lieu of simply tagging all of them). I've contacted the user to bring up my concerns, and ask that they visit OTRS, but I also wanted to pass this on to the admins (and if not addressed, have the images deleted in bulk). Thanks.-Andrew c (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have gone through and tagged all 9 of this user's uploads for speedy deletion/copyvios. This user listed multiple different authors for the images (publishing companies, firms, multiple individuals, etc). The uploader cannot plausibly be all of these things, and it is extremely likely that this user does not own the copyright to any of those web-resolution promotional images.-Andrew c (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Lost my Galleries und documents of my work in wikipedia

I am very sad, that someone deletes my gallerie of the pictures I did upload in wikipedia (german wiki and commons wiki) and to see someone delete the documents of my work. So I never more can proof the change of my pictures form german wiki to commons wiki.

Example: Deleted name from the first upload of my picture [37]

Lost Galleries:

User:Hans Bug/Bilderreigen1
User:Hans Bug/Bilderreigen2
User:Hans Bug/Bilderreigen3
User:Hans Bug/Bilderreigen

Can someone of the administration change this and give me back the document of my work?

Hans Bug (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Undeleted the galleries - Polarlys shouldn't have deleted them imo, as scope doesn't apply to user galleries. A lot of images appear to have been deleted though. As for the individual images, just undo the edits. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible sock-puppet

There's currently a discussion involving people wearing costumes of copyrighted characters. Costumed Adventurer, as can be seen in his edit history, has joined as user today and his contributions are all done in the related discussions. He even did the trick of adding some minimal content to his user page to avoid having it as a red link (and thus being easily identified as a new user, something that his opinions, knowledge of many related ongoing debates and use of a userbox make it clear he's not).

It seems clear that he's a sock puppet, joining the discussion as a new user to make it seem as if there was wider support for the keeping of those images. But I have no idea of wich is the main account. What do administrators think about this? Are my suspicions correct? And if they are, what should be done with him? Belgrano (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I couldn't find any useful information for you.  — Mike.lifeguard 00:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Tocino

Just look at his contributions, need I say more? I (and some other users) had failed to resolve the problem with this guy but he took some months break, however he's back now, I don't want to go through all that again so I reported him here directly --Cradel (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've placed a 3-day block. Please work with them to come to an understanding on this issue.  — Mike.lifeguard 00:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Halbkreis (talk · contribs)

What can we do with this user?. Since more than one year he continues to upload copyrighted pictures. Severeal warnings seems not the better the situation. As on Commons he tries it also on German Wikipedia but there all his actions are under strong supervison which is more difficult here. --Mazbln (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,
I have blocked this user untill the end of time, but his block will be removed after he tell me (or a other admin) that he understand the Commons licensing policy and will not upload new copyvios.
Thank you very much for the notice,
Abigor talk 17:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

NinoRivera (talk · contribs)

Someone should look into the recent contributions of this user, that all look like copyvios.--Túrelio (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Mbz1 (talk · contribs)

This user have a history of verbal abuse and disruption to prove a point (see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/User problems 7#Mbz1 and now he's at it again. Both verbal abuse[38] (including in edit comments[39]) and removal of valid categories[40][41]. The last time he did such things it resulted in a one week block (later cut short). // Liftarn (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

  Done - Both users recieved a time out block, the where bot involved in a big editwar and we dont accept that here on Commons Abigor talk 21:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Abigor.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
You failed to address the issue of repeated personal attacks. // Liftarn (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
If I may, I'd like to explain what Liftarn means under the issue. Liftarn uploads hate propaganda, antisemetic caricatures by latuff, who is the second-prize winner of the International Holocaust Denial Cartoon Competition organized by a Tehran-based Iranian daily. Instead of permission for the images Liftarn sometimes posts message from latuff:
" Once again I beg you reader, my brothers and sisters-in-arts, to spread these cartoons. Reproduce them in posters, newspapers, magazines, zines, blogs, everywhere. Let's make the voice of the Gaza people to be heard all around the world. Thank you, in the name of the Palestinians of Gaza."
And this is exactly what Liftarn is doing here on Commons. He's spreading hate and antisemitism by latuff by adding bogus categories to the images. There's something that I cannot understand. Admins are talking about racism, where there is nothing of the kind and are missing the real racism. So is Commons now a platform for spreading hate by latuff? We have only 18 files in category forw:Marc Chagall we have more than 100 files in category for latuff. Is it what Commons is about? Here some info. European Union considers that "drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis" is a new antisemetism. Many latuff caricatures do draw Jews sa the nazis. In any case latuff images are an open, one-sided, hate propaganda. I know Commons have policies against spam and IMO propaganda is even worse than spam is. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop Mbz from accusing people that he does not agree with of spreading hate and antisemitism. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Again familiar all faces. Hi Pieter, I understand you do not feel comfortable. After all you yourself uploaded the very image that won the second place in the International Holocaust Denial Cartoon Competition. I'm only calling the things with their real names, nothing else.
For admins: Please do with me as you wish, but while I'm not blocked I'm afraid I have no choice but trying to prevent Commons from becoming a laughable institution of promoting latuff propagada. And it was my last post here. --Mbz1 (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Mbz1, I'm sorry if you disagree, but Latuff's work is within scope, and frankly it is about politics of Palestine/Israel. We host propaganda willingly - because it has historical significance if nothing else. We host propaganda from every side, or would if they released it freely, and leave it up to the individual user to decide which is right. I'm, sorry if you feel that Latuff is wrong and hateful, but that's really no reason to delete these things or move them out of the categories. It's certainly no reason to call people names. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I must say I agree with mattbuck. For propaganda, we have the same requirements as for any other image. Naturally something that is called propaganda may be illegal to spread (in the U.S.), and we don't host that. Such cases are extremely rare and I have personally never encountered such material on Commons. Also, some propaganda may be "personal artwork" without widespread circulation, and therefore outside our project scope. But the principal still holds: we have the same requirements for all media files. Samulili (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I have blocked Mbz1 again in light of his continued disruptive behaviour in edit warring over categories which is simply the latest in his disruptive campaign against the images by Latuff. Adambro (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the current situation where just one of the edit warriors was blocked when both continued the edit war after the first block ended. I suggest, however, not to block the second but to protect the image until some widely accepted consensus is reached. Both, Mbz1 and Liftarn, are contributors of otherwise good standing and we should invite them to a consensus seeking process instead of blocking them. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

We've tried to get Mbz1 to discuss these issues but he just isn't willing or perhaps able to do so. Protection isn't a solution here because this same issue is simply spreading to the other Latuff images and unless we protect all nothing would be gained. Protecting all these images for the sake of a few disruptive editors doesn't seem to me to be best way of dealing with this. I've blocked Liftarn (talk · contribs) now since, as you note, they have also continued their disruptive behavior. Drork (talk · contribs) has also contributed to the disruption and so I've warned him about this and will let someone else consider whether a block might be appropriate. It seems that he, like the others, is quick to blame someone else for the disruption. Adambro (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, everybody for the comments. I take a full responsibility for the edit warring. I started it and the block was fair. IMO Liftarn should not have been blocked for edit warring.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Mbz1 now wrote: "I state that users Liftarn and Pieter Kuiper not only upload hate propaganda, antisemitic images to Commons, but also spreading that hate and antisemitism around Commons by adding bogus categories to the images." These accusations are unwarranted and it is getting libelous. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again an empty rhetoric.Prove I am wrong, as I proved I am right.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Since Mbz1 otherwise is a values contributor perhaps a sort of subject block would be a good idea to try. Mbz1 have again and again (and again) proven that he/she/it is unable to tell the difference between having a difference of opinion and "spreading that hate and antisemitism". // Liftarn (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Liftarn. Back already? You know what was the funniest part of my two last blocks? It was that every time you asked to block me we were blocked together. I could not stop laughing, I still do. What do you think about this? Was it funny for you too?
I've already proven beyond the reasonable doubt that some of latuff caricatures are antisemitic pictures and are hate propaganda. You upload them to Commons, add bogus categories to them while refusing to add the right ones, which are antisemitism and racism. How else you want me to call your actions? Oh, and btw I might have considered that "it" ( he/she/it) as PA, but because that "it" comes from a person(?), who does spread hate propaganda and antisemetic pictures all over Commons, I am not really concern about this "it" and not going to press charges. Please have a nice day and enjoy the break in our blocks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I find it quite amusing that you use the user problem noticeboard to continue your utterly unfounded personal attacks. // Liftarn (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I would ask that both parties refrain from commenting further here at the current time. No new issue has been raised. This section is not intended to provide a place for anyone to repeatedly air their grievances about Mbz1 or anyone else. It is unfortunate that whilst Liftarn suggests that Mbz1 shouldn't be using the "user problem noticeboard to continue your utterly unfounded personal attacks", they themselves have not helped with this issue by stirring things up immediately upon their return from a block. Please, no more. It is not in the interests of the community and certainly not in the interests of the users involved if they at all value their privilege of being allowed to contribute to the Wikimedia Commons project. Adambro (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
You are right, Adambro. I'm sorry for the post I made in response to Liftarn post. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Obviously you are not sorry any more.[42] // Liftarn (talk)

Mbz1 now uses edit comments ([43], [44]) to make accusations of spreading hate. He also makes allegations about sock puppets. Please do a check user on me. And make this guy shut up. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper when Adambro mentioned that he believed IP user might be you, and you did not say "no", I assumed that it was so. I should not have assumed it. It was wrong. I am sorry for this. I wish I were able to say that I am sorry for everything else.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't blame this on Adambro. He did "not suggest" that I was reverting as an IP number. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to ask everybody involved to stop discussing here. This discussion is not needed. If all involved ignore the other users we can just move on. Abigor talk 10:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
If all involved ignore the ... - The problem is, publicly writing "... to one, who spreads hate, antisemitism and racism all over Commons not only himself, but using a sockpuppet." addressed at a clearly identified user (and even real-life person) may already be libel. Though I'm not yet suggesting legal action against the culprit, the Commons community cannot tolerate or simply ignore personal attacks of such a severity.
Another point: While I've to admit that I didn't like Latuffs political cartoons from the very beginning, IMHO we should seriously think about hosting them any longer as they have already caused so many problems within the Commons community. And to those crying "not censored": these cartoons are available at enough other sites on the net.--Túrelio (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I find myself in agreement with Túrelio here.
I am delighted that Commons is not censored, However it is intended as an educational project. Images that spread & create bad feeling and hatred some - to me - to be outside my views of what Commons is for & about.
Further, media that causes valuable Commons user to argue, cause disruption & take up time of others would seem to be of little real use. --Herby talk thyme 12:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it easy to blame these images but they themselves don't cause problems, it is of course individual editors who do. It seems we have people who really hate these images and people who might be wanting to promote them. We've had deletion requests about these image and there was no consensus to delete them. My biggest concern is that this consensus might change because of the challenges faced in dealing with users who are determined to cause disruption. We should be concious that those who don't like them will find the disruption convenient since it is increases the chance the the community might support the deletion simply because they want rid of the hassle they bring. Wikimedia Foundation projects cover an amazingly broad range to topics. To not host certain media files because they offend some individuals would harm our ability to properly serve these projects. If the Commons community doesn't wish for this to happen, and values our not censored policy which forms an important part of preserving the usefulness of the proejct, then they have to understand that people who don't like the images will do anything to try to have them deleted. It worries me that they might eventually get their way. Not because their arguments that they are not in scope is valid, merely because the community wants to hear less arguments about them. The community needs to appreciate that images that are controversial will always cause some controversy. We should allow proper discussions about these images but not allow the project to be disrupted be those who have no intention of discussing things properly. The way this is achieved is by removing those individuals from the Community, not simply granting their wish that these images are deleted because they continue to disrupt after the community have already discussed them and decided they should be kept. Adambro (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree with Adambro here, and I would add that even the slightest exception to our no censorship rule is in fact self-censorship. I really hate those images, but I'm glad they're on Commons, because it goes to show that we take freedom of speech seriously.
Regarding Mbz1, I really don't understand his behavior, because it only gives these images a wider audience; I would have never heard of them if it wasn't for the constant attempts to have them deleted; I would have forgotten about them, but he won't let me, constantly bring the subject up again. My advice to Mbz1: leave those images alone, let them gather dust as we forget about them. Also leave Pieter Kuiper and Liftarn alone, they are not the ones spreading hate; if anyone, Latuf is. And you should take into account the fact that people have brains, they won't hate Israel just because they saw one of these images. Anyone can deal with it with their own free thinking. --Tryphon (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
First of all I'd like assure you that my post here is not indented to bring attention to me or to my cause. I need nobody help with this. But I do need your help to achieve the result I'm asking for. I used to be a valued contributor. I am not any more. For the last two months the only things I was doing ..., but you all know what I was doing, no need to repeat. Now I need your help please. May I please ask you to block me for few weeks/months/years or whatever, and then unblock me with restrictions (cannot comment on such and such subjects.) You know what subjects I mean, don't you? Then I will once again became a valued contributor and everybody and first of all me will be happy. I'm sorry to ask you to help me with this, but I am too weak to do it myself. I'm also selfish. I need this block in order to sleep well. I will know that I've done everything I could to stop the hate. Please help me! I hope it is not so much to ask for. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have never been one of those people who felt it was wrong to block a user on their own request. As such I have complied with Mbz1's request & placed a block with great sadness. --Herby talk thyme 13:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As this block was implemented on the user's own request I've unblocked him today as he put an {{Unblock}} template on his talk page. I am glad to see him back again. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:MMahdi

I'm pretty tired of all these sneaky license changes. So this goes straight to here. User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim is using an unsubsted user licensing template, which is against policy for obvious reasons (apart from being in the wrong namespace). The reason is to prevent users sneaking in license changes. And that is just what happened here. --Dschwen (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

He's not the only one sneaking in mass licensing changes: [45]. howcheng {chat} 17:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Fir really should know better. He's an admin here for god's sake! --Dschwen (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I took me almost 2 hours but Template:MMahdi is completely sorted and subst: Abigor talk 19:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I would have appreciated if I was told of this instead of bringing it here and calling it sneaky! I don't notice changes to Fir's pages. Double standards? --Muhammad 19:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Matter of time. As it happens Fir is an admin, otherwise I'd have his templates protected as well. --Dschwen (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hochladen von Audio Dateien?

Guten Tag! Ich verbringe in meiner Freizeit viel Zeit als Synchron und Sprecher im Allgemeinen. Daher wollte ich auch dem Wikimedia Commons Projekt nun unter die Arme greifen. Nach einer Anmeldung wurde ich aber nun mit Lizenzen "zugeschmissen" und Dingen die ich beachten muss. Jedoch wird selten auf eine Audio Datei eingegangen. Beispielsweise ein Wikipedia Artikel den ich vorlese, aufnehme und hochlade. Welche Lizenz muss ich eintragen und überhaupt und wie und wo. Ich bin etwas verwirrt im Moment, hoffe Sie können mir helfen.

MfG

Hallo Gaffi,
Bilder dominieren hier sehr stark und bei Audiodateien sind die Rechtsfragen vermutlich noch komplizierter. Aus sprachlichen Gründen wendest du dich aber wohl besser an Commons:Forum, weil dort deutsch gesprochen wird. Und nicht entmutigen lassen.--Túrelio (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Schau doch mal hier vorbei: de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Gesprochene_Wikipedia. --Dschwen (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Secret renaming operation by user:foroa, user:Siebrand, and user:Multichill

transfered from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism

The users are have already renamed and are continuing to rename a couple hundred categories from unknown to unidentified. Category:Unknown Carabidae, Category:Unknown Lepidoptera, Category:Unknown Odonata and so on. There was no discussion. The categories were not even tagged for moving. These three users just decided about this operation just among themselves. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing secret, this is part of the daily harmonisation work, mostly based on simple common sense and majority naming. When I started harmonisation of unknown/unidentified naming, there where about 60 "Unknown xxx" items , 700 "unidentified xxx". See for your self: Unknown categories and Unidentified categories. You might think that we do all that moving work for fun and to annoy people. This happens to be not the case. --Foroa (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec) It seems to me that "unidentified" is the most used term, as in Category:Unidentified insects or Category:Unidentified subjects. A quick search gives this 2006 discussion. The change wasn't particularly controversial. Maybe you could have contacted one of the users on their talk page before reporting them for "vandalism"? Pruneautalk 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, "unidentified" is more specific, especially when dealing with species or similar, whereas "unknown" is an Commons-internal category-term that is displaid when the source of a image/file is missing.--Túrelio (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The vast majority of the species in those categories are indeed known (to science) but unidentified. There could be an unknown category structure, but this would contain only species that are not described and as yet unknown to science. As such the renaming exercise is the common sense thing to do. Lycaon (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A two year old discussion is obviously not sufficient. It is not to much to ask for a proper procedure; putting moving or cfd templates on the category pages starting a discussion and waiting for some time for reactions. Currently the whole thing is a giant secret operation. Obviously Foroa does not have to follow commons guidelines. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that you don't like how these moves were handled, do you have a specific reason to oppose to these changes? Do you have an example of a category for which the Unidentified denomination would be wrong? –Tryphon☂ 12:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/03/Category:Chemistry (unsorted). Because this whole operation is being covered up other mistakes will only be found out afterwards when other people start complaining. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I question whether the vandalism board is even the right board for this as the users were clearly acting in good faith for the project. Cirt (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Cirt, the answer is that it is not. I concider this discussion closed, and would urge anyone with opinions about "unidentifyed" vs "unknown"/"unsorted" etc to voice their concerns at the relevant talkpages and/or Commons:Categories for discussion. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Finn, there are no relevant talkpages because Foroa thinks that a discussion is unecessary plus my attempts to discuss the matter are ridiculed or ignored ([46]).--Cwbm (commons) (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

First things first: Are the above described actions vandalism? Certainly not, whether or not they are appropriate (most probably) is a different matter, but they are in good faith. Thus, the "vandalism" board is not the appropriate place for this. Cirt (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
They are clearly not in good faith. If they were Foroa would not circumvent the discussion. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
This is clearly not vandalism, thus this is an inappropriate location for this discussion. Cirt (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Then have at least the grace to tell me the appropriate location. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Gracefully open a discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion. Regards. Lycaon (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion after move from the vandalism page

To make things short, my move actions where in the (in principle) continuous housekeeping task as started slowly after Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Unidentified insects and as a de facto standard in commons as can be seen in the about 60 "Unknown xxx" items , 700 "unidentified xxx". See for your self: Unknown categories and Unidentified categories. It is not realistic to expect that each time someone creates yet another "unknown xxx" category that we issue a CFD or move request. Moreover, the quicker emerging category naming systems that differ from the standard, are changed, the less they will attract similar mistakes. --Foroa (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reasonable explanation why categories that existed for over two years had to be deleted overnight, bypassing standard procedures and evading commons guidelines? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
You've been given explanations several times, in several formulations, from several people: these moves are consistent with the established categorization scheme, and there is no serious reason to question them. They're pretty straightforward and for most people there is no need for a debate. If you think the debate is needed, please contribute (this is what the "catogory for discussion" subpage has been created for), but that's not what you're doing right now. So, please move on. --Eusebius (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The moves seem reasonable and fairly non-controversial. Other then the way they were done I do not see any objection to the changes. We should abhor bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. J.smith (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sasza331 (talk · contribs)

New user who has uploaded 3 images of the Olsen Twins. Though I couldn't find them in a quick Google search, I strongly doubt the images are the uploaders "own work" as claimed.--Túrelio (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

tineye is your friend. All copyvio's. Multichill (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Witoberest (talk · contribs)

Somebody with knowledge of Russian language should check the uploads of this new user as they are reproductions of the works of a living artist.--Túrelio (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Incivility by User:CarolSpears

CarolSpears (talk · contribs) has made inappropriate sarcastic comments directed at admin Durova (talk · contribs), a user CarolSpears has some history following around, etc. [47] and [48]. CarolSpears has a pattern of incivility, see block log: insulting fellow contributors, after warnings. I advised CarolSpears to avoid interactions with Durova because the user is unable to maintain a respectful demeanor. In response, CarolSpears blanked my post from her user talk page. Requesting another administrator look into this and take action here. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe interesting to check who threw the first stone in insinuating aggression from other users here [49]. Better not interfere and let it fade. Lycaon (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we should let harassment and sarcasm directed at one of our project's administrators, from a user that has been blocked for such behavior, be taken lightly. Cirt (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Eh? What stone? Durova was civil and respectful, and in return, she is being harassed. I am not an admin on Commons, but if it would be en Wikipedia (where I am an admin, and where, if my memory serves, Carol is permbanned anyway...), I'd feel entitled as an admin to cite violation of CIV and NPA policies and issue if not a block, then at least a stern warning to Carol for personal attacks, incivility and harassment.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Carol found it necessary to troll on my talk page as well. The suggestion that Durova is responsible for how the Library of Congress provides its high resolution images is a bit much. I have blanked it out as it is just a waste of time.. In the mean time a person like her sours the atmosphere.. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

CarolSpears removed the notice from her talk page. Again. [50]. Cirt (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)Durova is not responsible for this, as Gerard rightly points out above. CarolSpears has had a history of baiting Durova on a number of occasions. See for example here where she says: "It is all I can do to not ask you whose ass you kissed (or worse) to get some positive recognition from FP" (back in 2007), and here where she says of Durova: "Together they what? And yes, I suspect there is a crime going on... [...] What do you think Durova did to get the warm reception? I ask because that doesn't happen from doing good work." There is clearly a history between Carol and Durova, and I would ask Carol simply to back off from Durova. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  Comment I've had dealings with Carol before [51], and I was paged, so I figured I'd step in and make a few comments. #1 Sarcasm isn't a crime. It may be less friendly, but it is hardly the most insulting things I've seen floating past the Wiki's. Hell, I've said _far_ worse things to people without a thread on COM:AN/U (or even a warning). #2 Carol has an abrasive personality, so be it. I do too. It just so happens that people tend not to like her since she's got a bad reputation. I think the idea of a block is a bit harsh. #3 Yes, Carol removed the warning from her talk page. There is no written rule saying you must keep your talk page information (that I remember). Yes, it is generally considered best practice not to remove stuff ... but it's not like this is exactly a felony. It's still in the history after all. #In Closing - Not that big of a deal. No one was terribly insulted, and Durova may or may not deserve some smacking about in the first place. @Carol (If you read this). Just placate the community, leave Durova alone (for now). I'm sure there is more history to this than what I read in 5 minutes. You probably got unfairly targeted as usual. Welcome to the joys of being the community scape goat. That is all. Carry On. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm Dschwen and I approve this message. --Dschwen (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Me too, in general. But the extreme nastiness towards Durova has been going on way too long. That is a big deal. Hesperian 03:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  Comment Cirt; you can assume that she has seen your message if she has removed it from her talk page. It isn't necessary to restore it. Be assured that it has not be deleted from her talk page history and that administrators are savvy enough to look for such deletions, or remembering them for that matter, when it is appropriate. I endorse PeterSymonds' and ShakataGaNai's observations on the substance of this matter, but I would encourage Carol not to interpret ShakataGaNai's comments to imply that she can ignore our NPA and civility standards. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
@Walter Siegmund - I restored it, once, while replying to her back on her talk page. Cirt (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks to fellow Commons volunteers for stepping forward. For well over a year Carol has been hounding me, by following my contributions and inserting sarcastic commentary, and making highly inappropriate suggestions (such as sexual favors traded for featured picture candidate supports). I don't hound her contributions or antagonize her, and have been very patient about avoiding lodging formal complaints in the hope she would stop, but there's serious work to be done at this site and enough is enough. I just want her to leave me alone. Durova (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
A simple solution would be to put Carol under a community restriction: the next time she violates NPA policy and discusses Durova, block. Some people need "discuss articles, not editors" tattooed into their eyelids... :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
What's the deal with the sexual favors? Durova, do you really need to twist Carol's words around? Do you honestly think sucking up means giving a BJ as well? Sorry for the sarcasm here, but you honestly would have a more believable case without that misrepresentation. --Dschwen (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
It's the or worse that sinks it. Although I assumed good faith when she first posted that, and for quite some time afterward, it's become apparent over time that she specializes in nasty word games that look like non sequiturs at first glance. In another context, as her only response to attempts to deal with her serious conduct issues she once posted What rhymes with species? as her only reply. Not long afterward, in a rather coy manner, she confirmed that this was her way of saying feces. That's gone on quite long enough. We have work to do here, and she's demonstrated her intention to continue stirring drama as long as it's permitted. Durova (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
We have work to do here, indeed we have. And it looks to me that Carol is shouldering her share of it quite well. She sure didn't get nine times the number of edits you have on this project by pure sarcasm. There is a saying in German which roughly translates as Where you plane you'll get shavings (the english equivalent You have to break an egg to make an omelet doesn't quite have the same meaning), essentially highly active editors with several ten thousands of edits have higher visibility, have a larger cross-section of interaction with users, and have a higher statistical probability of getting in the crosshairs. How about you let her comments enter one ear, and let them exit the other one right away. Isn't it consolation enough for you that apparently not everyone agrees with Carol? --Dschwen (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Disagree. The comment by Hesperian (talk · contribs) [52] is accurate: indeed the nastiness towards Durova by CarolSpears has gone on long enough. Cirt (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I know we don't usually take action based on a user's conduct on another project, but I think in this case it helps to get some context. CarolSpears was indefinitely blocked after a string of blocks for incivility of one kind or anouther.[53] J.smith (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
    • No, it doesn't. If you want context please look at Carol's contributions on this project and at the countless positive interactions she has with users on this project. --Dschwen (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Take from it what you will. I for one would rather not see Carol end up down that path again. J.smith (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually she was banned from the sister site mainly for citation problems: her contributions contained a high rate of plagiarism, copyright violation, and misuse of sources. She was also uncivil and uncooperative, which halted efforts to work with her toward curbing those problems. Her plagiarism had actually run on the site's main page five separate times, so it was absolutely necessary to take preventive action. I've been concerned since that time that a similar problem might affect her uploads at Commons. When the sister project was reviewing her contributions I sampled her work here and it was not easy to research. Most of the sampled uploads turned out to be public domain, willy-nilly, but not for the reasons she asserted. Some might actually be copyvio but it would be time-consuming to verify. If I recall correctly, she was uploading images from private websites of persons who had received US Federal Government grant funding but were not US Federal Government employees. So it would be necessary to find email addresses for those people, and ask them (a) whether their funding agreement placed the resulting work in the public domain, and if so (b) whether the specific images that had been uploaded to Commons were covered by that agreement. More likely than not, she would have accused me of a personal vendetta no matter what the results of those inquiries were, and some people may have believed her, so I left it to others to follow up. It appears no one has. Durova (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Baki66

User:Baki66 along with User:Azeri have been revert warring on File:Azerbaijan_blank.png. The file was modified to show the disputed territory of w:Nagorno-Karabakh Republic which they don't like. Despite my numerous calls and a 2 week protection they failed to write a single word on the talkpage justifying why the file should not include the disputed territories of NK. Today, after 3 weeks of protection I reverted the file to it's modified version, which was followed by Baki66 revert. I need some help dealing with these two. VartanM (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing even the slightest attempt at discussion, on any user's talk page. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Then perhaps you should check the articles talkpage, and note my numerous calls for them to use it. And I'm not even complaining about them calling me a vandal. VartanM (talk) 06:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ecinfo

Ecinfo (talk · contribs)

This user's uploads have only been used for spamming on en. Note that his account is unified to en, with a spammy user page over there. See WikiProject Spam item. Can someone nuke his uploads please? MER-C 11:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Uploads deleted, and user warned for uploading copyvios. Thanks for the note. Huib talk 17:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

75.175.243.156

Anon IP 75.175.243.156 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  added a personal attack on Mike.lifeguard's talk page, vandalised File:Die bambergische Halsgerichtsordnung (Kohler Scheel) 114.gif and also created Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Boingerbox the red robot and IDIOT FACE plus posted a rather rude (Swore) undeletion (I was going to revert but thought it maybe best if the request was closed).

Going by the undeletion request the IP seems to be the banned editor of Flappy (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  who has it seems edited under a multiple of accounts such as Bulbasaur1928 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . Bidgee (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for a day, rolled back the undeletion request (it's ok to rollback that, it was just vandalism) and deleted the pages he created. Thanks for the help! Patrícia msg 07:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I wasn't sure but will do next time. :) Bidgee (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Drork (talk · contribs)

Drork (talk · contribs) is again causing problems through his edits related to Carlos Latuff images. For example, with File:Stopfundingterror.gif, Drork has persisted to remove categories where the consensus on the talk page seems to be that they should be kept. He is also tagging Caricatures of Ariel Sharon for speedy deletion but the reasoning for doing so isn't clear. I've already explained on the talk page that there are a number of incoming links that deleting the page would break but he continues to insist it should be deleted. Adambro (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Adambro is trying to drag me into endless discussions and edit wars and then blame me for his wrong doing. He's been gaming the system for a very long time, at least in what concerns Latuff and anti-Israeli cartoons. I gave perfectly good explanations to all my edits. He refuses to accept any of them, and bring Pieter Kuiper and Liftarn to from a three-men coalition against me calling it "a consensus". I am very tired of these games, but apparently Adambro is not willing to give them up. His behavior is not innocent. Drork (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
First it was Liftern and me, now Drork believes that Adombro brought us in... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I see three options that we could do here, but first off all I want to start with this edit linky, I see this as plain vandalism

I don't really know what we as Administrators could do now, We could give some blocks but with that we stop it untill the block expires. A block will only help if it is until the end of time, otherwise it will only delay the problem.

We could protect all images, pages but with that we make sure nobody could edit the pages or images and we could lose a lot of good contributions. And protecting will also only delay the problem.

The last thing we could do is do nothing, somebody will give up and the discussion ends. Not a good solution in my eyes.

There is a lot going on with the latuff images lately, editwars deletion request, undeletion request.. I am afraid this will go on for ever and ever. We need a good solution, this need to stop now. Abigor talk 20:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Independant of the edit-warring there remains the question why we need or have Caricatures of Ariel Sharon by Carlos Latuff and Caricatures of Ariel Sharon, two galleries that are totally redundant in content. This smells somewhat like Latuff-promotion.--Túrelio (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
That kind of discussion is probably better elsewhere but I don't think we do. One can simply be a redirect to the other until such time as some other caricatures of Ariel Sharon are uploaded. The fact that we have two identical galleries is probably more a product of the confused, frequently changing situation rather than a desire to promote Latuff. Adambro (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Turelio, those categories were created by Drork: "20:32, 11 March 2009 Drork (Talk | contribs) moved Caricatures of Ariel Sharon to Caricatures of Ariel Sharon by Carlos Latuff ‎ " /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As the older one of the two, Caricatures of Ariel Sharon, was created a year ago and still has only Latuff images, Caricatures of Ariel Sharon by Carlos Latuff obviously is enough for now. Could all involved "parties" agree to the deletion of gallery Caricatures of Ariel Sharon for now? --Túrelio (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirection seems appropriate. Adambro (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Any reason for that? --Túrelio (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Just that there are a number of incoming links and redirects cost nothing so it doesn't seem really necessary to delete it when it could be useful. Adambro (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, it seems not to have been useful since 1 year and as of this thread it seems to be a focus of quarreling. To avoid the latter, for me is even more valuable than to avoid redundant structures.--Túrelio (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
We seem to have deviated from the intended purpose of this page, the discussion of "user problems". As such it would probably be better to take this discussion elsewhere but I remain unconvinced as to what harm keeping this redirect could possibly cause in reality. Adambro (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately people here keep ignoring the core problem. There are certain people who are not acting in good faith. I know this is a heavy accusation, but I don't see the point of beating around the bush. Any attempt to reach a solution is futile unless people are acting in good faith, but in this case, some people who are deeply involved in the matter try to game the system in order to promote certain views. 110 cartoons by Latuff were added to the Commons. He has a special gallery here. In addition, people try to add his images to all kind of categories to which they don't belong. Drawing portraits of Ariel Sharon or George W. Bush with the word "terror" above them doesn't make the image part of the "terrorism" category. Opening a special gallery called "Caricatures of Ariel Sharon" when all of these caricatures are Latuff's is also misleading. Latuff receives here undue weight because there are certain users who wish to promote him and his radical views. They should be told that this is not the place to do that. Drork (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Well I must say I welcome Drork's decision to actually discuss the issues with File:Stopfundingterror.gif instead of simply enforcing his views upon everyone. However, the appropriate venue to discuss this remains the file's talk page. Drork accuses some users of not acting in good faith. I'd invite him to not be afraid and actually name some names and present some evidence so that the community can consider the validity of his accusations and what is necessary to address this. I would agree that there are perhaps some users who have shown a desire to add Latuff's images to inappropriate categories but also some who wish to remove his images from patently relevant categories. The Caricatures of Ariel Sharon page was created over a year ago now and by someone who as far as I am aware, hasn't been involved in editing related to Latuff images recently so to suggest the gallery is intended to promote Latuff is probably lacking merit. Drork's description of this page as a "special gallery" perhaps indicates his misconception that creating categories/galleries is in any way endorsing Latuff's work. As I have already said, I have no problem with calling the gallery Caricatures of Ariel Sharon by Carlos Latuff since it is a more accurate description of its content whilst we don't have any caricatures created by anyone else but it seems useful to retain the redirect. Adambro (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
A few points:
  • He has a special gallery here.
    Because you guys don't want his content in other galleries.
  • Drawing portraits of Ariel Sharon or George W. Bush with the word "terror" above them doesn't make the image part of the "terrorism" category
    Really? What's it referring to then?
  • Opening a special gallery called "Caricatures of Ariel Sharon" when all of these caricatures are Latuff's is also misleading.
    Like everything on a wiki, it's a work in progress. If I upload a caricature, no a cartoon (there's another compromise), that's isn't done by Latuff I can't add it to the gallery now. Now it will always only contain Latuff cartoons. They're really not that many to warrant it's own gallery. It is undue weight, but else are we going to do? You don't want them in any other gallery. It's you that's giving it undue weight. Rocket000(talk) 01:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree that redirecting charicatures of ariel sharon seems inappropriate, because someone may upload non-Latuff ones, in which case people would probably complain again. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Just block Drork. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think when Drort et al didn't succeed in getting images they don't like deleted trough democratic means thay have now resorted to getting their will by bullying instead. // Liftarn (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Drork, give it up. Look, you already got your way. The gallery was renamed. Caricatures of Ariel Sharon was the result of a compromise over a year ago. The images were removed from the gallery Ariel Sharon. It was a solution and everyone that was edit-warring respected it and stopped... and now you come alone and start disrupting the peace. I suggest leaving anything to do with Latuff's cartoons alone and I support a topic-ban. Rocket000(talk) 01:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing about any compromise that was reached a year ago, I wasn't involved in it. I know one thing - we have a serious problem of people using this site for illegitimate political purposes. The Commons are not an ex-territory, quite the contrary, it is a project that serves all other WM projects. It is clear that Mr. Latuff doesn't like A. Sharon nor G.W. Bush. Uploading many of his caricatures, which are meant to defame these two people, and placing them in the page about them, means giving undue weight to a single person's opinion. This is unacceptable in all WM projects. It shouldn't be acceptable here. Mr. Latuff's cartoons are very problematic, and there is no use referring to them as just some more free-licensed images for our collection. Having 109 cartoons of his (after the most provocative one uploaded was deleted) in a special gallery dedicated for him, is more than enough. Those people who try to open more galleries for him, and place his cartoons in any possible vaguely related category, are not acting in good faith. I am not the only person who feels uncomfortable about it, but many prefer to keep silent in order to avoid the kind of debates I have to handle here now. These debates are tiring and time consuming, and those people who wish to promote Latuff apparently have enough time and energy to continue them for days and weeks. Just see the debate about Latuff's defaming caricature of Dershowitz. Even though most users asked to delete the image, those users who wish to promote Latuff refused to end the discussion and kept asking question and present fable arguments. This is not how things should be done here. Drork (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like a clarification - are you arguing that the problem here is that we are being biased? Neutrality is not an issue to Commons - we don't say no more pictures of X because we don't have enough of anti-X. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Let's leave aside for a moment the whole issue of scope and what kind of images should be uploaded and how many of one kind. When you open a page or a gallery on the Commons, you are actually writing an article. You select images to present in a certain person or a certain topic. You could argue that the Commons should not have pages at all, but once you have them, you should design them according to the NPOV rules which governs all WM projects. Drork (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
You need to read this project's scope, Drork. FWIW, I agree with both Rocket's and Mattbuck's comments here. Caricatures of Ariel Sharon is already an acceptable compromise, and represents a reduction in the "promotion" these cartoons get (which is already a misunderstanding of the issue - nevertheless, it is an acceptable compromise). A similar analysis can be made of other cases mentioned. I'd appreciate if all involved users (not just Drork!) could try to avoid stirring the pot - it is very unhelpful to the project.  — Mike.lifeguard 13:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Mike, you expressed your opinion before. For you, any file may be uploaded here as long as there are no official legal limitations. You regard any other approach as an unacceptable censorship. I am sorry, but this is your interpretation of the Commons' goals, and there is no consensus about this policy, not even among the Commons' users, let alone the different communities using the Commons. Unlike certain users, I appreciate your view and trust your good faith, and yet you have a radical view of the scope of this site, and you cannot present it as mainstream. As I said, opening a gallery of Latuff's cartoons about Sharon means giving undue weight to one single Brazilian citizen's opinion. His opinion is as important as the opinions of milliards of people around the world. It is one thing having his caricatures here, it is another thing promoting his images by opening special galleries or adding them to irrelevant pages and categories. Drork (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, that is not what I think & you would do well to stop erecting straw men.  — Mike.lifeguard 13:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(<-)Sorry for intruding here, Dror, but I see galleries as just one of the methods used to categorize and make some order with media files. Having a Sharon gallery for Latuff does not give Latuff any special privilege vis-a-vis Sharon caricatures, it's just one of his favored topics with a number of images. Categories would do the same, so I am curious as to why certain editors prefer galleries and certain prefer categories. -- Avi (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that in practice. First of all each category is also used as a gallery. This is an inherent problem of the system that the category tool have several parallel usages, and there is no way to define a category as an organizing tool only. Furthermore, even if a certain category was limited to be used only as an organizing tool - do you really think a person who looks for visual information about Ariel Sharon looks for Latuff's caricatures? Latuff is one of several million people who have an opinion about Sharon and/or the conflict in the Middle East. Why do you think a person would look for his opinion rather than the opinion of Mr. John Smith? Is the fact that someone bothered to upload his drawings to the Commons (probably in order to promote his political views) obligate us to direct people to his opinion whenever they look for information about Ariel Sharon? Drork (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that we have over 100 images of Latuff does indicate that there are some people here using the Commons as a vehicle for disseminating Latuff's work for free, but as Latuff has given a Public Domain release for his work, and for better or for worse, as long as the images are within the scope of the Commons, there should be a method for organizing them. At least that is my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

First a general remark - to the best of my judgment most of them are not within scope, and in any case, uploading 100 cartoons made by one person would make people believe that we wish to promote him, especially as we don't have similar collections of other cartoonist. You should consider how people view us, not how we view ourselves. Now to the point of categorizing - the cartoons are already categorized. A person who wishes to know Latuff's opinion about certain issues can find them in the category dedicated to him. In addition there is a special gallery for his cartoons. That's more than enough to help people navigate to his cartoons. Placing Latuff's opinion in remotely related category doesn't help much in navigation, and strongly implies that the Commons wish to promote his views. Once again, what WE say or think is irrelevant here, we should consider how a common person who surfs here sees it. Drork (talk) 06:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
If you have suggestions for other political cartoons we can add to Commons' repository, I'd be happy to help you upload them. This is not about promoting Latuff or his views - it's about having a complete collection of freely-licensed educational media files.  — Mike.lifeguard 13:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Some people like categories, some prefer galleries. I'm personally pro-category, but I can understand if people want galleries, as they can add more info. Making a gallery isn't promoting his viewpoint any more than having the category is. We are not promoting his work by hosting it here, what is promoting his work is the endless drama these are forcing upon us. You don't like what he says, fine. But it's not illegal, it's within scope (work by a notable artist), and I haven't seen any images which advocate terrorism. Yes, they're anti-israeli, but that's not a crime, it's just a viewpoint. What people make of these images is up to them - but we can't delete stuff like this simply because you believe it advocates terrorism. I'd personally say that photos of George W Bush are better advocators for terrorism, but in the end they're just photos of a man. In the end, these are just cartoons by a cartoonist. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


Back to the subject: Drork. Look at the edit history of Stopfundingterror.gif, where he was edit warring. The page has now been locked, but why not just block the user doing so many reversals? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess because it's a sensitive subject for some people, we give a little more leeway (boarding on understanding). Although I'm pretty close to blocking the user myself. Constantly reverting (multiple) users, nominating things for deletion, redirecting, renaming pages, removing links, changing categories—just causing chaos—to promote a certain viewpoint is certainly not healthy for the project. Rocket000(talk) 08:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It's similar to Evrik's frustration yesterday with the Dali image, Sometimes people get frustrated and do things they shouldn't. If Dror continues, he knows he is facing protective measures. If he no longer edit wars, what would the point be in blocking now? Our aim is to protect the project, not punish users. -- Avi (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I have given Dror a warning/explanation on his talk page. Let us hope that that is sufficient. -- Avi (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
There is an unanswered question here: are you going to put in the "Category:terrorism" every cartoon on which the cartoonist write "Terror" in bold letters? That would turn this category into a useless dump. And another thing, in what way Rocket000's opinion on the matter is better than mine? Drork (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
And another thing, I have found plenty of poorly maintained or poorly defined categories. I found a lot of irrelevant material in many categories, and missing material in others. I found errors in images' categorization. Am I to blame for fixing these issues? There are almost 1300 new documentary images uploaded to the Commons thanks to a project led by me, my colleagues in wm-il and other Israeli organizations. Should I feel ashamed for this initiative? Should I feel ashamed for correcting many poor categorizations along the way? Would it be better if I chose to upload hundreds of provocative caricatures, or attributing the "Category:terrorism" to Israeli organizations? Drork (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
In response to your first comment, if media files are related to the subject of terrorism then they should of course be in that category. I wouldn't say the word "Terror" as part of an image would be sufficient though. If Category:Terrorism does become too large then of course the correct solution to address this problem would be to come up with an appropriate way of sorting the files into subcategories.
Clearly Drork isn't responsible for all of the problems we have with categorisation and I'm not sure why he considers he is being blamed for these. Where he does consider there to be problems, he should of course make efforts to try to address them. However, there will be instances where he should consider it obvious that it is necessary to discuss his proposals with others before taking action because it is likely others will have different opinions. His efforts to find and upload the useful images he mentions are welcome but it isn't clear why he thinks anyone wishes him to be ashamed about this work. Adambro (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Adambro, we had our discussions. You led them to a dead end and then said I wasn't convincing enough. Drork (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
If I recall, the discussions we and others had didn't produce the answer you wanted and so you just ignored us and acted anyway. That is the problem. Adambro (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

We also have two cased of whitewashing.[54][55] // Liftarn (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this the commons or a local language wikipedia? Isn't it more appropriate to leave partisan bickering to the language wikipedias and strive to keep the Commons as it is supposed to be: a neutral collection of in-scope images. -- Avi (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. On Commons, it's better to say nothing about a gallery, than to give a description that would cause edit-warring. Even if you are completely right and everything is verified to the extreme, textual descriptions are not really important here. Let the Wikipedias argue about what to say about the images. Here, they just are what they are. Rocket000(talk) 21:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Dork still goes around removing valid categories (and in the process also other things).[56][57][58][59] // Liftarn (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Liftarn, your provocation are just about enough. You are pushing your political views forcefully, and try to defame anyone or anything related to Israel. I am sick and tired of that. Drork (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Drork, just stop your fight. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment I note that Drork has recently created Category:Real images of Alan Dershowitz and added an image to it and then added a description to Category:Alan Dershowitz that "This category is meant for images that defame Alan Dershowitz or other supporters of Israel." This kind of behaviour is unacceptable. I can assume good faith with some of his re-categorisations even where they seem strange but creating categories like this is indefensible. It is clear that the motivation is to disrupt Commons to make a point and this isn't how things get resolved. The image was subsequently removed from Category:Real images of Alan Dershowitz and I've since deleted it with reference to w:WP:POINT which, whilst not a Commons policy, provide a good explanation of why that kind of behaviour is unhelpful. Whilst writing this comment, I notice Drork has actually removed File:AlanDershowitz2.jpg from the only category it was in and reinstated the obviously unhelpful description of the Alan Dershowitz category. If another admin could explain to Drork the problematic nature of his recent edits it would be appreciated. Adambro (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not willing to bend my head before Mr. Kuiper Liftarn & Adambro, and I am not willing to give up to the way they abduct this site for their own purposes, and this is why I am constantly condemned here, right? Apparently some administrators find this abduction very convenient. Well, I don't find this amusing at all. This is the worst scenario of abuse, and I couldn't believe in my worst dreams that this project would end up like this. Our worst nightmare came true, and there is no one to wake us up and bring this project back to its normal track. How long are you going to let this abuse continue? How long are you going to let this site be abducted by people who mock the very essence of good faith? Drork (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Please, do not disrupt Commons with edits like these [60], [61]. --Dezidor (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Tell me, am I the only person here who respect this project and is not cynical about it? Am I the only person here who still worries about the dignity of both users and administrators? One of the administrators told me on the IRC today, that he wouldn't mind having garbage on this site as long as it is free-licensed. Is this where we've reached? Are you going to keep cooperating with this trend? Is there anyone here who wouldn't turn a blind eye to what is happening here? Drork (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping it could be avvoided, but now I see a block of this user as inevitable. This is disprutive disturbance of Commons, it has costed to much time and patience as it is. I'm excusing myself from taking administrative action as I just have been reverted twice by Drork Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg here... The deletion request is now fully protected, earlier today I had to fully protect the image because of teh same user. This can't continue, I'm sorry...Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Drork has consistently refused to recognize that his actions are indeed disruptive (which would be the first and necessary step toward working constructively again). Every time someone points out a disruptive behavior, he simply dismisses it as some kind of conspiracy against him. There is no conspiracy, just one user who thinks he has to protect people against some images and is convinced he's doing the right thing; well, he's not, and until he's able to admit it, I see no other solution than a block. For how long, I don't know. –Tryphon☂ 21:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, the liberalism of the administrators here ends when they are exposed to criticism. None of them would stop to thing where we had gone wrong, or why we are criticized. The easy solution is to bend their head before people who intimidate them and to block the person who dares to criticize them. This is indeed the darkest scenario I could imagined for a project that uses "good faith" as its motto. Drork (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Drork that Commons should not be against Bush or Israel. Commons should not be against or pro anyone at all. But the fact that we have caricatures should not be taken as if we agree with the message that the caricatures have. Commons is a place to store images etc. Since caricatures making fun of people are more “fun” than those that do not make fun of people, caricatures are often “against” someone.
The images should be treated as any other images and that includes putting on relevant categories. In my view Caricatures related to i.e. Bush should be in a category related to Bush (even if it is not a real image of Bush) etc. Therefore I see no reason to remove categories on the caricatures. --MGA73 (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Here we go again. You really think that saying: we are not supporting the views that we host and subsequently promote, is something people would believe? People take it as if this site supports these views, especially as you scatter them all over the place in remotely relevant or irrelevant categories. Currently people think this site is anti-Israel, and they have a good reason to think that way. And as for the conspiracy - there is indeed a conspiracy here, and you needn't be a paranoid to notice it. It is not a conspiracy against me, it is against this project. There are some users who found out this is the perfect place to promote their radical political views, in particular their anti-Israel views. They are welcomed here as if they were guests of honor, while anyone who tries to talk against them is shut up as if he were a criminal. There is only one name for that - this is corruption, and it should be handled now before it spreads. Drork (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Hosting stuff does not mean we support it. These cartoons are freely licenced and within scope, and so should be kept. That is the consensus. I suppose you also believe we support Sudoku hatred because we have images of Sudoku with crosses through them? We are a media host. We host media. Some of it is objectionable, so I suggest you go read the content disclaimer. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid that Drork's behaviour leads me to believe that a block should be effected. Finnrind said the DR is over, closed as keep after a UDEL. You do NOT edit war, and the user should know better. The behaviour shown here demonstrates that the arguments put forward here have not worked, and thus we must go on to more punitive measures. Commons is not anti-Israel, that image is. We host lots of anti-stuff, if you don't like it, don't look at it. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course dealing with the serious problems I raised is not an option. Better block the person who raised this issue and get it over with. Drork (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
You're edit warring and being unconstructive. The deletion request was closed, your reopening it is just being disruptive. Consensus says it shouldn't be deleted. Consensus is how we work. If you can't abide by consensus, you shouldn't be here. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The consensus you talk about is a consensus of three people intimidating the rest of users and administrators. There is no consensus whatsoever about keeping this image, and you were given endless explanation why it should not be here and why it should be categorized the way it is. What happened here is corruption - Plainly and simply. You keep cooperating with this corruption, fighting me instead of trying to repair it. Drork (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're wrong. I have not been intimidated by anyone on this matter - god knows people tried by threatening to try and get me deadmined. But my position on these images is thge same as it's always been - they're objectionable, often crass and crude, but they are undoubtedly within the project scope, and they are freely licenced. The decision on this issue, after a lot of debate, was that they should be kept. Stop edit warring over it. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for three months. Reason: [62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80] etc... Now let's get back to work. Rocket000(talk) 03:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

3 months?

Rocket, can you justify the escalation from 3 days to 3 months? Perhaps a week or two, but three months? I am of a mind to reduce the block to one or two weeks, unless you can bring justification for a thirty-fold increase in block length. -- Avi (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

3 days? Who said 3 days? Anyway, this has been going on a long time. We have more than a few pages fully protected due to a single user. The behavior pattern gives absolutely no indication the user will change his ways. Warnings go unheeded. Closing discussions doesn't stop them. Protection merely causes them to find a new way to go about it. The user has no issue edit-warring with anyone and everyone. Constantly removing relevant categories, templates, links like that is vandalism, pure and simple—that's the reason for the block, but the attitude (that Commons is the problem, not Drork) is the reason for the length. If Drork showed any sign of willingness to cooperate and cut out the edit-warring, I wouldn't have blocked at all. To me, 3 day blocks for users like this are simply punishment. I don't use blocks that way. What would 3 days change? Rocket000 (talk) 05:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
His previous block was 3 days. You jumped it to three months. Normally, blocks do not escalate by that amount. The next step is usually a week; two for intense disruption. I do not disagree with the need for protecting the project but I am somewhat surprised at the severity. -- Avi (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
And sometimes I block users indefinitely who never had a previous block. I don't go by degrees or steps, I go by what makes sense in each case. Honestly, I barely paid any attention to the block back in January. That could have been for anything. Again, it's not about punishment, previous offenses don't matter. It's about removing the problem. If Drork promised to be reasonable and not edit-war, I would unblock right now. Rocket000 (talk) 05:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
And you think two weeks is not enough, but six times that length? -- Avi (talk) 05:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
It's better than indefinitely. 3 months gives the person an automatic second chance. It's long enough where I have hope that it might be different then. Shorter than that usually doesn't allow for that kind of change. Look, if you truly feel that 1-2 weeks is better for Commons and the community, then I'll reduce it, but if you feel this way because it's "too harsh" then you'll have to be the one to reduce it (and hopefully take care of any problems that come back). Either way, I'm not one of those that believe their admin decisions should always be the final word, end of discussion, case closed type of decisions. I just do what I think will help the most. That doesn't mean I'm always right. Rocket000 (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe Drork could be banned on this particular subject something as I am, but three months is way too much IMO. (I hope I did not violate my ban by stating my opinion here.) Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Not at all. If I thought Drork would respect that kind of ban, I would definitely prefer that. But so far technical restrictions are the only things that have been working. Rocket000 (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
3 months - frankly mad. Commons has gone downhill about as far as it can go I reckon. Colours my views. --Herby talk thyme 08:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
On User:Herbythyme one reads: "if you are a vandal you will almost certainly be blocked without warning". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes - & my block log is longer than any other Commons admin ever. However I blocked vandals - I very rarely block contributors. Every alternative should be tried & even when I blocked Mbz1 it was only for 1 month. I guess you may well not understand the distinction between contributors who disagree with one another & people whose only intention is to disrupt the project. --Herby talk thyme 10:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you see the whole picture here. Drork's actions were vandalism. The reasoning behind it does change that fact it disrupts the project just as much (if not more because we waste so much time discussing it). The block had nothing to do with any "user dispute between contributors". Take a look at those links above. Review Drork's contribs. Before I really looked into it, I would have called it madness too. Rocket000 (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

↵ The big difference between Mbz1 and Drork is that Mbz1 has admitted that his behavior was problematic, and even accepted to avoid further contributions on the topic. Drork is always deflecting and argues that everyone is out to get him. If he's ready to acknowledge the issue and work on it, I'm sure he will be unblocked immediately, but I doubt he will come to this conclusion in only two weeks. –Tryphon☂ 10:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Tryphon. Blocking time should be proportional with the caused lost time and trouble (enormous with a pro-Israel lobbyist) and the risk that his behaviour remains the same. Mbz1 was back after a couple of days, despite his one month block. --Foroa (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
@Foroa, well to be exact I was blocked for 10 days and not couple of days as you claimed (but who cares about such details?). Well, if you believe that ten days were not enough, may I please ask you to feel absolutely free to reinstate the block for the time remaining? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Mbz1, don't twist my words. You agreed that there was a problem and you proposed a compromise after 10 days, which has been accepted immediatly. According to Drork, we are (almost) all wrong and he is right. So there is still a long way to go, so we might need much more time. --Foroa (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
As Rocket says above, if Drork would promise not to engage in edit warring he should be unblocked right now. My opinion is that the block should not be longer than 14 days, and that this should include some sort of probation thingy (which applies to all blocked users) - that the user would be blocked again if the editpattern that led to the first (well, second..) block is repeated. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
This issue is beyond the Commons community I'm afraid. Whether you decide to keep blocking me or not, I am going to raise the problem before the Wikimedia Foundation. It is not a question of whether Latuff's cartoons are legitimate on the Commons or not. It is a question of using the Commons as a platform of political propaganda, it is a question of how much authority the administrators possess, and if they can decide on a radical policy without consulting other members of the Wikimedia movement. This issue and all of the events surrounding it should be handled in higher forums, as it is not for the Commons' administrators alone to decide about it. Therefore, asking me to limit myself is irrelevant here. BTW, I expect some decent administrators here to revert recent political edits done my Liftarn, as he used my inability to revert him in order to introduce changes which are not acceptable. I wonder why Liftarn's controversial and provocative edits enjoy the support of the administrators, while I'm blocked for three months. 212.179.50.200 12:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Tryphon. As we see here, Drork is going to be another user who comes back with IPs after having his account blocked. IF, and I stress that - IF he shows some willingness to compromise on the issue, then I'd support unblocking early, but I don't see it coming, not in two weeks anyway. Sorry herby, you're right, commons has gone downhill, but we're trying the best we can to stop it. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Three months is absurd. Dror has made incredible contributions to the projects, including Commons, via the PikiWik project. What people here are neglecting to see is that he's not a vandal, or a troll. He has a particular point of view regarding certain subjects, one that many of our contributors don't happen to share.
You're also missing several significant points, because of the contriversial nature of the issue. There was significant opposition to the restoration of the Dershowitz image, and while I don't personally view it as overcoming community consensus, I can, at the very least, understand why Dror would want to bring it back up. Furthermore, in the issue of Liftarn's peculiar categorization, I have to also agree with Dror about one thing even if I don't agree with his position about Latuff's cartoons; they should *not* be categorized according to each individual subject; and its rather easy to see why he would object. Bastique demandez 16:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I think Mutter Erde's contributions were greater than Drork's. And of course images should be categorized according to subject. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
This topic has nothing to do with Mutter Erde. This is about Dror, please remain on the topic. Bastique demandez 17:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec) The issue is not that he holds a particular view, it is that he has been attempting to impose it despite the community apparently not agreeing. As I've said elsewhere, his desire see the Latuff images properly categorised is perfectly reasonable, his inability to properly discuss it is where the problems start. There have been numerous instances where a particular category has been discussed and the majority of editors have agreed to a particular action, either to keep it or remove it, and Drork has simply ignored it. I appreciate that the consensus apparently achieved on the talk page of a particular Latuff image might not reflect the wider community but if Drork disagrees then the correct course of action would be to raise it a more public venue to get input from more members of the community not to simply ignore what has been said and carry on regardless. He seems quick to dismiss the outcome of discussions by suggesting that the comments made are invalid because they have been made by someone who he asserts has some political agenda. His more recent edits however have gone beyond what can be assumed to be well intentioned attempts to improve Commons. Edits like this and this for example seem particularly problematic. It was almost as if he wanted to be blocked since it is hard to believe that he didn't consider that to be the likely outcome.
The categorisation of the Latuff images is of course the primarily issue here. Bastique has said that "they should *not* be categorized according to each individual subject" but I don't understand why and so I'd invite him to explain this.
I was intially suprised at the length of the block and considered it to be inappropriate but comments like this from Drork don't inspire much confidence that his return won't be accompanied by more disruption but I probably wouldn't oppose it being shorten providing any further disruption can be dealt with swiftly. Adambro (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I don't understand why he's threatening to bring it the Wikimedia Foundation, when the Foundation doesn't inject itself into political disagreements on any of its projects, and has no control over the content (except under legal obligation). If he means the community in general, and believes that the Commons is under undue political influence, he may wish to take it to foundation-l or open an RFC on Meta, although I doubt that he's going to be satisfied by either of those results. Bastique demandez 17:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that we continue this discussion at User talk:Drork, or alternatively cut&paste whatever responses Drork should place there here. This isn't just a discussion between admins (and users) on how to measure the lenght of this block, a dialogue with the concerned user would be much more helpful (hopefully). Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
When making caricatures there are some fine lines; you may draw a cartoon someone recognize, you may even add text that enforce that recognition, but when you say that something is so and so you step over a line where something is not a innocent caricature and become a insult with legal implications. This is where it will be interesting to see what you in fact can do in different jurisdictions. Some countries with local languages does not consider the server sites as important at all, and simply says "hey, this stuff is in our language and therefore for us!"
In Norway we can get away with much as long as it has some resemblance of analysis to it. Used on this case I would say that a description of the 'toons would go, perhaps even a gallery for the cartonist. Such descriptions could say who the 'toons depicts and whats the situation. On the other hand, a gallery of a portraits of a subject with a carricature could be troublesome because you lack the reason for including such an illustration.
I would say, make a gallery for the 'toons for this cartoonist. Then make a gallery for cartoons of a given subject, if there are enough caricatures of the subject, but do not make a gallery if there are only one cartoonist who draw this subject. You should also be very careful when considering if naming the subject could lead to legal liability. In many jurisdictions this happens because of the identification.
Now there is the category. In Norway we have chosen not to make categories where they may pose identification of certain roles or personal information as this may impose legal liability. In this situation I would say you should not identify the subject of the 'toon. I would identify the caricature as made by a specific cartoonist, perhaps techniques and so forth, but I would not use a category that may lead to identification of the subject. Note again that it is probably possible to argue that the gallery is some sort of analysis, especially if there are som textual description, while it would be very hard to argue that the category is an analysis.
But hey, I'm usually very proactive on protecting my ass! ;P Jeblad (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
If no one oppose I suppose the proposed solution is acceptable and the cleanup of the categories can start. Jeblad (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
As per my above comments, my feeling is that images should be categorised according to what they show and so in the case of these caricatures this includes by their main themes/subjects. I'm not clear on what exactly it is you are proposing to do so I'd appreciate it if you could clarify, if appropriate by giving some examples. Thanks. Adambro (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The images should be categorized according to the original author, period. If he chooses to draw a caricature of a subject it should be given a description within a context of the author and his explicit expression of a political statement, not the subject. If such caricatures are categorized as truthful reproductions of the subject they may be troublesome, and if they can be said to be insulting, well then they can lead to a lot of trouble. To limit such interpretations any use of the caricatures should be such that they are very clearly labeled as the authors statements, not anyone else, and they should not be categorized as «the subject» because they simply are not the subject. They are a statements from the author. If someone wants to use the caricatures to make his additional political statements, fine, but do it somewhere else and not on a site which may lead to a lot of trouble both for this project and others. Jeblad (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Your suggestion seems to be based upon a flawed understanding of the purpose of categories. A category is for any content related to that subject, not simply content that, in the case of a living individual, that they would approve. We are not endorsing Latuff's views by categorising them by subject even if others incorrectly believe that to be the case because it can quickly be established by looking at how categories are used on Commons. We should not be prepared to compromise how we organise content because others may misunderstand the reasons for categorising content in such ways. Adding one of Latuff's images to a particular category is not treating them as "truthful reproductions of the subject", it is recognising that they are related to that subject/theme. Adambro (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
This is hardly the place to discuss categorisation anyway, for an ongoing debate (concrete example) see File talk:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg (yes, that image again). Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I would ask the admins on Commons to reconsider this block as it is clearly out of line with both the actions done, the users history, the purpose of blocks and also previous blocks. The blocking admin has no real history of blocking other users, even if he said so in the heat of the discussion, and therefore I would say it is fair to both him and and the person blocked that someone else do the necessary followups. Thanks. Jeblad (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I have had communication with the blocked user (I believe other has as well) and with the blocking admin., and I have hope that we can find a solution to this situation shortly. I would like to ask for some patience, while I believe there's some kind of consensus that a three month block is excessive it would be good if we could find a way to lift the block sooner rather than later, instead of just changing the block period to 14 days as suggested above. Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. If progress is being made that brings Dror back sooner while simultaneously trying to minimize disruptions (on all sides) that is good news. -- Avi (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there any change on any side? Jeblad (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I was too optimistic above. The block could be lifted provided the user abstains from revert-disruptions, but for that to happen the user will have to request conditional unblock on his user talk. No solution/agreement has been reached in off wiki communications (as far as I know). I will not personally make any more efforts in this matter. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked. Reason: Consensus. See also User talk:Drork#Unblocked. Rocket000 (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Slobot

It is clear the there are a number of problems with what this bot is doing; see User talk:Slobot. Can it be stopped or will it go on and on? Why does it always change the format to US format? Snowmanradio (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please contact the operator and give him time to respond before you go here. Multichill (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, strike through comment to reduce confusion. Snowmanradio (talk) 10:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Because the ISO format (=US) can be parsed by {{Information}} and then displayed according to the language defined by the user in her settings, just like the standard "own work" statements. It is actually an improvement. Just read the explanations on the talk page you've linked. --Eusebius (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
It would be even better if what the bot it doing would be fully explained on the the bots user page. I thought that his would have been a requirement of a bot. Changing dates is not mentioned on its user page, but I think this should be specifically explained. Snowmanradio (talk) 10:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a mention actually, but it's "hidden". It's said "This bot will mainly be active in localization-related text replacements", but you have to know already what the change is about to understand the message. I will ask Slomox to add something more specific in both the bot page and the diffs, since many users seem to be worried by these changes. --Eusebius (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I have added more info both on the bot's user page and in the summary. Perhaps I suffer a bit of localization tunnel vision ;-) From an localization point of view the improvement seems to be quite obvious, but admittedly, from the point of view of a user not involved in localization and just seeing the date being rendered in one format it's anything but obvious. I already had added a more descriptive summary, that mentioned localization as purpose of the edit instead of just "normalization", but apparently that summary got lost due to an copy&paste action. --Slomox (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Amenhtp (talk · contribs)

Some uploads seem ok, but user has a history of uploading copyrighted material and claiming it as their own work. Requesting a stronger warning or initial short block from an admin. - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Older examples: File:Tibetan Serf.jpg, File:Tibetan Skins.jpg, File:Dalai-Asahara.jpg, File:Tibetan Head Kapala.jpg, File:Serfs burnout bills.jpg, Image:Tibetan Nobles.jpg, Image:Serfs.jpg. And some recent examples now tagged: File:Dreyse detail.JPG, File:SniderMkIII_breech.jpg though I have to call into question all of his uploads. These were just some I could find after searching the web for the originals. - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Amenhtp just re-uploaded File:Chassepot A.JPG and File:Chassepot_B.JPG after the previous two basically identical photos (File:Chassepot 1.JPG and File:Chassepot 2.JPG) were speedy deleted as copyright violations - just lifted from the web. Will tag the new ones as such. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Glevrard (talk · contribs)

Various attemps to make us delete three uploads created by himself. I am involved, so I ask someone else to protect these files for some time. It’s just the old “I want to revoke my free license” story. Thank you. --Polarlys (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Could any other admin please have a look at the user’s talk page? Thank you! --Polarlys (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Protected the files in qustion for one week. Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. --Polarlys (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

French speaking admin needed (mine isn't good enough). --Polarlys (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I took care of it, as he also sent me an email about that. In a nutshell, he doesn't want these images to appear in his gallery, but he doesn't mind if someone else uploads them. I told him he could create a gallery page in his userspace if he wants control over the images he displays, and that I'm reluctant to delete and re-upload the images as it would create unnecessary workload for the admins. He's also claiming that French law allows him to ask for these images to be deleted at any time, but after some reading, I don't see anything that definitive. –Tryphon☂ 11:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
would create unnecessary workload for the admins - not too much as it's only about 3 remaining (and unused) images; some others have actually been deleted because they seemed to have less value than those 3. But even after a re-upload he would have to be credited as the photographer (and would eventually have to send a permission to OTRS). Would he agree to that? --Túrelio (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure, I've now noticed that he tried to remove his name from the image pages, and he left a note on the image talk page saying that he wants his account deleted (which I believe is impossible, precisely because it would break cc-by and GFDL licenses). He should probably have his account renamed if he doesn't want his real name to appear anymore. As for the workload, I wasn't thinking about just this user, but if we start deleting and re-uploading images for no real reason, then yes, it could get out of hand. I don't want to make this a matter of principle, and if I could be sure that deleting and re-uploading those three images would be the end of it, I would do it; but then I think he would not want to be named as author, and we're back to square one.
So can I suggest him an account renaming? It would replace his name on every image he uploaded, and we wouldn't have to delete and re-upload them, right? –Tryphon☂ 12:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds sensible. Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, so I asked him on his talk page if it would be an acceptable solution. –Tryphon☂ 12:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_8&oldid=372572697"