Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

User uploading copyrighted government photos

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Hello. User Coronades03 has recently uploaded images from Colombia government web pages, like this or this one. He states that they are allowed because "the copyright holder is properly attributed and don't made bad use of them". However, the webpages from where he took those pictures ban any unautorized use. Also, in previous contributions he clearly spoofed OTRS tickets in order to keep that kind of photos, and even he keeps reverting changes by OTRS team members like this and this one. I’m asking you to block this person and delete all of those files. Linfocito B ~ Greetings from Colombia. 19:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that you're getting a little impatient (see topic a few below), so I thought I'd let you know why I haven't evaluated this case. Simply, I do not speak Spanish, and many of the laws and permission links referred to (by both you and Coronades) are in Spanish. Thus I think it best for me to leave it for a Spanish speaking admin to deal with. I hope one comes along soon, please be patient. --99of9 (talk) 09:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

@Linfocito B, same problem. As the cited document is rather long and available only in spanish, you might have specified the exact paragraph you are referring to. --Túrelio (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Finally, I've found that § 3.1 is relevant: Este sitio de Internet y su contenido son de propiedad de la Presidencia de la República. Está prohibida su reproducción total o parcial, su traducción, inclusión, transmisión, almacenamiento o acceso a través de medios analógicos, digitales o de cualquier otro sistema o tecnología creada, sin autorización previa y escrita de la Presidencia de la República.
Sin embargo, es posible descargar material de www.presidencia.gov.co para uso personal y no comercial, siempre y cuando se haga expresa mención de la propiedad en cabeza de la Presidencia de la República."

In short, content of this website is NC (and whatever more restrictions). However, these restrictions may be waived by an individual permission. --Túrelio (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Individual permission that was never asked, and I might add that was spoofed using wrong OTRS codes. So ok I'll be patient, but people: has anyone noticed this is an official administrator's noticeboard? The thread "The person reading this - yes, you." doesn't belong here and is unrespectful both for foreigners (that might don't understand cultural references or jokes) and/or people that don't know how things works here. Sorry to bother you. I know, everyone here are volunteers of to the same wikidream. Thanks. --Linfocito B ~ Greetings from Colombia. 18:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm a Spanish speaking administrator with OTRS access. I did a quick review of this case and I've found some images tagged with false OTRS ticket numbers and problematic licensing claims. I'm still investigating this & I have requested the help of my fellow agents from the spanish speaking OTRS team. We will be activelly reviewing this case and acting upon it. Thanks for the report. --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 00:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The person reading this - yes, you.

Latest comment: 14 years ago21 comments13 people in discussion

Since it will happen sooner or later anyway, I would like to complain about (insert your name here) who has engaged in (adjective) and disruptive (verb)ing regarding (images/category). (User) has also made personal attacks (diff) (diff) (diff) and accused (other user) of (bad thing). Please ban (him/her/it/gender-neutral pronound of your choice) immediately. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Create a template --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

{{J'accuse}} maybe? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a consensus to close the Administrators' noticeboard/User problems-section? --High Contrast (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No! But perhaps a more effective method for dispute resolution than all this haranguing could be devised, like English WP has? SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I love the idea that anyone thinks en wp handles dispute resolution well... --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it 's a good direction to move towards. --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

seriously... Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

<lols> Diego Grez ^{return fire} 20:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

English WP handles disputes well. That's not an idea it's a fact. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

So, mighty sysop, please enlight us. I requested this and the only thing you resolved is to just make an indirect and inmature joke of this section of this noticeboard. I don't know (and neither care) how do you things in en:wiki, but in es:wiki we respect newcomer users and teach them the way things work. Sorry, I know this was not an answer for my request, but I took it like it were and I'm feeling really pissed up..... Linfocito B ~ Greetings from Colombia. 02:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

@Linfocito B,

hmm, the thread above your comment is totally unrelated to your request. If you look at most of the other threads on this page, you will easily realize this. Nobody was joking about your request. Please remember that all those who do the "dirty" (or cleaning) work here, are volunteers and usually have a lot of other things to do. In addition, as nearly all things surfacing at the administrator boards are conflicting and nasty, please leave us our freedom to do something (sort of) pleasant/funny every now and then. There is so few of this as of recently. --Túrelio (talk) 06:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess Linfocito might be more inclined to forgive if someone actually responded to their request above on this page. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Abusive admin mattbuck

Mattbuck is currently engaged in malicious abuse of power by (having a POV/uploading things about things I dislike/misplacing punctuation marks/doing stuff/destroying stuff/not doing stuff) and making personal attacks against me and everyone else here. This is clearly racist towards Swedes and whatever the rest of you are. I ~~demand immediate blocking and removal of his rights~~ don't actually request any action at all; I just wanted to whine. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, Túrelio, who is clearly a (sockpuppet/meatpuppet/meatsock/cabalist/cannibal/cabbage head) is vandalizing my comments! —LX (talk, contribs) 17:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Por todos los Santos... --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 17:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The use of colours by LX clearly demonstrates his homophobic views. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

vote

lets vote about it!

Support - Amada44 ^{talk to me} 17:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Denied -mattbuck (Talk) 18:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Oversaturated —LX (talk, contribs) 18:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 1 denied, 1 oversaturated = ZooFari 00:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Drork

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Now that his sock Kakh-and-no-kakh is blocked, Drork (talk · contribs) is continuing edit warring, see his contribution list, for example this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears that most of his edits are an attempt to implement (one side of) my proposal ("per understandings"). I haven't covered descriptions imported from third parties (which we don't always accept unmodified), so I suppose that can be considered a grey area. In this case Drork's version seems more matter-of-fact. Speculating on what someone "would have done" seems unneccessary. Are there any other edits you think are actually bad? --99of9 (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I've now looked further into the edits, and have noticed a few imperfect ones, but one that I started fixing turned out to have already been fixed by SD before I finished! Let's hope the wiki process continues to work... --99of9 (talk) 11:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think avoiding specifying whether Golan Heights is in Israel or Syria, and adding the relevent categories for both countries where appropriate is a good move. Whether there is consensus to do so is probably less clear but I hope there is. It is a sensible compromise. What I'm not sure about is why Drork hasn't actually been blocked for misusing Kàkhvelokákh? We've got enough to deal with here without having users creating new identities to stir things up even more. Adambro (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Why hasn't Drork been blocked for Kàkhvelokákh? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Move . Please move this post to the appropriate place as out of topic. If you want to help user Supreme Deliciousness get out of block please post regular commant. Shifting the debate is inappropriate. Geagea (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I've turned this into a new section of its own. For the record, I'm ambivalent about a block here. Socking is a very bad idea, and should be condemned, but I'm not sure I ever saw any serious abuse. I really wish Drork had admitted the multiple accounts when I specifically asked him to declare it - honesty is very important in my books. If he admitted it now, and promised not to create new accounts, I would oppose a block/ban. --99of9 (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha

Latest comment: 14 years ago24 comments11 people in discussion

Malcolm Schosha has taken to accusing me repeatedly of publishing antisemitic comments ([1] [2] [3] etc). In this, he is mimicking a behaviour initiated by Mbz1 on the English Wikipedia and on Commons. Mbz1 has essentially desisted from this behaviour after I indicated that it was beyond what I consider tolerable; Malcolm Schosha, on the other hand, after two direct demands that he retract his accusations [4] [5], persists in uttering them. Two of his recent accessories claims ("Rama has made a statement that has been interpreted by all as antisemitic" and "You said, yourself, that your comment was antisemitic") are complete and demonstrable falsehoods.

Making antisemitic statements in public is a criminal offence in my country of residence. This illustrates that this particular accusation is not of the same nature than some other criticism of even personal attack. This is heading towards an attempt at downright character assassination.

I have repeatedly attempted to signal to Malcolm Schosha that he had crossed a line; several other contributors have given similar signals [6] [7], to no avail. This leaves me no other recourse than reporting the issue here. I do not insist on Malcolm Schosha being "punished", but this campaign of defamation is a public nuisance that has to be stopped firmly and immediately, lest we want to see this become the standard weapon of the "warriors" on Commons. Rama (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Rama, I don't know how you feel and I'm not claiming to, so forgive me if this doesn't make sense. There are some users you will encounter that feel so strongly about something, nothing will change their ways. Even the mere thought of trying understand other views is absurd (why would you if you already know the universal absolute truth) Discussion is futile. They make no distinction between thoughts and acting on those thoughts. To them, it's one in the same. Making antisemitic statements in public may be a criminal offence for you, but unless you did, I don't think there's anything to worry about (or does your gov. just take people's word for it?) Don't you also have some kinda of libel/slander law too? If so, maybe Schosha has more to worry about. Rocket000 (talk) 06:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Some others have fought for removing images of nude children. That is fine. But it is not ok if they make accusations of pedophilia against those that oppose deletions. It is the same thing here. No attacks on the character of those that one disagrees with. No matter how strongly they feel. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

100% agree. My above comment was mainly about the legal issue, but as personal attack here on Commons, it's completely out-of-line. (And I don't use that phrase "personal attack" loosely). Rocket000 (talk) 07:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. There is a big difference between holding people to account for their comments, where you believe them to be inappropriate, and making attacks on their character. I can't defend Malcolm Schosha's overall behaviour here, because he has done both of these to Rama (and more), but saying that what someone said is sexist, racist, or antisemitic is not the same as saying that the person is. I think people have indeed been too loose with accusations of personal attacks during this dispute. --Avenue (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

To clarify on the legal issue: I think that the risk of actual indictment is remote; I did not mention the criminal offence in this perspective, but to illustrate that there is a quantum leap from saying "X is a bad admin" and accusing him of antisemitism, and that this leap is as objective as possible since it is written in law. Criticising actions, even as part of a wikilayering tactic, is more or less fair game; spinning statements or uttering downright falsehoods to sully a man's honour is not.

Also, I wish to de-focus the issue from my person. I am reporting the issue in part because I see no other way to defend myself, but most of all because, if left unchallenged, this development would change the dynamics of Commons for the worse. Wee are observing here a shift from accusing images to accusing users. Given the sort of turmoil the images have caused, I do not think it would be desirable to see actual Human beings brought into that sort of turmoil. I would like to insist that Mbz1 has issued and quoted numerous statements that can easily be spinned into racist comments, and that by complaining here I am also trying to protect her. Rama (talk) 07:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by "spinned into racist comments"? Some diffs might help clarify matters. Thanks. Lar: t/c 03:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

[8] or File:End_the_unjust_Jewish_occupation_of_Arab_land.jpg are typical examples. Mbz1 makes points that display "Arabs" is general as uninterested in peace; she treats them as a single entity, which they are not; she implies that Palestinians can have their land occupied since it represents only a tiny fraction of "Arab land", which is arguably deshumanising for the people who face the actual occupation; she refers to Israel as "the Jews", while all Jews are not Israelis and all Israelis are not Jewish.

And I repeat my point. I am not saying that these are racist. I personally find them offensive, but that's neither here nor there. What I am saying is that if there was somebody as prone to spin and deformation than Malcolm Schosha and Mbz1 in Pieter Kuiper's camp, she would see these statements and images denounced as racist. The fact that she uses hyberboles and quotations would be pointed as further proofs that she knows her points to be racist and wants to push them sneakily, etc etc. With that sort of tactics, it does not matter whether the accusations are true or even plausible, you just have to repeat them over and over and over again, directly or obliquely, to sully somebody's character.

I believe that this sort of tactics do not have their place on Commons (nor should they anywhere but that's politics for you...). And I think that those who renounce these filthy tactics should not simply be the victims of those who engage in them. Rama (talk) 08:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I agree that some of those comments are not based on fact. But I guess I am not seeing how they can be "spun into racist comments". That seems rather a rhetorical flourish that isn't adding much to the discussion. Passions in this topic area are high. We should try to be as dispassionate as possible. Even if others don't manage to do so. Lar: t/c 11:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Lacking this sort of imagination does you credit.

There is indeed a high emotional potential that is no help. What I meant to add to the discussion is

1) that people who do not resort to defamation should not be put in the situation where they fight with a hand tied in the back because of their integrity.

2) that anybody can be a victim of fact-free character assassination. Those who resort to it run the risk of given their opponents ideas, escalate the nastiness of discussions and fall victim of their own tactics eventually. Not everybody has my scruples. Rama (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well. We have for instance File:Suicide bomber climbing West Bank Barrier cartoon.jpg that can easily be interpreted as racism. We have a source saying that picturing Arabs as terrorists is a form of ant-Arabism and thus a form of racism.[9] // Liftarn (talk)

Well good you didn't say "reliable source," w:Brian Whitaker being who he is, having himself taken considerable flack for biased reporting eg here and here. Whitaker is speaking in an opinion piece about a movie in the link you gave. So I am not clear on your point in relation to MalcolmSchosha. What exactly are you trying to get at here? Stellarkid (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I would add that while you might find it racist, I do not, since it was not the Chinese that committed all the suicide attacks against Israel. In fact, if memory serves me right, it was only Palestinians (Arabs) who committed these acts. Therefore it is not a false or exaggerated characterisation but in fact, an accurate one, in this case. Here is Israel's list of suicide bomber fatalities I am quite sure that all the perpetrators were Palestinian Arabs. Stellarkid (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

And once again the double standard here--our sources are RS, yours aren't, portrayal of Israelis as Jews in political cartoons is racist, portrayal of terrorists as Arabs in political cartoons isn't--makes it nigh impossible to actually to do anything with these issues.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I blocked Malcolm two days ago for this sort of behaviour, and he still persists on the talk page. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha continued to accuse Rama in antisemitism on his talk page, so I've reblocked him for a week w/o right to edit talk page (because this right was abused by Malcolm Schosha during the previous block). Trycatch (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment I see a basic disparity here. MalcolmSchosha said that Rama made an antisemitic statement (here)and was blocked for 2 weeks for saying so. The ability to edit his (MalcolmSchosha's) talk page was removed. Rama said that Mbz1 "has issued and quoted numerous statements that can easily be spinned into racist comments" without any diffs or proof, but he (Rama) remains unblocked. Rama really has no business blocking anyone for making comments about antisemitism since he has engaged in numerous discussions of antisemitism, and the charge has been made that some of his comments here (previously struck) had a flavor of antisemitism. He is involved to say the least. It seems to me an abuse of his sysop tools to be banning people for anything connected to such. In fact maybe anyone who cannot discuss antisemitism without fear of being indicted in his home country should bow out of such discussions unequivocally. There would then be no fear that anyone could accuse them of anything. This banning and blocking business is really getting out of hand. Shame you can't discuss things like grownups, instead of punishing people for their opinions on this subject. You admins need to reread your rulebook. You are handing out blocks like candy. Stellarkid (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

We, as a group, are tired of the fights here. So people are getting blocked. That's a good thing, IMO.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Those that are getting blocked are those who share a particular point of view, that you do not. Don't you find it coincidental that all the so-called "disruptive" editors are on one side of the I-P conflict area? One side is doing the blocking and the other is being blocked. Perhaps if your side were on the receiving end of the blocks you would not consider it such a good thing, lol. But yeah, a great way to keep the peace. It is sort of the way the Iranians are keeping the peace these days as well. Stellarkid (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Half the problem is your polarizing into sides; I am far from clearly on one side of the I-P conflict. Kuiper got blocked, but unlike Mbz1, he seems to have neglected to declare his dedication to war at the cost of Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

On behalf of Malcolm:

It is highly problematic to have a continuing noticeboard discussion about me, while at the same time I am blocked from editing even my own talk page. For instance, Rama has made statements such as: "What I am saying is that if there was somebody as prone to spin and deformation than Malcolm Schosha and Mbz1 in Pieter Kuiper's camp, she would see these statements and images denounced as racist", in which he attacks a now deleted image by Mbz1 which I had nothing to do with, and accuses me (by implied association) of being a "racist" without supplying a a diff. I find it rather he can call he a racist without getting challenged, while I got blocked for saying what is supported by diffs.

I suggest his block is modified so that he can edit his talk page. ZooFari 16:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

He had talk page access, and used it to continue the exact same behaviour he was blocked for originally. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how Commons really benefits by allowing Malcom to return to using his talk page whilst blocked to argue with others. If Malcom has concerns about Rama's behaviour then I would encourage him to take the time, after his block expires, to carefully explain them in a new section here with appropriate diffs and quotations so they can properly be reviewed. Adambro (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, as with your removal of talk page access for Mbz1 which I overturned, I am not seeing how Commons is damaged by letting him have his say on his talk page. I've a mind to overturn that too. But is there a clear consensus here for keeping talk page access turned off? If there is, I won't, but if there isn't, someone ought to. Lar: t/c 11:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like he is going to continue to discuss things that are completely unrelated to his block. This is not the purpose of blocked user talk page access, and I have no idea why this can't wait until the end of his block, a week is not so long time. Trycatch (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Meta-Wiki discussion

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

FYI, see:

meta:Wikimedia Forum#Arbitrary blocks on Commons

--A. B. (talk) 04:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Supreme Deliciousness

Latest comment: 14 years ago57 comments16 people in discussion

Supreme Deliciousness's edits both here and on the English Wikipedia are extremely controversial, and strongly push official views of the Syrian Government into articles and media files. He edits day and night and his pattern of edits suggest that he is being paid for his edits. He also files numerous complaints about Israeli and Jewish editors (especially on the English Wikipedia), or quick to join such complaints. He also target Egyptian or other users who write in a way that contradict Syrian official narrative. SD said he was editing from location removed by -mattbuck, which is quite logical, because in Syria itself the access to Wikimedia projects is limited and often blocked altogether. The pattern of behavior suggests that SD is working for the Syrian Government, either as a worker of the embassy in location, or some other official Syrian organization abroad. While state officials are by no means banned from editing or contributing to Wikimedia projects, users have been blocked before (according to information on Wikimedia sites and the press) for making tendentious edits/contributions without appropriate disclosure of their affiliation. Supreme Deliciousness should reveal his affiliation to official Syrian organizations, so that other users could judge his contributions in the proper context. Kàkhvelokákh (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this as an issue on for Commons. Certainly whatever he does on the English Wikipedia is irrelevant here, and conflicts of interest aren't nearly the problem on Commons that they are on Wikipedia. If you want to bring some specific diffs and specific on-Commons complaints, do so.

However, User:Supreme Deliciousness, deleting complaints about you on a noticeboard is highly inappropriate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently this was because of location information, which I have now removed. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

SD is making controversial edits and remarks on the Commons too, not only on the English Wikipedia. Here are some examples: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] (see description) [18]. At this point, all I am asking is that SD allows other users to judge his edits within context.
A person's occupation is not considered personal information in "real life", and it would be legitimate to hide it on Wikipedia only if it does not affect the contributions directly. Suppose a contributor is a worker of Microsoft, Coca Cola or Apple and constantly makes contributions to promote these companies' line of advertising, would it not be legitimate to ask him to reveal his/her affiliation? How is a diplomat that works in promoting his Government line on a Wikimedia project is different? I'm not asking to ban him. I am asking for the basic right for appropriate disclosure. Kàkhvelokákh (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Generally put, on the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog, and we uphold that right. Edits on Commons are generally not of a nature where a person's occupation would matter. I see behavior here that might reasonably be a source of concern, but so long as he's not running sockpuppets, his real world identity is irrelevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

While I agree it isn't hard to find, I don't see any real relevance in where SD edits from, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to accede to his request and not state it. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

When a person constantly make controversial edits in a certain direction, then his/her affiliation, whether to a place or organization, does become relevant. Again, it does not disqualify him/her from editing, but other editors have the right to know about political or commercial motivations for edits if they are not strictly personal (e.g. the person votes for XY, or drive WZ and really like it), but directed by a certain policy or orders of the organization/company to which the person pertains. If the boss call you and say, we really need to improve the image of this corporation, start editing on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons, it would be highly unethical to act as if you are just another contributor. Kàkhvelokákh (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Since you are importing issues from en-wiki, and are so concerned with full disclosure, I notice that your username on en-wiki w:User:Kàkhvelokákh has been blocked as a sockpuppet of w:User:Drork, indeffed for abuse of sockpuppets. Perhaps you'd like to make a declaration about any possible connection between Commons User:Kàkhvelokákh and User:Drork. --99of9 (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that SD himself keeps totally silent. He tried to erase my complaint, now he waits for others to handle the case for him. He is probably quite happy to see that other people try to defame me instead of demanding the simple answer from him. Had you read the case on the English Wikipedia thoroughly, you would have seen that no evidence had been submitted to prove SD allegations against me. All it took was a word from him to one of the admins, and even though the admin himself admitted that there was no case, he accepted SD's false allegations against me. There is an accumulation of problematic behavior here: tendentious edits both on the English Wikipedia and (as I have shown above) on the Commons, aggressive remarks both on Commons and English Wikipedia, editing day and night as if editing the two project was his paid work, serial complaints about Israeli editors or editors who do not accept his line. Adding the information about his location, information that he himself publicized (perhaps unaware), it seems more and more evident that he works for the Syrian Government. Again, this is not a problem for itself, but it is highly unethical to hide this information in light of his behavior. See another example for his problematic remarks on the Commons [19], on the English Wikipedia [20], [21] and there are plenty more. Kàkhvelokákh (talk) 07:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping that big long paragraph would contain an answer to my simple question. So let me ask again now, in the interests of disclosure, would you like to make a declaration about any possible connection? 99of9 (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. I live in Tel Aviv, Israel and I work for a private company that provides translations to various languages. I suppose it is now turn for... Kàkhvelokákh (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

All right, you obviously don't want to comment on "any possible connection between Commons User:Kàkhvelokákh and User:Drork"... SD obviously has a POV that is very critical to Israel, just like Drork and numerous others have a pro Israel POV. So what's new? Who SD works for or where (s)he edits from is irrelevant for Commons, unless the user claims rights to publish copyrighted material, in which case (s)he would have to identify through OTRS. So, Drork or whoever owns the SPA account Kàkhvelokákh - drop it before you're blocked at Commmons too. Finn Rindahl (talk) 09:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think my name is Dror? I've just told you it was not the case. So basically, not only does one creates an "avatar" for oneself here, one also claim that others are not the persons they say they are. Somehow, I did not think this site was a video game. I am still expecting a comment from SD. His silence is extremely peculiar, especially as he tried to delete this topic altogether. Now, a final clarification - I don't mind about SD's personal views (POV or whatever you call it), and I am not concerned about his uploads. I am concerned about him serving as the Syrian Government's ambassador to Wikipedia. This is highly unethical. SD edits texts attached to images and categories in order to make them in line with Syrian official positions. If he is unwilling to comment about his affiliation to the Syrian Government, the only way is to assume he actually is affiliated to it, and treat his contributions accordingly. Kàkhvelokákh (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

We know your name is Drork because a look at your en.wp userpage shows you were banned for being Drork. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You are probably aware of the need to verify everything written on Wikipedia with a reliable source. In this case only speculations were brought no sources whatsoever. My complaint to the relevant mailing was ignored plainly and simply. Why? I don't know. They didn't even bothered to write "we don't believe you". On the other hand there a person here, namely SD, who admits, with silence, that he works in bad faith and as an "ambassador". He makes problematic edits as we speak, and you are worried about with what the English Wikipedia has to say about me. Kàkhvelokákh (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

To bring this to an end I filed a request for checkuser. Drork (talk · contribs) has been blocked on commons several times for being rude and edit warring, so let's see what happens. axp_de ^Hello! 13:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Look at SD's edits from today [22]. As you can see, no uploads, no new information. Just political edits within Syrian official lines. He refuses to conduct discussions, he just reverts again and again, trusting that people would get tired eventually. Kàkhvelokákh (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Kàkhvelokákh, you have been warned finally at this place not to reveal personal information of other users as for example location or alike. And you did it again. What shall I do now? Just another "final warning"? You're complaining about SD that on his remark you'll get blocked on en-WP. Can't speak for en-WP, but on this project you went too far! Blocked for 2h, please consider more appropriate ways to express your concerns! axp_de ^Hello! 11:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. to both, Kàkhvelokákh and Supreme Deliciousness, please stop your conflict immediately! As far as I know and in the eyes of the international community the en:Golan Heights belong to Syria and are occupied by Israel. That's a fact! And of course as a result of this conflict people died and buildings are devasted, but we actually don't know who did what. As in every other conflict humanity dies first, so please show respect to all people killed or wounded in this ongoing war and stop your (edit) war! axp_de ^Hello! 11:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S.: I suggest the following rules to make it clear:

Golan Heights (Syria, occupied Israel)
descriptions of Buildings may read both "destroyed" or "abandoned", but not "by Israeli" (or whomever) or "by war" (maybe it was a drunken truck driver, who knows?)
no suspicions, no recriminations, no accusations on both sides!

commons wikimedia notes and reports impartial, others may draw conclusions! Bear this in mind whatever you do! axp_de ^Hello! 11:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That might be a problem. A building destroyed during the war is notable, a random destroyed building is not. // Liftarn (talk)

This is quite outrageous. The Golan Heights does not belong to Syria. Of course Syria would like you to think so, but I did not think this site belongs to the Syrian Government. I see SD worked really well here in making people convinced that Syrian propaganda is facts. What's next? Claiming that women are inferior to man because the Saudi Government so claims? Writing that the Baha'i religion is illegitimate because both the Egyptian and Iranian Government think so? As for the dilapidated buildings - how can you tell they were destroyed at war? The place has not seen serious violence since 1974. How do you know a building wasn't abandoned in 1975 and ruined by nature? Destruction by war is not the default when the last war was 36 years ago. And even if war was the cause, how can you tell it was not destroyed by Syrians? Kàkhvelokákh (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What does this have to do with this userboard? Given that there is no world government, there is no one who can definitively say who the land "belongs" to. Any claims that a building was destroyed in any certain way should certainly be substantiated.--71.232.127.37 23:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC) (User:Prosfilaes)

To repeat myself (Kàkhvelokákh seems to be unable to read what I wrote above):

There's only one country on this planet claiming Golan Heights belongs to Israel: Isreal! And – as Kàkhvelokákh stated above – the position of just one government is not generally accepted. Even their most faithful ally has a different opinion as can be seen on this map: Golan Heights (Israeli occupied)!
If there's no absolute proof of a certain action, commons just states the status quo without any speculation whatsoever!

And now stop this silly dispute! axp_de ^Hello! 13:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that someone tries to associate me (again) with some other Israeli user. I am quite tired of this Wiki-witch-hunt, where a baseless statement of a certain user can make several people into one. I have no idea on what ground I was associated with this user, but judging from User:Axpde's remark above, I have a strong feeling that the motivation is political (according to the link I received by mail, he is the one who initiated the sockpuppet investigation). Axpde's views are suspiciously similar to the one of Supreme Deliciousness, against whom this complaint was submitted (whoever submitted it in the first place). Axpde went as far as to defame me, even though I was not involved in this discussion. I suppose I should ask for his apology, but from what I've learned about the nature of discussions here, there is no use to expect one. Drork (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

My reason to file this request was commons blocklog User:Drork, en-WP blocklog User:Drork and en:User:Kàkhvelokákh. Period.
My request for CU was confirmed, so there's not the slightest reason to apologise.
My motivation to issue final warnings to both Kàkhvelokákh and Supreme Deliciousness: This is commons wikimedia and not the middle east. I want to see no war, no fight, no violation, no defamation. Or by re-quoting q:Carl von Clausewitz: Commons is hardly the continuation of war by other means.

I don't want to judge who's right or wrong, I just state what's internationally accepted and that's it! axp_de ^Hello! 17:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Generally, if you have troops in an area, your claims that it belongs to you get additional weight. If the UN declares Bremerhaven to be the sole property of Turkey, by unanimous (minus one) vote, it still isn't going to make a real world difference until someone brings military force to the table!! If you can march your troops with defiance through a territory, and they can't, their claims that it belongs to them are sort of moot!! (People other than Axpde are encouraged to replace !! with .)--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I love exclamation marks! ;-) axp_de ^Hello! 17:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness 2

I made deep chacking of user Supreme Deliciousness contribution on commons and find out, as it seen in the list underneath, that the most of his contribution focus on POV matter. I already warned the user from editing without using the talk page and edit waring without using the talk pag in August 2010 and made him in reminder 2 October 2010 when he was again edit waring. I try to avoid from this but it seems to be inevitable as he keep doing it afterwards. We must made clear declaration - stop those edit without discussion and stop edit waring.

I also generally oppose to the term Golan Heights, Israel to Israeli occupied Golan Heights as being, at least, unbalanced. Israel did not take control of Golan Heights because they like to do this but it was resulted of defence war when 7 neighbor counties attacked for the aim of throwing the jews to the sea. But the more importent issue her is that we are not wikipedia and there is no need to take the all wikipedia article and to add evry file. All that information can be readed in the wikipedia article. I can insure you, as a Israeli, that evry Israely see a problem with this term. It inflame term and Invites, at least, additional supplement like "Israeli-occupied after syrian attack". I also oppose any kind of additions like this, even if they are internationaly recognize such as Syria, terrorism sponsor state. The Golan Heights are fully administered by Israel, and accessible from Israel.

Supreme Deliciousness's that following underneath are problematic and edited without discussion. His contribution regarding POV metters. The files that he edited where uploaded by good contributers that made efforts to take a pictures, uploading to commons, categories them ect. Therefor I'll remove those edits and if user Supreme Deliciousness edit waring me, I'll ask his blocking. Using the talk pages for discussion is the appropriate way.

And at last, I advise user Supreme Deliciousness to accept Billinghurst advise and take a chill-pill.

List of problematic edits:

Geagea (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Geagea, I haven't reviewed all the edits that you've listed here, but I have noticed that when you addressed SD's "removing Hebrew text", you didn't fix it properly. The way we do descriptions on Commons is not to mix Hebrew and English in one description, it's to have two/many separate descriptions. One in each language. If your Hebrew is adequate, could you please separate the descriptions like this? 99of9 (talk) 05:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to do my best later at night. Geagea (talk) 05:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no good reason for removing text in Hebrew, but otherwise these are good corrections. The Golan Heights should not be described as part of Israel. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Geagea is a pov pushing admin who should be desysoped for his pov edits, Golan is internationally recognized as part of Syria occupied by Israel. Several neutral users agree with this: [23] [24] Geagea has now went around to every single article about places internationally recognized as a region in Syria, , he has changed it to that its in Israel instead, Why is this pov pusher an admin? He has not discussed any of his POV pushing reverts on the talkpage, yet he claims that I must discuss my neutral edits. His childish one sided post above about "throwing the jews to the sea" and "terrorism sponsor state" shows he has no intentions of improving the description of the images but only to force his minority pov into images, can someone please block Geagea and desysop him? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

SD, please be careful what you're saying. I'm with you as far as you depict the perspective of the international community. But I don't accept any personal attacks against admins or other users, no accusations, no mocking ... If you think, that there's a problem with another user (incl. admin), please report this as neutral as possible on this page but with a new section. axp_de ^Hello! 17:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Talking about pov pushing, user Supreme Deliciousness made 58 edits from a total of 123 file edits - about 50%. (now after your edits todaty it's 94 from 159 - 60%). It clearly defines the nature of your edits her. Your personal attacks are part of your problematic behavior on commons.

Regarding to Golan Heights, Syria occupied by Israel is only the half of the sentence. Golan Heights, Syria, occupied by Israeli as a resalt of defensive war is also internationally recognized and Syria, terrorism sponsor state is also internationally recognize but all this is not Commons concern. All of those are inflame and no needed to describe flower or to describe mountain. Commons is not wikipedia. The international recognition is meaningless her. The important thing is that the description will describe the file the best and simple way. People willing information about Golan Heights can read it in Wikipedia articles or another source of information.

And more. All those files where made by good Commons contributers that made efforts to take a pictures, uploading to commons, categories them ect. On the other hand Supreme Deliciousness's edits are only POV matter. We have to deny these kind of contribution. When the uploader says Golan Heights, Israel, it is not wrong as De-facto and from the legal point of view of Israel It's in Israel.

Regarding to categories. there is simple solution. All of the photo can be double categories to Israel and to Syria. We do it all the time.

As a respond to this post, and as continuing to his provocative respond, reverted user Supreme Deliciousness my edits as I noticed that I am going to do. Of course, no discussions in talk page and no ended discussion her. His edits/reverts including personal attacks against me (file deits from 16 October 2010 (36 edits). So first I request to cancel those edits and hide them. I also have to ask Supreme Deliciousness's bloc for doing these actions and starting edit wars again. There is no need for more warnings as he already warned enough times. Geagea (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Question. Do you have/had any Topic Ban in en.wikipedia? Geagea (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I ask for that Geagea gets topic banned from pictures related to occupied territories and that he gets desysoped as he is clearly unfit for being an admin. He edit wars claiming I should discuss changes I made half a year ago, while he himself do not discuss changes he made yesterday, Geageas personal believes of who started the six day war or who is a terrorist state means absolutely nothing of where this region is, he says "Golan Heights, Syria occupied by Israel" is "inflame", but what is "Golan heights, Israel" ???? His words only shows that he is trying to push his own personal believes at the expense of a neutral point of view of these pictures. This must be unacceptable for any user, and especially an admin. I can accept this for a compromise: No country name is mentioned only "Golan heights". But "Golan Heights, Israel" is not acceptable when mainstream maps say its in Syria, and they do not say that its in Israel.

UNSCR 497 "Syrian territory occupied by Israel" "- Adopted unanimously at the 2319th meeting." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This is no answer to my question. Do you have/had any Topic Ban in en.wikipedia? Geagea (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that has nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli conflict not including Syria? Can you redirect me to the page. Geagea (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I remember actually I have had a 30 day topic ban about places in the Levant, so that could be part of Arab-Israeli conflict. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me help you a bit toping ban from 1 May 2010 this was removed by you from you talk page. I see more top baning her but I cant find that in you talk page. Geagea (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

With regard to photo categories only, no harm comes from having photos in both Israel and Syrian categories. The international community recognizes the Golan Heights as Syrian territory occupied by Israel. That does not, however, change the fact that Israel has for over 30 years maintained defacto military and governmental control over the area. Therefore some weight must be given to that perspective when it comes to categorizing items. Categories on Wikipedia are designed to help readers navigate topics and photos and no harm comes from categorizing a file or image in an Israeli-related category if it helps make such information more widely available to potential readers from areas which may not think to find Golan Heights-related files in Syrian categories (e.g. systemic bias). --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 00:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Admins are regular to personal attacks. It is even understandable that the user upset as I report on him and asking his block, but it is not acceptable. I never used my admin tools against the user inappropriate way. I never made against him any personal attacks or talk to him in inappropriate way. No reason for him to call me pov pushing admin. I am not involved regulary on Israeli or Syrian topics. I have never remove Syria or add Israel in any file, I am regulary not involved in the long discussions about Israel or Arab topics and I never made POV matter edits. So calling me pov pushing admin is a defamation. Therefore I ask other admins to remove the personal attacks agains me (those files edits of user Supreme Deliciousness's from 16 October 2010). I am not doing it myself, because I post this topic and made the reverting I mention above, so I consider myself as involved (or so call emotionally attached) in this case personally and avoid myself for using admin tools in this case. Apology will be appropriate as well.

The user get final warning (edit war) in 14 October 2010, after a lot of warnings and reminders. But he continued to edit war since then. He should blocked periodiclly. Possible also topic ban if he keep editing files from the same topic without using talk page or edit waring again.Geagea (talk) 02:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"I have never remove Syria or add Israel in any file, I am regulary involved in the long discussions about Israel or Arab topics and I never made POV matter edits"..... [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Geagea, I don't think "POV pushing admin" is particularly personal. Sure it's a criticism/attack, but it's about your editing, not your person. Unfortunately as you note, admins must develop a fairly thick skin around here. Try not to rise to the bait, try not to raise the stakes. 99of9 (talk) 10:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

In general I don't like to see admins involved in an edit war (that's whay I'd never apply for adminship in de-WP ;-) Enhanced rights lead to enhanced duties. An admin involved in an edit war might occasionally use the enhanced rights, at least there's much fear of that! axp_de ^Hello! 11:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

All of SD's links are the list of my reverting SD's POV matter edits to version that uploaded by good contributers that made efforts to take a pictures, uploading to commons, categories them ect. I do explain above that I am going to do it and why. Simple logic, if A is POV pusher and B reverting him does he become POV pusher? the answer is no. Same as reverting of 58 vandalism edits doe not makes me vandalist myself. I am not suprised that the only links SD can find were those file because "I have never remove Syria or add Israel in any file, I am regulary not involved in the long discussions about Israel or Arab topics and I never made POV matter edits.

About the edit war concerning of Apx. I was not edit waring. I just made one revert and I made full explanation above to my move. As I thought that this is emotionally attached in the topics edit, I avoided myself using admin tools in this matter.

I think I done enough her. I have fully confidence that the admins will decide the right her. I appreciate the efforts of 99of9 to lower the flames by getting consents from the sides. I have just a little request. Since you review my work above, does it get a review approval as passed or not passed :-) (take a chill-pill for myself). Geagea (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop the war

Commons does not decide disputes like this, we leave that to the wikipedias! All we need to do is recognize and admit that this is a disputed territory. My proposal is the following:

Both versions of any map are uploaded as separate files, clearly labelled with their POV, and linking one another as Other Versions. Whichever map was first at a certain filename gets to stay there. The Wikipedias can decide which version is appropriate to use in which educational context.
Categorization should either be neutral (ideally), or double. e.g. most of these files will be in the simple Category:Golan Heights (neutral), which itself is a subcategory of both Geography of Israel and Geography of Syria (double). This will work with all subcategories too. Don't add "Flora of Israel". Make a category called Flora of Golan Heights, then it can be a subcat of both Flora of Israel and Flora of Syria.
Multiple languages should be used for descriptions. English, Hebrew, Arabic, ... no problem.
The content of the descriptions (in all languages), should follow our neutral/double categorization system. "Place xyz, Golan Heights" will usually be sufficient, especially if Golan Heights is linked to the relevent Wikipedia article, users can find out more about the dispute from there.
Geotag wherever possible. Putting geographic coordinates on these things is what will last and remain true for millenia. Educationally these are actually more important than the current political situation.
Only add information like "building was bombed in the war" when you know that it is true, and ideally have a reference. Only remove that kind of information if you know that it is not true.
Administrators affiliated with either Israel or Syria, steer clear of using administrative tools on files or users related to this topic without discussion with other admins. You are likely to be too emotionally attached.

Is this not all commons sense? Let me know if I've got anything wrong. Perhaps there are some issues I have not dealt with yet. I'll add recommendations for them when they surface. --99of9 (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Almost same as I am sayiny. Still asking for removal of personal atacking against me and hide them. And blocking of user Supreme Deliciousness as the clear case I made above (I expect that admin to read befor comment). There is no edit war by me ofcourse as edit waring is not worthwhile - The clear statment that admis should clarify. 04:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Unsigned edit by Geagea

I'm glad you generally agree with my proposal. I have looked at more of your concerns, but I do not support your idea that a block is required for a number of reasons. Mainly because blocks are only meant to prevent further disruption, and it appears that the disruption has ceased. I also didn't find any cases of technically breaking the 3RR. It's also clear that the people reverting SD (including you [48]) were also usually not using the talk pages, and often not even adding reasons in the edit summary. Using admin tools to resolve your own edit war is an especially bad idea. --99of9 (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It was in Admin noticeboard her. SD revert first the uploader her and then he revert me her. And according to his answer he intended to do it over and over. The uploaders file description was'nt wrong. I revert to the uploaders last version and protect it. Uploaders description was natural. It does not says that Golan Heights is Israeli or Syrian. It does not says that it's "Israeli-occupied" or not. Just as you suggest. The alternativ was to let him more edit war and ask for his block. my act was helpful for awile. That was my only using the tools concerning that user. Geagea (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Support Good initiative and with a minimum of goodwill this should work, it works elsewhere too. --Foroa (talk) 06:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

99of9, I have uploaded the other version of the map as you suggested, and I accept all your suggestions, even at the Gamla photo I wanted to change it to "Golan Heights - Gamla view": [49] yet Geagea did not accept this: [50][51] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you accept my suggestions. I have noticed some productive work from both you and Drork recently. 99of9 (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Support -mattbuck (Talk) 11:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Support --Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 05:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Support Adambro (talk) 09:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Support Rama (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Kuiper keeps it up

Latest comment: 14 years ago12 comments8 people in discussion

In case anyone thought Dr Kuiper might try to be diplomatic or considerate by abstaining from making unnecessary incisions in my work, sorry to say not so. Anyone have any constructive and realistic suggestions as to how I might be rid of that constantly reoccurring aggravation and heartache? SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

To those who know and care about the way Dr. Kuiper works, and why, this recent action is also interesting. Not the DR itself, but the how and when and why. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

AGF: Assume Good Faith. Lupo 08:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to, but I supported a block on him, and have had years of this, so I know what he's up to. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Close here. The edit can be discussed but its not vandalism or unconstructive. I felt free to join the talk Category talk:Pelle Hedman. --Martin H. (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

"What he is up to"? You was told to AGF but still you keeps asuming bad faith. You asked for an advice so you could try to do as suggested: AGF. --MGA73 (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

How about this and this? It is too much of anyone to ask that I should AGF when it comes to Kuiper. Let's live and work in the real world! SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

So you're unable to assume good faith, so what? I mean what is the purpose of posting these remarks here? I don't think we really want this page to be a venue for a running commentary on what Kuiper, or anyone else, are getting up to. If you spot something which justifies some action by an admin then please raise it here but until then I don't think these kinds of non-discussions are helping things. Adambro (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Please let us discuss content, not persons. --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

...on the User problems board? *looks confused* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Not so confused: coming on the User Problems board often is forumshopping, or venting personal attacks which are not allowed in content discussion. We should stop that more often and send people back to the content discussion. --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Closed. No trolling allowed. Kameraad Pjotr 18:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Kintetsubuffalo (talk · contribs)

Latest comment: 14 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

Despite several reminders, this user seems to ignore consistently Commons:File renaming (File:Canada 8th World Scout Jamboree 1955 stamp.jpg). I'm not sure if he should keep file moving rights (logs). -- 16:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You've been beating that dead horse since the moment I got those rights. Isn't there something more important you can spend your time worrying about?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The rename of the above file was done today at 16:19, 2010 October 9. -- Docu at 17:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's not the right place, please join the ongoing discussion of the rules on COM:RENAME--DieBuche (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no ongoing discussion about this user there. Docu at 18:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment I think it is the right place. If Kintetsubuffalo keeps moving files after a warning not to do so then the rights should be removed and admins can do that. I'm concerned that Kintetsubuffalo does not seem to care about the warnings but comments like "Isn't there something more important you can spend your time worrying about?". You have to follow the rename guidelines. I could not find a warning on your talkpage so I did not remove your rights to rename files this time. But please follow the rules. --MGA73 (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history of the renamed file, you notice quite a few of his requests being turned down. Previous discussions on AN is here. Docu at 19:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I prefer that users that report problems here provides the relevant information so that we do not have to find it ourselves. Last time it ended wit some sort of support to Kintetsubuffalo and the renames. I left a note on Kintetsubuffalos user talk to follow the rules. Lets see if that works :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I linked one of the problem pages and his rename log. Apparently he doesn't archive his talk page consistently so we didn't notice this either. -- Docu at 19:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I see many silly renames passing by in COM:DL. What's the sense of defining rules and on the other hand giving full rights to people that ignore consistently the rules ? --Foroa (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no sense in that. I hope that noone thinks that users should have the rights if they ignore the rules. --MGA73 (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe DieBuche should just reverse his decision. Docu at 04:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna say this once, and if it causes me to lose that right, so be it. Your comments and the rules themselves are all up to interpretation. I read those rules, I follow them to the best of my understanding, and my reading of the English language. Of the many good changes I make, if one of you finds one of my edits questionable, I could be wrong, but who among you does not make mistakes? Of Docu, Foroa and MGA73, I routinely see you guys embroiled in some drama or other here. Are your hands clean? Are you free of error? DieBuche is the only one who applies good faith to my work, and points out when one or another edit is sketchy. By and large I do good work here. If I make one questionable edit out of 50 or 100, where no one is attacked and there is no drama, and the only thing that results is a file has a new name, is that really worth wasting time here? Commons is not set in stone, any glaring error (there's an interesting word, don't you think?) can be easily fixed. I'm not a copyvio dumper, I'm not a routine attacker of opponents, I have rough spots as do you all, but basically I'm just a guy trying to do right by the images I use. Again I say you are looking too hard for what you want to find, of course your findings will support what you seek. I'm working here, I'm doing good things, this "user problem" is a waste of my time. Do what you're going to do, but wash your hands first.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

In fact, we are only discussion your renames. Nothing to do with edits and your personal hygiene. Maybe you could take your last ten renames and explain how and which of the reasons for renaming their are meant to meet. Docu at 11:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

@Kintetsubuffalo It is very easy to answer your question: No, I'm not free of errors. But I try. If someone tells me I made a mistake I correct it (if possible) and I try to avoid similar mistakes in the future. We have the rename rules for a reason. If you do your best to follow those rules it would make me happy. If you say "I don't care!" then I think that you should not have those rights. I'm not on a personal vendatta here by the way and I do not enjoy to discuss "drama". Personally I would be happy if users followed the rules and did not "attack" each other. That way we could all use our time to do edits that makes Commons better. So just keep up the good work but be careful with the renames. --MGA73 (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

As a side note in File:First second third worlds map.svg Kintetsubuffalo is edit warring over the version of the picture which is particularly nice in this case since the file is used more than 30 times. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 08:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Foroa

Latest comment: 14 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

The administrator Foroa is engaging in disruptive behaviour with respect to a category schema raised in Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/09/Category:Orders and Decorations. He objects to the use of serial commas —- which are not prohibited on Commons. The category schema proposed (and agreed by other editors) mirrors identically that in use on en:WP (since the Commons category structure is in English). It was designed to regularise a category structure, that was completely inconsistent and, by mirroring en:WP, to make it easier for editors of both projects to move seamlessly between the two project's category schema. Commons already included numerous categories in the format "Orders, decorations, and medals of XXX" that were not explicitly referred to in the CfD proposal as they were already in the target format. Foroa has taken it upon himself to unilaterally change the category title to omit the serial comma without any consensus for this change. Subsequently, despite having raised this issue with him directly on his talk page and explaining my concerns (see [52], he is continuing to seek out earlier category names using the serial comma and changing them (see for example, Category:Orders,_decorations,_and_medals_of_Germany, Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom). I find this unilateral action, in a contested situation, to be extremely inappropriate behaviour for any editor, let alone an administrator. Whilst I don't believe a block is necessary at this stage, he needs to stop this behaviour, restore the categories to the structure agreed per the CfD and then if there are concerns, he should feel free to raise them through a further CfD. I regard this as a serious abuse of his admin powers. If he were arguing from an agreed policy position or if he had merely halted the implementation of the CfD decison pending further discussion, I would be more sympathetic, but he is not and is seeking to impose his own preferences - this can only be done through consensus. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not normal that after some objection and its reply, 15 minutes later, the cfd is closed and executed, leaving no time for reaction. I consider this CFD decision in contradiction with Commons implicit spelling rules.

To the best of my knowledge, we use no serial comma category notation on Commons, so it should not be started without a serious discussion on the subject. When reading en:Serial Comma, the following passage is striking:

Opinions vary among writers and editors on the usage or avoidance of the serial comma. In American English, the serial comma is standard in most non-journalistic writing, which typically follows the Chicago Manual of Style. Journalists, however, usually follow the Associated Press Style Guide, which advises against it. It is less often used in British English.[4][5] In many languages (e.g. French,[6] German,[7] Italian,[8] Polish,[9] Spanish[10]), the serial comma is not the norm; it may even go against punctuation rules, but it may be recommended in some cases to avoid ambiguity or to aid prosody.

From this, it is clear that this is not a really universally used notation and more importantly, it is against the ponctuation rules in most languages. It is just not a good idea using a notation which is primarily used in "American English non-journalistic writing", so which does certainly not correspond with an average Commons user profile.

It sounds a very bad idea in an international context to allow for mixing notations at user will. We better stick to one notation.

I guesstimate that the large majority of Commons uploaders and clients are not native English, but you don't hear them because of that. So the notation is not natural at all for the majority of our users.

Finally, as we are discussing that, it is maybe the moment to formalise the informal Commons habit to arrange such category types in an alphabetic enumeration order.

I put all concerned categories in a coherent state; incoherence and varying standards are Commons biggest enemies. --Foroa (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Foroa, as I stated, putting the moves on hold would have been acceptable (ie removing from the CommonsDelinker cue), notwithstanding that you had the opportunity to contribute to the CfD in the earlier 24 days but chose not to do so until I made moves to wrap it up. Your concern about not having time to respond does not justify your unilateral changes to not only the categories of the CfD, but also to pre-existing categories (the latter after objections were raised directly with you and acknowledged by you) - two wrongs do not make a right. This noticeboard entry is about your abuse of your admin powers — I am not going to get into a debate here about the merits or otherwise of serial commas, there are more appropriate forums for that. You are also not assuming good faith when you accuse me, without any basis, of not hearing Commons uploaders that are not native English speakers. If you took the trouble to investigate, you would realize that I am well aware of their existence. This is evidenced by, amongst other things, my posts notifying of the CfD to a number of non-native English speakers that categories they posted were due nominated for the CfD, where I went to the effort of providing translations of the notication for those that did not speak English. AusTerrapin (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not assuming bad faith, I am just stating that using a notation that is not common in most languages and probably not dominant in any language is not a good idea. Mixing notation styles is even worse.

To the best of my knowledge, there are no categories using the serial comma notation for the simple reason that I normally rename them directly with a bot as part of the housekeeping here. There are probably thousands of such list like categories which I try to avoid as they are a source of problems, duplicate categories and renaming work.

When looking to the category name that you created: Category:Orders, decorations and medals method of wear, besides being not following the Commons naming conventions, it is not following your own serial comma notation neither. It shows that a non orthogonal punctuation rule is not necessarily natural and generates unneeded complexity.

If there is a dispute about naming, for example for "xx in/of/from yyy" categories, I always try to get the system in a coherent state as bad uses propagate fast and discussions tend to take some time. --Foroa (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue at hand, the unilateral behaviour of this admin is yet to be acknowledge by Foroa or addressed in any fashion by another admin. I have already stated that I am quite willing to discuss the naming issues in the appropriate forum, ie a CfD (unless there is a more appropriate counter-suggestion). I am not going to discuss them here because the issue that I raised here is not the difference in views on the appropriate category schema, but the unilateral action of an admin with a position that he knew was contested, in contravention of expected behaviour for all editors and particularly for admins (see [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Foroa&diff=prev&oldid=45054683 User talk:Foroa

Revision as of 2010-10-14T23:34:44] in which he endeavours to justify his views on the category titles and User:CommonsDelinker/commands Revision as of 2010-10-15T01:51:59 in which just over 2 hours later he initiates changes to a further 29 categories, the vast majority of which had been in existence for quite some time). I don't believe that this can be considered to be the actions of an editor acting in good faith and in accordance with the editing principles of Wiki Commons. I find it most concerning that he continues to ignore the core issue of the complaint —- this last point is starting to raise doubts in my mind about his fitness to continue as an admin, particularly if he continues to fail to address the core issue of the complaint. AusTerrapin (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do I feel that Foroa doesn't care if the rename is disputed (going by the above comment made by Foroa and actions done on other categories)? Renames (categories, galleries, files ect) should never be done if anyone disputes or objects to it even if you feel you're fixing inconsistency since the name isn't necessarily the correct one and is likely to require more work fixing it after the rename then it was before hand. Foroa moved the whole Australian state and territories "Fauna of XXXXX" to the totally incorrect "Animals of XXXXX" even though I had objected to the move on all of the talk pages, they have failed to apologise and the only excuse given was "constancy" (See: User talk:Gnangarra#Fauna versus animals) but we have discussions for a very good reason before we make the moves and not after. Foroa actions has given me very little faith in trusting Foroa with renaming, it will take a lot for Foroa to regain my trust on Commons but it doesn't seem it will happen anytime soon with Foroa failing to admit what they did was wrong. Bidgee (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not feel my closure of the CFD was wrong. There is no policy saying serial commas aren't allowed. I found the names acceptable and there was consensus. I took Foroa's comment as a general opinion and not a statement of "this is the way it must be and I will change it to get my way regardless of what you do". If the names were proposed without the serial commas and people supported that in the same way I would have renamed that way. I do have a preference, however, I reserve applying that to personal and academic writing (not Commons category names). I suggest adding something to the policy page before re-re-naming a bunch of categories like this again. I don't care what that policy is, but there should one before anyone does something like this again. I'm not pointing fingers, I mean this in a general way. Anytime there's a grammatical issue where we want consistency, let's add a simple sentence to COM:NC so that we're all on the same page and have somewhere to discuss it. Rocket000 (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree. In the coming weeks, I will formulate in COM:NC proposals to formalise some of the growing number of "de facto" standards. --Foroa (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

From the silence from Foroa regarding his unilateral action, despite knowing it to be opposed, I can only conclude that Foroa either does not think that he was wrong to impose his will, without consensus and unsupported by policy and/or that he is unapologetic for doing so. From other Commons' administrator's silence, I can only conclude that either they think that it is acceptable for this to have occurred, or that if they don't think it acceptable they are nevertheless prepared to tolerate it. I am finding this incredibly frustrating and disappointing. Making mistakes is to be expected, refusing to admit to them and pursuing a fix in good faith is a problem. I am going to restore the original hierarchy with redirects from the parallel hierarchy, per the original CfD. There is no current policy against the structure and, as originally detailed, the intent is to mimic the en:WP category naming. Foroa, if you have an issue with this, raise a CfD. AusTerrapin (talk) 04:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

As stated, I did not change the naming, I only brought the punctuation in line with the hundreds or thousands other list type of categories, which I consider the de facto and international standard. Within a few weeks, I reckon to have this standard formalised and accepted. --Foroa (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're so confident of acceptance, then why wouldn't you wait a few weeks to make the change?? I do think an apology is in order for "overruling" a consensus decision.--99of9 (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Foroa, you did change the naming. The punctuation was a specific part of the naming - without it, the categories no longer identically mirror the en:WP category naming. You have already admitted that others have created categories using serial commas but that you have decided to rename them (without an agreed policy) based on what you see as appropriate. I will be opposing any blanket ban on serial commas, as there are significant grounds for their use as an aid to clarity and in line with other Wikimedia Commons policies that talk about English language usage on Commons. Punctuation in non-English languages is not a relevant consideration for punctuation of English language, only punctuation usage in English. Serial commas are regarded as the older (and more technically correct) English usage, this is reflected by their continued, near universal, usage in academic publications. Omitting serial commas is a fairly recent development in informal English publications and, unless performed carefully, such omission results in ambiguous lists (hence why it is still avoided in academia). As I see it, ambiguity is an enemy of good categorisation.

In some lists, serial commas can be omitted without fear of ambiguity for example "Doctors Smith, Watson and Jones". Surnames are never combined with an "and" (ie "Watson and Jones" will always represent two surnames, not a combined surname), therefore it is certain that the list refers to three Doctors, not two. However contrast this with "Red, white, green and yellow". On the surface, this might appear to be a list of four separate colours. However it is plausible that green and yellow may be intended as a single list element and it is unclear, in this instance, as to whether this is the case. Sometimes the intent may be inferred by surrounding context, but in category naming, there will be little context to infer from. Alternatives for phrasing this list of colours would be:

"Red, white, and green and yellow" — this uses the serial comma to make explicit that there are three list elements with one list element combining the two colours "green and yellow".
"Red, white and green and yellow" — this is ambiguous; grammatically, "and" cannot be used twice in the one single-level list, so one must be referring to a nested element however, are "white and green" being grouped as an element? Or, on the other hand, are "green and yellow" being grouped as an element?
"Red, white, green, and yellow" — uses serial comma to make explicit that there are four list elements, none of which combine terms.

Style guides that dictate selective use of serial commas, such as the Australian Government Publishing Service Style Guide, only advocate avoiding serial commas where the result is unambiguous. Precision is a significant part of category naming, and failure to allow serial commas will result in ambiguity and will prevent naming precision. To avoid ambiguity, serial commas should be the norm in category naming with the possible exception of those categories where the nature/definition of the list elements convey certainty about their non-grouping. It is likely to be easier for our English as an Additional Language speakers to adapt to universal use of serial commas rather than trying to identify which contexts are ambiguous and which are not. Identifying non-ambiguous list elements often requires significant facility with the English language and understanding of specific cultural practices, etc. AusTerrapin (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Some comments.

Most if not all categories with serial commas I did rename where probably relating to the decorations and awards stuff. Never got a complaint about it. Almost nobody else seems to use serial comma notation. I rename about 10000 categories per year, the majority on sight without any sort of procedure, just housekeeping and harmonisation, as I did with yours.

I am not inventing rules, I just try to converge to existing or emerging de facto standards. There is about one new category on Commons per minute, or almost as much per 14 months as the 650000 or so categories on the entire en:wikipedia.

While we have a much higher category creation rate than say 3 years ago, we have sensible less fights and eternal discussions on categories. One of the reasons is that we have more examples and structures that are worldwide, and that bad examples are quickly corrected. Bad examples spread or bleed quickly through all sorts of other category trees in other domains or countries. Why I reacted so quickly.

In your use of the Orders, decorations and medals, we are talking about up to three elements, not worth to make it different from a two element list, and even less the fuss about it. I feel that the examples you discuss have nothing to do with the reality of Commons; if you would know how much energy has been wasted on "ports and harbours" category; and that contains only two elements. But I would be happy to discuss real life examples.

I disagree that we should not take the other languages into account: a punctuation that is natural for most languages will create less maintenance and problems than copying yet another notation from the biggest (27%) of our 700 clients; the en:wikipedia. Looking into Category:Orders, decorations and medals interwikis, no other country uses that notation. A single simple standard can probably satisfy 99.99 % of our needs, so no reason to make it more complicated.

I have been searching serial lists and I know that most are in Category:Color combinations, I could not find back the ones with several people names on it. As you can see, they use an even simpler notation for lists, without the "and" nor a comma at the end: just as simple and regular as can be. It took them quite some time (and many moves) before they found a "system" that works always.

Anyway, as a category system, list type names are to be avoided, and that was my primary comment on your cfd proposal, I thought that this extra comma was an error and that you were serious about the serial comma notation. I am afraid that your discussion about non-ambiguous lists is exceeding far our needs. People have already a major difficulty distinguishing between Category:Art in Italy and Category:Art of Italy (not to mention Category:Art from Italy). We cannot use for example "people of xxx" and "people from xxx" in the same category tree. --Foroa (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think he's more concerned about your methods rather than your reasons. Like I said, regardless of what naming convention we decide to use, we should document it first. Propose a simple guideline to add to COM:NC, have any discussions like this if necessary, then start mass renaming the categories. I know you prefer to help establish de facto naming conventions by just doing lots of renaming work instead of discussion (in most cases this is the more efficient way since most of your renames aren't controversial and don't need discussion), but when it comes to situations like this, you actually become less productive since you have to deal with complaints over your behavior and end up wasting more time discussing the names than you would have if you discussed them beforehand. Rocket000 (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

As stated before, I agree on that and will try to formulate a number of de facto standards. It is difficult to know when an emerging way of doing becomes a de facto standard and should be formalised. --Foroa (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Drtony999 copyright violations

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

User:Drtony999 has a history of uploading copyvios to commons, usually material directly or indirectly sourced from John Whatmough's Extrasolar Visions website [53]. I've tagged the ones I've come across with copyvio tags, but I do not believe this user is familiar with the issues surrounding copyright. Could someone step in here to explain these matters as I do not feel particularly confident explaining all the ins-and-outs. Thanks, Icalanise (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Gave a brief explanation. If copyvios are continued, warn and report if necessary. ZooFari 22:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be continuing, the user has uploaded File:GA-EX58-EXTREME.jpg which is a copyright violation of the gigabyte.com website. Icalanise (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days. Bidgee (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack by user:Starscream

Latest comment: 14 years ago14 comments9 people in discussion

That user made this comment: "Zionism is criminal ideology. The difference between national socialism (nazism) and zionism is insignificant. Only the number of victims is, momentarily, a little less". I consider this comment to be a vicious personal attack against all Israeli editors, against me personally. Zionism is movement for freedom and Independence of Jewish people and not ideology of any kind. What is interesting that the comment was made by a user, who resides in Poland, the very same Poland whose antisemitic government that expelled thousands of Jews in 1967, the Jews, who miraculously survived the Holocaust, the very same Poland that is well known for its antisemitism. The rhetoric used by user:Starscream should not be allowed on Commons.--Kooritza (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, a few words: It is not a personal attack. End of story. It is, in my opinion, sad bullshit. You can take it seriously or you can ignore it as a hateful uninformed fringe opinion. Posting here won't do you any good. --Dschwen (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

But it is surely not helpful. I've posted a comment on Starscream's talk page. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That is certainly true. --Dschwen (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed a very idiotic statement and it is correct that AFBorchert told Starscream that certain thnigs are not appreciated on Commons. --High Contrast (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I too consider this a personal attack against so-called "Zionists", in which class I identify myself. I do find it interesting that someone can make such an attack on Zionism, Israel, and on the integrity of the Jewish state, and get excused as "not a personal attack" -- we are asked to ignore it as a "hateful uninformed fringe opinion," and "not helpful," and yet Mbz1 was banned for six months for suggesting that people who put up antisemitic pictures stink. Granted her block has appropriately been lifted. Still, where were the voices that could have come on and said "Not a personal attack. End of story" when it came to Mbz1? Where were the voices that said simply "not helpful" and posted a comment on her page? Why is there such disparity between the two approaches? Why does one user deserve better treatment than another? Is it because the majority of voices here on the Commons are more sympathetic to the views of Starscream than to those of Mbz1, and they let their prejudices influence the administration of justice? Something to think about. Stellarkid (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a personal attack against every Jew, who believes in the right of Jewish people for freedom, peace and independence in their own homeland. It is a personal attack against me.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It is clearly an attack on Zionism, and very inappropriate here. But as far as I can see, it was a general statement and not directed specifically at any editors here, and so it is not a personal attack. Just because you personally are affronted by it does not make it one. BTW, I did point out that some of the comments by Mbz1 that others were calling personal attacks were not[54] (and I am glad she has at last been unblocked). Unfounded accusations of personal attacks, from whatever side, do not help Commons. Please do not make them. --Avenue (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It is different. To call antisemitic cartoons "antisemitic cartoons" is not PA. To say that "Zionism is criminal ideology. The difference between national socialism (nazism) and zionism is insignificant." is claiming that all Zionists are being nazis, who themselves kill innocent native Palestinians, or at least have nothing against killing innocent native Palestinians by other nazi-Zionists. That claim sounds even worse coming from the user, who lives in Poland because in Poland as in other countries of Soviet block term Zionists was used to describe all Jews. Please see here, for example, "Thus his security chief, Mieczysław Moczar, used the situation as a pretext to launch an anti-Semitic press campaign (although the expression "Zionist" was officially used)" In my and at least 2 other editors opinion it is a personal attack against us, and you could agree or disagree with that, but it is the way I call it, no matter, if it helps or does not help commons.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not at all the same as your comments, no, but it is still not a personal attack. To be a personal attack, it has to be directed against another editor. (See w:WP:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack?.) As far as I can see, this was not directed against anyone specifically. --Avenue (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, if someone is to say Jews are not better the nazis (because basically it is what this comment said) it will not be PA because it is not against anyone specifically?--Mbz1 (talk) 08:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Starscream writes from time to time some philosophical comments as in [[55]]. No need to take it personal or make yet another drama out of it. --Foroa (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You have criticized the Nazis, Arabs, Palestinians and various other groups, all of which editors in commons are or could be a part of. Do you really want to make all of those statements considered personal attacks? It is strictly against Wikimedia policy to take a stand on any of these subjects, so whatever you want for User:Starscream will come back your way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This case has been handled. Please note that this board is no general forum to discuss the characteristics of personal attacks. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Returning sock

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

This is related to the archived thread Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/User problems 16#Cross-wiki sockpuppeteer and concerns a sock-farm of User:Amir.Hossein.7055 - a prolific sockpuppeteer both here and at en-wiki. The new sock account appears to be User:Shariatitehranpars (both here and at en-wiki). The account uploaded two images here, File:Rahimi.jpg and File:سید مسعود میرکاظمی.jpg. The first (already deleted) stated that the image was self-created and in the licensing tag specified the author as User:I'm free - a blocked sock of User:Amir.Hossein.7055. So basically User:Shariatitehranpars is a self-admitted sock and needs to be blocked (and the other file he uploaded needs to be deleted; apart from anything else, the source and author info given there appear to be incorrect). See en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amir.Hossein.7055 for the current SPI report regarding the activities of User:Shariatitehranpars at en-wiki. Nsk92 (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed and blocked. --Martin H. (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

A new user, User:What's ur name? has just popped up and uploaded a file File:Afshin Ghotbi 1980.jpg. Various socks of Amir.Hossein.7055 have persistently tried to upload various copyvio images of Afshin Ghotbi, both here and at en-wiki and to add them to en:Afshin Ghotbi. It seems likely to me that this one is a new sock. The licensing info given at the image page is obviously false. The subject was born in 1964 and he would have been 16 years old in 1980. The image shows a man in his 40s. So the image could not have been taken in 1980, as the uploader claims and the image would need to be at least 30 years old in order to qualify for public domain under the Iranian law. So it seems likely to me that User:What's ur name? is another clumsy sock of User:Amir.Hossein.7055. Nsk92 (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed & blocked. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like another sock has just popped up, User:Autoupload, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ghotbi.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mansour Ebrahimzadeh.jpg. This time he is trying Flkr washing (but in a fairly clumsy way, as usual). Nsk92 (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

All gone, blocked, thanks :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record: [56] --Martin H. (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Bapti and his tagging

Latest comment: 14 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

Admin Bapti (talk · contribs) is harassing contributors with "no-source" and "no-permission" tags without reason. Currently he is reinstating these tags on two files, and he stubbornly refuses to make an ordinary DR. The two files are:

File:Tableau-prod-coupe406.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Uploader has emphatically stated that he is the author of the graph; he has indicated a source for the numbers, which Bapti inexplicably regards as the image source.

File:Dufetre.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Uploader indicated a book source, which should be adequate.

Such an unstoppable tagging constitutes harasment of contributors. Bapti apparently also deals with the OTRS correspondence, and he has deleted files that he had tagged himself. When bonafide uploads encounter this much unreasonableness, newbies will get discouraged. And it shows that we need a firm rule: do not reinstate tags - take it to DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. Bapti again tags completely unproblematic pictures. It's quite annoying. Trycatch (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, indeed. This also involved Bapti. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

But after the second thought, I think tagging of File:Dufetre.jpg was adequate -- while the source was given, there is no information about the author. Trycatch (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Pre-1860 painting, there is no need to know the painter. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

But where is that date coming from? None of the surrounding pages in that book say 1860/11/06; I can at least recognize "1860", even in French.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That date is sitter's death date. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Tableau-prod-coupe406.png was previously licensed under CC-BY-NC but the author has just given a clear permission via OTRS. There isn't any problem any more with this picture.--Bapti ✉ 17:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

He had already given permission at upload. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing more necessary to be said. --High Contrast (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Well, this indicates that Bapti is making things difficult for people that want to contribute. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I only see a complaint about the OTRS system, not about Bapti Esby (talk) 08:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be Bapti who is handling these OTRS cases. And certainly he is edit warring over his tags. This needs more eyes (correspondence is in French). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that an OTRS member should accept OTRS tickets even when the OTRS content is not allowing commercial usage? Bapti already explained that the first tickets were not allowing commercial usages. I also got confirmation of this fact by another person (1) in OTRS . Are you implying we should not confirm the OTRS status of photographs not taken by the uploader? Esby (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Separate "traditional usr problems" page

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

Because this page is filled up almost permanently with endless discussions around Pieter Kuiper and Mbz1, I would propose to move them to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Traditional user problems so that we can try to follow up real urgent problems here. --Foroa (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

"Perpetual" or "persistent" may be better than "traditional". Rocket000 (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget our neglected Commons:Disputes noticeboard. Rocket000 (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Perpetual looks good to me. --Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 11:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

support. Maybe reoccurring? This would probably solve the problem for the rest of us. Docu at 03:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that we're considering creating a seperate page for reoccuring problems says something is very wrong here. Adambro (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Pieter and Mila's Super Fun Happy Noticeboard -mattbuck (Talk) 11:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Or Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Married too long, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Unhappy couples or Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Bad sex and related .... --Foroa (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Support Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Unhappy couples. I wanted to propose Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Marriage counseling but then read this: "Marriage counseling originated in Germany in the 1920's as part of the eugenics movement. The first institutes for marriage counseling in the USA began in the 1930s, partly in response to Germany's medically directed, racial purification marriage counseling centres."--DieBuche (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Guérir le mal par le mal ? (take a hair of the same dog). Maybe Neuro-linguistic re-programming exercises. --Foroa (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Report about user Иван

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I want to report this user for insult and inacceptable behaviour. The reason was an deletion request. He just wrote down these barefaced and unconfirmed answer:

I'm quite sure that something with your health is wrong and in fact you are sick, but the reason is not me, may be it's something about genetics? Do you really think, that six independant, refferd, statistically grounded scientific papers "are not clear point of view"? Иван (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this is not suitable or acceptable and a violation of applicable usage conditions. I want you to react and to stop him spreading those animous and unconfirmed facts. He justify it with "legal to laws in bulgaria" which makes me guess, people in still live in middle ages. Thank you for your attention and have a nice evening --Saviour1981 (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from insulting entire countries while complaining about being insulted by a single person. Now, where was this? -mattbuck (Talk) 17:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Here. The diff after that makes me think of pots and kettles for some reason. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Saviour1981 (talk · contribs) and Ivanov id (talk · contribs) are admonished to avoid personal attacks. The latter is reminded that Commons is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Edits to photos I added: New to Wiki

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Txcitydisasterparkinglot.jpg#Summary

I added this photo with the wrong Author. I went back to change it to the correct author, but when I am not logged in, I can't see the correction. Do edits need to be approved? I am new to Wikipedia.

Thank you for your help.

You appear to have managed it. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

KazamaBoy's copyvio uploads

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

User is continuing to post copyrighted Tekken artwork and has ignored all warnings. BrokenSphere (Talk) 22:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Is this image copyrighted?

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

File:El Cosmonauta Teaser Poster.jpg--Mbz1 (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions like this don't belong here. And of course it's copyrighted; do you see any evidence it's in the public domain?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, deleted as Flickr washing. If you are uncertain about further doubts, you can ask at the Help Desk or I invite you to my talk page. ZooFari 01:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Prosfilaes about the question location, but the movie appears to be in the Creative Commons license: check http://www.elcosmonauta.es . The poster also has a watermark specifying the same license and the user name in Flickr is the collective name who did the movie, so I do not see why that picture cannot stay in Commons. Maybe it was deleted too fast. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Absurd deletion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the image. I apologize for my careless assessment and the triggering of attitude. ZooFari 01:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, ZooFari and Alpertron, for your civility and politeness in responding my question.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

User Nightscream - uploading edited images over pre-existing image pages

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Nightscream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Nightscream exhibits inappropriate edit behavior of uploading edited images over existing image pages - example cropping an image and uploading the crop over the existing image, instead of uploading it as a new page and a derivative work of the first image (see tool to do this, at http://toolserver.org/~luxo/derivativeFX/deri1.php). Despite comments addressed to this user at the user's talk page from two different Wikimedia Commons users, user does not seem to indicate he will adjust editing behavior accordingly. Input and possible action from other administrators, would be appreciated. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

See also here regarding this issue. Adambro (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with this comment, by Jameslwoodward (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, I didn't indicate I would adjust my behavior, and that's because you refused to discuss the issue with anything resembling transparency or politeness. You refused to answer of my quite reasonable questions, you repeated statements to me about other tools that I was already aware of, and in general, acted as if your statements were dogmatic. They are not. Disputes need to be discussed on this project. Resolutions are not to take the form of Stalinesque pronouncements about "modifying behavior" by users who speak as if others who are unaware of or wish to learn about certain procedures are beneath them. When I learn of some guideline, policy, consensus, or other operating custom, I wish to understand it. That's why I like to read the relevant policy pages, ask questions where things do not appear to make sense, and so forth. If and when I am satisfied that the correction being pointed out is legitimate, it is then that I agree to modify my practices. Your behavior has been inexcusable, and I'm disinclined to take orders rude people such as yourself, who think that dispute resolution should be entirely authority-based, rather than reason-based. Nightscream (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward (talk · contribs) had a different assessment, about the comments by myself and by admin Tabercil (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Which I've just pointed out is mostly flawed in both its reasoning, and its reading of our exchanges. Nightscream (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox page moved to Commons:Avoid overwriting images with new uploads, with shortcut, COM:OVERWRITE, and tagged with {{Proposed}}. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Since we have discussions in two different places on essentially the same issue, I'm going to close this one out to direct traffic on this to the Admin notice board topic (here) - Tabercil (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Wikistalking by Cwbm (commons)

Latest comment: 14 years ago31 comments11 people in discussion

user:Cwbm (commons) has been following me around for the last couple of days undoing my edits. There is no valid reason, for instance, for four of his edits in a row to be undo-s of my tagging, it is just spite and it needs to stop.

The four in a row I speak of are from his "contributions" list:

12:04, 20 October 2010 (diff | hist) m File:Scouts in Iran 1975.jpg ‎ (unused)
12:03, 20 October 2010 (diff | hist) m File:Scouts of kosovo.jpg ‎ (remove spam)
12:01, 20 October 2010 (diff | hist) m File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F014922-0009, Berlin, Staatsbesuch Vizepräsident von Zypern.jpg ‎ (Undo revision 45240126 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk) unused no priority)
11:59, 20 October 2010 (diff | hist) m File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F049672-0008, Bonn, Gustav-Heinemann-Haus der Behinderten.jpg ‎ (Undo revision 45240134 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk) unused no priority)

These are not the only examples, but this is the most vivid illustration today. It is not his to decide the priority of my requests. If he chooses not to do them, he should leave them alone for some who does. Calling one "spam" is antagonistic and point pushing. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Another great one can be seen at http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Coat_of_arms_of_Saint_Kitts_and_Nevis_1983_variant.png&action=history where he claims to be undoing my edit-but check that edit record and he in fact is not, just put my name on there to be a jerk.Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not think Commons removes the Bundesarchiv marks. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F014922-0009, Berlin, Staatsbesuch Vizepräsident von Zypern.jpg it might not even be a good idea to remove the caption now. It is possible that the file already is reused outside of Wikimedia Commons via hotlinking and that this reuser trusts in the caption as an appropriate attribution as required by the license contract section 4c. Besides this problem the removal of the caption has no positiv effect for the use in Wikipedia becaue the file is not used. Without any editorial improvement the removal of the caption only does potential legal damage to reusers and it damages the cooperation of Wikimedia and the content provider, here the BArch. Tagging it with {{Remove caption}} is very unnecessary. I however see no problem with your edit on File:Scouts of kosovo.jpg, removing that ugly black frame and making it transparent is good improvement, but I dont think the file will be kept. --Martin H. (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that this couldn't apply to almost any image that an uploader has watermarked and uploaded. We should not let our outside users depend on watermarks, because we do regularly remove watermarks. Whether or not it is currently in use is irrelevant; any file on Commons can be impressed into service at any point, which is what they're there for. I recall a recent case where a contributor was very upset to the point of getting permanently blocked because we insisted on removing the watermarks from his images. It's distinctly unfair to actively refuse to remove the Bundesarchiv's watermarks on its images when we don't let other contributors keep theirs, and it would be something I would be deeply unhappy with.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

(A semantic web geek writes) Just to supplement Prosfilaes comment, "We should not let our outside users depend on watermarks", another reason to avoid this sort of image source credit is that it's embedded in a bitmap and not accessible as processable text or image metadata. IMHO, these "border-like annotations" are a bad thing and we should work to replace and remove them. That is however a long-term issue outside this dispute between two editors.

Some things that I think we can all agree on (obviously we probably won't, but one remains hopeful):

The current situation is bad. Edit-warring between two is no way to address a large-scale Bundesissue.
It is non-harmful to tag images (i.e. a template) as having these Bundesarchiv markings. That will help with their future management, whatever we decide.
This tag should be distinct to the Bundesarchiv and should not be our existing general "border" and "watermark" tags. (If Kintetsubuffalo would agree to create and use such a tag, I think that would defuse much of user:Cwbm (commons)'s justification for removing them.)
It would be helpful if Kintetsubuffalo would voluntarily agree to restrict themselves to tagging images only and not actively cropping them, until we agree a consensus on what the next action should be. Whether you choose to do this is clearly up to you, but I think it would be useful for the moment. We already have one RichFarmbrough.
We need some comment here from user:Cwbm (commons), not just reversions. I don't see this as "wikistalking" and it's emminently explicable as a GF action that interprets the Bundesarchiv label as something different to how Kintetsubuffalo sees it. However it is edit warring, and won't resolve itself without clear discussion.

Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy, I have never actively cropped an image, I don't have the skills or the software, all I do is tag them so that those who do can crop them. As you said, it is non-harmful to tag images, the warring is all one-sided, Cwbm (commons) never touched these images before I did, they are clearly going down my contributions list and undoing my tagging. This is in fact wikistalking.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is of course contributing to the irritation: tagging to make others do work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Bull. That is what the tag is for. That's also why we have Graphics Labs. Not everyone can do every job.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Moo from me too. Pieter, that was a particularly unhelpful comment to make at this point. Notwithstanding it being simply wrong - tagging is workflow, so that we can all keep track of what needs doing. Many editors, I'm one, will tag articles in batches, then return later and carry out those same batches themself. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

He said it was "contributing to the irritation", which it probably is. That doesn't mean it's wrong to do or that the people getting irritated should be getting irritated. He didn't say tagging is wrong. Putting words into people's mouths is unhelpful. @Kintetsubuffalo: Do you know about Cropbot? Check it out. It's really easy to use. Rocket000 (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

So would you suggest deleting all of our tag templates, no matter how useful, because they might irritate a particularly thin-skinned editor? That is a ridiculous standpoint - the tags are valid, they perform a useful function, and if one editor has as little respect for organisation and workflow as they so obviously do for NPA or consensus discussion of their actions, then no-one is forcing them to be part of the project. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

What in the world would give you that idea? I have no problem with tags at all and think they should be used. Kintetsubuffalo did nothing wrong. Just because it can be irritating to some doesn't mean we should avoid it. Just because me or Pieter point this out doesn't mean we're implying anything else. If I said copyvio uploaders probably find getting warnings irritating, would you also assume I meant they shouldn't be warned? Rocket000 (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Editors will get irritated at whatever they feel like. But this is of no importance at all, unless it's a legitimate reason to become irritated and this isn't one. C's irritation is of no significance (and they're 'required to contine to act in an even-handed and policy-based manner despite it, which they have failed to do here), it's wrong of Pieter to suggest that we should pay any account to this irritation. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

We don't have to pay attention to it, however, we should always be considerate of other contributors' feelings and reactions to our processes. Maybe there's nothing we can do about it and they simply will have to deal with it or leave, but maybe we can do things better. Maybe there's room for improvement in the way we do things (and there always is). This attitude of "well, his opinion/view is insignificant because he doesn't have a 'legitimate' reason to become irritated" is not legitimate. First of all, there's no such thing as a legitimate or illegitimate reason to become irritated. Either you do or you don't. (And of course attitudes aren't (il)legitimate either so my use of it wasn't serious). That's besides the point since feelings like irritation aren't arguments for or against anything (they can be reasons used in a argument, but no one is doing that). There's been many routine practices here (such as welcoming users, deletion requests, or the "categorize your images" message spam) that have been reevaluated and adjusted based on user feedback. The goal is to make everyone happy. Impossible, of course, but if we can improve that happy/unhappy ratio at all, we should. We probably can't in this situation, but I'm speaking in general now. I think you missed the point my comments, but that's ok. The important thing is we don't disagree about the tags. Rocket000 (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

So how does User:Kintetsubuffalo fit into this? If anyone has legitimate reason to feel irritated by other editor's actions, it would seem to be him - yet you're concerned about how user:Cwbm (commons) might feel, about a mistaken response to legitimate editing practice. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It applies to everyone... I don't know why you're trying so hard to make this an argument, so let's just say you're right about everything and leave it at that. Whatever you say or don't say in reply to this is absolutely correct and anything I said is wrong. Paradox. Rocket000 (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to the topic at hand, Cwbm (commons) is still following me around and undoing my edits. Please address this, it is pure and simple harassment.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for an editor to use a misleading edit summary like (Undo revision 45205415 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk)) when they are in fact adding text reading "User:Kintetsubuffalo wants the svg to be redrawn because he does not like the color. So get your ass up from the chair and work!"? http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Coat_of_arms_of_Saint_Kitts_and_Nevis_1983_variant.png&diff=prev&oldid=45212627 --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed a sentence not allowed on encyclopedy pages and files and deserves a warning. --Havang(nl) (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Info Cwbm (commons) was just notified about this. Rocket000 (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

And having been notified, the harassment still continues.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

File:FunanMap001.jpg is pretty clear edit warring. He must be really irritated about something. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Both edit warriors, Kintetsubuffalo and Cwbm (commons), should be blocked for some time IMO. 89.217.206.3 23:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo should not remove this kind of borders. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What about uploading the derivative version of File:FunanMap001.jpg with a different name? 89.217.206.3 23:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It would not be meaningfull. The border indicates a scale of two degrees latitude or longitude per division. It should be restored. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What is also of concern is Kintetsubuffalo undoing an Admin's (who had a reason to undo) edit at File:WikiProject Scouting BSA Eagle knot.svg and User talk:Kintetsubuffalo. I will be blocking them for disruption and continuing to edit war File:FunanMap001.jpg. I would take action on Cwbm (commons) but haven't been editing since the 25 October, a block also should have been done a week ago when the disruption was active. Bidgee (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Kintet should have discussed this when reverting the admin, but I believe the admin Leyo was wrong about the other svg file. The other one is not equivalent, the lines are not smooth (compare 500px versions of both). --99of9 (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Copied from user talk page: The problem is that you keep asking for pruning the white-space entirely (example). Me and others prefer having a small margin around drawings (with a transparent background). Don't you agree that the snail shell on the right now misses a small margin? --Leyo 09:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC) End of copy

A small margin was re-added now. --Leyo 13:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sense of {copyvio}

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, please can mediate - i'm not experienced in that matter - if p.e. File:Dübendorf - Katholische Kirche - Innenansicht 2010-11-03 16-30-42 ShiftN.jpg, referring that edit is within Wikimedia commons a "copyright violation". That image and some others are 'own' photographs of inside views of a Swiss church, i.e. Category:Katholische Kirche Dübendorf.

User:Bobo11 complains within Category:Stained glass windows of Katholische Kirche Dübendorf respectively Category:Interior views of Katholische Kirche Dübendorf several times {copyvio}, personally i do not think so. Please explain the 'legal situation' to avoid future uploads of that kind respectively to avoid further (user) problems. Thank you and best regards:-) Roland zh 16:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Roland zh,

wenn du Werke anderer Künstler (wie z.B. Bleiglasfenster) photographierst, musst du - vor dem Hochladen auf Commons - immer prüfen, ob diese Werke schon frei sind oder noch dem Urheberrecht des Künstlers unterliegen (bis 70 Jahre nach dessen Tod). Falls letzteres der Fall ist und du die Aufnahmen im öffentlichen Raum gemacht hast, könnte die Ausnahmeklausel der Panoramafreiheit greifen, die allerdings in jedem Land anders definiert ist. Laut COM:FOP#Switzerland scheinen für die Schweiz (wie auch für Deutschland) Innenaufnahmen nur in den allerwenigsten Fällen unter FOP zu fallen und auch das scheint strittig zu sein. Deshalb dürften die Glasfensteraufnahmen tatsächlich das Urheberrecht des Künstlers verletzen. Falls er noch lebt, könntest du natürlich versuchen, direkt bei ihm eine Genehmigung einzuholen. --Túrelio (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I took a bunch of these to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dübendorf - Katholische Kirche - Innenansicht 2010-11-03 16-32-46 ShiftN.jpg. Discussion can be concentrated there. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Túrelio,

ganz herzlichen Dank für Deine ausführliche und klärende Antwort, und lieb von Dir, dies gleich auf Deutsch zu tun; Englisch verstehe ich zwar sehr gut, aber mit dem Schreiben hapert's :-))

Auf die rechtlichen Aspekte solcher Aufnahmen bin ich trotz mehrjähriger Erfahrungen und Uploads innerhalb Wikmedia commons bislang noch kein einziges Mal hingewiesen worden, daher meine ehrliche Unkenntnis der Rechtslage. Einzig zur Definition "Öffentlicher Raum" wurde mir (meist wohl von Rechtslaien wie ich) zu Innenaufnahmen – wenn möglich frage ich vorher und weise auf eine mögliche Verwendung innerhalb Wikimedia commons hin – mehrfach schon gesagt, dass dieser innerhalb der Schweiz auch das Gebäudeinnere umfasse. Den Betreff habe ich mir übrigens erlaubt, etwas "neutraler" mit diesem Edit zu definieren, in der Hoffnung damit gegen keine Gebräuchlichkeiten innerhalb Wikimedia commons zu verstossen. Wie Du ausführst, scheint die Rechtslage eher verwirrend definiert zu sein, sodass ich der Einfachheit halber inskünftig innerhalb Wikimedia commons keine Innenaufnahmen respektive insbesondere "Nahaufnahmen" von "zeitlich oder Urheberrechtlich nicht definierten" Objekten veröffentlichen werde.

Dankeschön vielmals auch für den Hinweis auf die Kontaktnahme mit den KünstlerInnen – als an beispielsweise Kirchenarchitektur nur minimal Interessierten, stellt auch eine Löschung der fraglichen Bilder für mich absolut kein Problem dar; s'ist ohnehin nur ein "Nebenprodukt" meiner üblicher Uploads und kein "Schwerpunkt".

Nur als Randnotiz zu Deinem letzteren Hinweis: Bereits vor drei Jahren habe ich für mehrere Uploads auf Wikimedia commons mit relativ grossem Zeitaufwand die Einwilligung der Rechteinhaber (darunter ein Buchcover, mit schriftlicher Einwilligung von Bertelsmann München, mehrere Fotografien von KünstlerInnen mit Einwilligung deren Managements) eingeholt, aber "ORTS" hat sich ausnahmslos eher etwas "kompliziert" gezeigt; auf Anfragen bei Rechtinhabern verzichte ich seither dieser Erfahrungen wegen ;-)

Du hast mir mit Deinen Informationen sehr weitergeholfen, und das Problem betrachte ich in rechtlicher Hinsicht für Wikimedia commons und auch für mich mehr als zufriedenstellend als gelöst:

Nun auch aus meiner Sicht korrekte mindestens zwei Löschanträge, mit Bezug auf Category:Stained glass windows of Katholische Kirche Dübendorf, und keine Schnelllöschungen (das war eigentlich der Grund meiner 'Klagen') mehr, wurden von den Copyright-Wächtern innerhalb Wikimedia commonns gestellt, wie ich vor einigen Minuten bemerkt habe, und werden mit Bezug auf Deine klärenden Ausführungen von mir kommentarlos als rechtens "hingenommen" ;-) Ganz herzlichen Dank und liebe Grüsse, Roland zh 17:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

PS: @Pieter Kuiper, thank you, we tried to edit at the same time, i'v noticed the deletion request(s) as mentioned. Regards, Roland zh 17:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Mbz1 back with a vengeance

Latest comment: 14 years ago236 comments35 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Can one be quicker? [57] Just back and already new antics. I did not involve myself in last block history, but she has started again with provocations, baiting and insults. Blocking someone for one's believes is inappropriate, but this, just as last case, has nothing to do with believes but with behaviour. I thus request the reinstatement of the six months block. She is obviously unable to restrain herself. Lycaon (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Honestly I was going to take a rather long break from Commons. I was unblocked on October 19. Today is October 21. For two days I did not make a single contribution. So lycaon claim "Can one be quicker?" is as dishonest as many other claims by that user. For those two days between October 19 and October 21 I have not even supported any of 4 nominations of my own images. I did not respond on user:lycaon troling opposes of all 3 nominations of my images on FP and one nomination of my image on QI although user:lycaon is involved with me and was told by a few administrators to leave the nominations of my images alone. Please see here.Please see here; please see here ;Please see here. Another administrator mentioned that the reason lycaon used to oppose my nomination is "arguably a personal attack.". Yes, I was going to take a long break. I've never responded to the rant left at my talk page by user:Tryphon, who proven once again he is unable to assume good faith. Yes, I was going to take a long break, but after this comment by user:Alvesgaspar I felt as responding, so I did, and, what a surprise, kuiper was right there to troll on the nomination of my image, and to retaliate to me of course.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Why I called lycaon opposes of my images trolling? Well, here's only one example of his attacks on me personally. Like in most of his claim this one has not a half word of the truth, but even after I explained how come that I asked the old versions of my image to be removed not only he did not apologize for his dishonest rant , not only he did not strike his comment out, no he did just the opposite. The question is how long lycaon and kuiper will be allowed to harass me under indifferent watch of the community?--Mbz1 (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, we also have some attempt at guilt by association attacking a user because of his/her country of residence.[58] // Liftarn (talk)

Comment I share Lycaon’s complaint, despite the fact that I was one of the users who tried to put an end to the long block of Mbz1. I was wrong, as she has proved once again to be incapable of controlling her temper and avoid personal attacks, as an immediate reaction to any contrariety. Make no mistake: this has little to do with defending one’s political convictions and all with improper behavior. Her reaction to my concern, about the possible use of canvassing in this FPC nomination, is typical. Still, the suspicion is justified by the edit story of some of the participants. It is interesting to realize, for example, that all edits made by User: Kooritza from June 11 to today are directly or indirectly related to Mbz1’s affairs. Technically this is considered meat puppetry, I suppose, and should not be tolerated in opinion polls, where decisions are made or influenced. I’m not saying that Mbz1 is responsible for the actions of Kooritza, though it is certain that she is aware of them; only that my concern was legitimate and that she had not the right to respond with a personal attack. Regretfully, I have to agree with those who supported the maintenance of Mbz1’s block as a way to avoid further attacks and disruptions -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"Kooritza" is ברוקולי (talk · contribs). And en:User:ברוקולי signs with "Broccoli" (although en:User:Broccoli exists). Very confusing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Info ברוקולי (talk · contribs) is a friend of mine. When I was blocked for 6 months, I emailed the user and asked them to watch my contributions on English wikipedia (they've done it before anyway both on English wikipedia and on Commons), and if they see an image they liked to transfer it to commons, and nominate it somewhere. I also asked to copy all the text (descriptions) for those images from English wikipedia to Commons. It is what the user did. Why did I do it? Because a few users including BTW user:liftarn said they were going to miss on my images. So I thought, if I am punished, why to punish readers and users of Commons, who would like to see my images. I know that some editors, who are not happy with commons ask all their images to be removed. I felt in absolutely different way. The user has also nominated a few of my images on Hebrew wikipedia FP.Please notice ברוקולי (talk · contribs) has never commented on my unblock request. In case I have done something wrong, and it is considered to be block evasion, please do punish me alone. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

- Comment I insist on forcing Mbz1, one way or the other, to stop with the personal attacks. This one was the last: [59]. This kind of behavior is approaching insanity. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  - Maybe AFBorchert could offer his apologies for allowing something like that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
    - Comment I insist on forcing lycaon, alvesgaspar and kuiper one way or another to stop trolling on the nominations of my images. The reviews that have nothing to do with the images, but have all to do with a photographer is the worse kind of harassment a user could demonstrate. Here's a great example of what I am talking about: "The correction just made to the stitching errors in the surf looks so clumsy as to be almost almost offensive to the reviewers in this forum. I wouldn't hesitate to use a FPX template if I could". It was said about the image supported by 16 editors, but me and opposed only by three trolls. one more example by lycaon: "Moving seascapes are not fit for panoramas. Stitching problems are unavoidable." When asked by other editor to point out a stitching problem, he simply ignored the question. There are many, many more examples of the same kind of behavior by three users. It ought to stop. Having more than 100 FP I hardly care anymore if my image is to pass or it is not, but the harassment on the nominations, retaliation to a photographer is just very, very wrong. Couldn't you see that? Maybe some of my statements about those users could be read as PA, but those are open and honest statements. What those users are doing to me is a cowardly dishonesty. They know quite well they could go on with their harassment and get away with that.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Request concerning kuiper trolling on the nomination of my image

Many things were said on this very board about kuiper taking revenge over editors he does not like. Here is yet another clear case of kuiper trolling, and taking revenge on me using my image's nomination. The nomination was opened for 5 days, kuiper never voted on it before yesterday trolling, which came just a few minutes after lycaon filed the above report about me at AN/U. kuiper's "vote" has nothing to do with the image. It is harassment, wikihounding, retaliation and trolling on its worse. I am not asking to block kuiper how one could ask to block such valued contributor , but I do ask to remove his retaliation from the nomination, which under such circumstances would be the right thing to do. I know he does not like me personally, but this should have nothing to do with the nomination. I will be pleasantly surprised,if somebody will act on this request, but just for the record you know I'd like to have it in--Mbz1 (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop with the nonsense. Considering Kuiper's vote (any vote) as a trolling act is the same as banning the user from the forum. Do you really want to open such precedent? Also, this is the place for discussing Mbz1's behaviour, not Kuiper's Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
One is left to wonder how much lover User:Alvesgaspar could fall.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
That comment is not helpful. Why is this here again? I think an interaction ban might be a good idea. Lar: t/c 06:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Noting that this issues was previously raised in Mbz1's comment dated 20:57 21 October 2010. I've grown tired of these continual COM:AN threads poking each other, re-itterating the same complaints does nothing to aid comprehension of what is taking place to point I thinks it time the whole community was given a rest from them by showing all the combatants the door until after the new year Gnan garra 06:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 dispute remedy

While I acknowledge the talent and contributions of the participants, this dispute has spiraled downward until it consists of little more than baiting and/or personal attacks. The core participants know what will provoke Mbz1 and Mbz1 can be counted upon to take the bait. As with Gnangarra just above, I don't support sanctioning Mbz1 unilaterally because baiting should not be rewarded. As suggested by Lar above, I support an interaction ban, broadly construed, of Mbz1 on one hand; and Lycaon, Pieter Kuiper, and Alvesgaspar on the other. The alternative of reimposing the 6 month block on Mbz1 seems one-sided to me because I see fault on both sides. Moreover, I suspect that conflict would resume upon the expiration of the block. Gnangarra is right; something needs to be done. But, I think an interaction ban may be a better tailored remedy than nine week blocks. Walter Siegmund (talk) 08:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Walter Siegmund comments (& to a degree Gnangarra). The disputes (far too many of them) are not one sided and any one sided block would be wrong in my opinion. Mediation would be far better however we do some to have been through all this far too many times before now. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Lar, Walter Siegmund and Herby and would likewise support an interaction ban as proposed by Walter Siegmund. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree with Walter that this isn't one sided, and that it probably would be better for the project and most certainly for the users if they did not interact with each other. BUT, how could such an interaction ban be implemented - given that Mbz1, Alvegaspar and Lycaon are among the most active in nominating and reviewing FP. I don't think we want to ban any of them from the FP process, and stating that Alves and Lycaon may not comment on Mbz1 related nominations would be unfair - given that those two (the last time I looked, which I admit is a while ago) usually comment, and more often than not very critically, on almost every FP candidate (that isn't a bad thing in itself, it is good that we have active reviewers with high standards). I would also add that from what I have seen, while there seem to be a long history of bad feelings between Mbz1 and Lycaon, to such a degree that I don't trust any of them to be able to objectively evaluate each others contributions and comments, at least until recently I wouldn't have included Alvegaspar in such a pattern. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree that this is not one-sided. I do oppose many nominations, very true, but I do not target any user specifically and oppose all their noms (e.g. this vote: if I find no faults, I will support). at the other hand I have never been the only opposer: other users have always preceded or followed me with similar critics. MBZ does not like critics. Period. It is easiest for her to always blame it on the same (group) of users. I have complained about her behaviour maybe three times this year, but see my name come up in all but every of her comments, related or not. Thát is baiting and harassing, not the other way round. Lycaon (talk) 10:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

However, it seems that past voting collusion against her that you were involved in (or something even further back between you... I'm not really up on all the details) has poisoned her trust in your neutrality. I support including you in the interaction ban. As you say, this will also release you from the regular mentions you get when she vents. --99of9 (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

There was admitted collusion in the past, and further when I see comments like this one, "Moving seascapes are not fit for panoramas. Stitching problems are unavoidable.", (in Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset with Cirrus clouds at Land's End in San Francisco .jpg) with no elaboration, (among others) I'm dubious of Lycaon's claim of impartiality. I have asked Lycaon many times to show voluntary restraint and he has refused. Lar: t/c 14:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Come on Lycaon, you are a variable in the equation, and to try to blame the whole issue on Mila is unfair. You are up to your neck in the controversy which is long running and where your behaviour has been called into question. [[60]]. The easiest thing to do for the common good is just to voluntarily stay away from each other, especially you from her, because that´s where the interactions start. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment Before this proposal takes form and eventually reaches consensus, I respectfully suggest to the users involved in the decision process to do their homework and carefully analyze my behavior in the light of our goals and rules. I will never comply with such Solomonic judgment, which is unfair, unprecedented and not supported by Commons’ policies. If an interaction ban is enforced anyway, I will continue to do my volunteer work exactly as before until I am blocked for the first and last time. With much regret but no hesitations. Please do not consider this comment as a threat, as my contributions are certainly not more relevant for the project than those of many other users. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Please, this is difficult. Some flexibility would be appreciated. 99of9 suggested recently that you are "too involved at the moment" to take certain actions.[61] I wonder if there isn't some room for agreement that 99of9 may be correct? Walter Siegmund (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes please, it would be greatly appreciated if flexibility was shown, and if people agreed to voluntarily cease interacting, or went along with what the community comes up with. But I think this has gone on long enough. Lar: t/c 14:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge all good faith efforts to solve this problem, which is indeed difficult. But what people are asking here is that the offended be flexible so that the offender may proceed with her improper behavior. Sorry, but this kind of equidistant and politically correct approach is unfair and will not solve the main problem. Mbz1 was unblocked (with my help, mea culpa) despite her recognition that she wouldn’t be able to stay cool when some political matters are addressed (e.g. the antisemitc nature of some media). Do we really want to extend this kind of impunity to her general behavior? Before asking us to be flexible, what about convincing her that the only possible way to stay is to convince the community that she will stop to insult the other users from now on? Yes, I have to recognize that I’m too involved at the moment and will try to be as smooth as possible when assessing her nominations, at least while the problem is not solved. But statements like “showing all the combatants the door until after the new year” are unjust and do not help. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the acknowledgement. I do agree that it is very needful that Mbz1 stops insulting other users (and that the definition of "insult" is ours, not hers... that is, if a significant number of users from all "sides" see it as an insult, it is, regardless of what Mbz1 (or whoever, Mbz1 is not the only person who claims insults are not insults when they make them) says it is... this ban does not give a free pass in that regard, if insults contimue, there would be blocks Lar: t/c 18:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I endorse Lar's points just above. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

At this time, I support an interaction ban, broadly construed, among the referenced users(Mbz1, Alvegaspar, Peter Kuiper and Lycaon (and any IDs closely associated with Lycaon)), jointly and severally. Given the past history of Tomascastelazo I think I'd suggest adding Tomas in as well. If someone proposed a solution likely to work better that was less drastic I'm all ears. But this has to stop. It is way too draining of time and patience. Lar: t/c 14:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not add some more to the list? Like Rama, like Adambro, etcetera, etcetera. Or just a very general ordinance forbidding anybody to oppose featuring Mbz1's photos? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not averse to adding more names, but you miss the point. It's not about opposition to pictures, it's about behavior that disrupts the smooth functioning of the project. FP shenanigans are a symptom, nothing more. Lar: t/c 15:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I support this proposal and don't mind adding 20 more users. FPC is less important than keeping the project more stable. ZooFari 15:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Per Lar & ZooFari - FP/QI is not the core of Commons. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I support the proposed interaction ban, per Lar, Herby, 99of9, and Zoofari. I think Alves and Tomas are being caught up in something bigger than their misdeeds, and perhaps including them without any distinction is unfair, but at some point fairness has to take a back seat to finding a solution. --Avenue (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Fairness takes a backseat, and the interaction ban will be one-sided: in practice, Mbz1 will not suffer any consequences from disregarding it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hum - "fairness". The debate in the UK on what that actually means is - sadly - endless. However this is actually about ensuring that Commons continues to function as a community and that means editing collaboratively - I seems to recall using those words from time to time in the past & on some user's talk pages. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Endorse what Herby said. Commons is not about fairness. It's a project, not a system of government, an experiment in social justice or anything like that. Just an image repository. Pieter, if you think this is unfair? Too bad. Perhaps you should have stopped picking at Mbz1 (and many others) long ago, and count yourself lucky you're not permanently blocked already. Mbz1 lashes out inappropriately, and that has to stop, but you yourself have a good part of the blame here (not all, not solely, there's plenty to go round). As Mattbuck says, we're just all really tired of it all. The next step after this interaction ban, if it doesn't work, will be bans for a lot of folk. Participation in the FP process is a privilege, not a right, even if you're otherwise able to contribute here (which is itself a priv, not a right). Lar: t/c 02:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with all said, Mila is baited, she responds, and that sets a lot of events in motion. She is not the only responsible one. Furthermore, I fully agree that Mila´s retractors´s motives in their "critiques" are far from impartial. Personality aside, Mila´s photography is good photography and valuable to the project. Agreed, not all of her work may not be FP material, but a lot that is has been disqualified in these interactions for less than objective evaluations by the parties involved. Lar, in your comment about me, you forgot the other half!!! Lol!!! Alvesgaspar was there too!!! Since that incident where I declare myself completely innocent ;o) there has been what is in fact Non-Interaction between Alvesgaspar and myself, more as a result of self restraint than enforced policy, and it seems to be working. So given the past history, I propose a self imposed Non-Interaction between the parties involved. If they are true to the ideals, I cannot see why they would refuse. Objectivity is lost between the parties, so for the greater good each should keep to their own. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Lycaon has already refused a self imposed interaction ban. So, I think, would Peter Kuiper if asked. Among others. Lar: t/c 18:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well then, it is clear where the obstacle is. If the parties involved are not willing to a self imposed non-interaction, then the ones that refuse are the problem, for their refusal perpetuates the problem. This is too far away from a simple root cause, and no one can claim pristine behaviour. In war, there are Cease Fire agreements. If it can happen in such monumental events, I am sure it can work in this part of the cyber universe... There are 4 variables in this equation. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I endorse ZooFari's point. I think we see too many disputes that began in Featured Pictures Candidates discussions, especially. Quality Images and Valued Images arguably address the core mission of Commons more directly. It is my view that participation in FPC is not essential. If it is necessary to revoke that privilege either totally or partially, e.g., by means of an interaction ban, so be it. I suggested the interaction ban because it helps to address problems that arise at QI and elsewhere and because my perception is that it is less restrictive than a FPC total ban. I think it would be fine to adjust the list of participants as Lar and others have suggested. I know that Alvesgaspar and others feel that this is asking a lot. Alvesgaspar points out above that it is unprecedented on Commons. However, topic bans and interaction bans have been used at some of our sister projects with some success. I hope that the unprecedented nature of such bans on Commons is an argument in favor of trying it here. Our tool kit is extremely limited at present. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm fed up of seeing this come up again and again and again and again and again, and I'm fed up of arguing about it. Please be aware that I will implicitly support any and all methods which are used to keep this continual fight off COM:AN/whatever and more generally away from me. This includes but is not limited to making the participants fight Battle Royale style until there is only one left, on the basis that it takes two people to have an argument. In the meantime, I'm argued out, so I'm going to go and do something which is actually useful, and not just more banging my head against a brick wall. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I support opinion by Walt and Herby.--George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Support interaction ban. I have seen it work with some limited success on En.Wiki. Its not a perfect solution, but until people are willing to "call a spade a spade"...or even agree on what "constitutes a spade"...then its the best of the limited options out there. Outright blocking people rarely works because inevitably those on one side of the situation feel that the action taken against their comrade is "unfairly biased", damaging the collaborative environment of the community...plus ultimately many of those blocked reappear as sockpuppets. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 00:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support Tomascastelazo's view for a self-imposed interaction ban, first. If someone refuses, or cannot or will not, then it can be imposed from outside. That is the adult solution. That shouldn't be so hard. Stellarkid (talk) 03:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
If "votes" are starting, I think it is better done with the different users involved in the interaction bans separated, since other users have been suggested along the way. I'm going to make a heading for each that I've seen suggested. 99of9 (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Tomascastelazo and Stellarkid have suggested that we invite the parties to voluntarily agree to non-interaction. I think many would see this as an indication of good faith and a willingness to move ahead. It may be helpful to give them some time to respond. Also, some people may have been away for the weekend and unable to comment. Consequently, I suggest allowing another day for discussion and responses. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to wait, but wanted to make the point (since voting had started) that the vote should not be done as a group, but rather that individuals should be considered case by case. Most named users have commented in this thread. I've just notified those who haven't. --99of9 (talk) 05:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment Thanks for your inputs, everybody. A lot was said here about me "lashing out" "insulting" others and so on. That's why I would like to stress out that I did try to avoid the confrontations. My block was lifted on October 19. I did not respond to any 4 instances lycaon's mostly unfairly opposing the nominations of my images for 2 days, but on October 21 after Alvesgaspar made this unwarranted statement I felt as responding. I was blocked last time for calling Alvesgaspar reviews and closing my nominations "dishonest". Alvesgaspar has never been even warned for this and similar attacks on me. There are more, but... Whatever... I agree with any editing restrictions the community is going to place me on. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
As was suggested by 99of9 here I agree voluntary to stay away from those users. I do not believe an interaction ban between me and Adambro is warranted. Rama is involved administrator, who should not have blocked me. I do not believe he will block me ever again after everything, and of course I have neither need nor desire to interact with him, so I have no strong opinion about this one. If voluntary option is declined by others, I believe there should be community issued interaction ban between me on one side and lycaon, kuiper and alvesgaspar on the other. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment My position about this proposal was already explained above and I will not repeat myself. But I have a general comment to make. Someone said it was a privilege to participate in FPC. I agree, though probably not for the same reasons. It is indeed a privilege to assess the creations of so many talented people as well as to learn from them, especially when they evaluate our pictures. On the other hand, it is a much greater privilege for the project to count with the volunteer work of all those users, many of them committed to relevant tasks of low visibility, such as photographing and categorizing obscure biological species or assessing candidates of quality and valued images. No serious human organization can put fairness on the back seat, alleging that it is “not a system of government, an experiment in social justice or anything like that”. Allowing users ~~and their families~~ to be repeatedly insulted and their participation to be systematically classified as dishonest by a disturbed member, just because the most responsible among us feel tired or don’t know what else to do, is a symptom that our system of values is distorted. I will not accept to continue collaborating with an organization which has doubts about the seriousness of my volunteer work. Neither will I accept to see my rights diminished just because that is the easiest solution to a difficult problem. And I will certainly not accept to be part of a project in which the respect due to people is put in the back seat. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I basically agree. No diffs have been presented to justify such "evenhanded" measures. This "remedy" will just allow attacks like this one to continue, and I fear that only protests against such behaviour would be counted as violations of the interaction ban (no definition is given). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Pieter, Just call it voluntary non-interaction.... you lay low with that user and if she throws anything your way, or you do, well, the community will know who is who... like a Mexican standoff. It is simple. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Alvesgaspar, thank you for your comments on FPC. Your words help me understand why you place such importance on participation. You are one of those talented people that you reference. The quality, quantity and careful documentation, including geocoding, make your work especially valuable. I have no doubts whatever about the seriousness of your work. Commons reviewers have recognized your work as some of the very best on Commons. I accept your criticism that this is not an ideal or even a good solution. But calling Mbz1 a "disturbed member" suggests to me that your reviews of her work may be perceived as biased or misinterpreted. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment I would like to clarify that statement by alvesgaspar: "Allowing users and their families to be repeatedly insulted ". (highlighted by me)I have never ever ever insulted any family's member of any user. I assume that alvesgaspar is talking about user:Estrilda. First of all user:Estrilda is an user themselves, second of all I have never insulted them, just the opposite. I believe them to be honest and brave user. IMO alvesgaspar is making unneeded dramatization of proposed ban. Here he was told not to comment at Tomascastelazo's nominations, and he complied. FPC process only benefited from that. --Mbz1 (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Please be aware that many are troubled when family members (users or not) are brought into a discussion, unless it is essential to do so. I would admonish all to drop this matter (it is a year old) and move on. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Question I like the idea that we just decide something here and then all problems are solved. But how is this going to work "for real"? Are all interactions forbidden or do we allow interactions as long as they are "nice"? Do we block "on sight" or do we need to have a long debate every time? And for how long do we block: 1 week every time? Do we double the block each time? Or three strikes and it is a permaban? --MGA73 (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not know how the others think about this but I would suggest the following: The interaction ban covers all the respective user talk pages and all the candidacies (COM:FPC, COM:QIC, and COM:VIC). In case of violations, I would suggest a one-day-block, possibly increasing it if multiple violations are observed in a short time frame or shortly after a block expires. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

1 day is a lot shorter what has been suggested for dealing with Pieter Kupiter (some suggested permaban). But if others agree that 1 day is a sutable block for "attacking" other users then it is ok with me to start with. --MGA73 (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

1 day would be for interaction, as that is what we are now forbidding. I imagine an actual attack would warrant more. To AFBorchert's zones, I would add files uploaded by those users. It would nice to also have a way to avoid categorization baiting, but I don't have a clear suggestion on that at the moment. 99of9 (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You are right, 99of9, I missed the file uploads. Categories are challenging indeed. We should insist here that in case of conflicts (as for example what to put into Category:Antisemitism or not) a wide consensus should be seeked for first. If a consensus is not found, the categorization does not take place. In case of edit-wars, I suggest to use the usual measures — this does not need to be covered by the interaction ban, I think. (BTW, I've proposed a tag for controversial files as opposed to categorization for such files.) --AFBorchert (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok so if they talk nice to eachother just like all other users would/should do then we block them for one day because we forbid them to talk to eachother. However, if they attack eachother in any way we block longer. The reason we do that is because we think that they can not keep up the good tone and therefore all interaction is forbidden (even a "Wow that is a good photo you have taken there"). Well, since the aternative is worse then ok. --MGA73 (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment I agree this situation is intolerable. I unfortunately have to support an interaction ban between both Mbz1/Lycaon and Mbz1/Pieter Kuiper.

I would like to comment what Lycaon wrote above, that he does not make a difference between the users, when he makes the reviews. I actually think that is correct (by and large) as to the outcome of the review, but the way comments are written and interactions are handled are very different if it is Mbz1 vs any other user. When you review an image you should also be prepared på respond to reasonable questions from the creator about further explanation and reasons. There have been several examples where Lycaon has systematically refused to answer any questions from Mbz1, also when they have been very reasonable. For instance I recall very well this good and non-obvious question, which was responded as if it was a bad faith question, and then Mila took the bait and it escalated with overreacting strongly. Why escalate such a simple question? If you want to review, be prepared to interact with the creator and nominator also. Otherwise, stay away.

In other cases, where mila starts out making bad faith assumptions as for the underlying reason for the oppose (and those are to numerous to count), I do fully understand that the complaint is simply too ridiculous to respond to. But the unnecessary blunt and hard comments are most unfortunate.

I see Alvesgaspar having a more mixed role in this. Some of the most recent edits have not been very helpful and tending to inflame and overdramatize events from the past, ~~like bringing up insulting family. Come on, Alves, why the drama?~~

I was extremely fed up by the editing patterns of Tomas also in the previous thread, but I acknowledge the much more calm and balanced input this time.

I am concerned that the interaction ban on especially FPC will demonstrate that it is rewarded to constantly claim and complain that opposers are opposing due to personal retaliation. I do not think that this should be rewarded, and I think that if mbz1 continues to quite systematically harass opposers she should also be banned from FPC. Period. I understand very well that I am not making a lot of friends here with these statements, but I am dissapointed with especially Mila and Lycaon as I have had very many pleasant and helpful interactions with those users in the past. I also have some advice for the four users: Remove each others watchpages from your wathlists, such that you are not triggered by noise on those. --Slaunger (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

slanunger, may I please ask you to provide any recent, let's say for the last 6 months differences of my "harassing" opposers, except of course the ones that are disused here, and who are actually harassing me. I mean, if I am doing this "systematically", as you claim I am, it should not be very hard for you to provide a few differences of me harassing opposers. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Harrassing back those you feel are harrassing you (sometimes they probably were needling you, sometimes they probably weren't) is still problematic. There is a higher road. For other users you do often question their opposes (more than most other nominators do), but they usually look to be genuine questions, as you are often responsive to their answers. However the questioning does occasionally look a little rude or disrespectful of the reviewer's opinion, e.g. [62]. Slaunger may have other examples, I've mostly only watched the FPCs.--99of9 (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, 99of9, for responding my question. I do hope slaunger could come with more differences of me "systematically harassing" opposers because "systematically" means "all the time" I believe.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

@mila:I wrote "continues to quite systematically harass opposers". In my perception of the English language quite means it is not all the time. But even that may be too categorical, I acknowledge that. I could also have phrased it "frequently" or "has a strong tendency to take opposing reviews personally when they are really justified". The main point is that you should do some serious introspection regarding how you perceive opposing votes. And, no I will not give you endless diffs. And yes, you can find diffs where opposing reviews have been personal. It is not the point. You can take it on board as an observation and something to work with on a personal level or deny it. Take a deep look inside yourself instead of reacting outwards all the time. If you feel that some reviews are not justified and is personal retaliation: Ask someone you trust (in private) and who is not involved and neutral, how they perceive the review to get a second opinion prior to bursting out with accusations of personal retaliation. And if a second opinion indicates a review is indeed personal harassment report it in a calm and factual manner. --Slaunger (talk) 05:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Slaunger in this observation. Mbz1, you know I have the highest regard for you, but introspection and waiting a bit before commenting calmly are not your strong suits, you often react quickly and intemperately. I'm not saying never.... Sometimes you do wait a bit, think a bit, ask for input first... and when you do things often turn out better for you. I wish you did that more often. Lar: t/c 10:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment I'm not very happy about this proposed solution, but would be prepared to support interaction bans mbz1 vs Lycaon and Mbz1 vs Pieter Kuiper if there was a more solid definition of what an "interaction ban" actually means. I would interpret in as being banned from commenting on each others nominations/images, but not from commenting/voting on an image created/nominated by a third person, but especially that the said users are banned from commenting on each other as users, persons, photographers or whatever. That would include not dropping links to old cases or comments concerning the other users on other pages. I'm not ready to support an interaction ban Alvegaspar-Mbz1, and will add an oppose to that effect - just in case someone decides to close this poll early. Also, the point Slaunger makes above about harassing opposers is very important: If any user proves unable to accept opposing votes politely, then the user should be banned from FP, regardless of the quality of the users contributions. Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not happy about it either. It's the worst possible solution we could come up with, except for all the others (to paraphrase Winston Churchill Lar: t/c 10:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment Very simple, non interaction means:

1) Users do not vote on the other´s nominations/creations.

2) Users do not write on the other users talkpages.

3) Users do not comment on the other users´comments directly, sticking to the central point of shared discussions.

4) Users do not make edits to files the other has uploaded: descriptions, categories, filenames, deletion nomination, derivative works, ...

5) Users do not complain about one another (directly or indirectly), even if they feel the other has done something wrong, or violated the interaction ban. They can wait for the rest of the community to notice/evaluate.

6) Users simply cease to exist for one another.

7) The users do not revert edits by the other users, such as addition of categories to images, or otherwise edit war with the other users.

Comment Number 4 and number 7 are in contradiction as far as adding categories. I think legitimate categorization (existing ones for example), and that are appropiate should be allowed. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment I don't see them as contradictory. 4 is about files that one of the users uploaded, the other user must stay away from these completely. 7 is about edits to any other file, and just says don't revert. I'd prefer to strengthen 7 to say: don't even be the next editor of a file, and don't revert old edits either. (Put a comment on the talk page and let someone else make the decision.) --99of9 (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

8)

Fill in the blanks... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC) ::::I've filled in some more. --99of9 (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added #7. --Avenue (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sooooo...

Comment I think that the consensus is pretty clear, the definition of Non Interaction (I think it sounds better than interaction ban), is reasonable and community constructed, therefore it reflects the group´s vision on this subject. Also, the tendency about who should have a non interactions is also pretty clear. We can wait more time, but unless someone brings in ringers, I doubt the tendency will change. So really the only thing left is for the players to come up with one of two options: 1) To go along the group´s preference of dealing with the situation or 2) Refuse. Which one will it be? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a community decision on the administrators board. Once there is consensus, and the poll is closed, I don't think refusal is an option. --99of9 (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Refusual is an option, with consequences... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Question Should we list the names or give them more time to chew on it??? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. There is clear consensus for all names listed below except for Alvesgaspar-Mbz1 which we should leave open longer to establish better consensus (or other options for how we deal with that particular dispute). --99of9 (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I meant to list their names (Mila, lycaon, alves, pieter) and have them either support or oppose the comunity´s recommendation for non interaction... that´s all... Their vote afterall is the one that counts! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Something like this:

Mila Vs lycaon (support=non interaction, oppose means, well, whatever it means...)

Mila:

Support or

Oppose

Lycaon:

Support or

Oppose

and so on... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, in that case, no. These are sanctions just like a block. The recipients' opinions of them were interesting to hear (and it would have been nice if they were voluntary), but won't change whether they are enforced by administrators. By the way, Mbz1-Rama is also unanimous at the moment (see below). --99of9 (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I don´t think I am making myself clear... really we need to hear from the users of the conflict. The question is down to: Will you abide by a non interaction? The outcomes are easy, non interaction will lead to non conflict, etc., etc. Refusal to not go along at the very minimum, points out to simply not wishing to compromise and so light is shed at the point of conflict. In short, it is a way to cut the crap... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't need to hear. Someone saying "no" will not earn themselves a block. If they then start interactions, that's all we need to look for. --99of9 (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Summary for proposal

To wrap things up, I have organized the information in a template. Once it becomes "official", the users in question will receive it on their talk page:

User:Mbz1 interaction restrictions: Mbz1-User:Lycaon; Mbz1-User:Pieter Kuiper; Mbz1-User:Rama

Status: Under proposal

Users do not vote on the other´s nominations/creations.
Users do not write on the other users talk pages
Users do not comment on the other user's comments directly, sticking to the central point of shared discussions.
Users do not make edits to files the other has uploaded with the exception of categories: descriptions, filenames, deletion nomination, derivative works, ...
Users do not ~~complain about~~ discuss one another (directly or indirectly), even if they feel the other has done something wrong, or violated the interaction ban. They can wait for the rest of the community to notice/evaluate.
The users do not revert edits by the other users, such as addition of categories to images, or otherwise edit war with the other users.
The users do not block one another.
Users simply cease to exist for one another.

Failure to obey these restrictions will result in:

(x 1)²-day block for violations, where x represents the number of blocks already given (i.e. 1 day for the first violation, 4 days for the next, then 9, 16, 25, etc.).
Community discussion, should the issue escalate to the point where a 1 month or indefinite block may be considered.
An administrator who has previously (un)blocked the user(s) in question prior to <date of initiation> may not block the user(s) during the restriction.

Changes to the restriction must be supported by consensus. Restriction expires: 2011-11-06

Feel free to discuss any changes below. ZooFari 00:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The increase in block length shouldn't be linear. I suggest a (x 1)² day block instead (which works for the first block as well). Rocket000 (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the need for the last point about admins. Or perhaps a clearer alternative wording is needed. Are you trying to ensure that (mostly?) uninvolved admins are the ones doing the blocking? We may not have enough of those to go around. Lar: t/c 01:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with both Rocket and Lar. 99of9 (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Block equation changed. I'm not trying to suggest that no involved admin should block him/her, just those who have done so in the past. I'm okay without it, though I hope not to see complaints of "conflict of interest" and "he's always harrassing me" (well, that's the whole point of this proposal anyways). ZooFari 02:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you want (X 1)**2 rather than (X 2)**2 as with the latter the very first block is 4 days, the second is 9, and the third is 16. With X 1 squared the first one is 1, second is 4, third is 9 which feels closer to the intent. Lar: t/c 03:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I changed it. (0 1)²=1 so we don't need a separate line for the 1st violation. Rocket000 (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Question Should this be included: "users do not block each other" or it is already given from the prior description of the ban?--Mbz1 (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

seems sensible, added --99of9 (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment I think that with a simple commitment to non interaction from the users the entire issue can be put behind... it is absolutely necessary that they go on record as to their willingness to a proposal that the community is putting in front of them. I think that it is best for the users to step into a solution than be coerced into it. So Mila, Lycaon, Pieter and Rama, what do you say? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment I think the first point needs to be removed, or amended as per arguments by Tryphon and Dschwen below. --Elekhh (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree as per my response to Tryphon below. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment While I worry a bit that itemizing the behaviors covered by "interaction ban, broadly construed" may invite wikilawyering, it may not. But, I suggest converting it to a numbered list rather than an unordered list to make it easy to reference individual items. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment Last decision? The period. I suggest one year. --99of9 (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

One year seems appropriate to me. The term can be reviewed upon request and modified, if warranted. However, I think that a review request earlier than 3 months after the previous one may not be considered. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment Please see en:WP:IBAN for the English Wikipedia interaction ban policy. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1-Lycaon interaction ban

12 support, 4 oppose --> consensus support for a ban

Support there is so much history to this one in the form of unreconciled grudges. Interaction is likely to be a net negative.--99of9 (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support --Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 06:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 07:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support-- Stellarkid (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support--Slaunger (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support Gnan garra 02:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Support--Avenue (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment This is what AFBorchert's unblock, Mbz1's subsequent edit and your "evenhanded remedy" accomplished. Congratulations! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, because of the first point in the proposal (Users do not vote on the other´s nominations/creations). That users avoid provoking each other or stirring up old disputes is one thing (and unfortunately, it seems to have become necessary to spell it out and issue block threats, although it should be obvious and actually applies to everyone on Commons). But extending it to a review board such as FPC seems highly problematic to me, as it essentially amounts to silencing opposing votes which could be perfectly legitimate. Simply because someone makes a big fuss about an opposing vote doesn't mean the vote was malicious, and even if it was, it would be canceled out by dozens of support votes anyway if the image is really good.
So I'd like to see the first restriction replaced by something like "Users do not use FPC/QI/VI for personal attacks or retaliation; they accept opposing votes without recrimination" (and what constitutes a personal attack or retaliation is left to the appreciation of third parties, not the people involved in this restriction). That way, technical opposes such as "stitching error" or "overexposed" would still be allowed, while criticism of the photographer rather than the photograph would be forbidden.

The bottom line is, no one should be treated specially on a review board; some opposes might be unfair, but that's inherent to the current system, and everyone needs to accept that, or at least deal with is in a civilized way (and support votes can be unfair too, by the way). We just need to enforce that these reviews do not become personal, and promptly block anyone who violates that rule.
The same goes for the other "couples" bellow. –Tryphon^☂ 13:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have no confidence that we can distinguish "technical opposes" from personal ones without excessive drama, and I think allowing them is highly unlikely to be a net positive, at least for the first two "couples" here. It seems like a loophole a mile wide. --Avenue (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  - What creates drama is letting involved people argue endlessly (and quite often aggressively) about whether a vote is biased or not. So instead of suppressing the vote in order to suppress the drama, I propose to just remove the drama: let anyone vote, and block those who misbehave. The key is, we don't let the involved people decide which votes are biased. In fact, most of the time we don't even need to make that distinction, our only task should be to not let things get ugly. Of course it won't always be fair, but as long as FPC is not anonymous votes on anonymous pictures, it won't be. People need to accept that and stop attacking each other, that's all. –Tryphon ^☂ 17:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've considered the remedy that Tryphon suggests. No Personal Attacks says, "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks." I think that if the culture of FPC and other reviews were such that this was followed promptly and consistently, conflict would be reduced. I would like to see that happen regardless of the outcome of this discussion. It may take some time, however. An interim measure may be needed in the meantime. On Administrator Notice boards, user behavior is often the topic of the discussion and it is necessary to discuss individual users, but I have seen intemperate discourse, even by administrators who should be setting an example. Regarding "silencing opposing votes", to the extent that the individuals herein named reflect the collective opinion of Commons editors, review outcomes should be unaffected. Also, please see the point made by Herbythyme above, "Per Lar & ZooFari - FP/QI is not the core of Commons. ".[63] Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Question Tryphon, I like this idea of your and I also share the concern of Dschwen. However, as Avenue I am concerned that unbiased (even that is idealized I think) community members have have a very difficult time judging this. Say, for instance that a reviewer opposes an image due to some plausible reason, e.g., stitching error, and another reviewer asks for a clarifification of where and the original opposer never answers. The reviewr may even have been inactive for a few days. Now is that then a bad faith oppose, or a valid oppose? I see all kind of possibilities that making these decisions could be very hard and that some of the users could try to use this deliberately to cause further disruption. On the other hand one could trust (hope) that the community is actually capable of handling it, and if this effort fails use a more extended interaction ban as the one proposed currently as a fall-back mechanism. --Slaunger (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- I know it's not an easy solution, and some will be unhappy about it or sometimes frustrated. But I think it's much less drastic (while still greatly reducing drama), and as you say, we can always fall-back to more restrictive measures if this doesn't work. Worth giving it a try in my opinion. –Tryphon ^☂ 19:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I'm afraid I agree with Tryphon here. Barring that many active FPC reviewers from judging her pictures is not acceptable. --Dschwen (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Question for Tryphon and Dschwen. Everybody, who was participating in FPC knows, that if one is here to oppose an image, a reason could be found. The best one is of course "no wow", but the others could do as well. Let's see an example with the three latest nominations of my images opposed by lycaon. One was opposed because of infamous "no wow", the other was opposed because "Moving seascapes are not fit for panoramas. Stitching problems are unavoidable." but no one single error was pointed out even, when asked by another, uninvolved editor User:LeavXC to point one out, the question was simply ignored, oppose vote stayed. Please see here " Lycaon, could you annotate the stitching errors that you found? I couldn't find any. If you can't, then I don't believe your reason for opposition is justified. LeavXC (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)". The third one was opposed because "Too small so no details. Each pic is only 1500×900px!". It was said about this photo montage File:Inuit man demonstrates traditional kayaking technique used for hunting on narwhals.jpg. This image is not a macro of a flower or an insect. What details lycaon was missing in that image? So the question is which one from three examples of lycaon's reviews do you believe were OK? One more situation. Let's say a nomination was opposed for a real stitching error, for example, which was fixed later. Is this OK for oppose vote to stay? I do have examples of such reviews by lycaon. Thanks--Mbz1 (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Question for Dschwen. If I may I would like to remind you this one in which you wrote: "Sounds like a sensible approach. Thank you Walter. --Dschwen (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)".What has changed? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- The problem with unfounded oppose reasons is a much broader one. Why should only you be "protected" from (what you think) are wrong votes? What about me for example ;-). I support an interaction ban as far as discussions on talk pages go, but including FPC is taking it too far. This would set a bad precedence that would in future allow wikilawyering uncomfortable votes away. Unfounded opposes should be balanced out by other voters. It is the duty of the community to challenge such votes. Not the that of nominators! You are not helpful in this process at all. Observing from the outside I would ask myself why should I assist her defending her images from unreasonable votes, she is already doing it all by herself. Don't you see that this is not how it is supposed to work? You can only lose this way. You are acting in a tactically really unprofessional way (please no lectures how commons is not about "tactics", you know what I'm saying here!). Go to the meatballwiki read Meatball:DefendEachOther. --Dschwen (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  Daniel, I am not asking to be protected from (what I think) are wrong votes. I got plenty of those, and I am absolutely fine with them. I am asking to be protected from being harassed by an user, who is involved with me. This user is very experienced reviewer. Many new, inexperienced editors will look at his reviews and do the same. Every oppose vote needs two supports to be overwritten. Daniel, I would not have dared to lecture you about anything at all.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose -- Whatever this vote is worth. But I have to strongly agree with Dschwen in that it is the role of the FPC community to promote or decline a picture, not of some random group of users coming here to chose who can or cannot vote. If a wonderful picture is not promoted because of some biased votes, so what? It has probably happened to all of us. And what about those users supporting a nomination just because they sympathize with the creator or feel like being jointly liable with his/her cause? Should we also ban them from the forum? That would be a hell of a job! In short: please drop this proposal before someone has the idea of implementing it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Support I would have preferred voluntary disengagement by both parties, as proposed earlier (Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archives/User_problems_14#Lycaon.2FMbz1). I don't understand the argument about "silencing opposing votes". To the extent that these individuals are representative of the general pool of reviewers, outcomes should be unaffected. Tryphon's suggestion "to enforce that these reviews do not become personal, and promptly block anyone who violates that rule" is welcome, and I've added it explicitly as Alternate to proposal just above. However, I think an interaction ban of at least a few months duration would be helpful. With no such ban, I think Slaunger's concern that "making these decisions could be very hard and that some of the users could try to use this deliberately to cause further disruption", is well founded. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
If they were representative of the pool of reviewers, I would agree with you Walter, that the effect would averge out, but these users oppose nominations much more frequently then the average pool. Thus, I do think it is fair to say that banning interactions on FPC would lead to passing the gate being easier for interaction banned users than for others. Frequent supporters tend not to get into conflict on FPC because, well, the nominator do not complain or question supports. --Slaunger (talk) 05:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
That is a very important point, especially since there was some discussion of the FP bar being to low, resulting in a few people to be a little more critical (or rather a little less gratuitous) with their votes. --Dschwen (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Daniel, I would like you to understand please that I do not care very much about my images getting FP status. I have more than enough of those. Of course I like it better, when others like my images, but FP or not FP it's OK. I do not care at all, if my images get a QI or VI status, not at all. I nominate my images mostly to share them than for anything other than that. But, when I feel that it is not my images that are getting opposed, but myself, it is a bad feeling. Daniel, if my image is declined as that one for example was, it feels as it is me, who is declined. There are many other examples of the same behavior by lycaon, and it is the root of the problem.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
If one cannot stand criticism of the nomination of File:San Francisco Bay with Golden Gate Bridge, a boat, dolphins and Marin layer.jpg, one should not nominate. Then that is the root of the problem. It is no reason to impose an "interaction ban". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Commons:Featured picture candidates says, "Above all, be polite". Failing to do so is a root of the problem, in my opinion, and there are lapses among each of the parties to this dispute. This dispute takes up time that is better spent. If the price is that the parties will no longer benefit from one another's opinions on FPC and QI, and there is little evidence that is occurring, so be it. These reviews are not the purpose of Commons. They can assist that purpose by encouraging participation and helping contributors improve their skill levels. We don't see that resulting from the interactions among these individuals. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It is expected that some reviewers will be a little more critical than the median and some a little less. However, if a few reviewers are substantially more critical than the median, that could lead to the perception that they are biased, especially if they pay a disproportionate attention to particular contributors, e.g., due to shared interest in subject-matter. To the extent this happened in this dispute, I think it was a contributing factor. I identified it as such in an incident in June.[64] It would be better to achieve the goal of adjusting the FP threshold, if that is desired, by encouraging all reviewers to be more demanding. This might be done by adjusting the review criteria. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Support Ggia (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Support per Walter Siegmund and because the users who are opposing the ban were not able to make their case I believe. Kooritza (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1-Pieter Kuiper interaction ban

12 support, 1 oppose --> consensus support for a ban

Support persistent baiting in both directions. Interaction is likely to be a net negative.--99of9 (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support --Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 06:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 07:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support -- Stellarkid (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support --Slaunger (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support Gnan garra 02:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Support --Avenue (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - as I am her angel now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment It's ok, plenty of angels don't interact much. --99of9 (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Pieter, how is that comment helpful? It seems baiting to me. This is exactly the sort of thing that needs to stop. Lar: t/c 01:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This shows again that the application of this "evenhanded" remedy will be that only Alvesgaspar, Lycaon and I will be blocked for anything, just anything at all. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it shows that you can't let stuff go and have to pick at people at every opportunity. Give it a rest. You have about exhausted the patience of many. Lar: t/c 12:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Support The interactions of these two contributors are unlikely to be helpful to the project at this time. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
must do it. – Kwj2772 (msg) 12:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Support Kooritza (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1-Alvesgaspar interaction ban

5 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral --> no consensus

Neutral Although there is currently an altercation, it is recent, and I suspect the result of hot tempers. In my view this one can be resolved with apologies from both parties (and I've seen at least one already).--99of9 (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 14:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support-- I had hoped that the users would accept a self-imposed interaction ban, but this post by Alvesgaspar made me realize that a self-imposed interaction ban is not likely to happen. Stellarkid (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I think interactions between Mila and Alves can be established again with some good faith from both sides and with some healing time. That requires removal of one-sided claims by mila on her user page regarding the true objectives for Alves actions (which are just her interpretation), and a toning down from Alves side ~~(why involve family, come on, Alves).~~ --Slaunger (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Per Slaungers neutral vote, and because I haven't yet seen a consise definition of the implications of such a ban. Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Neutral my recollection of events is that Alves involvement came as result of trying to be a calming voice and attempting to find resolutions, we should be cautious about restricting such voices. Gnan garra 02:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Question Are you calling that

[65]
[66]
"Also, one of the new user's accounts supporting the nomination was clearly created with that specific purpose" meaning an account "was clearly created" to support this nomination. IMO it is an accusation I used a sock, and BTW evaded my block in the process.It was made just a few hours ago.
closing my nomination that was going to be closed the next day anyway?

"a calming voice and attempting to find resolutions"? Is that so? In my opinion both lycaon and kuiper look like angels compare to that "calming voice"

--Mbz1 (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I was not referring to the recent events of September/October but further back like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hate by latuff kills.jpg and Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:SeaDSC01286.JPG then there things like Commons:Valued image candidates/Convento Cristo December 2008-6a.jpg so clearly you both can work together for the betterment of Commons, there is many more such occurances, may be a trip down memory lane will help, you dont need to cut down the whole tree to extend an olive branch. Gnan garra 12:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning towards oppose. I would support a temporary interaction ban, of up to one month, in the hopes this might help them take a break and start afresh. --Avenue (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per Elekhh. --Avenue (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Support After I read this comment I decided to support the ban. It looks like Alvesgaspar goes on with his assumption of bad faith even after Mbz1 explained my involvement with FP and QI nominations of her images during her block. I watched her contributions on English wiki. I transferred the one I liked, not all of them, to Commons and nominated them for FP and QI. That's it. Kooritza (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this difflink could be an influence on your vote. --Dschwen (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment I am more than disappointed by oppose votes for this ban. I just found this comment made by Walt. I've missed on it, when I read alvesgaspar's comment. I consider alvesgaspar calling me a "disturbed member" a very bad personal attack the one that deserves a block. His threatening to leave Commons, if an interaction ban is to pass does not look good at all.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- This was a misunderstanding. I have apologized below.[67] Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment I have the impression that this is getting pretty unfair here. Tomascastelazo, Kooritza and Mbz1 are clearly not neutral and not uninvolved in this and I don't see why would consider appropriate to vote regarding this interaction ban. Mbz1's behaviour like here did disturb even me, as somebody not involved in any of these disputes. I am not surprised if any editor who is treated with such language would loose his/her calm. --Elekhh (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The best way to make it fair is for uninvolved people (like you) to consider the case carefully and vote. --99of9 (talk) 09:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Elekhh, that is an example of a "[d]erogatory comments about another contributor [that] may be removed by any editor." (:en:WP:PA). If an editor has a complaint about another editor, it may be brought to the appropriate Administrator Noticeboard. Please remember that bad behavior by others does not excuse ones own behavior. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Info I reverted the comment.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Elekhh (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Given Mbz1's and Alvesgaspar's commitments below. I suggest closing this section. --Elekhh (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per my reasoning above. --Dschwen (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1-Rama interaction ban

9 support, 0 oppose --> consensus support for a ban

Support To me this one seems like the arguments have higher stakes: "antisemitic"/"racist". Also the administrative power imbalance suggests prudence. Other admins can take action when required.--99of9 (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Full support --Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 06:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 07:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support-- Bigtime --Stellarkid (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support admins need to held to a higher level of acccountability when its comes to being neutral in heated disputes Gnan garra 02:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Support per Gnangarra. --Avenue (talk) 11:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - on reflection I think a complete interaction ban would be an overreaction here. I would support a ban on Rama using admin tools against Mbz1, though. --Avenue (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, but in complete friendly collegiality, do you realise how offensive your proposal is? When I blocked Mbz1, I knew her only from distant observation of her behaviour; she took to attacking me personality as to create an artificial conflict of interest -- which I regard as a cheap and despicable tactic that should not work; but did you see me using administrative privileges on her after that? What gives you the right to insinuate that I could be even tempted to do so? Have you checked the block logs?

You are parroting the smear campaign of Malcolm Schosha without even realising. Would you find it innocuous if somebody started a thread on you to forbid you from, say, promoting your own photographs to FP without discussion? I think not. That the fact that I've avoided Mbz1 could go unnoticed, I can understand; you do not get thanks for being honest if you don't brag about it. But that is a downright insult to my probity. Either you trust me to have good ethics as an administrator and you do not need that, or you do not trust me and you request I be de-sysoped. You are allowing yourself to being instrumentalised, here. Rama (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I do give you credit for staying away from Mbz1 recently; that was a factor in my feeling an interaction ban was unnecessary. My proposal would leave your actions less restricted than an interaction ban, so I find it interesting that you object strongly to it but not the interaction ban. I meant no offence to you, and I have struck my suggestion. However admins who deal out blocks need to have a thick skin, and I think you have been displaying the opposite during this dispute. Yes, I have read Mbz1's block log, and I don't feel it does you much credit. I don't believe I have any reason to be concerned about your ethics or probity, but I am concerned about your judgement and levelheadedness. Given this, and your heated comment about her just above, I have also struck my opposition to an interaction ban. --Avenue (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

As I have explained on my user talk page, it is my intention to end my participation in Commons. However, since Rama has accused me of a "smear campaign" against him, I will reply briefly. The situation is quite the reverse. For instance Rama accused me of having a meatpuppet relation with Mbz1. When I replied that the accusation was false, and asked him to either supply proof or withdraw the accusation, he did neither, but instead just repeated the smear accusation. I would also like to note that Rama's unsuported accusation of meatpuppet is certainly a personal attack against me. But he did not get a warning from other administrators for his personal attack. On the other hand the rational complaint, that an an administrator such as Rama with a provable history of having made an antisemitic comment on WP should not be acting administratively against a user when the issue is exactly antisemitism, resulted in my being punished (and I am using the word punished carefully) with two one week blocks. The unfair disparity in treatment leaves the impression of administrative favoritism.

As for my defense of Mbz1, it had nothing at all to do with the issue of antisemitism, but was just a defense of a talented contributer to Commons who has been treated unfairly. Previously I defended Ottava Rima for the same reasons, and it is quite obvious that antisemitism was not an an issue with Ottava.

I will not repeat here the evidence to support my complaint against Rama, nor the reason I think talented users (or for that matter, any users) should not be punished for causing annoyance. Anyone interested can find that on my user talk page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Accusing someone of being a meatpuppet is not a personal attack. It's an attack, but it's not personal. Now can we get back to the actual topic please? Avenue's vote/opinion was a perfectly straightforward contribution to the discussion. I understand that you feel slighted Rama, but seriously, if someone wants to block you from doing something that you're not intending to do anyway, so what? His statement was clearly not meant as an insult, please don't take it that way. --99of9 (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

An unsupported accusation of violating Commons rules, and then repeating the same unsupported accusation is most certainly a personal attack. If I accused you of having a meatpuppet relationship it Rama (for all practical purposes that you are acting as Rama's sock) and when you asked for evidence or a retraction, just repeated the accusation, I think you would see it differently. As for getting back to "the actual topic", I noticed that you made no such complaint when Rama introduced this subject. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not about me, or about you, or about your speculation about my feelings. I have replied to Rama now, an absence of an early reply cannot be construed to mean anything at all. --99of9 (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:PA it is a personal attack if there are "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.", as can be read here. What I see in this discussion with you, 99of9, is the usual silence or mild criticism if an administrator violates Commons norms of behavior, and condoning (or administering) one week blocks to users who point out the problematic behavior of administrators, even if evidence is supplied. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm, you may have missed it but recently whilst you were blocked and unable to edit your talk page it was suggested that restriction was removed. In relation to that I said that if "Malcom has concerns about Rama's behaviour then I would encourage him to take the time, after his block expires, to carefully explain them in a new section here with appropriate diffs and quotations so they can properly be reviewed". I note above that you've said you won't "repeat here the evidence to support my complaint against Rama", "Anyone interested can find that on my user talk page" whilst suggesting an "unfair disparity in treatment leaves the impression of administrative favoritism". I would suggest that if you really have a strong case against Rama or actually wanted something to happen you would make it as easy as possible for the admins to understand the situation. It doesn't seem to me that you are doing that and I don't think you're doing yourself any favours by using this section, which is really about an Mbz1-Rama interaction ban to again suggest some action should be taken regarding Rama and that there is some "administrative favoritism". As I've suggested, if you want something done then make it easy for the admins; start a new section here, explain what you are concerned about and provide relevant diffs. If instead you're just going to repeat accusations about Rama at every opportunity then it might look like the suggestions that Rama is the target of a smear campaign are accurate. Alternatively, if you do really intend to end your participation here as you have declared then simply do so and don't subject yourself to "arguing with the many vicious administrators on Wikimedia Commons" any longer.Adambro (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

bro Adambro, If Rama drags my name into this discussion, as he did, I have a right to respond. That is what I did. I responded to Rama.

I have explained on my talk page why I have no intention to contribute further to Commons. Considering it is likely you read my concluding statement, it is difficult to understand why you suggest that I continue the process. I have already said all that I am interested in saying here, and when negative comments and accusations directed at me cease, then you will here no more from me on this wonderful website. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's just be clear about something. No one has any rights to edit Commons. Not me. Not you. So, that Rama might have mentioned you doesn't give you a right to then drag up whatever it is you've got against him(?) yet again. I've explained the proper way of dealing with your concerns which you apparently aren't interested in. As it stands what it seems you are concerned about is that Rama has made an antisemitic comment and that then draws into question Rama's involvement in dealing with issues relating to antisemitism. It isn't clear though what we, as admins who are supposedly acting unfairly, are supposed to do. Since we can't go back in time and reverse, for example, Rama's blocks of Mbz1, all we can really do is keep an eye on Rama's actions going forward and consider their appropriateness in the light of comments which Rama has made. I'm sure now the majority of admins are aware of this now so I don't see what there is to gain from constantly brining this up. If now you have given up contributing to Commons but were to continue to pop up to complain about Rama whenever the opportunity arises then you may find yourself blocked for intimidating behaviour/harassment, yet again. That would sound like a "smear campaign" against Rama as has been suggested. Adambro (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This illustrates my point perfectly. Rama wrote above "You are parroting the smear campaign of Malcolm Schosha without even realising.", but you had no problem with that gratuitous insult to me. But when I respond to Rama, your position is just "That would sound like a "smear campaign" against Rama as has been suggested." You know perfectly well that my evidence against Rama is on my talk page, and was put there instead of here because I had already been blocked for saying that. Well do you see anything wrong with Rama acting administratively dealing with issues related to antisemitism when he came close to getting blocked (and probably should have been blocked) on WP over that very problem [68]. If you do see, then why was I blocked for saying what should be obvious? And if you do not see, what could anyone possibly say more than that to convince you? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I have much to add really but just for the avoidance of any doubt, if you're going to cease participating except to pop up every now and then when the opportunity arises to harass Rama then you will be blocked. There, you've had your warning. Adambro (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"harass Rama"? You must be kidding. I made it very clear that I have no intention to edit Commons further, aside from to respond to instances where my name is dragged into the discussion, as was done by Rama. If choose to respond by blocking me, it will be because you think you will benefit by doing that. That action will be your own responsibility and choice, not mine. It actually seems rather funny to have you threaten me with a block, when I have already said I have had enough of this wonderful website, and its wonderful administrators. As though I will miss this website. LoL. The easiest way to shut me up is to find someone, other than me, to blame for problems here, and someone else to threaten with blocks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

How about both of you take these long blocks of text elsewhere so that this section stays on topic? ZooFari 01:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Support After Rama's outburst. Rama is indefinitely banned on English wiki on adding template di-replaceable fair use to the Holocaust related images. IMO, Rama made an antisemitic and provocative statement on the deletion request on at least one Holocaust related image. Rama made a false, unconfirmed accusation that Mbz1 made racist statements. All of the above is more than enough to support the ban including the point that Rama may never again block Mbz1. Kooritza (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
That is an outright lie - Rama is not banned from en.wp. I request you withdraw your accusation. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
See w:Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Adambro (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I interpreted it as "banned from en.wp because ..." not "banned from doing X on en.wp". -mattbuck (Talk) 20:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Support Agree. I can see nothing positive coming out of this. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1-Adambro interaction ban

6 oppose, 0 support --> consensus against a ban

Oppose Current interactions between these users at User_talk:Adambro seem fruitful enough. I doubt an interaction ban would help. --99of9 (talk) 05:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose casualty of war. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose --Stellarkid (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose similar to Alves early conduct in the disputes Gnan garra 02:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per 99of9. --Avenue (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Counter-proposal

Comment [reply to Walter Sigmund, at 04:45 26 October, above] -- What can I say without lying or causing another outburst of rage? Yes, I have to admit that my last assessments of Mbz1’s nominations were carefully written as to make clear I was addressing the pictures, not the creator. As everybody knows, this excessive care is not typical of my reviews, where I usually choose a more straightforward and synthetic language when opposing a nomination (please see here). Still that seemed to be the wisest thing to do in a period when Mbz1 was blocked and obviously disturbed with the fact. Her violent reaction confirmed my fears in the worst possible way. Right now many of us seem disturbed, and Mbz1 probably more than all. What I suggest (please understand this as a stretched out hand, like Slaunger said today) is that Mila takes a voluntary and generous break from Commons and this discussion is suspended until everybody calms down and things start being perceived in a more dispassionate way. Maybe (that is what I hope) we will then conclude that it is no longer necessary to proceed. If we proceed now everybody will lose. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No comment on the main thrust of your posting at this point. But I've noticed your use of the word disturbed twice in this paragraph, and have previously seen it set off angry reactions before. Are you aware that in modern English usage the word "disturbed", when applied to a person, is often synonymous with "mentally ill" or madness, which would be a very serious accusation and usually a personal attack (e.g. see Walter's reaction recently [69])? I am guessing from the context here that you mean something more like upset or annoyed or unsettled. If that is the case, some of the previous "violent reactions" [70] may in fact have been due to communication errors. --99of9 (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Info -- Yes, I used "disturbed" as a synonym of "upset" or "troubled". That is the English translation for the Portuguese word "perturbado", according to my diccionaries and to Google translator. I thought that was clear from the context. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment This is one of the dangers of our international project. It was clear to me this time, but in all previous instances, I had taken you to mean mentally unsound (and thus I saw these as personal attacks). As it seems Mila did. And Walter. Without going into great lengths about the modern euphemistic usage of the word, I'd suggest never applying it to a person other than yourself. Even the word "troubled" has connotations (e.g. kids who've "gone off the rails" are often euphemistically referred to as troubled), so I'd avoid that too. I'd suggest using upset, annoyed, unsettled, or perturbed. --99of9 (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

We should have a dictionary of such dangerous words. For example, in English, eventually means: in the end (finally, it will be like that). In many (if not most) other languages, it means eventuellement, optionally, may be one day. Can make a big difference. --Foroa (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

?? Alvesgasper wrote "many of us seem disturbed". No, it is you guys who are treating Mbz1 as unaccountable for her actions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I realized he probably didn't mean it as an implication of mental illness. --99of9 (talk) 09:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid "a voluntary and generous break" is not a solution for me.--Mbz1 (talk) 09:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understood "disturbed" as "mentally unstable". I would have responded less strongly if I'd understood it as "upset".[71] 99of9, thank you for your helpful explanation. I am sorry for not looking harder for the meaning behind the words. Walter Siegmund (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I read it the same way you did until I saw Alvesgaspar use it in a different context. I think it's sort of nobody/everybody at fault here, it's a language trap and we all fell into it. 99of9 (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Communication

Now that I'm thinking about it (see section above), I wonder if this dispute [72][73] might have been based on a miscommunication too. Mbz asked a question (based on an interpretation of the word "picture"), Alves explained (in his way), I thought some additional information and a different way of explaining it was required and explained it (my way), Alves interpreted me as saying the same thing as him, Mbz understood my explanation better and thought Alves had deliberately failed to answer, Alves thought she was "playing dumb", Mbz thought he was not assuming good faith... My point is what we already know, small communication problems can magnify in these communication channels when users aren't mellow. --99of9 (talk) 10:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually I question the timing of those closing my nomination by alvesgaspar more than the closing themselves. He tried to close 3 of my nominations. All three were closed just a few days before they should have been closed on their own, with one that was about to be closed in a day, and the other that was about to be closed in 3 days, and just a few hours after a conflict on a different nomination started. On the other hand alvesgaspar ignored the same "problem" (that I personally do not believe to be a problem at all) with other editor nomination. So it makes me to believe that I was targeted in purpose.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well the direct questions I can see from you are:

"If I am missing something, may I please ask you to be so kind and to quote the exact rule?"

"So maybe somebody more polite could explain to me what exactly I have done wrong."

"Are those consider to be different pictures of a different version of the same picture, and why?"

The diff you cite was 6 days later, after this had already exploded. 99of9 (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I swear I did not understand the rules the way they were written before you 99of9 have explained them to me and provided the link to the discussion. I was not even slightly dishonest and I was not playing dumb. Alvesgaspar did clarified the rules later on, which means that even he agreed the clarifications are needed.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

My proposal

Because I would like to bring the peace back to the community and because there were some comments made by the editors, I have respect for, about my behavior I agree to be placed under unilateral non-interaction ban with kuiper, alvesgaspar and lycaon. I also believe I should be placed on a zero tolerance civility editing restrictions once and for all. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment and Support This is a breakthrough. We have one of the editors involved going on record agreeing to non interaction, implicity agreeing to the terms above. This points the way to a negotiated, community-supported solution without having to come to a coerced solution. We need the other three in order for this to turn into a civil settlement, in my opinion. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- The other parties are welcome at any time to agree to non-interaction. That has been the case all along. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, correct, but only one has clearly stated her position with regards to non interaction. And the rest? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternate to proposal just above

I think it may suffice to reiterate the policy from enwiki on this matter. Consistent and prompt application of this policy is hereby encouraged. Substantiated allegations of misbehavior may be brought to the appropriate Administrative Noticeboard. I wonder if we can do more to embolden FPC and QI participants to follow this policy? Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks says, "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks."

Support Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment I agree with your proposal, but it looks like it is a general proposal concerning everybody, and not me specifically. Should it be moved to its own section?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm puzzled. If I'm not mistaken, my proposal is in its own section. My proposal is not about you specifically. It is intended to encourage uninvolved editors to remove personal attacks promptly from FP and the like, and to encourage administrators to promptly block those who make repeated personal attacks. I think that would include you, at this point, but it doesn't single out any contributor by name. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  Well, your proposal is 13.7 in the section 13 that is named "User:Mbz1 back with a vengeance". All subsections in the section#13 are in one way or another concerning me specifically. Your proposal apparently is not. I believed that the way it was written it should have been posted in a bran new section.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  At the head of section 13.2, I made clear my view that this discussion is not just about you. Also, I see my proposal as a more inclusive alternative to your proposal. So, I think it is fine where it is. If a third party deems otherwise, I don't object to its relocation. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Support -- This is enough for civilized people, no need of self-imposed interaction restrictions. I drop any requests for sanctioning Mbz1 that may be implict in my previous comments, on the assumption that the community will enforce the policy mentioned above with the strictness that the situation demands. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

KISS

An old acronym for "keep it simple stupid" and not to be taken literally by anyone...

The immediate problem is to bring in a Cease Fire between the combatants.

One has agreed to a unilateral Non Interaction.

The community has defined what Non Interaction means.

So basically, what is needed is the position of the rest of the combatants. As simple as that...

Once peace is restored, this issue and the definition of non interaction, can be discussed as a possibility for establishing policy to deal with conditions such as this in the future.

Conflict will surely happen, and this could be a way to deal with it under certain circumnstances. It has worked so far in a previous conflict that Alvesgaspar and I had, so there is a precedent of non interaction that is working. It may not solve the issue at it proper depth, but it definitely will not drag everybody into the discussion.

--Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You've asked often enough, I think it's safe to say that the others do not want to take this on voluntarily. Except (it sounds like) Rama who has already been avoiding Mbz1. --99of9 (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, there you have it then.... For practical purposes I see Mila and Alvesgaspar on record, and while for Alvesgaspar the specific language is not quite there, he goes along with non interaction (correct me if I am wrong Alvesgaspar). Rama is keeping to the side... That leaves the other two, which is basically where the problem originated. Do we need more clarity than that? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Close needed

This has went on for a while, with a significant tapering off of new input. I think most people that want to have had their say, and I think consensus on various proposals is pretty clear (some in favor, some against, and some "no consensus" == fail). Someone needs to close this and post the findings to various folks talk pages (and log this all somewhere). That someone arguably ought not to be me as I suspect some might feel I'm too involved. I will if no one else will though, but really, I'd rather not. Lar: t/c 13:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.