Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 15

File:Ashley Roberts2.jpg

Is this image the author's own work or not? I apologise for disturbing the excellent Admins here but I notice the image comes from a flickr account with only 1 picture. I am concerned: it is a little suspicious that for such a high resolution photo...there is no metadata anywhere. When I searched Tineye, I found this low resolution duplicate: [1] So, I cannot tell if it is a copy vio OR if it is not a copy vio now. Hence, my dilemma. If it is a copy vio, please feel free to tag it as its almost 12 AM here in Vancouver, Canada. If not, feel free to pass it. I am just being cautious here. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree with you but I see they claim (on the helpdesk) that they have permission. Other views? I'm suspicious without OTRS --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Same here. From Commons:Help_desk/Archives/2010Jul#Licence it's not really clear what the exact source of the photo is, who gave them permission and what that permission looks like. And via Google image search I found this copy in lower resolution, where it is credited to "Nick Harvey/WireImage". --Kam Solusar (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd delete it myself. We don't know where this Flickr user got such a high-res image, but I trust LIFE to get a photo credit right a lot more than I trust some random user on Flickr with only one upload. Powers (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment: May I suggest this be tagged with either a copy vio or an npd tag to resolve this dilemma then. Then an Admin would be taking some action here. I'm not sure one can trust the uploader with only 1 image on his/her flickr account. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• How about to ask the uploader? His/her talk page still is empty. Trycatch (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• OK. I'll tag it with speedy delete to be fair. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment: The image was perhaps 'taken' from here and may be a Time Life image which is probably copyrighted. Conclusion: It should be deleted given the uploader's single image on his/her flickr account. Please delete the photo if you can. I've notified the upoader to stop uploading copy vios already. The photo is already used on 2 wiki pages in less than 1 day sadly. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I've replaced copyvio tag with npd one, this is right tag when the uploader claims that he/she has the permission. I agree that this image is most probably copyvio, but I am sure this file was uploaded in good faith, so template-based conversation is not helpful. Trycatch (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

User Kalon macau‎‎

User:Kalon macau‎‎ keeps reverting all edits to his/her uploads (containing watermarks). He or she has been warned before, but removes almost every message from his talk page... - Erik Baas (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done blocked for 3 days. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 10:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your efforts to sort out this mess. The block should probably be converted to indefinite with talk page privileges removed after the user has now resorted to making legal threats (see meta:Founding principles). —LX (talk, contribs) 11:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Beside that, the chap was obviously confused about what Free licences entail, he doesn't seem too comfortable with English, and his images are not of a crucial importance. Does somebody object to deleting the whole lot as the user requests? Rama (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about a significant number of files. Most of the photos have been around, properly licensed, since around this time last year. Many of them were in use on Wikimedia projects when I checked. Other users have put time into categorizing the photos. I personally put some time into getting started with Cropbot and instructing it to crop out watermarks where this could be done without reducing the usefulness of the photos. On the basis of those facts, I have some reservations. Feel free to run it by COM:DEL though. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not object against that, I did just set a block for making legal threats. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 11:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to the block. We're not here to get threatened or insulted by incoherent people. And on a different level, we're not here to victimise or upset them. It's completely orthogonal -- just like somebody can get treated by paramedics and arrested by the police at the same time. Rama (talk) 11:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like they still have their user talk editing privileges. Not sure that's such a good idea, given that that's where they made the legal threats. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I also think that deleting the images would be a good idea. Basically Kalon requested it: photo has been changed something without the permission from the owner. If do not accept watermark photo, just delete it! see here. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 11:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I object to deletion. His/her photographs are in use and generally do not have an adequate replacement. At the very least it should be discussed on DR, not here. Trycatch (talk) 11:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Kalon macau it is, then. I just love the amount of red tape we need to delete a bunch of trivial images like that. Rama (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

So we should delete good images from Wikipedia articles without discussion?--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Rama (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Problem with User:Legendxo

This user has 25+ deleted images already. The user claims he/she has permission, but no proof has been provided, so I tagged the images appropriately. (The user seems confused though, as File:ShavoSpinn.jpg is credited to the user itself, but the same image (File:ShavoSpinning.jpg) uploaded a couple of hours ago is credited to someone else). The user then goes on to reupload them all, essentially creating duplicates. Anyone who can step in to clean up the mess? Nymf (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I posted a warning on his talk page. SV1XV (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Liftarn & User:Kordas

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. I pledge to close this discussion at this place, please choose a more appropriate place like Commons:Forum. Regards axp_de^Hello! 10:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Strong  Support to close it, but why did you undo when I archived it last night?--Mbz1 (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Long ago, I uploaded this image and tagged with the category Antisemitism. I understand may be there is people who don't like this tag, like this guy, who did this edition adding two new cats and removing the old but without discussion or warning me. I didn't see his edition until six months later (I'm very active and I edit a lot), and I readded the old cat (I didn't touch the new cats he added). But now there is the funny thing: he reverted me without warning (again), so I reverted him. He did it again, and then I reverted him again and left one message in his Talk page urging him to use the Talk page (you can see it here). Then the guy went to the Talk page (of course, reverting me again) and started to Talk. You can see the Talk page here. What bothers me is his continuous revertings, I understand we're talking about that cat, so why he are reverting me all the time? Then I saw his blocks and could understand, he don't have any interest in talk, but only that cat, annoying for him, disappears. I repeat, I accept to discuss about that cat. I don't accept his attitude. He thinks he can laugh to me... he is wrong. Kordas (sínome!) 11:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I changed the subject: Both users are editwarring. Protected the image for a week. I invite people to join the discussion at File talk:Burned israeli flag - 27zapata.jpg#Antisemitism? and see if we can come up with some sort of consensus instead of editwarring. Multichill (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

after editconflict

Hello,

I blocked you both for 72 hours for edit warring.

Instead of reverting and reverting you or Liftarn should have tried to start a decent discussion about the category instead I only see fizzing and fighting and one user comes to here and make a complaint, and that doesn't leave me any options because I cant and wont take a stand in this discussion so both of you blocked is a neutral decision.

Please feel free to discuss it after your blocked ended.

Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 11:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocks removed, after multichill decissions. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 11:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I find it somewhat amusing that Kordas uses Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems as a forum to launch personal attacks. // Liftarn (talk)

Where is the personal attack, dude? Kordas (sínome!) 11:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Both of you please stop with this and start a normal discussion.... Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 12:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

So far it has only resulted in more personal attacks[2][3][4] and even wide scale deletion of my comments[5]. // Liftarn (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Again lying. There is not such personal attack (only describing his continued attitude here in Commons), neither deletion. It's not my fault if that dude is clumsy enough to duplicate comments Kordas (sínome!) 16:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Not for put more diffs you have more reason, dude. Stop hounding me. Kordas (sínome!) 17:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have been discussing the categories problem with Liftarn and Prosfilaes, but the issue is not even close to being resolved. I suggest that the current block on editing the article be extended until an agreement be reached. As is known, they object to the 'antisemitism' category being added to the image. I have no objection to the 'blag burning' category they want. But I think the 'antisemitism' category is also clearly indicated for this image, and have explained why I think that in the section of the image's talk page called New antisemitism. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Besides the issue of edit warring, I would like to stress that in many countries, public expression of antisemitism are punishable by law. When not specifically sourced, the term "antisemitism" can therefore constitute not only an insult, but downright defamation and libel. Uttering it gratuitously or lightly is a very disruptive behaviour. In this case, Kordas should reconsider his usage of the term to avoid other such incidents in the future. Rama (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

In a related matter User:Mbz1 of course did not miss the chance to label me an antisemite (again)[6]. // Liftarn (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC) And again[7] // Liftarn (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, Rama. I always weigh up about those files I upload here. I do not apply that tag to every single image I upload here, neither indiscriminately. And don't blame me exclusively about that "incidents", please. Since I am not calling anyone as "antisemitic", but only describing one image or one precise moment), I'm very clear about that. Thank you for your understanding. Kordas (sínome!) 00:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Image use & user blocks

Rama, how people use these images is their own responsibility. How does having a burned Israeli flag on the ground in Category:Antisemitism make a legal problem for the Wikimedia foundation? The job of categories is just to make it easier for people to find images that suite their particular need, and it is not for Commons editors to pre-decide what is the 'right' use for an image. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Because tagging it antisemitism implies that the burner is an antisemite, which quite likely could be libelous. --Prosfilaes (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying that the image does not depict an act of antisemitism -- neither that it does. I say that the term "antisemitism" has legal consequences, and because of that, we cannot rely merely on the opinion of such or such user to put that label. Just like we would be cautious before putting "Category:murder", "Category:thief", "Category:rapist", etc. Rama (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that the WMF servers are in the United States. Where is the problem? And, truth be told, if some fool who burned the Israeli flag got in trouble for breaking a law, that is his own problem. But categories are a convince for searching images, and are not a legal opinion on the image. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I see that Category:David Duke has categories Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazism. Should we change that too? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not engage in WP:POINT. Rama (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I have no idea what you are trying to say. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, I'll assume you genially did not understand. Overt and public displays of antisemitism , while protected in the USA, are an offence in many other countries. Therefore, accusing somebody of being an antisemit, or of performing antisemit actions, litterally means that you are accusing them of an offence. Unless you can conclusively prove your point, that constitutes defamation and libel.

The case for Neo-Nazism is similar. For the Ku Klux Klan it might be a bit more delicate but it's essentially the same nature.

In the case of David Duke, the affiliation of David Duke with the Ku Klux Klan is beyond any doubt. Similarly, he used to wear Nazi uniforms in public, which conclusively suggests that at the very least he used to harbour sympathies for the Third Reich.

On the other hand, the file were an Israeli flag is being burnt does not feature any obvious differences with images of, say, US flags being burnt. It could very well be a display of purely political hostility to the State of Israel, rather than against Jews (may I remind that many Jews are not Israeli, and many Israelis are not Jewish).

So unless you have conclusive evidence that this particular image was a display of actual antisemitism, you cannot, by policy, put "category:Antisemitism". That would be equivalent to putting "category:murder" on the image of a soldier firing his weapon. Rama (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand perfectly well that antisemitism is a crime in some European countries. But it is not strongly enforced anywhere. For the most part its unenforced. The image is antisemitic, and the category is justified. What I see happening is a very selective concern for legal issues. I would like to see something from WMF lawyers saying that this is actually a problem for the Foundation. Otherwise, I will continue to consider this to be just one more excuse from those who do not want such images called antisemitic because of their own personal POV. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with POV; I do not claim that this image is or is not antisemitic, and I do not give a damn. Casting unfounded accusations borders on libel, is disruptive and provocative, and will not be tolerated -- period. If you do not desist from such behaviour, you shall be blocked. Rama (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You have avoided answering my question. Where is the opinion from a WMF lawyer saying that calling an image antisemitic is not legal? The act of burning the flag is not even attributed to a person. Are you worried that the image will take the Foundation to court? You are making a silly argument.

I want it noted that Rama has just threatened to sue me. See his comment above. On WP that is grounds for banning, and suspect it is here on Commons too. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I certainly did not mean to, but I don't feel that I've said anything that could in good faith be confused for a threat of lawsuit. I said you'd be blocked if you did not desist from casting gratuitous accusations. Rama (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Rama has just blocked Mbz1 for comments she made to him. Rama is apparently a little out of control at the moment, and needs to be restrained. It is completly inapropriate for an administrator to block a user when he is in a direct personal dispute with that user. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I blocked Mbz1 over her saying "And you liftarn will be better off to stay in the world of the dirty anti-Semitic cartoons you seem to enjoy, and leave other editors alone. This image belongs to category antisemitism. They burnt not only flag of Israel, but all the Star of David.", which is not directed at me. I have documented that in the block rational of Mbz1. I am not in a dispute with Mbz1. Your tale of the matter is unjust and dishonest. Rama (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Your accusation that I committed libel against you is certainly a legal threat. You should be banned for that. And your block of Mbz1 is a misuse of your administrative authority. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Also Rama was directly involved here in a dispute with Mbz1, and his blocking her was a misuse of administrative authority. Blocks should not be made by involved administrators. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Come on people, calm down. I know it's easily said but hard to obey, but that's the only way to get out of this "Schlamassel" (old jiddish word for "snafu" ;-)

I tried to understand to whole conflict and the block of Mbz1 in particular, was quite some work. The block reason is quite weak, the things Mbz1 said are much harmless than many attacks I had to read about myself. The only ones offended were some pictures Mbz1 called "dirty anti-Semitic cartoons" – so no personal offense.

Another point is what Malcolm Schosha said, I aggree that blocks shouldn't be done by admins with personal background (however this may be) to asure the NPOV.

That's why I think this block is too long, I'll shorten it to a "prussian night" (i.e. 12h). And I call everyone for sanity in this topic, please don't transfer the wars in the world to wikimedia!

P.S.: Personally I don't like any text/picture/whatever that contains hate against other people or their "weltanschauung"!

Regards axp_de^Hello! 07:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

We should upload educational files, files that would be useful on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects. We shouldn't be standing around talking about how "personally I don't like" these pictures and how other people are bad because they are uploading these educational files.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

next subsection

Excuse me, perhaps you would like to continue that debate over at File talk:Burned israeli flag - 27zapata.jpg#Legal_issues instead? I've copied your posts there. // Liftarn (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a long-standing issue, not specific to this image. I have already blocked people over this exact misbehaviour; it is apparent that the deeply disruptive nature of this sort of accusations is insufficiently cautioned amongst our contributors, and that should be remedied. Rama (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not think Rama is qualified to talk about such things. He objects the right of an Israeli news paper to decide what is and what is not antisemitism. He wrote to me: "You refer to one particular right-wing newspaper from one particular country" . When I read "one particular country", it made me sick. The "right-wing newspaper" is a very much centrist Jerusalem Post.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What right? No one newspaper has the right to decide what is and what isn't antisemitism. No one country has the right to decide that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

And you liftarn will be better off to stay in the world of the dirty anti-Semitic cartoons you seem to enjoy, and leave other editors alone. This image belongs to category antisemitism. They burnt not only flag of Israel, but all the Star of David.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If Israel wouldn't put it on their flag, it wouldn't get burnt when people burn Israel's flag.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

People please allow room in this collection for opposing viewpoints. If you cannot, then you are not in the right place here on Commons. We host stuff that others might find offensive. It is the truth, and if you don't like it, I suggest you start to write your own internet filtering software or your fund your own Image collection website. Now please stop calling each other names, you will get blocked for it, especially AFTER you have been warned. Such disruptive behavior should not be tolerated. TheDJ (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I consider Rama's block of Mbz1 on this matter plain wrong I'm afraid. It is utterly ridiculous to block someone for stating images are anti semitic when it is obviously true. Based on my statement here I assume Rama will now block me. I await that with interest. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I see it similar. How does it come that uploaded images of hate can no longer be classified as such? I still fail to see the ground or the consensus on which this block is based. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Mbz1 has just been unblocked by Abigor and I support this. As it is well known, we have no NPOV at Commons. In consequence, we host not too small collections of media that are perceived as hateful against designated people, beliefs, or states. It should not be in conflict with our policies to express an opinion about the offensiveness of particular media or against whom or what a media is possibly directed against, and to seek for an categorization that reflects this. How this is done best should be worked out collaboratively in discussions that should move towards a consensus. Blocking users for expressing an opinion regarding a particular image or a set of media does not seem to be, IMHO, a constructive move forward into that direction. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually the block was for a personal attack on me where Mbz1 accused me of enjoying "dirty antisemitic cartoons"[8] and similar[9] (just one in a long story of simmilar attacks). So it was directed at a person, not the images. // Liftarn (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 made two accusations:

1) she accused Latuff's cartoons (I assume that this is what she was referering to?) of being antisemitic; at the very least, it is not established that they are -- they can very well be interpreted purely as opposed to the politics of the Israeli government; in fact Latuff himself repeatedly denied being antisemitic and he made several cartoons in this direction. He tends to use provocative themes and iconography that I think weaken his position, but the core of the matter remains: his cartoons are disruptive by their properties of having some people fly off their handle, but calling them antisemitic is out of order.

2) She accused Liftarn of "liking dirty antisemitic cartoons". That's a gross personal attack and a blockable offence. I am astonished that her block could be reduced on this matter, and I think that the block will weaken the administrative corps and reinforce the sentiment of impunity that some obviously entertain here. Rama (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Rama, two questions:

1. Mbz1 has sources that are WP:V and WP:RS to back up her negative view of Latuff, as can be seen here. Considering that there are supporting reliable sources for her view of Latuff, why do you think here view of Latuff is a blockable offense?
2. In the diff I see [10] she did not say what you quote her as saying. What she said is "liftran is the user, who flooded Commons with highly offensive anti-Semitic cartoon,some of which glorify violence against Israel, and with the help of others, he does not allow to put them to the category Antisemitic pictures, or category Propoganda." That is a basically true statement of what Liftran did as a Commons editor. I do not find her saying on this page what you quote her as saying, and suspewct that you have quoted her incorrectly. But, leaving that question aside, I would like to examine that the logic behind your block of Mbz1 a little further. What if, for instance, I say here that it seems logical to think that, if Liftran uploading Latuff cartoons to Commons and if he did, in fact, defend the images against category:antisemitism and category propaganda; is it not then reasonable to infer that Liftran probably does find Latuff's cartoons, including the ones that seem antisemitic, to be likable? Is my drawing that inference blockable?

I look forward to your reply. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

1) I never said that her views concerning Latuff were a blockable offence; as a matter of fact, I explicitly said the exact opposite, that she is free to hold whatever opinion she like, however ludicrous. I said that expressing her views in the provocative manner that she does is a blockable offence. As for Mbz1's sources, they are biased and partial, and prove nothing.

Rama, you said "she accused Latuff's cartoons (I assume that this is what she was referering to?) of being antisemitic....calling them antisemitic is out of order." You, in fact used that of one of your two justifications of blocking her. Do you now, as it seems, want to retract that?

You wrote "As for Mbz1's sources, they are biased and partial, and prove nothing." Au contraire, her sources, are WP:RS, and used in many WP articles. Your view to, the contrary, also has sources; but they are not more WP:RS than hers. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

My rational for blocking Mbz1 is "oblique and gratuitous accusations of antisemitism against fellow users after being warned (repeatedly in your case) not not cast such accusations against images [11]". I would appreciate you'd stop extrapolating on this an deform what I said.

Mbz1's sources are biased, scarce, and prove absolutely nothing. She bases (or rather excuses) her entire argumentation on a handful of editorials in Israeli newspapers. With that sort of sources, we could also take it as a fact that Iraq has nuclear weapons. On the other hand, there are very numerous sources, including the United Nations, that have declared the aggression against Iraq to be illegal; will you add "war crime" to the parent category, or shall I? Will we start digging Al Jazeera, anoter "WP:RS", for other idea of funny categorisations? Or will we drop the matter as needless fuel for trolls? Rama (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

2) I have never quoted the diff that you mention, and I don't see why you bring that up. My action were entirely based on [12], as I documented in the block rational and on Mbz1's talk page. The rest of your question is too close to provocation and trolling for me to comment.

Rama (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What she said appears to be essentially a true statement, although I can understand those who agree with Latuff views would not like the spin she put on it. Liftarn did upload many Latuff files to commons, and has defended them against adding category:antisemitism and category:Propaganda. It is a general Wikimedia Foundation principle that WP:NPOV requires a balanced presentation. Since many WP:RS sources do think some Latuff cartoons are antisemitic, the categories for those files should reflect that. (An inclusive approach to categories is the best that Commons can do to achieve NPOV with controversial files, and Leftran - and you - are apparently trying to prevent that.

So I can see that Liftarn did not like what she said, but the statement appears to be essentially true. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't care if it's true or not. You can add up truths and go anywhere you want just by ordering them as you want. I do not discuss whether Mbz1 was correct or not, I am discussing whether she was insulting and being a troll. Which she was. Rama (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Rama, it seems to me that you are being far more abusive than she has ever been. You are distorting her words, my words, and the sources that relate to this issue. You are dismissive of every person, and everything, concerning this issue that is contrary to your own views on the subject. You deserve to be desyoped just for your abusiveness alone. It is regrettable to have to make such a negative report. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to be convinced that using the phrase "anti semitic" is a blockable offence I am afraid. Rama telling me to grow up when I question his actions is offensive to me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with you questioning my actions. I have no problems with you disagreeing with my actions. I do have a problem with you attempting to provoke me, deliberately committing offences and repeatedly asking to be blocked, to prove a WP:POINT. That is childish, Kuiper-worthy. And I'm afraid I'll have to echo your own words here, this conduct in unbecoming of an admin. Rama (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I was actually seeking to find consistency in your actions. I used the same words here and on your user page as Mbz1 did. That is what my comment referred to. It saddens me if anyone considers my work here as being done in a way that it should not be. When folk ask me things on my user page I do all I can to address any issues there may be. I do not suggest that they "grow up" however challenging their behaviour may be. I also apologise when I get things wrong. If the community ever lacks faith in me I will step down without hesitation or fuss. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Just how is calling an image "antisemitic" a blockable offence anyway? If for some (insane) reason I considered File:Eilean Donan castle - 95mm.jpg to be anti-semitic and called it as such here, it doesn't necessarily mean that I am accusing Eusebius of anti-semitism (Bottom line is - you don't need to be anti-semitic to create anti-semitic work!).--Nilfanion (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't think that accusing someone of "liking dirty antisemitic cartoons" is a personal attack? Even "liking dirty cartoons" could be such, and the part of what makes a lot of the heated areas of Commons so heated is that invariably gets around to calling people antisemites or pedophiles or perverts or liking such or associated with such. It'd get a lot less heated if people would stop those statements.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There are some users in this discussion who mean well, but who could benefit from some sensitivity training. Mbz1 is from a country who had between forty and sixty million people die in WW2. For Jews it was even worse than for the general population. At one site alone, Babi Yar, over 33,000 Jews were murdered by the Nazis in two days. You guys are complaining about what she says because you do not understand where stuff like the Latuff cartoons lead. Because of the way Commons is organized, you know that you can shove stuff like the Latuff cartoons in our faces, and then take advantage of the reaction you get. Some of you may even find score points (like the wiki-points Prosfilaes scores above) is amusing and fun. As I said there are some users here who I think could benefit from some sensitivity training. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest a discussion break for 24 hours so that the storm in the glass of water can calm down. This should be a standard automatic procedure when sensitive personal nerves are touched. --Foroa (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

While that may be an explanation it is still not an excuse. Mbz1 knows very well that it is wrong, but still keeps doing it even after having been blocked for personal attacks several times. // Liftarn (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Liftarn's assessment here. Mbz1 has been warned many times. I grant that Mbz1 comes from a people subject to some of the worst atrocities imaginable. However, I believe that if you are not capable of being calm about a subject then you should stay away from said subject here. We seem to have a lot of cases recently of people who do a good job, but seem unable to contribute constructively in some areas - this appears to be another such case. I would be loathe to suggest a permanent block of Mbz1, as her images are almost without exception absolutely beautiful. However, I would urge a topic ban as this is clearly a point of conflict which cannot be resolved, and only leads to bad blood. I urge Mbz1 to do this voluntarily.

Going back to the crux of the issue, antisemitism and antizionism are inextricably linked, and the boundary where an image is one rather than both is extremely blurred. Such cases are impossible to decide with any authority. What is needed is reasoned and calm debate, but unfortunately that appears impossible with these sorts of issues by-and-large. I have no solution here, but I reiterate my position that anyone who cannot be calm about the matter should not be involved in such debates. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I could have said a lot about the subject and about the comments by mattbuck, liftran, rama and prosfilaes, about rama's blocking me, which was extremely unfair, but I will not. No, not because I am not right in my assessment of those cartoons. I am right, and even the prospect of indefinite block will not make me to change my mind. I will say nothing because there's no use, and mostly because I've created more than enough troubles for those, who put themselves under fire because of me. I do not want this happen ever again, I would not like anybody to get attacked ever again because of what I said. That's why I support my topic ban or even block. I mean it. I cannot do this voluntarily. It should be official because I cannot and never will be capable of being calm about a subject, mattbuck. Here's why: Please compare two anti-Semitic cartoons [13] [14]. What an original idea to use an octopus to describe "blood thirsty Jews"! Are they both ware drawn by latuff? Not really, the first was not not. This cartoon was published in the Nazi newspaper Der Sturmer in the 1930s, and then there was w:Babi Yar, and many, many Babi Yars around Europe. Would you like any more examples that compare anti-Semitic hate by latuff with anti-Semitic hate by Nazi,mattbuck? BTW although both cartoons are hateful anti-Semitic propaganda, the nazy one is added to categories Antisemitism and Nazi propaganda, the other one is not. So, no, mattbuck I cannot and never will be capable of being calm about the subject. I would not like another w:Babi Yar to be on my conscience because I kept silent. @Malcolm Schosha, I lived 20 minutes ride from w:Babi Yar --Mbz1 (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There have been more Babi Yars. A half million Hutsis were murdered in Rwanda in 1994. What will complaining about anti-Semitic cartoons do to stop that?--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing, I suppose. If you want to help the Tutsis you might consider spending your time elsewhere than Commons. This is an information site, not a social activism site. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Liftarn, why you you think Mbz1 having a negative evaluation Latuff cartoons is a personal insult to you? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1's view of some cartoons is not really the point, but that Mbz1 accused me of enjoying "dirty antisemitic cartoons"[15] and so on.[16] Mbz1 has a long history of calling people she disagrees with antisemites. // Liftarn (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Liftarn, I want to make a few observations concerning your comment above:

1. Mbz1's criticism is directed primarily at the Latuff cartoons, and her view of Latuff is support by sources that are WP:RS and WP:V.
2. Your "Mbz1's biased view of some cartoons" [17] seems more WP:PA Mbz1's "dirty antisemitic cartoons", because she is (essentially) accusing you of bad taste in art work and you are accusing her of "bias". In this context, you are accusing her of hate [18].
3. I have noticed that you introduced this diff [19] by way of accusation against Mbz1. I want to make two observations about your doing that

1. Her saying "liftran is the user, who flooded Commons with highly offensive anti-Semitic cartoon,some of which glorify violence against Israel, and with the help of others, he does not allow to put them to the category Antisemitic pictures, or category Propoganda" is a fairly accurate description of your editing regarding Latuff cartoons, although it is true that she spins that in a way that I can understand that you do not like. Nevertheless her statement is factually correct.
2. By using this diff you introduced Latuff into this discussion. You will forgive me, I hope, if I say that since you know quite well what Mbz1's inevitable reaction to Latuff is, doing that could be considered (heaven forbid) baiting a user.

Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually what she is accusing me of is to spread antisemitic propaganda. I find that very offensive. And utterly incorrect as well. As for Mbz1's viewpoints it was actually you that suggested that her experiences during WW2 made her overreact. And you may note that I never mentioned Latuff. It was Mbz1 who brought it up in an effort to slander me (and now you are doing the same[20]). // Liftarn (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Where is the slander? I think it is safe to infer from your editing involving that Latuff cartoons that you do, in fact, like them. Some of those cartoons do seem rather antisemitic. Why do you think that I, or Mbz1, are obligated to agree with your more sunny view of those cartoons? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

She said "liftran is the user, who flooded Commons with highly offensive anti-Semitic cartoon,some of which glorify violence against Israel, and with the help of others, he does not allow to put them to the category Antisemitic pictures, or category Propoganda". That is factually a correct description. You may disagree that Latuff is antisemitic, but there are sources that are WP:RS and WP:V that support her view of Latuff. The fact that Latuff himself has denied the accusation proved that there are enough serious sources for that to deserve his reply. Why do you think that your feelings (of being offended) should automatically result in Mbz1 getting a block? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that is a gross personal attack and highly incorrect. a) several other users have uploaded cartoons Mbz1 don't like b) they are not antisemitic by any reasonable standard, c) they are not propaganda by as Commons define the term. That Mbz1 accuses me of promoting antisemitism is a clear personal attack. // Liftarn (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. Her description is a fairly accurate depiction of your editing. If you find a correct description unpleasant, that means you need to change your own behavior. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, then you are performing personal attack by proxy. I have uploaded some editorial cartoons that comment on the Israel-Palestine conflict. The rest is just baseless slander. // Liftarn (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Its a personal attack to say to did what you did? Really? In fact, you did more than upload the cartoon images. You also fought to prevent the antisemitism category on the cartoons, arguing that they are not antisemitic. But categories or just a search convince. It implies only that the issue exists, not that it is true. Latuff himself has discussed in the Forward interview [21] that he has been accused of being antisemitic. If the issue exists, the category only recognizes that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, even if I did it it would still be a personal attack. Now that I de facto did no such thing only makes it worse. I have uploaded some editorial cartoons, some people disliked having their political views criticized and launched a smear campaign. // Liftarn (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You uploaded the Latuff cartoons to Commons. A number of Commons users, including me, consider many those cartoons antisemitic and want category:antisemitism added to the files. You have worked hard to prevent that from happening. I think that your doing that is contrary to the goals of Commons, which is to make images easily available in the way people are likely to search for them. I think the results amounts to censorship of Commons. If you think my saying that is WP:PA you should start a new thread, and ask that I get blocked. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary. I could do it if that is what you want. Mbz1 seems to enjoy getting blocked. Are you like that as well? I see that you stated you will not cease the abuse just because you are blocked.[22] // Liftarn (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

liftran, I do not like to be blocked, but I like to laugh over those ridiculous (to say the least) block rationals I am blocked for.

I am not sure you are capable to understand what I am about to say next, but I will give it a try.

you uploaded that anti-Semitic, the Holocaust denial hate by latuff. Why did you do it, liftran? Did you do it to offend Jews? I hope no. Then it is reasonable to assume you did it to help Palestinian struggle, right? But how hate could help. Palestinians and Arabs, who'll look at that cartoon will hate Israel even more than they already do. The more they hate Israel the more will be their wish to retaliate, the more will be their wish to retaliate the more of them will join terrorist groups, the more of them will join terrorists groups the more there will be attacks on civilians in Israel,the more there will be attacks on civilians in Israel the more Israel will be forced to retaliate, the more Israel will retaliate the more innocent Palestinians will die because terrorists are using them as human shields, the more innocent Palestinians will die because terrorists are using them as human shields the more Palestinians will hate Israel, and so another ring of the hate will be added to the chain of the hate. The hate cannot help peace, the hate could produce only more hate. Do you want peace in Middle East, liftran, or you see your purpose in the world as spreading the hate? Or maybe you want to create even more useful idiots and terror sympathizers (as w:Charles Krauthammer called them) between the far left loons? I want peace, and here are few recent articles I wrote in my quest to help this peace to happen: w:The Holocaust's Arab Heroes w:Ali Bushnaq, Dudu Yifrah and Micha Yaniv;w:Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib;w:The Mountain of Israeli-Palestinian Friendship; What want you, liftran? --Mbz1 (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

@liftran --Mbz1 (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC) , That has nothing to do with this discussion. That edit, in fact, says virtually the inverse of what you claim it says; and, moreover, my thinking has changed somewhat since then. I do think that accusing me of "abuse" without any support is very problematic. Your edit impresses me as coming very close to WP:TROLL; and your saying "Mbz1 seems to enjoy getting blocked" probably actually is WP:BAIT, not to mention cruel. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

How do we determine racism?

How do we determine what is racist with respect to black people, to take an example? If we have white and black people at a discussion and come to an impasse, with the white people saying that these cartoons are simply innocent cartoons and the black people saying they are racist, whom do we go with? What if there is an RS that says they are racist? Do we reject the RS because it was, say, w:Ebony (magazine) ? Please carry the analogy out. 172.190.110.79 01:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

We can't take any one reliable source at its word. If there were a serious contention about whether those cartoons were racist or not, then we wouldn't categorize them under racism. We'd categorize them under black caricatures. That's what being neutral means; we aren't trying to push some belief that doesn't have consensus.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

OK here is another one. Cartoon symbols of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Guardian. 172.190.110.79 04:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No number of sources makes consensus. Virtually all reasonable sources makes consensus. As long as there are reliable sources that burning an Israeli flag is not anti-Semitism, then we shouldn't be labeling them as such.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 came with a great idea comparing cartoons by latuff to those by nazy . I've done some research and please compare that "Pumping blood by nazy to that one by latuff or that "nailed down" by Nazi to that one by latuff or "The Polyp." A Jew has his tentacles around England, Russia, the United States, and China. by nazi to this one by latuff. At least now it is clear where latuff takes his inspiration from. Kooritza (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It'd help to be able to see the pictures to compare ... axp_de^Hello! 07:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! You have taken a public stand against Hitler over the Internet! How very brave of you!

That' selection bias carried out to the extreme. What about File:Nonazis2.gif, File:Nonazis.gif, File:Nonazis3.gif, File:Skinhead.gif, File:Forgiveness.jpg, File:Forgiveness2.jpg, File:Forgiveness 3.jpg, File:Forgiveness 4.jpg, File:Forgiveness 5.jpg, File:Forgiveness 6.jpg, File:Forgiveness 7.jpg, is that consistant with Nazism? Latuff uses pattern inspired from Nazi propaganda, but so do Laibach, Welle: Erdball and The White Stripes; are they Nazis? Do File:Welle Erdball-Scan-090107-0079.jpg, File:Welle Erdball-Scan-090107-0049.jpg or File:Welle Erdball-Scan-090107-0051.jpg make me a Nazi?

Latuff does have a knack to infuriate some people. That makes his cartoons intrinsically a disturbance here, and people should be discouraged from uploading those that are not significant. I have repeatedly tried to have that point come across to people like Kuiper; I have even blocked Kuiper once for provoking Mbz1 by uploading on of these, where did that lead? Kuiper being unblocked, of course.

Now, we have a freak show of people casting utterly unproven accusations of antisemitism, which is a grave and serious accusation, and also akin to a Godwin Point. We have people referring to events of 60 years ago to justify unacceptable behaviour here and now -- hey, during the Middle Ages, people from Mbz1's country invaded my country in the most immaginably brutal and vicious ways, does that give me a right to pollute Commons with vitriolic nonsense? We have Mbz1 announcing her programme for long-term disturbance on Commons and nobody blinks, should I unblock Kuiper on second thoughts because using Comons as a battleground is acceptable?

"Meeting my constituents? It's like being Simon Cowell but without the ability to say "'Fuck off, you're mental'." (Simon Foster, In the Loop)

Rama (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Stating (your belief) that an image is antisemitic does not necessarily imply the creator is an antisemite. The "contentious" images here are, at minimum, anti-Israeli, we cannot infer that Latuff is against the state of Israel (the forgiveness cartoons give the same contradictory message there, as they do with respect to antisemitism). You or I could easily draw an antisemitic image, or stage a photograph invoking classic antisemitic themes - it doesn't mean we are antisemitic either.

This means saying "image X is antisemitic" is not an accusation of antisemitism against a person (so there is no potential libel issue).

For that matter accusing another user of "liking dirty antisemitic cartoons" is not an accusation of antisemitism either. It is a personal attack sure, but you can "like" contentious imagery without agreeing with it.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The problem is that "image X is antisemitic" is a serious and grave accusation and has a great potential to create disturbance; it should not be uttered without proof.

Think of what you're doing here: if we tolerate the label "antisemitism" for anything and everything, how will you stop people from adding "Category:Crusader" or "Category:War Crimes" to images of US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan? (or anything that will have wake you up when you dislike it, since you seem incapable to think ahead of your personal opinions)

Somebody might want to consider the right of normal users, who do not suffer from obsessive manias and political compulsions, to work in calm and peace. Commons was not supposed to be a loony farm.

Now, excuse me while I go back upload antisemitic images [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] and pornographic [28], incestuous [29] and explicit child sexual [30] content. Rama (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, "image X is antisemitic" is a statement of personal belief (and may be wrong) but it is not an accusation by itself. An accusation requires a person to be accused, you cannot accuse a mere object of anything! If the image depicts a person (or even a legal person), then saying "the image is antisemitic" can be construed as an accusation of antisemitism against the subject. However, the bare statement "X is antisemitic" it says nothing at all about the creator - which with these cartoons is the only real person who could conceivably be accused by it. (The uploader is completely irrelvant.)

With respect to the crusader, war crimes etc, the images you suggest show real people, so eg saying "the image is of war crimes" is saying "this solider is a war criminal".

Oh and Commons take on NPOV is different to that of other projects. The question about categorisation is more - are these images useful to for Wikimedia projects depict antisemitism?--Nilfanion (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What if the Iraq War is inherently a war crime? I mean, since opposition to Israel is inherently antisemitic, why not? Or are you suggesting that we start removing "Category:antisemitism" from images like File:Israel - stop the Bombing of Gaza - Takver.jpg because you can identify people (I'd support)? But then again, why would we allow people to make speculations and displays of personal political opinions on the description of files where you do not see Humans? Rama (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"The question about categorisation is more - are these images useful to for Wikimedia projects depict antisemitism?" WHAT ? That's the most shocking thing I've heard in a long time! You want to put categories on images if they are useful to depict a concept, irrespective of whether it's true or not? Rama (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The point is it is not a serious and grave accusation stating that an image is antisemitic. The mere statement does not any potential legal ramifications (who is being libelled?), so an instant block for saying so is not justified. Mbz1 is entitled to her opinion that these images are antisemitic, and she should be able to say so on-wiki without being punished.

On the other hand, categorisation (and the text of the descriptions) should follow consensus (of course). If consensus is these files are antisemitic they should be categorised as such (even if we do not "proof" of it). If consensus is that they are not, or there is no consensus, then no such categorisation should be applied.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 is entitled to her opinion that these images are antisemitic, and she should keep that opinion for herself. She was blocked for insulting a fellow user, and for her provocative and vindicative behaviour. She is perfectly aware that this is creating drama, and I see absolutely no reason to reward her gaming of the system. Rama (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree the personal attack on Liftarn was unacceptable and justifies the block. My comment is in reaction to your point 2 here: The mere statement that an image is antisemitic on-wiki is acceptable in general, especially if it relates to a possible categorisation of that image in Category:Antisemitism.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And I was not talking about "an image (...) in general", but about "these cartoons". Because it is not seriously established that they are antisemitic (there are indeed many indication of the contrary), and because this particular statement in this particular context is a well-known oil on a fire, I stand by my judgement that labelling them antisemitic is and remains a blockable offence. Trolls do not directly violate the policies of the project, they use acceptable actions in a pattern that constitutes disruption and provocation. I am no more willing to tolerate that from Mbz1 than from Kuiper, or from anybody else. Rama (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If we have a category of antisemitic that these images (cartoons) may fit under, and the discussion concerns whether or not they should be so characterized in order to categorize them, then anyone expressing the opinion that the cartoons are antisemitic is expressing a valid opinion, very bit as acceptable as saying that they are not. 172.190.216.193 14:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism

 Question The real issue here is actually more abstract, and possibly needs to be treated in a different manner than arguing about a individual file each time a contentious image is uploaded. Rather, the question is should Category:Anti-Zionism (or a new subcategory relating to modern anti-Zionism) be categorised in Category:Antisemitism?

The whole concept of New antisemitism - if you agree with it - is that anti-Israeli views are invariably antisemitic, and therefore the two cannot be separated (which justifies the categorisation I suggest). Clearly this is a contentious area, but lets find how to address the whole rather than individual elements and doing so will give us much better guidance for future issues. In one sense, irrespective of whether you believe "new antisemitism" is real or not, that categorisation is useful, as you can utilise both the antisemitism and antizionism categories to find images relating to the modern concept.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Nilfanion, criticism of Israel is not necessarily antisemitism, and (in fact) every Zionist I know has criticisms of Israel. If we were to equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, it would follow that all Zionists are antisemitic, which is absurd. Guidelines for distinguishing the two do exist, for instance this [31]. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you (note I haven't expressed my personal opinion here at all - and I'm genuinely not sure where I would draw the line). However, it would be useful if we can work out how we should do this on Commons. Should we use that definition, or one of any other number of definitions? Lets try and get some idea as to when anti-Zionist imagery becomes antisemitic too - in the abstract - then we can use it to inform debate on specific images as opposed to rehashing the same debate a million times in different places.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The definition distinguishing them that I linked to is from a source that is WP:RS. If others involved in this discussion have other definitions from other WP:RS sources, this is a good time to make suggestions. A lot of time has been wasted in these arguments, which arise frequently, and if there were workable guidelines it would be a wonderful improvement. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that I find both "Critics who habitually single out Israel for condemnation while ignoring far worse actions by other countries (especially other Middle Eastern countries) are anti-Semitic" and "Likening Israel to Nazi Germany, or to traditional anti-Jewish stereotypical behavior is another sure sign of Jew-baiting" extremely debatable (to be polite). As for the quote by Luther King, it basically negates the very purpose of the page, which I find very confusing. Rama (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Rama, please you explain you objections, rather than just state them. Personally I found the first, "Consider the source. Is the speaker someone with a history of anti-Jewish attitudes?", most problematic because even a known antisemitic source might on occasion state a valid criticism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Israel often makes a point of being the only democracy in the region. This is a valid point, at least to some extent, but it is incompatible with "Critics who habitually single out Israel for condemnation while ignoring far worse actions by other countries (especially other Middle Eastern countries)". Israel cannot both claim moral superiority over, say, Hezbollah, and then complain that it is criticised on the standards of a modern, democratic State, rather than those fit for a two-bit terrorist organisation.

Comparing anything to Nazi Germany is usually stupid and clumsy (that's the core of the Godwin point); when the thing in question happens to be Israel, it's also spectacularly bad taste. But Antisemitic? Why would a comparison with the Nazis be any more or less antisemitic than with the Huns? And that becomes especially troubling when there are perfectly valid parallels to make -- for instance in the practice of collective punishment. Rama (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Equating Israel's treatment of Palestinians with Nazi treatment of Jews is antisemitism because it amounts to a form of Holocaust denial. To quote the lead sentence in the WP article about Holocaust denial: "Holocaust denial consists of claims that the genocide of Jews during World War II—usually referred to as the Holocaust[1]—did not occur at all, or that it did not happen in the manner or to the extent historically recognized. (emphasis added by me, for clarity.) No matter how bad you may think the treatment of Palestinians by Israel, equating them amounts to a denial of the mass murder of Jews that occurred in the Holocaust. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What I think is none of your business, but there is a gaping hole in your logic. Nazism has become a reference for bad policies, and comparisons with Nazism are a common (all to common...) way to indicate outrage. This is only possible because the horrors of Nazism are recognised as such. Therefore, using Nazism as a hyperbole is the exact opposite to Holocaust denial. Rama (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently what you think is not any of your own business either. However, someday you might want to find out. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

rama, when you said "We have Mbz1 announcing her programme for long-term disturbance on Commons and nobody blinks," you were lying, that is no wonder, the people as you are often do. Mattbuck proposed to topic ban me, and I was the first and the only one so far to support it. Last night I even asked Mattbuck to write a formal proposal. So instead of demonstrating your ignorance over and over again while talking about the subjects you've no idea about, instead of demonstrating your bias, better write the proposal, rama, topic ban me officially, and let's be done with that. And please stop lying, grow up, man! On a side note those comparison cartoon that I brought up last night was not biased at all. The thing is that some latuff cartoons are so dirty and so anti-semetic I'd rather not to link to those that I could not find something to compare them to even between nazi cartoons.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did find your support of your own topic ban quite sporty, and I almost posted a congratulation before remembering that I have already seen you do that sort of things before (and here we are again, though); so I though I'd wait and see. And then there was this, which colours the whole thing quite differently. I read that as a manifesto for compulsive trolling. Rama (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I admit you are absolutely right saying that you "have already seen you do that sort of things before" This is the truth, and I have nothing to say in my defense. I did promise many times to stay off the topic, and every time I was not able to keep my promise. Otherwise you may think about my "sporty support" as you wish, it really does not matter, and I will not bother to explain my motives to you because I doubt you will understand the emotional,and the moral part of this. But here's the technical part: If I am topic-banned officially, and I am in violation of it, you, rama, or any other admin have all the rights in the world to block me, and nobody could simply overturn the block. rama, believe me or not, but I really wish to be officially topic banned for the sake of the people, who I respect, for the sake of Commons, and for my own sake too. So, if proposal is written I am asking everybody please support it, and I do mean it.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, whatever else I think about that page, the burnt flag(-thing) that started this discussion doesn't fall under these guidelines; (a) we don't know the source, (b) we don't know the source, (c) it didn't "liken Israel to Nazi Germany, or to traditional anti-Jewish stereotypical behavior", and (d) we don't know the source, and we don't know if it was motivated by objection to the existence of Israel, or extreme frustration with its policies.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The source of the image is https://www.flickr.com/photos/12061610@N08/3186762649 and there it has the description "palestina askatu! 007" ("Freedom for Palestine! 007") and as far as I can tell from the other photos in the stream it seems to be taken at a protest against Israel. Perhaps after the latest Gaza attack. That would indicate it is the nation it refers to. // Liftarn (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said previously, the burnt Israeli flag contains no rational criticism of Israeli policy, but is just an irrational expression of hate. It is antisemitic. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A burning flag isn't designed to be a rational criticism of policy. It's designed to communicate a short message: that here is a protest against the nation of the flag, that we're pissed off, that we want to be heard. Like a newspaper header, once you've got the attention, then the real message can follow.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It is an expression of irrational hate. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It is an expression of strong dislike yes. But anyhow it is directed at a nation, not an ethnicity so it's a moot point. For instance I went to an Oi Poloi gig and they burned the Union Jack on stage, not because they hate all Brits, but as a symbol of Scottish independence. // Liftarn (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Quotes

Some quotes from others about racism. I have taken the liberty of emboldening a few key words. This from the Irish: "To understand racism we need to recognise that one of its main functions is the generalisation of human characteristics of a certain group. In fact, cultural differences tend to be generalised in the same way as the traditional biological racial hierarchies, for example the tendency to behave in a certain way or live according to certain moral values." [32]

An article from FAIR: "In speaking of the language of Islamophobia antisemitism, it would be a very simple matter to give examples over the last two weeks of the abuse of that power, what William Dalrymple castigates in a recent article in The Independent as the "ludicrously unbalanced, inaccurate and one-sided" images of Islam Jews perpetrated by what he calls the "scribes of the new racism" even in our quality broadsheets. This is not, of course, a new phenomenon. In 1997 The Runnymede Report had described Islamophobia antisemitism as marked by "brazen hostility, bordering on contempt, for the most cherished principles of Islamic Jewish life and thought, reaching an apoplexy of hate in the modern Western media who represent Islam Jewish nation as intolerant of diversity, monolithic and war-mongering.” As Dalrymple says, "such prejudices against Muslims Jews" and the spread of idiotic stereotypes of Muslim Jewish behaviour and beliefs - have been developing at a frightening rate in the last decade”

This defamatory list is a very obvious manifestations of what Francis Bacon, one of the founders of Western empiricism and modern science , called the "Idols of the Mind", those crippling conditioned beliefs and prejudices which prevent us from learning by critical enquiry, observation and experience, and those who perpetrate them would do well to return to some of the hallowed principles of objectivity which supposedly underpin Western civilisation." [33]172.190.216.193 12:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. I pledge to close this discussion at this place, please choose a more appropriate place like Commons:Forum. Regards axp_de^Hello! 10:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

InChristAloneWeLive (talk · contribs)

I just happened to come across the few contributions of this user at en-wp (vandalism only) and his two uploads at Commons: File:Kkk-robe-l.jpg and File:Burning-cross.jpg. I've already attached a {{Copyvio}} tag to the first file as I found it here. However, I was unable to find an original of the burning cross. There are number of duplicates of it spread over various blogs but they are all younger than the upload from 18 October 2008. Perhaps the original page providing it went offline in the meantime. Given all the circumstances, I would suggest to delete it as well but would appreciate to hear other comments first. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I would certainly agree with deletion here. Valid licensing looks quite unlikely to me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Herby, I've deleted the other upload as well. The main motivation for uploading it appeared to be this vandalism at en-wp. I wonder whether we should keep such vandalizing throw-away-accounts unblocked. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no reason not to block other than the fact there is no activity. May well be better blocked or even better locked on Meta? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyvios and sockpuppets of Wenoby/Whenoby

• Wenoby (talk · contribs)
• Whenoby (talk · contribs)

Due to a {{Copyvio}} tag I came today across the contributions of Wenoby and had reasons to believe that all uploaded photographs by Wenoby are copyvios. Further research showed that Wenoby was mainly active at Commons but his images were timely inserted by Whenoby on es-wp. For example, File:Parque Japones.jpg and File:Monumento en honor a Mistral.jpg were uploaded on 12 February 2010 by Wenoby and just a few minutes later inserted at es-wp by Whenoby. (Note that checkuser could be in this case just executed cross-wiki and I think that this case is obvious enough without opening a checkuser case.) Note that Whenoby was banned at en-wp for continued misuse of the fair use rationale and socket puppetry. I think that we should clean up the copyvio mess and close at least one of the two accounts at Commons, perhaps preferably Wenoby such that Whenoby is enforced to use globally the same account. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

From a CU perspective one has not edited recently enough to get any data however I would consider these obvious and, if disruptive, blockable as such.

Looking at the DR (good work!) I would say that the licensing must be highly questionable and that the images should be deleted and the user blocked. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Docu

Hi. I'd like to report the above user who inappropriately reverted my edits without consensus, twice. In the first revert on July 24th, he undid a small portion which was later restored. Then, after disappearing from the discussion for a week, he returned today by directly reverting the entire bulk of work I did; with a ridiculous "restore per talk" edit summary, when clearly no consensus was ever reached. Please see this discussion for the original details. You may notice that the discussion is not that of a controversial topic, rather the user, without knowing the real facts, wants to stick to his own preferable format of categorization. Also, please do note that this user did not abuse his administrative privileges. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 11:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact, he is not an administrator. I removed the word "administrator". Best regards. – Kwj2772 (msg) 11:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I thought he was :). Thanks for fixing. Best regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In the mean time, could someone request a bot to move all files in Category:Grande Dixence to Category:Grande Dixence Dam? And either delete Grande Dixence or redirect it to Grande Dixence Dam? I could place the request, but I am not that familiar in doing that; sticking to the safe side for now. ;). Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 14:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Djsasso

I have had an incident with User:Djsasso. I was in a debate on the Talk:Ottawa Senators‎ page including Djsasso. After I was quite aggressively confronted on the page by a Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey group or "mafia"/"gang" as they call it of users who seem to aggressively gang up any user who seems to want to make changes to articles in their "jurisdiction". My issue is with his current 24 hour block of myself. While in the somewhat heated debate I seemed to not be on the side of consensus of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey members. I was advise to "give up" and have been exhausted by the groups aggressive tactics I had. Not long after that I was taunted by a user on my talk page regarding not gaining consensus. Unfortunately I lost control and replied childishly on the other users talk page for which I am regretful. Djsasso who was involved with the whole debate which led up to the exchange of unpleasantness blocked me. An admin who was involved should never block, it is completely inappropriate. He should have gotten another admin to look into it. He justified the conflict of interest by saying because it was on a talk page it was ok. Apparently, although I can not confirm it, this has happened before with this specific admin.

1) An admin should never block another user stemming from an argument which he/she themselves were at one time involved in. 2) An admin should not block on behalf of their friends or fellow members of a specific wikiproject.

This admins behavior is very inappropriate and should be looked into and be disciplined appropriately. UrbanNerd (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Djsasso is not an admin at Wikimedia Commons. Perhaps you meant to post this at the English Wikipedia? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake. UrbanNerd (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Glove d'or

All of this user's uploads are low resolution close-ups of Arsenal football players. He claims they are all his own work and has released them under a Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 licence. I find it unlikely that they were created by the uploader -- they seem to have been copied from the internet.

• File:Manuel-almunia.jpg [34]
• File:Eastmond 239.jpg [35]
• File:Szczesny wojciech 400.jpg [36]
• File:LaurentKoscielny 1089952a.jpg [37]
• File:Carlos-vela.jpg [38]

BarretBonden (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• At a quick look, they each look a bit larger than their ostensible Internet sources. That could mean they were taken from the Web and slightly blown up, with a small attendant loss of quality, or it could mean that the uploader is really the photographer and the versions used on these various sites are not quite the same as the ones given to us. Someone with a better eye than I should take a good look. Clearly, if these are legitimate, they are the work of someone we should want as a participant. The style is certainly consistent enough to be one photographer. - Jmabel ! talk 01:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

i just did th right click save as test, on the first image its exactly the same size 415x275 IMHO its a clear cv, Gnangarra 01:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Found another two copyvios:

• File:Bruno alves porto.jpg: the file, the site
• File:Yevgeni Starikov.jpg the file, the site

I just checked the files above, four of them were identical, one was slightly downsized. I deleted all seven files as copyright violations and warned the user on his talk page. Regards axp_de^Hello! 07:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Bakrbinaziz copying content from a website

Bakrbinaziz (talk · contribs) has copied multiple images from the website of an educational institution [39]. For example, File:Pic-1b.jpg has been copied from http://www.aljameahpatiya.com/gallery/Pic-1b.jpg . He has added false PD license tags to all these images. --Ragib (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore the quality of several of his uploads is very poor! axp_de^Hello! 19:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

On further investigation, it seems that all of his photos on commons are actually copied from the low-res photos of http://www.aljameahpatiya.com/gallery/ --Ragib (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

After Pic1-b.jpg was deleted, Bakr has again uploaded it here with a fake license. --Ragib (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And he has continued to upload more photos, under different file names, from the same website. An example is File:JamiahIslamiahPatiya.JPG, which is a new copy of Pic1-b.jpg linked above. --Ragib (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've nuked all of his uploads and blocked for three days. --O (谈 • висчвын) 23:12, 18 August 2010 (GMT)

Unfortunately, Bakrbinaziz is back under a new user name, Special:Contributions/Smart_User. Please see his uploads, for example File:ProdhanToron.jpg, which is the same copyvio image taken from the organization's website. --Ragib (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet, Confirmed via Checkuser. I also found 3 possible (but unlikely) "sleeper" accounts. I can not bookmark on the PC i use today, so I wrote it in the checkuser log [40]. --Martin H. (talk)

Can someone please remove the photos in question? These are copyvio images, taken from the source I had linked above, and various other related websites. --Ragib (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done, if no one else does. --Martin H. (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Bakr uploaded another file from that same website; I deleted that. I've blocked him for three months based on the continued copyvio uploading and the sockpuppet findings here. --O (谈 • висчвын) 22:54, 23 August 2010 (GMT)

Note for Admins on Picasa Review

Moved to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Note for Admins on Picasa Review – Kwj2772 (msg) 13:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

User:KoOltaseen

User:KoOltaseen blanked his talk page, moved it many times, I'm guessing in some sort of attempted shell game, and then User:116.71.50.54 helpfully nominated all these files for deletion, with no summary on KoOltaseen that gives any indication that it used to be a talk page. I think someone needs to move KoOltaseen back to User talk:KoOltaseen and do something about the whole mess.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. --Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 09:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Hendo1270

Would someone be able to cast an eye over User:Hendo1270's image uploads? I've already flagged a couple as copyvios (one was speedied last week) but I can't confirm anything about the others (i.e. I suspect they're copyvios but can't prove it). I've done some TinEye (etc.) searches, but all have been fruitless. It seems that although the photos are all of local places related to a Wikipedia article he's been working on (w:Henderson, Kentucky). They may, of course, be the editor's own photos to upload and PD release, but they're all quite different styles and at least one was on a Flickr profile licensed as CC-by-NC. Cheers, Mattgirling (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead and nuke them. File:Judicial.jpg and duplicate File:J.jpg (go ahead and prevent uploads under that name while you're at it) come from https://www.flickr.com/photos/auvet/2771933389/. File:EllisTrack.jpg comes from http://www.hendersonky.org/photos.html. File:Audubon Museum.jpg comes from http://attractions.uptake.com/national_state_parks/kentucky/henderson/john_james_audubon_state_park_8023339.html. Not to mention that cameras used range from a Nikon E4300 (yet another blurry sunset) to a Nikon Nikon D1X (impeccably sharp trackside horse racing action shot). —LX (talk, contribs) 17:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Nuked six copyviolations, several more to go ... Special:Contributions/Hendo1270 axp_de^Hello! 18:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I pegged a few more, not sure on the remaining ones. Powers (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Still four left, would appreciate other admins' eyes on 'em. Powers (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I want to expire my acount

Hallo administrator,

I will like to move my page and ALL my information from wikipedia commons and wikipedia germany becouse my children and actually boyfriend does not like and professionally could give me troubles. But I don not know how to expire totally my acount:veridiana. I just want to be free. Becouse any one that resource my name find also my erotic fotos and I do not want that any more.

Thanks for your understanding

— Preceding unsigned comment added by veridiana (talk • contribs)

I don't think we can exactly do that - we are required to keep your account and stuff for licence reasons. We could probably rename the account, and maybe delete your photos if you start a deletion request. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

User could start by removing her real name from her user page, emptying her user category, etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the user page. I'm not too sure if I should move the file to Images by Veridiana and deleting the name cat. Bidgee (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

After looking at the images in question I think they can safely be deleted as they don't really seem to be within scope. // Liftarn (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Docu

(added back unsolved issue from Archive 15)

Hi. I'd like to report the above user who inappropriately reverted my edits without consensus, twice. In the first revert on July 24th, he undid a small portion which was later restored. Then, after disappearing from the discussion for a week, he returned today by directly reverting the entire bulk of work I did; with a ridiculous "restore per talk" edit summary, when clearly no consensus was ever reached. Please see this discussion for the original details. You may notice that the discussion is not that of a controversial topic, rather the user, without knowing the real facts, wants to stick to his own preferable format of categorization. Also, please do note that this user did not abuse his administrative privileges. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 11:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact, he is not an administrator. I removed the word "administrator". Best regards. – Kwj2772 (msg) 11:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I thought he was :). Thanks for fixing. Best regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In the mean time, could someone request a bot to move all files in Category:Grande Dixence to Category:Grande Dixence Dam? And either delete Grande Dixence or redirect it to Grande Dixence Dam? I could place the request, but I am not that familiar in doing that; sticking to the safe side for now. ;). Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 14:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

 Comment I think this made it to the archive because there is no strong cause for administrative intervention. This is a normal editing dispute, and should be solved by discussion, or perhaps by getting more opinions. The talk page is a conversation between only two of you, so obviously there is no consensus either way. Since you are the innovator, it is up to you to build a new consensus. Reverting to the original version is the default position. --99of9 (talk) 04:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I don't understand. I tried talking to him/her, but s/he doesn't seem to understand. So do you mean that I should forcefully undo what s/he did? Btw, it went into archive because the section wasn't edited for over 10 days. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 06:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered the possibility that it is you who does not understand him? No, you should not forcefully undo it - you were the one who started changing the page, therefore you are the one who needs to find consensus for your changes, or remain reverted. One of you needs to convince the other, or find more participants with an opinion on this issue. Either way, neither of you have done anything wrong as far as I can tell, so there's no need for administrative action. That may be why no admins edited the section for 10 days. 99of9 (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my misunderstanding. I will try to see if I can get third-party comments on the issue. Please keep this thread open until automatically archived again, for reference. Thank you for your time. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 13:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have found the right place where I should have started this discussion. Sorry for posting in the wrong place. ;) Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 13:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Jebulon

User:Jebulon is using my name provocatively in QI evaluation process. See: Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list#August_25.2C_2010 Nomination The forest of columns in the hypostyle hall of the mosque of Cordoba. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No offence, but just calm down a bit and try to get along with each other. This is a minor spat between the two of you, it need be nothing more unless you make it such. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, will all the frustrations that a declined QI can bring, it is first and foremost a way to correct a defect on the photograph, or at least a hint about something to avoid in the future. You can use QIs to promote an image that you think happens to have turned out nicely, but you can also decide to promote a particular image and use the input from QI reviews to improve it until it passes. In this way, everybody wins, and I find that this perspective on the process makes it less bitter to read negative reviews. Rama (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok tnx. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The assault is now removed by an admin. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list&diff=prev&oldid=43167242 Link for future reference. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It didn't seem useful to have the two of you arguing in a space that's an inch wide. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well done. I just added for reference. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Please change the way you are discussing about persons

General remark: Please change the way most of you are discussing about persons on this noticeboard. --Havang(nl) (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

 Support. --Túrelio (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

User:ŠJů and Category:United States Navy images by location respectively Category:Kochi and Category:Mumbai

Hi, User ŠJů has been contacted on August 26 and 26, 2010, referring to Category:United States Navy images by location respectively the two locations Category:Images from US Navy, location COCHIN, India and Category:Images from US Navy, location Mumbai, India.

I tried to explain to User:ŠJů, that nearly all other Category:United States Navy images by location categories are not categorized in addition by the cities the US Navy pix have been taken – User:ŠJů categorized only 'Kochi' and 'Mumbai' in that way and undid four times re-caterization. Imho it's not necessary to categorize in addition by the cities the US Navy pix have been taken — because (related to Category:Images from US Navy, location COCHIN, India and Category:Images from US Navy, location Mumbai, India, p.e. Category:Culture of Mumbai) those images already have been categorized city-related before (so needfull).

To explain what i intend to avoid in categorisation: On July 24, 2010, p.e. the Goa-related Category:Images from US Navy, location Goa, India has been moved to the "Goa main category" – and i suppose those 'temporarly' Category:United States Navy images by location categories will be moved again for the same reason – and the images had to be re-categorized once again, i.e. i itend to avoid useless categorisation and "senseless" work (once again).

As communicated on August 26/27 to User:ŠJů, Mumbai (and Goa) related images already have been categorized (p.e. Category:Culture of Mumbai), and Kochi-related future pix will be categorized (if needfull), as i already did before (p.e. some of the Category:Goa-related U.S. Navy images in Category:People of Goa.

Honestly, i do not think that User:ŠJů understood what i was trying to explain (my English is limited and i dot not speak Česky), that's why i tried to explain in other words/terms, but the re-categorisations of that (only) two categories were undone, again – imho a minor problem, but i user-talked to User:ŠJů on August 27, to search for assistance, if he's undoing the categorisation again, to avoid an 'edit-war'. Thank you for checking and mediation, with my best regards, 84.75.160.122 04:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

84.75.160.122 forgot to bring together my arguments from the previous discussion. The full disscussion is here. The fact that most of US Navy categories are quite insufficiently categorized and many others images are categorized in red categories of US Navy (category pages don't exist yet) don't mean that we should abandon basic principles of categorization. No doubt that location Kochi is directly related to Kochi and location Mumbai is directly related to Mumbai (as far as there don't exist suitable subcategories, the main city categories are used). If subcategories of US Navy are defined by location, then naturally should by also categorized by location. It results from basic principles of categorization. As long as such category exists, it should be in adequate way categorized by all criteria which define it. Other categories "by location" should by also categorized by location, and the red categories of US Navy should be created and categorized. Nothing difficult to understand or discussion. The fact that some of included images are included in other subcategories of Mumbai or Kochi don't mean that the whole categories US Navy by location shouldn't be normally categorized. --ŠJů (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Login Problem

Hi there. I am trying to login to Wikimedia Commons to upload some new pictures I have made. I already used Wikimedia Commons in 2009 with the account name ArcCan but it seems I hadn't logged in with an email account. Meanwhile I don't remember the password so I can't log in. As I already use the account name ArcCan in the German Wikipedia I would prefer to use the same name in Commons. Is an administrator able to fix the problem? ArcCan 85.180.200.176 13:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ws227 (talk · contribs)

Can someone check this user's contributions? They've removed {{Copyvio}} tags from several images tagged by LX (see talk page), which resulted in them being kept despite obvious issues. Thanks. –Tryphon^☂ 11:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Please also have a look at File:Chinese tea ceremony2.jpg and File:Chinese tea ceremony3.JPG (and their history). The first revision should be deleted in any case, but I'm not sure whether we should trust the authorship information of the newer revisions or not. –Tryphon^☂ 12:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm tempted to delete most his uploads as he doesn't seem to understand licensing at all or hasn't made any indication he understands the messages we are leaving him. The "own work" is probably just his attempt to avoid the license issues. However, he did get File:Okinawa 020a.jpg right so maybe he's learning. Rocket000 (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he seems to be trying to fix things sometimes, but his complete lack of communication makes it hard to understand his process. The flickr image looks fine, but all the images tagged by LX need to be deleted I'm afraid. As for the "own work" issue, unless an admin decides to delete them right away, I'll probably open a DR to try and get some clarification. –Tryphon^☂ 12:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Samihmessi

Could an administrator please have a look at the contributions of User:Samihmessi as they appear to be uploading copyrighted images (in some cases over the top of existing free images). Sorry if this is the wrong venue. Camw (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to a few people who have helped fix the issue. Camw (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done - copyvios deleted, user blocked for 3 days. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Mbz1 : topic ban on Israel-Palestine

User:Mbz1 is subject to occasional outbursts of trolling on the Israelo-Palestinian conflict. She recognised herself that she does not intend to cease that behaviour ([41] for instance). I am trying to hammer common sense into her by issuing blocks for her provocations, but they are regularly reverted by other admins.

• Seeing that Mbz1 will continue her occasional provocations on a very sensitive subject
• Seeing that normal policing is insufficient
• Seeing that Mbz1 is otherwise a valued contributor and that letting "Mbz1 have the rope he needs to hang himself" [42] would result in losing a good photographer
• Seeing that her nice photographs of sunset will eventually cease to offset her disruptive and provocative behaviour

I request that a "topic ban" be applied on Mbz1, as she herself suggest to be the only mean to stop her [43], forbidding her to come near issues pertaining to the Israelo-Palestinian conflict. Rama (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose The only real problem with Mbz1 are her personal attacks. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, the personal attacks only occurs when Mbz1 is involved in discussions on a very narrow subject. According to Malcolm Schosha it may be due to some wartime trauma so a topic ban may actually be helpful as the behaviour is uncontrolled. // Liftarn (talk)
    • Drama yes, but war trauma no - Mbz1 is not old enough for that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose What is the point of such a topic ban? To calm down those few who raise their voices against the use of Commons as a soapbox for an anti-Israel bias (1, 2, 3)? If we host controversial material per COM:NPOV we need an open discussion about this to see how much of this is within COM:SCOPE (do we need every cartoon of a barely notable cartoonist just because he is anti-semitic?) and how we appropriately deal with it (categories, use on user pages). In an international project as Commons we need in these sensible areas tactfulness, not force. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  The point is to calm down those who use Commons as a soapbox for any type of bias. You seriously think that adding more inflamatory content will help? You think that it cancels out? I wish we could just take Mbz1 and Kuiper to a Large Troll Collider and have them cancel out each other in a flash of energy, but saddly this works only in particle physics. In politics extremists of opposing polarities reinforce each others, support each other, and concur to making life miserable for normal people. Rama (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  Hi Rama, if you think that I have suggested that “adding more inflamatory content will help”, you have seriously misunderstood my comment. In case of File:End the unjust Jewish occupation of Arab land.jpg I suggest to let the DR run its course but not to block the uploader. Again, this requires tactfulness, not brute force. And I think that your comment that we should “have them cancel out each other in a flash of energy” is highly inappropriate. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  Well I find it highly inappropriate that a large majority of hard-working, no-problem users be taken hostages by two apparently opposing but in practice concurring tiny groups. I want to see these groups disapear -- all of them. I believe that it's an administrator's job to protect the project against this sort of nuisances.

  I also believe that it's our job to redeem problematic users, as much as possible, rather than encourage them in their disruptive behaviour until they have to be banned. Kuiper is probably beyond helping now, and Mbz1 not yet quite; I resent tervigersations and unblocks as harmful to both the projet and the concerned parties themselves. When Kuiper is ultimately banned, and if Mbz1 is, some of the fault will rest on those who failed to take firm and decisive action when it was still time. Rama (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  Rama is trolling, his blocks "to hammer in sense" are abuse of his buttons, he should be desysopped, see above at COM:ANU#Desysop of Rama. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  Kuiper, no one is going to take anything you say regarding de-adminship seriously thanks to your reputation - especially since you were only unblocked 24hrs ago. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Support I've previously been active in trying to deal with Mbz1 but I've been less active on Commons recently and inevitably less involved in the Mbz1 situation. However, I've returned to find File:End the unjust Jewish occupation of Arab land.jpg, yet another image uploaded by Mbz1 which is more about protesting than improving our collection of images. Whatever your personal opinions here, uploading such images is disruptive and not appropriate. As I've said, that certainly isn't the first similarly questionable image she has uploaded relating to this topic. Rama is of course right to suggest that Mbz1 is an otherwise valued contributor but that doesn't exempt her from the basic principle of not disrupting Commons. Mbz1, like anyone else, is entitled to her own opinions but she mustn't be allowed to disrupt Commons to express them or protest about things she doesn't like. Adambro (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If under "collection of our images" you meant garbage by latuff, of course it cannot be improved. It could be only put to trash, where it belongs to.I am "protesting" you say. Am I really? Then maybe you have something to say about that user page?--Mbz1 (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Support - I suggested this a while back but never followed up on making it official. I applaud Rama for doing what I was frankly too lazy/optimistic to do. Mbz1 takes some beautiful photos - she has many QIs and FPs to her name - and to lose her skills in this area would be a true shame. However, good works cannot justify disruption - please see such blocks as Pieter Kuiper, Ottava Rima, Mutter Erde, Eric Warmelink, etc, all who did stirling work mostly, but whose attitude meant the community could no longer tolerate them. Mbz1 has appeared here multiple times - User problems archives 7, 8 (twice), 9, 11, again, and again, 14 and the Blocks and Protections archive 4. And that's just from the first page of searching for "Mbz1 Commons:Administrators' noticeboard", and then only topics which were more-or-less dedicated to her behaviour. And it's always the same thing - edit wars, harassment and the like over Israeli/Palestine conflict images. Many, many blocks for intimidating behaviour and harassment. A topic ban is truly the last resort - she has stated in the past that unless she is topic banned, this will keep happening. Let us grant this last attempt to keep Mbz1 as a productive member of the community, rather than adding her to the list of mostly-positive long-time contributors we've blocked because their attitude just meant we had to waste time putting out the latest brush-fire they'd caused, rather than being ourselves productive. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose - What I would rather see is a ban on Rama acting administratively against Mbz1. His behavior towards her is starting to have the appearance of administrative trolling. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Same as Malcolm above me. Mbz1 is a good contributor in this area. Kooritza (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  It will end up with Mbz1 just being completely blocked if we don't do this. It may not happen today, tomorrow, this week or even this year, but it is pretty much inevitable if thngs stay as they are. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  Mattbuck, having an administrator (such as you) make a threat (such as your threat above) is an ugly thing to see. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  It wasn't intended as a threat - I meant it along the lines of that if you insist on standing on the tracks, sooner or later a train will hit you. It's a prediction based on past experience. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  @Rama, remember your proposal? You've never been able to deliver on it in full. I assure you, if you were able to deliver on the first part of your proposal, I would not have complained about my blocks by you, but you have not. In such situation blocking me is unfair, dishonest and trolling. I would also advise you to watch your language. You are getting increasingly impolite and uncivil. Having said all of that I  Support my topic ban as promised. @mattbuck, I have done nothing to get blocked for. (I mean my 4 last blocks by rama. )--Mbz1 (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  I have blocked Kuiper for uploading an image by Latuff. That the blocking was reverted is not my fault. I am not responsible for the failings of the administrative corps in general. And I am not ruining my sanity trying to do things that are not in my power. But you are very welcome to militate for me to be given some sort of über-admin status where I can block trolls and summarily delete provocative content without being questionned and pestered all the time. Rama (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  Rama, you were not even able to deliver on that "The Israel/Palestine conflict will not be solved by comparing people with Nazis. That is true at the UN and it is ever more true on Commons. Thus, I will block anybody making irrelevant allusions to the Second World War or Nazis" . It is what latuff is doing, comparing Israelis to Nazis using in the process Nazi propaganda technique. I am not a troll, rama, you are. I do not care about kuiper or any other user to get blocked, I simply care about removing garbage from Commons, or at the very least putting it to the right categories.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  Latuff does not contribute on Commons. I therefore cannot block him. Sigh. Rama (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  Well, I asked you once on English wikipedia to act according to Wikipedia policies, and to remove an offensive, trolling cartoon from a user page. Did you? Nope, you've never even bothered to respond.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  My proposal pertains to Commons. Not to Wikipedia. Even on Commons, I do not have the means to implement it. Furthermore, I am not your bitch. Rama (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  Rama, you should remember that English is my second language, and I do not understand most idioms. For example, what does " I am not your bitch" means? Does it mean that you agree you are a bitch, but do not agree you are mine bitch?Pleaseexplain.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  It is Rama acting WP:DICK. This gratuitous nastiness supports the request, that I made previously, that other administrators act and desysop Rama. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  I have to agree that Rama's comment here was out of line, but not deadminworthy. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  Right, to clarify: Mbz1 apparently alludes to [44], a request that she made on Wikipedia en:. She requests that I implement a proposal I made on Commons onto en:, which has completely different rules and where there have been lengthly arbitrations regarding the Israelo-Palestinian conflict; she is in fact demanding that I, as an en: admin, do her bidding in a conflict where she is personally involved, with which I am not familiar; I would have had to read an enormous amount of material and overcome consideral disgust to understand the issue; this request triggered a lengthly exchange on my talk page, which was an inconvenience for some time. That request from Mbz1's was

  • as to WP/Commons policies: at best uneducated and naive, at worst plain trolling
  • as to taking a one-sided part in a personal conflict: insulting my integrity, and treating me like a servant
  • as to attempting to drag me into her petty conflicts and using my talk page as a battlefield: extremely rude.

  In this perspective, I decided to entirely ignore that request. I believe doing so was the most polite and considerate thing I could possibly do, much more than detailing exactly what good I though of her request.

  I have devoted considerable energies in trying to repress all forms of extremism on Commons, and I find it completely unacceptable, and no small irritation, to be accused of dishonesty or cowardness for refusing to be drafted into Mbz1 ubiquitous, neverending petty conflicts, after being treated in this fashion and displaying such restaint. Rama (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  Rama, I do not recall blaming you in "cowardness", but of course, if you like to add that to your qualifications, please be my guest. You are incontinent, rude, and, yes, dishonest administrator. Anybody, who will hit the link from En.Wikipedia you provided, will see that I asked you to act not because of your proposal on Commons, which I've never linked to, but in accordance with a few Wikipedia policies. Now, let's take a look at my so called "extremism". The file I uploaded, and you blocked me for, was nominated for deletion for more than 24 hours, and so far there were 4 delete voted (I do not count IP). The same situation is with the request to topic ban me. All your blocks on me were lifted as soon as I asked them to be lifted. Does it say something to you, rama? About you being a servant. Of course you are a servant in a good meaning of the word. It is written at your own user page "Feel free to ask me for help should the need arise." --Mbz1 (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• The issue was not Mbz1's request. The issue is your gratuitous nastiness in dealing with those you disagree with, and which I characterized as being WP:DICK. If a user requests something that you think not appropriate, all that is needed is to decline (although adding a short explanation would be nice). For an administrator to respond a user request with the attitude that 'I'm not your bitch' just does not seem to be what users are hoping for fro an administrator. I see this whole thread as just your acting out against Mbz1. You should be desysoped. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  Well, to me, Mbz1's request is an issue. It entails that Mbz1's personal conflits persue me across projects; that I am being ordered around like a servant; that I am requested to perform one-sided actions that I cannot in good conscience carry out; that I have to suffer prolonged inconvenience out of her actions; that my restraint and quiet endurance is entirely disregarded; and that, for all my troubles, I get insulted.

  As for denying requests, what do you think that administrators should do in the face of clearly hostile and unrealistic demands? You repeated demands that I be desysoped, for instance (and speaking of acting out...), or the very numerous requests of Mbz1's? There is a point where discussion becomes futile, and there is such a recommendation as "don't feed the troll". Now, you'll excuse me, but I have several projects about Commons that require my attention and where my efforts will not be wasted. Rama (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  Rama wrote "my restraint and quiet endurance is entirely disregarded; and that, for all my troubles, I get insulted". Rama, perhaps you forget that, while you were involved in a content dispute with Mbz1, you blocked her. (My recollection is that your block was reversed.) That does not really sound like "restraint and quiet endurance" to me. It sounds like irascibility and an inability to tolerate contradiction. I understand that this discussion, including my request that you be desysoped, is not pleasant, but your treatment of Mbz1 (including this thread) could not be pleasant for her either. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  I have never been in a content dispute with Mbz1. Besides, the mere though of content dispute on Commons is disturbing, and well worthy of the likes of you two. Rama (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• NB: Rama wrote: "...worthy of the likes of you two". Rama has made the accusation of meatpuppet more that once, implying that there is a meatpuppet relationship between me and Mbz1. I have asked on every occasion that has come to my notice that Rama either supply evidence or withdraw the insulting accusation. But he has not done either. What he has done is repeat the accusation without evidence . I think if a non-administrative user engaged in this sort of disruptive behavior there would be a warning. The kind of behavior the Rama continues to engage in is arrogant and disruptive. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Rama, I uploaded the image that was made out of 8 highly educational, great EV, public domain images. I did not violate any policy. To block me for two weeks for uploading this image is something extraordinary, something unheard of. You really should apologize for that trolling, harassing block.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  8 images, a misleading map and an inflamatory text; if we can't block you for this time, how will we block somebody for uploading a photograph of gas chambers with "they had it coming" over it, for instance? Blocking you for two weeks after one-day, three-day and one-week blocks failed to stop your provocative behaviour was entirely appropriate, and I lament the fact that you never serve the full term of your blocks, something that obviously encourages your disruptions and will probably give you the same ultimate fate than Kuiper. I'll apologise when "next time you get one month" is an apology. Rama (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  "a misleading map and an inflamatory text"? No, nothing like that. In what why the map is " misleading"? Did I change the borders somewhere? If I really uploaded "a misleading map and an inflamatory text" , I would have been the first one to ask to block me because as I said before my only judge is fairness, and I always admit, if I've done something wrong. I have done nothing wrong by uploading this highly educational, great EV image. --Mbz1 (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  Misleading in that Arab countries are not united, and that Turkey is not an Arab country. Plain factually wrong in that the West bank and Gaza are occupied by Israel. Shall I reinstate your block? Rama (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Arab countries are not united, which has nothing to do with Israel of course, but I will not argue with you about that. It is a wrong place for such an argument. About Arab land. here's what Robert Kennedy wrote in 1948: "The die has long since been cast; the fight will take place. The Jews with their backs to the sea, fighting for their very homes, with 101 percent morale, will accept no compromise. On the other hand, the Arabs say: "We shall bring Moslem brigades from Pakistan, we shall lead a religious crusade for all loyal followers of Mohammed, we shall crush forever the invader. Whether it takes three months, three years, or 30, we will carry on the fight. Palestine will be Arab. We shall accept no compromise". Gaza is not occupied by Israel. Israelis left Gaza a few years ago, and in return got only rockets. I left West Bank the way it was shown at the original map. Turkey is not an Arab country, but did you notice by any chance there are not shown quite a few Arab countries at the image I uploaded. If the image is to stay, or maybe even tonight, I will redo it, to take off Turkey, and to show other Arab countries instead. rama, I cannot see you suffering so much because I got unblocked. I feel no anger towards you, I rather feel sorry for you. So, if it makes you feel better, please do reinstate my block. I mean it. I will not request unblock.Turkey is removed now.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment - I would like to make it clear here that Mbz1, the user in question,  Supports her topic ban. Why is there even discussion? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Mattbuck, in any court of low in any democracy, the admission of the guilt by an accused is not consider to be an evidence, and I do not even admit I am guilty in anything. I've done absolutely nothing wrong! Please let that historical vote to go on, and to finish up. My supporting of my topic ban is nothing more than a cowardly act by me. I want to be able to tell myself later on:"You have done everything you could to prevent another Holocaust" --Mbz1 (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! You have taken a public stand against Hitler over the Internet! How very brave of you!

Rama (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a sidenote, but that template is awesome. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There has been another Holocaust: it was called the Rwandan Genocide. I suspect there will continue to be genocides as long there is humanity, sadly enough. What I don't find likely is that the citizens of an autonomous nuclear power are collectively under any real immediate risk other than from their own state.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, rama, I am sure, if back in 1928 going forward to nineteen forties everybody were putting just a very small needle in the bat of hitler, the Second World War would have never happened. It happened because most people choose to keep silent.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

They didn't choose to keep silent; they stressed about the persecutions of their own groups, just like you're doing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Support When she raised an issue about a Latuff image on Kuiper's talk page and Kuiper added a thumbnail, Mbz1 went so far as to have the Office remove that image. If you can't handle someone adding a thumbnail of an image to a discussion of an image, you should be working in a different area of Commons from those images.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Support It seems that sometimes Mbz1 genuinely can't control herself and can use some help. Rocket000 (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  NB:Rocket000's comment is not a comment to support a vote, but is a personal attack. Rocket000 should be made to strike this comment. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

  I disagree - I don't think admitting that someone has a problem working in a certain area constructively is an attack, otherwise we may as well remove this noticeboard as it's all personal attacks. Calling someone a copyright violator? Personal attack. Calling someone a vandal? Personal attack. Calling someone disruptive? Personal attack. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

  @Malcolm, I do not consider Rocket000's comment to be a personal attack. Yes, I cannot control myself, if it is how he likes to call it, when I see Wikimedia Commons getting flooded with Neo-Nazi propaganda that is not even added in the right categories. As I've said before, if more people "could not have controled" themselves, when Nazi propaganda first started to appear in Germany, hitler would have never taken power.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment I see serious problems with Mbz1 when he writes about Israel or Jews. --Dezidor (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You do? Really? Maybe you could even provide some differences? Hey, rama, you forgot to include "Jews" in my topic ban. The user believes I have "serious problems" when I write about Jews. I'm enjoying the comments and voting. Please do keep them coming.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment I think this discussion won't accomplish anything. Can we close it now? It's getting old and boring, it has wanted to dye out but comments come in at intervals. Mbz1 didn't raise any objections, plenty of supports, she should be banned from the topic or at least have this closed. No need for her to collect comments to enjoy herself if she won't take further considerations. ZooFari 21:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

  There was no consensus to topic ban me for anything (5 supports including my own versus 4 opposes), and probably there will not be consensus to topic ban me any time soon. So of course I should not be topic banned. Having said so, I of course like the thread to be closed, and archived, the sooner the better. It takes too much space, and going nowhere. Besides it will save some users from making laughable comments. --Mbz1 (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that Mbz1 once again uses personal attacks (including threats as well)[45] // Liftarn (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Your actions were provocative, Liftarn, and (as raised on EnWiki) stand somewhat in contradistinction to your concern about living people that you raise on . -- Avi (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually not. I have not added any category like Category:Extremists. i simply added an image and added descriptions to them. // Liftarn (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Liftarn's actions were provocative, but I can't imagine any reasonable person sending him a message that says "Stop Vandalizing! You vandalized Alan Dershowitz by adding to it hateful anti-Semitic garbage. Please stop. If you'll do it again you will be blocked from editing." I don't see how anyone would think that would help the issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Liftarn, I have too much respect for your intelligence to believe that you have forgotten the political hot-potato that image caused on the commons over the past year, and that you thought your actions were completely appropriate in the eyes of all commons project members :) -- Avi (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence, yes. Memory, no. I suspected it might anger the pro-censorship crowd, but let's face it, they go balistic over nothing. // Liftarn (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Info Five days since this proposal was posted, it is clear that it is not going to get a consensus. I asked rama to archive it.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment The more I look at rama's blocking me for calling the things with their real names, the more I understand how he was harassing me with all those blocks. I just found by accident this edit by Jimbo, in which he wrote about latuff hateful cartoon: "The point is, this is a classic symbol from Nazi iconography. In this context, it is clearly antisemitic in intent and meaning", and by writing that "violated" few points of rama's infamous proposal. Once again it is about time to archive this thread and apologize to me for the unfair, trolling blocks. Give it up, rama, you proposal did not work!--Mbz1 (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There are better arguments than saying the person who attempted to purge Commons of educational material because Fox News was criticising him, making the problem go from a report by Fox News' scandalmongering to international story, and (thank God!) losing all power on here.

1. Is the cartoon anti-Semitic? It's clearly anti-Israel, but anti-Semitic is not certain; if Latuff genuinely feels that Israel's actions against the Palestinians is genocide, it could simply be a cheap, easily-identifiable reference. A discussion on the cheapening of analogies to Hitler in the last decade - you may have seen the Obama-with-a-Hitler-moustache randomness last American election - would also be needed.
2. Ignoring that question, is documenting racism, sexism, and other such things within Commons' scope? Yes - indeed, I'd argue that sometimes, attempting to use a gentler, subtler image can serve to hide the ugly truth of the matter. Some things need to be used to shock people, to make them question their justifications for subtler forms of the prejudice or actions.

Hence, I think the Latuff should stay, but also should only be used for articles or sections of articles specifically about such controversies. Our purpose is not to provide propoganda for one side or the other, hence the limited use, but nor should we neglect to discuss ugly subjects just because they're ugly: Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

However, should such images be used to attack other users, as Pieter did to Mbz, the attack should be deleted, and the attacker blocked. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Closure

I think this is time to close this one. It has been going on for some time and it seems that it is hard to limit this debate to Mbz.

We can close this either way because there is good arguments to topic ban and good arguments not to do so. I agree with Rama on the first arguments given. I have no doubt that Mbz risk getting banned if she does not manage to stay out of these conflicts. That would be a shame. However I doubt that a topic ban will solve all problems - it may even cause new problems. What if we make a topic ban and Mbz then makes a good and relevant comment on the topic? Should we then block her for that?

I think we should let Mbz decide in this special case. If she thinks a topic ban is the best she can simply stay away from the topic. If she thinks she can manage "to behave" then I think she should be allowed to make good contributions on this topic.

However, I think we should send a warning that if Mbz chooses to work within this topic in the future she will get blocked longer and longer if she does not avoid personal attacks, probaganda and whatever might be inappropiate.

Last I would like to add that I find more of Ramas comments in this debate for inappropiate and out of order. Not rude enough for a desysop but I really think that Rama should stay away from Mbz for some time and if a block of Mbz should be needed Rama should not be the one to do so. --MGA73 (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment I believe it is important to underline that my last 4 blocks by rama were unfair and should have never been made in the first place. I believe those blocks should be over-sighted, or taken off my block record. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point and I agree that if a block is not correct then it would look better in the block log if the block was removed. However, we do not do that nomally and I do not think that we should. If a block is followed by an unblock then that should be taken into account when evaluating "the status" of the user. Besides most users think that it is unfair that they have been blocked so I'm sure you would not be the only one that would request a cleanup in block log if we started to do so.

So I hope that you will focus on good edits and after some months without blocks then old blocks should really not matter. --MGA73 (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

have always been focusing on good edits. It is a great unknown, if one could go a few months without blocks, if a petty tyrant administrator with a silly agenda is out there to get you. Not only all my blocks by rama were unjustified, but so was kuiper's block that was lifted by adambro just a few minutes after it was posted. Anyway... MGA73, could you please archive the thread? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Normally we have a bot to archive threads 10 days after the last edit in that thread. --MGA73 (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In other words, it's your fault the thread isn't archiving :p -mattbuck (Talk) 17:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment As the victim of several of Mbz1's attacks I just wanted to add that for me the important thing is that Mbz1 stop with the verbal abuse. How exactly that is done is irrelevant, but I agree that it would be a loss to Commons to lose Mbz1 as she has contributed many good photos. // Liftarn (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Rama

Several time, on this noticeboard, Rama has made the accusation that there is a meatpuppet relationship between me and Mbz1. These are two instances of his accusations, but there are others

1. [46], where he says, speaking of me and Mbz1 "...ad hoc complains from the very offenders and their meat puppets..."
2. [47] Where he says, again about me and Mbz1, "I have never been in a content dispute with Mbz1. Besides, the mere though of content dispute on Commons is disturbing, and well worthy of the likes of you two", essentially repeating the accusation in an oblique way. (By the way, his claim - in this diff - that he never had a content dispute with Mbz1 is untrue.)

I have requested several times that Rama either supply evidence to support his accusation of meatpuppets, or apologize for making false accusations, as I did here [48]. He has done neither. Instead he has continued to make unsupported accusations. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, a few days ago I asked to explain to me what "I am not your bitch" means. Nobody did. Today my son came, and I asked him what it means. My son said: "Where did you learn such language?" So, I told him that a Commons admin told me this. My son asked: "Did you complain about that?" I said:"No, why, is it really so bad?", and he said: "Yes, it is bad." Of course rama behaves as a spoiled child not as an admin. First he writes a silly proposal that cannot be implemented; then exactly as a spoiled child, who cannot play with his broken toy, he unfairly blocks me time and time again to prove that yes, he could; then he hectors everybody, who disagrees with him, and then he comes up with conspiracy theories about meatpuppeting. Why in the world me and Malcolm need to have meatpuppet relationship? Isn't that enough just to watch each other talk pages and AN/U? But, Malcolm, I believe we should forgive rama. He has proven already that he cannot think clearly for whatever reason. Hopefully eventually he will get better, improve his behavior, realize his mistakes, and become a fair administrator. As I mentioned above I feel no anger towards rama, I do feel sorry for him.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"I am not your bitch" basically means that he (Rama) is not at your service, and is not obligated to do something just because you ask him to (he's not your dog in fact, a bitch being a female dog). So I don't see how you could conceivably take this as an insult to you. He never said you were a bitch. –Tryphon^☂ 22:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not know Rama is a woman. I thought they are a man. Anyway I did not take it as insult although Muttbuck wrote: ":I have to agree that Rama's comment here was out of line". As I said I did not know what it means, and my son, who was born in USA and knows the slang, was really upset, when I showed him the comment. In any case I have absolutely no problems with rama for that particular episode, and I propose to archive this post.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Bitch", when used in this context, can apply to a man or a woman, but usually to men. In the U.S., it's a pretty common phrase. Rocket000 (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

user:Everything179

note that the user:Everything179 has been blocked in a sockpuppet investigation at english Wikipedia. The previous accounts were blocked due to the history of uploading copyright images and claiming personal creation (as well as other disruptive editing). uploads from this account are suspect as well. Active Banana (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

 Blocked - Tiptoety ^talk 18:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Uploads are photos of Toni Gonzaga, Regine Velasquez... This combination sounds familiar to me. Category:Sockpuppets of Ilove214 maybe. --Martin H. (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Mass deletions

User:Fernrohr has nominated a few hundred images for deletion in the last few days.[49] Many of these nominations are based on "no FOP in Russia." However, he's applying modern Russian laws to national works (even monuments) designed and built during Soviet times. If I had to guess, someone deleted one of his images (rightly or wrongly) and now he's getting all pointy on us. It would be helpful if someone with CCCP experience would look into this. Rklawton (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it is not "a few hundred images", and your suspicion is wrong. I requested deletion of some copyrighted architecturial work. --Fernrohr (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You've nominated more than one hundred images in the last few weeks so far. Rklawton (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rklawton. Nomination by User:Fernrohr is wrong -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Rklawton. Jacopo Werther (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rklawton. All nominations by User:Fernrohr should be dismissed. He is also trying to remove all sexually related photos from Commons.--Avala (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No, she is not trying. --Fernrohr (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What about trying to get OTRS permission. I'm afraid that According to COM:FOP:Russia it have to delete but I prefer that we try to made a common efforts to ask permission using OTRS Process. I already started to made a page to coordinate requests of wikipedians for Zurab Tsereteli's sculptors her, when the purpose is to involve other wikipedians in the request. And Fernrohr, whan you have mass deletion cases it better to concentrate them to one page (and redirect from the others in that case because different DR's already opened) like her. Geagea (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you delete the contents of Category:Sameba Cathedral, Tbilisi first? --Ghirlandajo (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, you completely misunderstanding me. I prefer trying to get OTRS permission. And for you notification of "Sameba Cathedral", yes, the photos of Sameba have to pass through OTRS prosses as well. Geagea (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Fernrohr usually points to the Russian section of COM:FOP which only mentions Article 1276 of the Russian Civil Code. Statements in previous debates accordingly were "Dura lex, sed lex" (the law is harsh but it is the law, so we must delete). But I'd like to mention that there is also Article 1274 in the Civil Code which permits free use of copyrighted work in the case of news reporting and for educational purposes. One of my images shows the Moscow White House in 1992. Both in 1991 and in 1993 this building was a focus point of Russian history and in my view all existing White House images on Commons simply document this site due to its historical importance, i.e. in accordance with Art. 1274. - For other images a "de minimis" approach is indicated, for instance, if a photo just shows some pillars of a subway station which constitute only a fraction of the intellectual property of the station as a whole. - Applying Art. 1274 and the "de minimis" reasoning to the deletion requests would leave only a minority which may be legitimate. --Iotatau (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

A thoughtful remark. To be clarified, whether article 1274, titled "newscasts, scientific, educational or cultural use", includes the commercial use which is part of a CC-license as used on Commons. Example: use of a photo in advertising, this would rarely be news, scientific, educational or cultural. --Fernrohr (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It is my view that government works created for or by the CCCP are no longer copyrighted (if they ever were) - thereby rendering Russia's Article 1274 irrelevant. However, what I'd really appreciate is 1) evidence that each particular image violates CCCP's copyright laws and 2) that the work (building, etc) was ever copyrighted in the first place. The reality is that Fernrohr hasn't got a clue the copyright status of each building, monument, etc. and doesn't know CCCP's copyright laws and has nominated 140 images for deletion solely to be disruptive. Rklawton (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

For the application of Russian law on Soviet works, you see some comments here, and here. Your assumptions about reality are wrong. --Fernrohr (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Fernrohr is right in general. The "fair use"-like provisions from article 1274 are utterly irrelevant; we don't allow fair use images, and a permission for "news reporting or educational purposes" was never good enough here. Modern Russian copyright law (since 1993) has re-copyrighted things on which an old Soviet copyright had already expired, and also put under copyright things that were never copyrighted in the Soviet Union. This includes buildings. And Russia (and the other successor nations of the USSR) does not have FOP. Lupo 07:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree and we had similar deletions in the past (recent example: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Russia-Moscow-Moscow State University.jpg). However, I would ask Fernrohr not to open myriads of individual deletion requests but to bundle them (instructions are here). I appreciate that Fernrohr researched the architects and their life spans. If possible, I would like to see references added (a pointer to a Wikipedia article or an URL is fine). It would be great, if the DRs could be grouped by architect or by the year these pictures get free such that we can sort the closed DRs into this hierarchy. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Russia's Wikimedia chapter is currently making efforts in lobbying a change in the russian copyright law which shall get the full FOP. A mass deletion of thousands of images is fatal. What if Russia really will have FOP in a couple of years? In commons, it is impossible to registrate which images have been already deleted, as well as to find and restore all of them in deletion logs. Most of the deleted images will remain deleted; among them maybe very valued, with motives which are not simply repeatable. I think, there should be no deletions of russian images which currently violate the Article 1276 as long as the russian copyright law is not yet stable enough. Please give them a couple of years - it is anyway impossible to delete ALL relevant images which have been uploaded on commons since 2004; there are also a lot of unclear cases where we do not know who is the architect, when he died etc. --S^[1] 07:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I see and understand the problem. However, we are at Commons bound to require unrestricted freedom for our uploads. (Other projects than Commons are free to make exceptions, though.) In principle, it is possible to put closed deletion requests into appropriate subcategories of Category:Undeletion requests. We can open another subcategory for Russian FOP cases such that we can easily restore the deleted photographs once the Russian FOP legislation would grant the freedom we require. As far as I can see (but I have not seen all), Fernrohr identified the architect in the DRs. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As an architectural historian I may add that almost every medieval building in Russia has been restored during the last 50 years or so, sometimes getting a supposedly authentic form that was never properly documented. Does it means that we have to delete *all* images with Russian buildings on them? --Ghirlandajo (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No, a restoration that faithfully aims to stay close to the original state does not create a new copyright. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In the case of buildings built for the CCCP - who owns the copyright? Surely they didn't have private ownership of intellectual property - it would have belonged to the State. As a result, even under the new law, some of the older buildings (Lenin's Mausoleum, for example) would have had an expired copyright (70 years from "publication" in the case of copyrights owned by an organization - as opposed to 70 years post death for a privately held copyright). Rklawton (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And, while we abbreviate this issue down to "FoP" - where's the evidence that in Russia a photograph of a building violates its design's copyright? It's not like Russian law says "we have no freedom of panorama" as explicitly claimed by Fernrohr. Never mind what other countries say on the matter, what does Russia say about photos of buildings specifically? After all, these aren't photographs of blueprints or photographs of photographs or paintings. The photographs comprise only a small portion of the overall work, and in Russia may not comprise a copyright violation at all. In short, how are Russian court's interpreting this issue? Without this information, we have no basis for deleting these images. Rklawton (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This moves now out of the focus of this board. If you think that COM:FOP#Russia does not reflect the current law in Russia or if the text needs to be augmented, then please suggest this at the associated talk page. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This is insane, Fernrohr is still at it - nominating File:Komsomolskaya Square.JPG for deletion in spite of this ongoing, unresolved discussion. This user is clearly acting in bad faith - it has already been pointed out by others above that the appropriate approach is to discuss these images as a group. Rklawton (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rklawton, I think that the refered to nomination will end with a kept as this seems to be indeed a case of de minimis. However, Fernrohr is already grouping deletion requests as for example in Commons:Deletion requests/Alexey Dushkin. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I will vote for giving time to ask for OTRS from the artist (or the rights holder). Maybe I misunderstood above. My intention in [[this is to ask for OTRS permission from Zurab Tsereteli together with other wikipedians. It can be done also with Alexey Dushkins descendants. Geagea (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have grouped my further nominations by architect ([50], [51] and [52]). It is not feasible to change legislation in Russia in accordance with Wikipedia's desires, or to identify, locate and pay out all descendants, in order to get OTRS approval, within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, the illegal material should be deleted. --Fernrohr (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is "illegal" here. As previously noted by other users, you are just having a revenge because one of the images you uploaded got deleted. I can't locate the source of your other drive, to erase sexual images from Wikipedia, I guess they are "impure", like these images are "illegal".--Avala (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Forget it. I cannot remember that any of my few uploads were deleted. --Fernrohr (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

 Comment Fernrohr is 100% right in this case. Unless permission can be obtained, all the photographs of copyrighted architecture in Russia must be deleted. Dura Lex, sed Lex indeed. Kameraad Pjotr 12:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleting virtually every single image of a building or statue built during the entire modern history of Russia is patently ludicrous. If this goes through, we'll be wiping out some of the most important visual representations of the Soviet Union throughout just about all of its existence. This goes beyond legitimate fears of copyright violation. And regardless of what Fernrohr's actual motivations are, this amounts to an unbelievably destructive act of bureaucratic legalism.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The deletions have already started - and Fernrohr's piecemeal nominations continue - in spite of the obvious need to discuss these en masse. This user clearly needs to be blocked. Rklawton (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that 3 of your photos are concerned. --Fernrohr (talk) 06:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope you realize this has to do with far bigger issues than individuals complaining about having their own contributions deleted.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There is an interesting well-founded CU case at de-wp which assumes that Allesmüller (talk · contribs) is linked with Fernrohr (talk · contribs) and some other accounts (of these just Bachforelle (talk · contribs) was slightly active at Commons). As far as I have seen, there is just one encounter between Allesmüller and Fernrohr at Commons. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Fernrohr is still nominating images for deletion en masse in spite of the fact that we've got tens of thousands of images of Russian panoramas - and the proposal we discuss these these images as a matter of policy (above) rather than piecemeal - and in spite of her attempt to evade further by promising to retire. She's been blocked in Germany - it's seriously time to block her here, too. Rklawton (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that 3 of your photos are concerned. As I stated, there will be no more nominations from my side. --Fernrohr (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't care about that. I care about undoing the damage you perpetrated against Commons. Rklawton (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion requests are not a user problem. If they haven't been deleted, you can argue on the DR; if they have, you can take it to Undeletion Requests. So far, I see no notice on the Village Pump or the talk page of COM:L about this, which is where you need to go if you want to argue against the Russian FOP rules being applied in the same way everyone else's (particularly French) FOP laws are applied.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The user problem is that the user was making mass requests in a piecemeal fashion and continued after several editors warned her not to. As far as where to bring up the FOP stuff, if you could start the thread and provide a link, then we can all see where it should be taking place. Rklawton (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• I am with Rklwaton on this one. Deletion spree started by Feernrohr is unacceptable and admonishing her is the least we should do. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 16:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

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

---

Contributions by Sinefecto235

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and licensing of all content uploaded by Special:Contributions/Sinefecto235. Most descriptions etc could be said to be patent nonsense, artwork without obvious educational use, possible self promotion and some content has been flagged as copyright violation.

--Waugh Bacon (talk) 03:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Waugh Bacon, thank you for pointing this out. As stated all the files from Sinefecto235 (talk · contribs) were uploaded with patent nonsense descriptions, false licensing tags and were out of scope. However and more important is that all of them were copyright violations. As such I have deleted all his uploads and I've gave him a warning advicing him not to continue that way.

The user has been also re-informed about our licensing policies and help desks for future reference.

Regards, --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 19:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Someonepaki (talk · contribs) and Someonepakistani (talk · contribs)

Hi, these two accounts (which are probably the same person) have uploaded many images claiming they're their own work. However, given the variety of (low) resolutions and the lack of EXIF on most of them, it seems rather unlikely. In fact, it seems they don't understand that images found on the internet are copyrighted, and that they cannot claim authorship on other people's creations ([53], [54]). Time for a mass removal (except the flickr ones, and maybe some others like File:1893 Map of Lahore.jpg)? –Tryphon^☂ 15:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed that the following are socks of indef-blocked spammer Bidbargains (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser):

• Rasif421 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Someonepakistani (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Someonepaki (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Saad.qur (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Facebookexe (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Sarmadagha (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Tknw01 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Adeel11221122 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Waqashacker (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

All the above are blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 15:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking! I was about to request a CU check, but thought the case was too obvious (in my mind, it was a case of a forgotten password since the first account stopped editing before the second one became active). I was wrong obviously. –Tryphon^☂ 15:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Old pictures are probably in the public domain (50 years after publication I think), but we have to find out at least the date. Yann (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The contributions of Someonepaki should be nuked, except maybe File:Punjab Exhibition building, 1864 (Tollinton Market).jpg which looks old enough (although there is no reliable source). –Tryphon^☂ 16:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Raivoso (talk · contribs)

User has recently uploaded numerous fair use images despite prior and more recent warnings. BrokenSphere (Talk) 19:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Files deleted and user blocked. Thank you. Rocket000 (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hoangquan_hientrang (talk · contribs)

He has uploaded several copyvios after warnings. Can someone stop him, just as a warning? Thanks. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 20:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I let him a message, quoting the introduction passage of the vietnamese licensing page, with a link to this page. --Dereckson (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Shopeasypro (talk · contribs)

User's contribs (image uploads and creation of user page) suggest an intent to promote a commercial website. Has done something similar on the Chinese Wikipedia as well. Global block of this username maybe? BrokenSphere (Talk) 04:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have  blocked the account and deleted their userpage and uploads. Tiptoety ^talk 04:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, Itxchas appears to be a sock (blocked). Tiptoety ^talk 04:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Shopeasy has been globally locked on meta, FWIW. -- Avi (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Rodejong

Out of the files that this user had uploaded on Commons, I think by now more than a dozen have been removed because those files were violating copyrights (see User talk:Rodejong and User:Rodejong/Archive). Yesterday File:Rbi-8-O Psalm.jpg was deleted with the removal-description 'Derivative of non-free content: in this case a book' [55] and today the File:NIJNTJE.JPG was removed because of 'Derivative of non-free content' but 4 minutes later Rodejong replaced it by another version which is also clearly a 'Derivative of non-free content' (see also the log [56]). This user has been informed why they were considered copyright violations and asked to stop adding new violations many times both here on Commons and on his home-wiki (e.g. see [57] and [58]). Despite of all the advice/warnings he keeps adding new violations like File:NIJNTJE.JPG less then an hour ago. I think by now it is better to block this user here on Commons to avoid more copyright violations and give a strong signal this behavior is not tolerated. - Robotje (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Here an overview of the already deleted files:

File	upload date	Reason for deleting	Deletion date
File:GB - Albert D. Schroeder (9).jpg	19 July 2010	Copyright violation	23 August 2010
File:Awake-Dutch.jpg	3 August 2010	Fair use is not allowed on Commons	9 August 2010
File:Rbi8-O NWT.jpg	3 August 2010	Media without a license as of 3 August 2010	28 August 2010
File:Convention-1953 Yankee-Stadium.jpg	4 August 2010	Copyright violation	23 August 2010
File:Rbi-8-O Psalm.jpg	4 August 2010	Derivative of non-free content: in this case a book	8 September 2010
File:Tilburgse-Kermis.jpg	6 August 2010	Copyright violation	23 August 2010
File:Jehovah's Witnesses Bethel Emmen.JPG	7 August 2010	Copyright violation	23 August 2010
File:Kooikerstraat.jpg	8 August 2010	[59] The picture has been taken by my camera. .. I'ts taken of a picture hanging on the wall there.	16 August 2010
File:Screenshot for debat.jpg	24 August 2010	Requested by uploader. No longer useful	4 September 2010
File:Heat patch02.jpg	2 September 2010	Copyright violation	8 September 2010
File:Tycho seal01.jpg	2 September 2010	Copyright violation	8 September 2010
File:HEAT 1X - TYCHO BRAHE - first attempt.jpg	5 September 2010	Derivative of non-free content	5 September 2010
File:NIJNTJE.JPG	5 September 2010	Derivative of non-free content	9 September 2010

For more files a deletion request is pending. - Robotje (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Kww 2

Martin H. usually deals with Chace Watson and his socks, but he hasn't responded. I've blocked Kww 2 (talk · contribs) as a sock of Chace Watson on English Wikipedia, and he's been pretty active here. He has created a fake user page for me here (which I would appreciate someone deleting), a fake userpage for User:Kww 2020, and his image uploads are always suspect. Kww (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Be sure, that user was bookmarked. I wasnt aware that he again impersonated some other users, he did this in the past already not only here but cross-wiki with copy&pasting other peoples userpages. He stops copyvios as far as I see, thats the good news. I will block him and delete the mess he created with pagemoving, extract from my watchlist:

• (diff | hist) . . ! User:Kww 2‎; 12:47 . . (+152) . . Kww 2 (talk | contribs | block) [rollback]
  
• (diff | hist) . . ! User:Kww 2020‎; 12:46 . . (-152) . . Kww 2 (talk | contribs | block) (←Blanked the page) [rollback]
  
• (diff | hist) . . ! User:Kww‎; 12:43 . . (-27) . . Nyc 89 (talk | contribs | block) (←Blanked the page) [rollback]
  
• (Move log); 12:42 . . Kww 2 (talk | contribs | block) moved User talk:Kww2020 to User talk:Kww 2 over redirect
  
• (Move log); 12:42 . . Kww 2 (talk | contribs | block) moved User:Kww2020 to User:Kww 2 over redirect
  
• (Move log); 12:41 . . Kww 2 (talk | contribs | block) moved User talk:Kww 2 to User talk:Kww2020 over redirect
  
• (Move log); 12:41 . . Kww 2 (talk | contribs | block) moved User:Kww 2 to User:Kww2020 over redirect
  
• (Move log); 12:40 . . Kww 2 (talk | contribs | block) moved User:Kww 2 to User:Kww over redirect
  

--Martin H. (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• You probably want to look at Nyc 89 as well.Kww (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Catched already. --Martin H. (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Nevit

Hello, I think that this Nevit makes QI reviews not entirely related with the criterias, either as a retaliaton for negative reviews of his images, or other obscure reasons. See among others: this image is not overexposed, and here. Asking for taxa here does not seem a fair review. Yann (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Criteria 2 clearly requires identification of living organisms. I'm afraid by your support to such a photo or certain users you are reviewing outside of criteria. You neither made a comment to unsigned change by Mbz1 which I think as an administrator, is one of your obligations. About the door photo there is no detail in highlight areas. You can say it is white paint, but by looking at the boundary of post box you see the box is almost blended in BG. Previously I asked you to be specific about the issues that bother you on my talk page, but you failed to reply. I'm afraid your stance makes declining certain photos that do not meet the criteria, more difficult, it has reached the threshold of bullying. If I do a mistake which certainly I may do, there is always a good chance that it can be neutralized by only one vote. There are a lot of bad photos passing QI because no one likes declining. That certainly makes the QI project as a whole questionable and inconsistent. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, on these two cases, everybody else think you are wrong. Do wonder... Whatever nonsense rant you write above doesn't change this simple fact. Yann (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please be civil so we can discuss. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

At best Nevit's approach is unhelpful frankly. I agree that there is some images in QI that are not to standard - it is one of the reason I ceased to be involved in that area (I fail to understand why some are even nominated) but that is another matter.

The approach of telling people what to do, how to do it etc is not a collaborative one and will lead to conflict sadly. Having something unsigned is not some hanging offence nor is there an obligation on admins to watch every edit to ensure it is correct. Nevit's approach is not helpful to his own cause sadly. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The only change I made was to change "decline" to "discuss" in my own nomination. There was no place to sign it, and I did not feel as commenting about the decline reason.It simply was funny that you asked for id of "organisms" (plural).In other words you wanted me to id the mouse that the hawk had in his talons. What one could possibly respond for such request? Of course the change I made to the nomination is not a big deal to complain about this here.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, you could easily sign by adding a comment and a short note like: I do not agree with review. Changed the status to discuss. It would have avoided a lot of confusion. About my note: this is the exact copy: (Status set from decline to discuss by nominator: Mbz1 RevID: 43299120 --Nevit 19:31, 29 August 2010) I see no harm in adding such a note to an unsigned change. User:Herbythyme wrote in my talk page that anyone can do unsigned changes in QI nomination status lines, and he himself does such changes. Those changes at best create confusion. I will add notes to such unsigned changes, since no rule prevents adding such notes too.

About the identification request, it is not my rule, it is QI rule number 2. It has no exception for cases which identification from the photo can not be done. As you can see identification of one of the organisms was possible and done by Mbz1, after my request. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Nevit, I do not argue here, if I should have added the comment or I should have not. It is not the issue. The issue is that you believe I should have been warned by admins for not adding the comment, and not signing the change of my own nomination status, and it is wrong. At first I wanted to add the comment that "the one of the "organisms" depicted on the image got eaten so fast, that I was not able to make a positive ID", but then I decided that the comment like that would have sounded sarcastic, so I just changed the status without commenting. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think COM:MELLOW applies. File:Door albayzin granada.jpg does not appear to be overexposed; the wall texture is apparent in all three channels if the brightest portion of the image is stretched using the levels tool in an image processing program. But anyone can make a mistake and we learn more from critical reviewers than from those who praise our work. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The photo in question has a custom RGB space that means it will appear differently on every computer. About stretching the white portion, I think it is the submitters responsibility to adjust and make the details visible, not me. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Color profile is completely irrelevant in the discussion of overexposure. There is no excessive clipping in the raw data. The fact that you don't see the details is irrelevant too. If the texture on the wall is subtle then it may be hard to see. It is not the photographers job at all to amplify every last bit of contrast. Please just accept it if several people tell you that the image is not overexposed. --Dschwen (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It is perfectly alright for Nevit to express his opinion that the wall is overexposed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a technical definition for overexposed and that is that the RGB values exceed the value of 255 in one or more channels . This is NOT the case here. The highest value is 235 (blue channel) so technically this image is not overexposed. I think that Nevit should not use the term overexposed if its technically not. Then the argument should be: I think the image looks to bright or the white wall lacks texture. Because this image is not overexposed! Amada44  ^{talk to me} 08:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Amada it is very easy to overcome your definition of overexposure by just playing with the levels. It is not valid. You just have to adjust the levels so that 255 becomes 240, that's it. The wall itself might lack inherent texture, but here we can not even see the contours of a large subject such as post box. This is not what I expect from a QI. Sorry. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The issue is clipping. If you just darken an overexposed image to map 255 to 240 then you indeed gain nothing. But please take a good look at the histogram. It is not cut off at the high end. No clipping occurred, no information is lost. The image is not overexposed. --Dschwen (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A photograph may be described as overexposed when it has a loss of detail in bright areas. This is different from clipping which may be absent in an overexposed image, or present in a perfectly exposed image. It may be absent if the original image lacks contrast, it may be present if the original scene has high light contrast.

White subject :Loss of detail and contrast in bright areas. (Lossless crop from image discussed. )

White subject :Clipping is present but detail is retained in bright areas.

I am disappointed by the amount of undue pressure put on me for this issue. A vote is a vote. You can easily cancel my vote by putting your vote under the image in question and I can not see your vote.

Apart from roles which require use of the admin tools, administrators have no special editorial authority by virtue of their position, and in discussions and public votes their contributions are treated in the same way as any ordinary editor.

By this definition this is not the proper place to discuss if an image is overexposed or not. If the aim is put undue pressure on me to silence me in QI discussions it has been a success.

Same magnified and exaggerated procedure is not applied to those who promote non-quality images. See the comment of Jebulon below about File:Legion honneur diamants.jpg. Admin Yann, among others used his vote despite the fact that the main subject is not focused at all.

Minorities do not have to accept the opinion of majority.

--Nevit Dilmen (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The point is that it should be perfectly allright to say that this photo is far too light (look at the pavement and the sewer locks), and that one is perfectly free to use the word "overexposed" for that. These "Quality forums" are degenerating into clubs for mutual admiration. When a dissenting opinion is a reason to denounce someone here, few critical minds will find it worth the a aggravation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah rant rant miss point miss point. --Dschwen (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” Unfortunately Humpty's approach to word meaning may be a barrier to communication. I think that is the case here. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Wise words from Walter Siegmund and the "mellow" bit applies to us all :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion File:Door albayzin granada.jpg is not overexposured at all. But in my opinion too, the File:Legion honneur diamants.jpg did not deserve a promotion, because it is unsharp and bad focused, as some noticed. I'm afraid both were promoted for bad (or wrong) reasons, and I'm not sure I'm happy of that...--Jebulon (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Laplink Software Inc (talk · contribs)

User may be a cross-wiki spammer, already blocked on en.wikipedia for creating spam articles (see w:User talk:Laplink Software Inc) and has recently uploaded several likely copyrighted company logos. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done – Kwj2772 (msg) 03:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden's personal attacks

Adam Cuerden is accusing me of lying here. I asked him to retract his accusations, but he just removed my request. In my opinion, Adam Cuerden is not fit to be an admin. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

And of all the people fit to suggest that people should not be admins, you are not one. Give us more information or quit whining. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Cuerden is calling me a liar - how am I supposed to know why? See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Schaijk, village en longeur (BHIC).PNG for what I wrote. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Your deletion request said "Nominating for deletion because a no-permission tag was removed by Adam Cuerden without any evidence of any CC license.". That was a lie, I spent hours digging up permission, and posted it on the talk page. Hence, you lied, and it's accurate to describe youy a lying. Had you notified me of this thread, I would have mentioned this long ago.

Further, you had been told this by others when you attempted to make the same accusation on Sweedish Wikipedia. Or don't you monitor your attempts to transfer Commons disputes to other wikis?

In short, Pieter, this is another of your attempts to continue a dispute with a user, without concern for accuracy or facts. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you had no evidence for a Creative Commons license. And I did notify you of this thread. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So, you're saying that you're willing to disrupt Wikipedia over something that has permission, but which one neglected to update the licence tag to {{Attribution}}? I see, you chose your words carefully, so that instead of lying outright, you just sought to bash me by completely misleading others. Still a dick move. Seriously, if you doubt the evidence provided, mention the evidence provided, and start a discussion on it. Don't lie and say that no justification for the action was provided.

You use DR as a harassment campaign. This is well-documented. Ignoring inconvenient facts and other such issues is a major problem to credibility of your claims that you aren't continuing the campaign. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have indef-blocked Pieter for his continued harassment of several administrators and general bad attitude. Let my demonisation begin. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Why the rush to such blocks? BTW, the disputed gallery on his user page was not restored by himself but nonetheless was this given as one of the reasons for the block (“and that "wall of shame" still exists”). Sigh. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was [60]. Rama (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This version, however, was softer than the variant before his block. It was then removed by you and afterwards not restored by Pieter Kuiper. At the end we had an edit war going on regarding the gallery between you and two others but Pieter Kuiper wasn't part of this. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That the gallery was thinly disguised changes nothing to the fact that is was restored. For the record, I am completely indifferent to this gallery; I do, on the other hand, mind the provocation and direct defiance against Lar's removal [61]. The gallery was restored by Trycatch [62] on the pretext that I had not sufficiently explained my actions, so I explained them, and restored once again by Rocket000 [63], who finds it an appropriate thing to do. I do not appreciate being accused of revert-warring when I am asked to explain my actions.

Here, once again, the administrative corps displays a pitiful lack of unity and discipline. What could have been a firm action to demonstrate to Kuiper the limits of what he can afford to do has degenerated into a display of weakness that encouraged him and has entailed an unlimited block.

I am very tempted to lift that block on some futile pretext, just to see you all deal with the consequences. Hear that ? It's the sound of me not doing that. It's something called discipline. Take the hint. Rama (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the gallery, because the new version lacks of any personal attack (as well as any mention of any person), and I thought that Rama didn't noticed this change. It's important to collect illustrative cases from DR (and real life of course), that's why overwhelmingly useful Threshold of originality exists (created Pieter Kuiper, by the way). Trycatch (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Discipline means to me that we attempt to find some consensus before we block long-standing users when there is no urgent issue. I fail to see an urgent necessity in this case and if you think that an administrative corps should understand discipline in a way that hastily executed blocks with poor reasonings should not be questioned by other member of that corps then I am not part of this. I will continue to raise my objections against inappropriate blocks even if I end up defending Pieter Kuiper. --AFBorchert (talk)

Discipline means that when something happens that you do not understand, you either stay back, or ask questions rather than raise objections. It means that you consider the consequences of your actions on the entire project. Questioning autority is a good thing, allergy to it is not. Rama (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not discipline, that's caution. And whose authority are you talking about? –Tryphon^☂ 15:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

[Edit conflicted] That doesn't seem to be Rama's point: The Wall of Shame is problematic, and yet admins personally restored it. Pieter harasses other users, gets a short block over it, and, without consulting the original admin, said block gets lifted, often on the basis of a misleading summary of the situation by Pieter. We've shown Pieter, over and over again, that, no matter what he does, people will defend him and do whatever is necessary to allow him to continue the problematic behaviour.

Pieter has been getting worse and worse because of this. This action of his wasn't even attempting to conceal that he was using reporting problems as a way to attack people he dislikes. He shows no signs he's ever going to reform, and why should he? He'll always have someone waiting to defend him. He's toxic to Commons. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Rama: This is your understanding of discipline, not mine. In my opinion, admins should exercise some care and responsibility when using their tools. This means to me that a block should be well-reasoned or better be founded on some consensus we've found at this board in case of long-standing users. Let me quote the reason given to this block: “Intimidating behaviour/harassment: User picked up exactly where he left off, with accusations of lying, threats of deadminship, etc, and that "wall of shame" still exists. We're better off without Pieter”. Where did Pieter Kuiper accuse anyone of lying? And as noted above, Pieter Kuiper just attempted once to reestablish his gallery in a softer variant but did neither revert nor object to its removal afterwards. The only remaining issue is “threats of deadminship”. Yes, his last sentence in his initial post to this thread is unquestionable trollish but does this alone warrant to block him infinitely in an urgency? --AFBorchert (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Pieter has a block log a mile long. In the end, if he's coming out of long blocks and engaging in the same behaviour that got him the block, it shows he has no intention of reforming.

Let's say you have a child, and you encourage him to use your library, as it's educational. One day, in a fit of pique at you, intentionally tears a page out of a valuable book, you might well ground him and forbid him the library for a week. If, when you let him back in, thinking he's learned his lesson, he immediately goes in and begins opening books and intentionally breaking their spines, in revenge for you grounding him. Well, it may not be as bad, but he's clearly not learned his lesson at all. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I supported a block of Pieter Kuiper when he filed DRs in revenge as this was indeed harassing and intimidating. Since then he did not repeat this and proposed a different approach. Given this, I wouldn't conclude that “he's clearly not learned his lesson at all”. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment I agree with AFBorchert. It is not because I am for someone and/or against someone. I am for fairness. It is my only judge concerning my own actions, and actions of the otheres. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment I fully agree with Adam C and those who support the block, and I'll say it again (and again and again and again, if necessary): It is my sincere and 100% honest belief that Kuiper is not the slightest bit interested in improving his uncivil behavior toward other editors with whom he disagrees and that his belligerence is incorrigible. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment This block has a very little ground. "Wall of shame" wasn't restored, it was converted to the completely innocent list of the illustrative DR cases without names or something -- see it here. There were no accusations of lying from Pieter Kuiper, _Adam Cuerden_ accused Pieter Kuiper of lying (completely wrongly IMO -- it's true that there is still no evidence of Creative Commons license for this file). "threats of deadminship" Hmm, if Pieter Kuiper thinks that Rama should be desysopped, he should be silent about this? I.e. everyone could threat Pieter Kuiper himself with indefinite block, but not vice versa? Bad block. Trycatch (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What I wrote above seems well born out by this, particularly the second paragraph. I do not feel bad about supporting this block, like I would if there were any doubt in my mind about Dr. Kuiper considering himself 100% flawless and enjoying the support of a few users who want him to go on feeling that way. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment He seems basically incorrigible, doesn't he?--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose I oppose the block of Pieter Kuiper. In the block log of Pieter Kuiper, the latest available diff is this one, dated 7 July 2010 showing a deletion request. The file is now deleted. If there is anything wrong with this deletion, 1) the file should be undeleted. 2) the one who should be punished (with a carefully thought punishment should be the admin who deleted the file, not the non-admin who merely wrote some arguments in favor of deletion). Teofilo (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  What does that have to do with anything? Kuiper was not blocked for his last edit. You could as well oppose the block of Pieter Kuiper because of the number of letters in his 43rd last edit, the colour of his eyes, or anything else. Rama (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  Assuming you don't count his 3 edits post-block, 216, unless you count his signature as ~~~~, in which case 85. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  The trouble is that there is no seriously written accusation, based on evidence, against Pieter Kuiper, so that he was not put in a situation to defend himself. This is a lack of en:Due process. On a wiki, evidence is most likely to be a diff pointing to some action performed by the defendent. The block notice, on his talk page, using template "autotranslate |1= |base=indefblockeduser" says "This user has been blocked indefinitely. See block log." So I expect the reasons and the evidence to be written in the log and I look for the diffs mentioned in the log. The latest one is not working, resulting into "action specified by the URL is invalid". The second latest one is the one I already mentioned, dated 7 July 2010, which I excerpt from 11:13, 7 July 2010 Lar (talk | contribs) blocked Pieter Kuiper (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation disabled) ‎ (Intimidating behaviour/harassment: Revenge deletion: [64]) This action by User:Lar seems to be unfair, as the requested file is now deleted and nobody is bothering to undelete it. The lack of en:Due process makes the whole thing look like Pieter was blocked because of the colour of his eyes, not for any serious complaint. Teofilo (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment How many man-months of work have been wasted on this project trying to deal with Kuiper? It is time to move on, hopefully without him. --Kjetil_r 17:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The block of Pieter is a joke

If the world outside thinks that Commons is a place for users that has gone mad I can understand them.

• Since when do we block users for starting a complaints on AN/U? Is this a new rule that was invented to get Pieter blocked or can I block the admins and users that started complaints about Pieter?
• Since when is "trolling" a bad word (seems that someone does not know the difference between "a Troll" and "trolling" - that just shows how sick this block reason is)? Well Rama said "...Kuiper to a Large Troll Collider..." and only after that Pieter said that Rama was trolling. So is this also a new rule invented to get Pieter blocked or can I block all users and admins that have said that Pieter is trolling?
• A wall of shame is ONLY a wall of shame if the admins made a mistake. That should be simple logic for everyone. So we must either asume that the admins that called it a wall of shame either do not understand simple logic or have concluded that the admins that closed the DR did make some mistakes. So what should a good admin do when (s)he find out that some other admin made a mistake?

1. (try to) correct the mistake?
2. do nothing and let others find and correct the mistake?
3. try to hide the mistake so that other can not see that admins can also make mistakes?

If you check the three DR's you can see that sadly not all admins know the answer even if it should be obvious to everyone.

I have said it before but it seems that we have to many trigger happy admins: If Pieter is blocked to fast and with to "thin" arguments this will never end. --MGA73 (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• As I've already said, the wall of shame wasn't restored -- the thing that was restored wasn't "wall of shame" anymore -- it was just a list of DRs w/o names or attacks. Trycatch (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment You all know about my relationship with kuiper, and here I am to say that I believe the block is unfair. Some of you may think that I am saying so because he opposed my topic ban down below, and rama supported it. I assure you even, if kuiper supported it, and rama opposed it, I would have added the same comment. Please see a message I left at rama's talk page a month ago. I am trying to be fair to myself and to everybody else. Yes, he called rama "a troll", but so did I. BTW I did not call rama a troll because he called me a troll. I called rama a troll because he is a troll. Of course kuiper has many problems, but to block him indefinitely is too much IMO. If he is allowed back, he should change his approach of doing some DR or other things out of revenge, and he should try to stay out of administrators noticeboards, and so do I.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• This block is not a joke, it is a disgrace. This is simply abusing administrative privileges and "if you want a stick to hit a dog, you will find one", and simply, everyone involved in this (Rama, mattbuck, Adam Cuerden) should be ashamed and consider stepping down as admin, as they cannot take the basic rule of DR into account, namely "do not take deletion requests personally". This is a farce. Kameraad Pjotr 18:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  My block was not about DRs - Kuiper has never had any sustained interaction with me, he has never DRed my files. It was about Kuiper's negative attitude and the fact that after a block - primarily because of his attitude towards others - he came back exactly as when he was booted to begin with. He has twice been indefed for the same reason, but each time there's an outcry and back he comes and so does the attitude. I'm fed up of it. I'm fed up of seeing his name here every other week. He may do some good, but he causes one hell of a lot of disruption, and he has shown himself incapable of change. We waste our time here, arguing over it, when we could be actually doing something useful. Even while blocked Pieter is disrupting commons. The only way to end it is to say goodbye to him and not open the door again like was done previously. Let's move on. I for one will not be commenting further on this matter. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment The fact that some users continue to defend Kuiper and simultaneously ignore his well documented and incorrigible, habitual, disuptive lack of civility is just astounding to me. Flabbergasting is the word for it. Nothing else matters or needs to be discussed. The man is intentionally and hopelessly rude, aggressive and nasty to anyone who disagrees with him about anything and shows us all time and time again that he considers his own behavior perfect. Argue that, not comparitively irrelevant work details! Or nuff said already! SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: If I have that nasty and aggressive a dog near me, I sure as hell hope I am carrying a good hard stick. Will some people call me "a joke" if I lock that dog out? SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If someone has done something wrong and is blocked for that they get a new chance. We do not block users for the same thing over and over. Therefore we need new "crimes" before we block.

As you may notice when it comes to Pieter everyone is allowed to call him names.. You even get to call him a nasty dog without anyone blocking you. If Pieter called you a nasty dog he would have been blocked at once.

But to use your example so that you may understand why: If you want to hit a dog you have to wait untill it is close. If you hit to soon you will miss. And if you starts hitting a dog before it attacks you are not defending your self but are an animal molestor. Right now everyone is running after Pieter with a big stick - no wonder if he starts to show his teeth. --MGA73 (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh please, he was behaving the exact same way for years. But the previous block we said we'd had enough of his attitude. He came back unchanged. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It was Pjotr who called Kuiper a (molested) dog in his defence, above my entry. I was only commenting on that. I would never have called anyone a "dog" in the way suggested now, and no one will find any evidence anywhere that I have ever done anything like that. But I have been "attacked" (quote above) by Kuiper many times. It has made much of my work here almost unbearable and made me feel extremely uncomfortable. The feeling comes back when I see some of you defending such cruelty. Flabbergasting! SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment Easy to whine about it and pose as a moral compass of who should step down this, resign that; harder to do things and take responsability. If Kuiper's block is that scandalous, unblock him! Be men! Rama (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Were you not the one lecturing admins about discipline earlier? I'm sure if someone (be it a man or a woman) had unblocked him without discussing it first, you'd be the first complaining that the admin corps lacks unity. –Tryphon^☂ 20:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  I am complaining about the lack of discipline and unity. Vitriolic criticism of fellow admins is not discipline. As I said before, if you don't understand something, you ask; maybe you discuss; you do not shout bloody murder. If somebody unblocked Kuiper, I'd say that some admins lack discipline; things being what they are, they lack discipline and courage. If they were half convinced of their complains, it would be legitimate to act upon them. That nobody does any of that is, I believe an indication that we have a group of Tartuffes whining about niceties while they are at least unable to really contest the block, and possibly actually relieved. -- Rama (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We've wasted enough time dealing with Pieter. Except during the tail-end of his blocks, there's been threads about him on this board about him constantly for months. Community patience with him is gone. Let's get on with actually doing something productive.

Pieter, like all indef blocked users, has the right to ask us to evaluate his block later, and, if he shows understanding of the problems he caused and a credible promise to not cause them again, or at least to make some effort in that line, he should be unblocked at that point. As it stands, all we have is the exact people who caused the problem with Pieter by encouraging him in his problematic behaviours whining and complaining that it's unfair he got blocked for causing massive disruption to Commons, because they weren't the people he was attacking. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 3#Israel_FOP where Pieter stood nearly alone against not one or two people, but against a crowd, a crowd with people who were not always using very nice words. The crowd wanted to insist that it is possible to upload pictures of modern paintings from Israeli museums. This has resulted in very long talks. The crowd could have said that they've "wasted enough time dealing with Pieter". But I am grateful to Pieter's unyielding attitude, which resulted, with the help of perhaps a few more helpful people into the clarification by professor Presenti, at Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama/Archive_3#Email_from_Dr_Presenti_.2809.2F01.2F2010_11:11.29. Pieter spent a tremedous time on that issue, performing the research available at User:Pieter Kuiper/Freedom of Panorama in Israel. People like Pieter who have the courage to resist a crowd are people who are needed here. If Pieter had been blocked for "wasting people's time", Commons would be filled today with heaps of Israeli museum painting pictures, and a policy page at COM:FOP saying this can rightfully be done. Teofilo (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I ask for unblocking Pieter. --Havang(nl) (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Me too! Amada44  ^{talk to me} 11:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

@ Teofilo: Kuiper has repeatedly littered Commons with old-ish images of which we know absolutely nothing. Picturing him as a paramount of integrity and rigour and completely inconsistant.

Those who call this block a "joke", a "disgrace", "abusing administrative privileges" etc.: if you believe what you are saying, if you really believe that this block is such a grave and clear-cut injustice, stop moaning and unblock him yourself; you'll be responsible for what comes next, if you have half the faith you profess in Kuiper, you shouldn't be afraid.

Else, it means that deep down, you know Kuiper is not an asset, and you're actually relieved that he's banned; that you know that he will eventually be no matter what and that further block/unblock/reblock cicles are a waste of time. In this case, you are free to have reservations, but then you need to change your tone ("I think that the way the block was inflicted could have been a tactical mistake", for instance.

The combination of clamourous outrage and inaction is inconsistant. Rama (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion ("clamourous outrage") is not inaction. It's a better approach than wheel-waring or doing whatever the hell we want without trying to form a consensus first. That is the reason there are these block/unblock cycles. And now you're encouraging us to keep doing it, e.g. "stop moaning and unblock him yourself", "If Kuiper's block is that scandalous, unblock him! Be men". Rocket000 (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Rama, this is a warning. A warning you will not get another time. Stop saying what I think. I'm far better at doing that, thank you. Further, I thought discussing something before doing something was the way to go, but it appears you prefer not to. That's fine, but when Kuiper gets unblocked, don't start complaining about "wheelwarring" and such. Kameraad Pjotr 18:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

A warning? What is that even supposed to mean? I suggest you dial down the tough talk and retain your composure. This is not exactly a prime example of admin behavior. --Dschwen (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The tremendous, superb, invaluable (?), essential (?) and absolutely indispensable (?) contributions Pieter Kuiper has made, and might have been able to continue to make, to Wikimedia Commons are worth absolutely nothing, as I see it, in light of his incorrigibly uncivil behavior which so many of his emotional supporters consistently ignore. This doesn't make sense to me. Is this political? Did I miss something? Am I for or against som nationality, political movement, warring people or race in supporting the block of an incorrigibly uncivil contributor? Is that what we have to try to solve here, decimeter after decimeter, or could it just come down to incorrigibly uncivil behavior? Please? SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment: I'd just ignore him and show no reactions to his provocations, e.g. when he screams "De-sysop that guy" or stuff, that's gonna stop him w/o losing his otherwise good contributions. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I should also ignore when he tracks me down just to pick fights as he just did on English WP? He went in to see "gee, I wonder what Serge Woodzing is up to - any discussions going on where he's involved? Oh yes, here's something I can mess up for him" - I had one single discussion going on there with a Swedish friend of Kuiper's, a Third opinion editor tried to help, and just as it was getting solved to eveybody's content - here's Kuiper tearing everything up. I am one of the people he stalks all over and this is a perfect example of it. If he gets unblocked here at Commons, maybe we'll have more peace at English WP, but I think he should remain blocked anyway. Ignore him? Sounds idyllic, but that's not a viable option is his case. He would never let me do that. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Pieter has not asked to be unblocked. Let's review what he did instead:

1. He has complained repeatedly about how he's far too important to block. User_talk:Pieter_Kuiper#Some_of_today.27s_accomplishments
2. He's also created a thread on his talk page for one of the most incredibly petty ways to bash someone he dislikes I've seen: User_talk:Pieter_Kuiper#Rama.27s_claims_of_copyright.

Does this lead to any hope that the bad behaviour that led to the block will cease? On the contrary, no. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

1. What the hell are you doing? You block Pieter Kuiper simply because he reports pictures where it's not clear if they're free or not because they're from administrators. Pieter Kuiper has done a great work here and you should appreciate him. Unblock him immediately! Obelix (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, this isn't because he searched out copyvio. It's because he harassed other users. Secondly, how would you know how great his work is? You don't edit here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't usually edit on commons but I read here often and I've been following Pieter Kuiper here. He never attacks any users however he does report dubious images so that they can be checked by other users. On this matter you should agree with me that what Pieter Kuiper does is constructive. Instead of seeing it as a violation to have your picture trialed for elimination you should instead see it as a precaution to ensure the quality at commons. Do not take it personaly. I actually thought this didn't have to be said to experienced users. The best way to ensure not having your pictures eliminated is by prooving that they are free images.Obelix (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

As you probably noticed, "Obelix" is used to ordering people around. He is one of the real bigwigs at Swedish WP where they block anyone who talks back to him and his cronies, one of whom is Kuiper. I know I'm one, and I was blocked for a month recently after they had discussed me at length on some administrative page without even notifying me. There Obelix attacks and bullies people till it gets so bad he has to change his user name and then start all over. His assertion here that his friend "never attacks any users" should suffice to convince most of us how neutral he is. I suggest we ignore Obelix completely - he has no knowledge of the workings of Commons and is only here to try to bully us, as he is used to doing at a cozy little club of power lords called sv.WP. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's not bring in outside issues please. We have enough drama. Take your own advice and ignore him. If what he said "should suffice" then you don't need to tell us. Rocket000 (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Being qualified to give one, I do not believe an identification of that very forceful new Commons editor, unknown to everyone here, is merely an "outside issue". If most of you feel that way, though, I apologize sincerely. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to you bringing up the thing about him not notifying you before you were blocked and how there's some kind of sv.wp cabal. These sort of comments encourage the other party to give their side of the story to defend their actions, thus spawning a debate about something that has nothing to do with Commons. Rocket000 (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting that kuiper seems absolutely unable to be fair. He left a message at Jimbo's talk page at English wikipedia. The message's caption is:"BLP complaint - something is rotten on Commons".And what was BLP problems on commons? kuiper's own persona was. It would have been funny, if it was not so sad. kuiper was the one, who fought hard to keep real BLP violations hateful cartoons on Commons, and when he remembered about BLP? As soon as he got blocked himself. I still believe kuiper should be given yet another chance, but I'm loosing hope too.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Block should be lifted immediately. I am dismayed to see that Pieter was indef blocked by an admin who has a prior history of conflict with him. In other projects, admins' degrees of content involvement and personal bias are discussed at length in arbitration proceedings, and admins have been rightly de-sysopped for taking admin actions in situations comparable to this one. I also note that Pieter's DR that triggered this dispute resulted in deletion of the file concerned, and that Adam Cuerden appears to have been mistaken in his belief that an appropriate license had been granted (as he was mistaken in his assertion that Pieter had neglected to notify him of this thread). So, for the umpteenth time, Pieter nominates an inappropriately licensed image, catches flak for it, the image is deleted, and Pieter (rather than the editor responsible for the licensing error) is sanctioned. This is not the way to go. --JN466 02:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have lifted the block, since no one else took care of the request. After reading this section many times, I believe that those against a block have stronger reasons of why a block is not justified than those who believe otherwise. If my analysis is incorrect, I hope the community will not have strong reactions against me. If Pieter ever comes back to this board, there will probably be no more freebies regardless of how legitimate the situation would be. ZooFari 04:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That was brave of you. :) I for one will be happy to see Pieter return to COM:DR to help us with copyvios. After working on some the other day, I realized what an asset he is in this department, even if some don't like it. Rocket000 (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• JN, I do not have a prior history of conflict with Pieter, or if I do I'm entirely unaware of it. (Yes, I know I said I wouldn't comment further, but this is a point of order). -mattbuck (Talk) 10:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

  I've struck that part and apologise for having misremembered the history. --JN466 16:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Continued personal attacks by Cuerden

See here. But Cuerden is one of those admins that gets away with anything, without risking his power buttons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

---

I'm manually archiving this since it is taking forever to be archived. Adam Cuerden decided to open a discussion below so any further comments can go there. ZooFari 20:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

---

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

MalTsilna

I am a bit tired with user's activity: he created Template:Tatar.ru without providing any OTRS permission (I discussed it with president.tatar.ru not long ago, so I am sure that there is no such a permission), then uploaded File:Minnexanov.jpg with this false template. When I nominated this template to deletion, template was removed from image description. I've added "no permission", image description was updated again: now it shows false source (kremlin.ru) and has {{Kremlin.ru}} license. Can someone help me with this case? Rubin16 (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing it with the user? User is trying be be faithful in my view, but I could be wrong. ZooFari 20:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Rx 100e (talk · contribs)

User continues to upload copyvios after multiple warnings. Twice almost everything uploaded by the user was deleted. And just a few days after the last purge, (s)he uploaded several very obvious copyvios (this photo was copied from [65], for example), now from a flickrwashing account. I can't assume good faith of this user anymore. Trycatch (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Both images are quite similiar but not identical ... axp_de^Hello! 05:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's exactly the same photograph, User:Rx 100e just downsized it (maybe to make search harder) and removed EXIF. Trycatch (talk) 09:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's say both images have the same source. It's not "downsized", it's one pixel more in height, and it seems a bit "sharper". axp_de^Hello! 15:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No, File:Queen Elizabeth on her second sea trials.jpeg (commons flickr) is 1.024px × 603px, the source [66] is 1.157px × 681px. The camera EXIF is the same. I puzzle with the date, the upload on flickr was one day to late, with that date the flickrreviewer can not have checked it - so declaring it a blatant flickrwasing [67] wasnt right, anyhow it obviously is flickrwashing, dates of other uploads confirm this. The user was caught uploading copyvios, now he tries to steal via flickr. --Martin H. (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Watercolor121

Someonepakistani (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user has been uploading a large number of copyright violations with fraudulent authorship claims, fraudulent claims of being the copyright holder, and fraudulent licensing claims. (See User talk:Someonepakistani#File:Lahore Fashion Week.jpg.) They have since been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. (See the thread above).

Recently, they've turned to Flickrwashing through the watercolor121 Flickr account and the rather obvious Commons sockpuppet Watercolor121 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. Watercolor121 has been removing problem tags from Someonepakistani's uploads and changing the source information to point to watercolor121's Flickr uploads, which have all conveniently been made during the last few days. They've also uploaded Flickrwashed copies of Someonepakistani's deleted uploads.

Please block User:Watercolor121, delete or review their uploads, and add the following to Commons:Questionable Flickr images/Users:

{{qfi|Maham Tariq|watercolor121|53737482@N08|Flickrwashing by sockpuppets of [[User:Someonepakistani]].}}

—LX (talk, contribs) 17:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I used the checkuser tool to confirm the sockpuppetry. Surely Watercolor121 (talk · contribs) is a sock of Someonepakistani (talk · contribs) who is a sock of Someonepaki (talk · contribs). The stream of copyvios from this user is anoying, so it is realy time to maintain a block against this user. Im sure that someone who searches will find a whole lot of copyvios in the galleries of this three socks - especially in Someonepaki (talk · contribs)s uploads. Appereantly he learned nothing from Commons:Deletion requests/File:1893 Map of Lahore.jpg, thats most disapointing to see.

What I want to say here however is that all blocks beyond this three socks are maybe not justified. They are based on technically evidences, a relation of the users is not obvious. I e.g. see no relation to the alleged sockmaster Bidbargains (talk · contribs). This however does not mean that I not agree to a block of Someonepaki et al for persistant copyright violation. I will enforce this block now, correct the block reasons and ask to please check the uploads of Category:Sockpuppets of Someonepaki and Someonepaki himself. My tab with the checkuser querry is still open, maybe I will find more socks. --Martin H. (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done, including checking and removal. --Martin H. (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)